Saturday, April 13, 2013

Syria, Chemical Weapons and the President's Warning: Has Obama's "Red Line" Been Crossed?

Some eight months ago, President Obama warned against the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against its own people. Obama stated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19319446):

"There would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.

. . . .

A red line for us is [if] we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around, or being utilised. That would change my calculus."

Well, The Times of London is now reporting:

"Forensic evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria has been found for the first time in a soil sample smuggled out of the country in a secret British operation.

Defence sources, who declined to be named, said yesterday that conclusive proof that 'some kind of chemical weapon' had been fired in Syria had been established by scientists at the Ministry of Defence’s chemical and biological research establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire."

Given that his "red line" has been crossed, will Obama now "change his calculus"?

Why, having watched Obama fail to slow Iran's nuclear weapons development program, do I harbor doubts concerning the readiness of the Procrastinator-in-Chief to take any action whatsoever in Syria, e.g., impose a no-fly zone?

Pamela Geller Prevented from Speaking at Great Neck Synagogue; CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager Spreads Lies About Israel at His New Canaan Church

Pamela Geller, founder of the Atlas Shrugs blog and known for her advocacy on behalf of Israel, has been prevented from speaking today at a Great Neck, Long Island synagogue. As explained by Jerusalem Post Columnist Caroline Glick (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Column-One-Moral-relativism-and-jihad-309549):

"Last month, after learning of her talk, a consortium of Islamic and leftist activists in Nassau County led by Habeed Ahmed from the Islamic Center of Long Island launched a pressure campaign to coerce the synagogue into cancelling her speech. Members of the group telephoned the synagogue and castigated Geller as a bigot, and likened her to the Nazis in the 1930s.

In short order liberal rabbis Michael White and Jerome Davidson took over the opposition to Geller and launched a media campaign attacking her as a bigot and demanding that the Great Neck Synagogue cancel her speech.

Rejecting the distinction Geller makes between jihadists and their victims – Muslim and non-Muslim alike, White and Davidson claimed that she opposes all Muslims and so her speech must be canceled. By hosting her, they intoned, the Great Neck Synagogue would be guilty of propagating hate speech. Liberal Christian and Jewish activists and their Muslim associates threatened to protest the speech.

On Wednesday the synagogue caved in to their massive pressure. Citing 'security concerns' the synagogue board released a statement saying that while 'these important issues must be discussed, the synagogue is unable to bear the burden' of the pressure campaign surrounding Geller’s planned speech. Her event was canceled."

Rabbi Jerome Davidson's claim that Geller is given to hate speech and should not be allowed to speak at the Great Neck Synagogue? Listen to David Wood demolish Davidson's contentions.

Meanwhile, Jeff Fager, chairman of CBS News, last week was busy spreading lies about Israel's security barrier at his New Canaan, Connecticut church. As reported by Dexter Van Zile (http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2013/4/9/cbs-news-needs-to-come-clean-about-60-minutes-palestinian-christians-segment):

"Invited to speak at the church by his pastor Rev. Peter Walsh, Fager showed an audience of more than 200 of his fellow parishioners a segment about Palestinian Christians that aired on the CBS '60 Minutes' program in April 2012.

During the segment, correspondent Bob Simon stated that the security fence 'completely surrounds Bethlehem, turning the ‘little town' where Christ was born into what its residents call ‘an open air prison.’'

The fence does not completely surround Bethlehem, as Simon reported. The security fence is located to the north and west of Bethlehem and leaves the rest of the city’s perimeter open to the West Bank.

. . . .

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), pointed out the '60 Minutes' error in an article on its website soon after the segment aired and in a half-page ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 14, 2012.

Nevertheless, the CBS show has not issued a correction to this day.

After showing his fellow parishioners the '60 Minutes' segment, Fager complained about the angry response the show elicited. In particular, he condemned the Wall Street Journal’s decision to run CAMERA’s ad, which he said was intended to create havoc on the CBS show’s reporting.

Fager then told his audience that CAMERA got it wrong about the security fence in its ad and that 'Bethlehem is surrounded by a wall.'

. . . .

During the question and answer period, I raised my hand, stated I worked for CAMERA, the organization responsible for the ad in question, and then issued a simple and direct challenge: If Jeff Fager could prove that the security fence completely surrounds Bethlehem like he said a few moments before, I would donate $5,000 to a charity of his choosing.

His response was a simple 'Okay.'

After the event concluded and the people in attendance started to leave for the church’s Sunday services, I gave him my business card. So far, no response."

As can be seen on any map, the Israeli security barrier does not surround Bethlehem (see, for example: http://www.btselem.org/download/separation_barrier_map_eng.pdf). But why should that prevent Fager from disseminating lies at his church of all places?

Welcome to our Brave New World in which American synagogues are unable to provide a forum for pro-Israel advocates, but honchos and pundits from the media - Fager joins Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman in recent weeks - can spread lies about Israel with impunity anywhere they please (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html).

But why should we be surprised, given that most leading Jewish organizations were too fearful to express opposition to Obama's appointment of Chuck Hagel, an anti-Semite, as secretary of defense?

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" . . .

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Paul Krugman, "Lust for Gold": What Happened to Krugman's Magical Platinum Coin?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lust for Gold" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/krugman-lust-for-gold.html), Paul Krugman concludes:

"But the runaway inflation that was supposed to follow reckless money-printing — inflation that the usual suspects have been declaring imminent for four years and more — keeps not happening. For a while, rising gold prices helped create some credibility for the goldbugs even as their predictions about everything else proved wrong, but now gold as an investment has turned sour, too. So will we be seeing prominent goldbugs change their views, or at least lose a lot of their followers?

I wouldn’t bet on it. In modern America, as I suggested at the beginning, everything is political; and goldbuggism, which fits so perfectly with common political prejudices, will probably continue to flourish no matter how wrong it proves."

I'm no goldbug. (You know where my money is invested.) But peculiar how Krugman has already forgotten his magical platinum coin.

In a January New York Times op-ed entitled "Coins Against Crazies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/krugman-coins-against-crazies.html), Krugman proposed that the federal government should mint a platinum coin to eliminate Republican meddling with Obama's spending spree:

"Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.

. . . .

[I]t’s the president’s duty to do whatever it takes, no matter how offbeat or silly it may sound, to defuse this hostage situation. Mint that coin!"

As best explained by Jon Stewart (see: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/jon_stewart_responds_to_krugman_platinum_coin_is_still_a_stupid_fcking_idea/), the idea of minting a trillion dollar platinum coin was a "stupid f#%*ing idea."

Gold bad, platinum good?

Four legs bad, two legs good?

Thanks once again, Paul, for the light entertainment. Now back to digging holes in my garden.

David Brooks, "Bold on Both Ends": "The North Korea of Fiscal Policy"

Has the US become "the North Korea of fiscal policy"?

This is what David Brooks claims in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bold on Both Ends" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/brooks-bold-on-both-ends.html?_r=0). Brooks writes:

"We’re living in a country where 53 percent of children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock, according to government data. Millions of people, especially men, are dropping out of the labor force. Nearly half the students who begin college are unable to graduate within six years. The social fabric for people without college degrees is in shambles.

Yet President Obama is not offering proposals commensurate with those problems. Under his budget, domestic discretionary spending would be lower as a share of G.D.P. than it was under Reagan, both Bushes and Nixon. When it comes to this category, Obama’s budget would take us back to Eisenhower levels.

The president is increasing total revenues to a historically high 20 percent of G.D.P. by 2023. Federal spending would remain at a way-above-average 22 percent of G.D.P. But Washington still can’t seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the less-educated and ease the segmentation of America.

. . . .

Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy."

Observing that "America faces two giant problems: social unraveling today and cataclysmic debt tomorrow," Brooks concludes:

"Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could accept higher deficits short term. Most important, they could embrace a deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs: discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that accumulate over time."

And now for a JG Caesarea challenge: Having read Brooks's opinion piece from start to finish, tell me how many times the word "discretionary," as in "discretionary spending," "discretionary programs" and "discretionary budget category," appears? No peeking!

Three . . . two . . . one (like counting down the time it takes for one of Kim Jong Un's ballistic missiles to crash into Tokyo or Seoul) . . . pencils down! Answer: Five.

Whereas Brooks calls for "a different trade-off — not a balance between taxing and spending, but a balance between greater discretionary spending in exchange for structural entitlement reform," who is going to be given control over all that discretionary stuff? Me? You? Michelle, who thought it appropriate to be accompanied by a cast of gold-braided military social aides when she appeared at the Oscars?

Don't get me wrong - Brooks is right: America's social fabric is unraveling, but where is the tailor or seamstress who knows how to patch the widening holes? I don't think you'll find that special person parked beside the water cooler at any federal agency or wandering around the West Wing.

Maybe we should wait for answers from Chelsea Clinton, who has now taken on a chief of staff and appears ready to embark upon a career in politics destined to return her to the White House (http://freebeacon.com/chelsea-ponders-political-future/), unless her plans are hijacked by Sasha or Malia, several decades hence.

It's not going to have a happy ending, and busy as I am digging holes in the garden, I have no time to watch.

Gail Collins, "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move": Anthony's Crotch, Kim Jong Un's Tiny Weiner

Do you speak Korean? No? Nor do I, but I'm willing to wager there are certain things coming out of Pyongyang that you are still capable of comprehending. More on this in a moment.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/opinion/collins-yipes-its-congress-on-the-move.html), Gail Collins concludes:

"As if we didn’t have enough on our plates, this week’s Times Magazine has a story by Jonathan Van Meter announcing that former Representative Anthony Weiner is seriously thinking about running for mayor of New York City. This year!

That one I’m pretty confident we can handle. The citizens of New York just have to decide whether to forgive an elected official who tweeted pictures of his crotch to women he had never actually met. We’ve had bigger challenges. Maybe we can form a committee."

Indeed, Gail, we've had, and currently have, bigger challenges (although Anthony might not agree).

Go to the following recent video from the North Korean government website, Uriminzokkiri. Some two minutes and fifty seconds into this cinematic gem, you will witness an imaginary missile attack on the White House and the Capitol:



You may not speak Korean, but most people know when they're being threatened.

In a recent guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Stay Cool. Call North Korea’s Bluff." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/stay-cool-call-north-koreas-bluff.html), Andrei Lankov, a professor of history at Kookmin University, wrote:

"Scores of foreign journalists have been dispatched to Seoul to report on the growing tensions between the two Koreas and the possibility of war. Upon arrival, though, it is difficult for them to find any South Koreans who are panic-stricken. In fact, most people in Seoul don’t care about the North’s belligerent statements: the farther one is from the Korean Peninsula, the more one will find people worried about the recent developments here."

Yes, South Koreans even remained remarkably "cool" when, in 2010, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean navy vessel, killing 46 South Korean sailors (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703).

Lankov continues:

"A closer look at North Korean history reveals what Pyongyang’s leaders really want their near-farcical belligerence to achieve — a reminder to the world that North Korea exists, and an impression abroad that its leaders are irrational and unpredictable. The scary impressions are important to North Korea because for the last two decades its policy has been, above all, a brilliant exercise in diplomatic blackmail. And blackmail usually works better when the practitioners are seen as irrational and unpredictable.

Put bluntly, North Korea’s government hopes to squeeze more aid from the outside world. Of late, it has become very dependent on Chinese aid, and it wants other sponsors as well."

Well, that's a helluva way to go seeking aid, unless you've come to the realization that America's president is as tough as a marshmallow.

And what does Chuck Hagel, Obama's new secretary of defense, have to say about North Korea's thinly veiled threat? As reported by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/10/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html):

"North Korea is 'skating very close to a dangerous line' after weeks of saber-rattling, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Wednesday as northeast Asia watched for an expected missile test.

'Their actions and their words have not helped defuse a combustible situation,' Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon. He said the United States and its allies want to see North Korean rhetoric 'ratcheted down,' but if that doesn't happen, "our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency."

'We have every capacity to deal with any action North Korea will take to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies,' Hagel said."

You can just imagine the credibility that Kim Jong Un attaches to the remarks of Hagel, who agreed that America is the world's bully.

Declaring that North Korea is nearing a "dangerous line"? That's the same tactic the Obama administration has taken with Iran for the past four years, and there is no end in sight to Tehran's nuclear weapons development program.

Me? I believe that when somebody threatens to annihilate you, you take them seriously. But then, we also have Anthony Weiner's crotch to contend with.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Maureen Dowd, "A Tale of Three Women": Tens of Millions of Egyptian Women Have Had Their Clitorises Removed

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Tale of Three Women" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/dowd-a-tale-of-three-women.html), Maureen Dowd provides vignettes from the lives of three, recently deceased, famous women - Annette Funicello, Lilly Pulitzer and Margaret Thatcher - who shaped the lives of many, particularly in the West:

"One got famous wearing mouse ears. One got famous wearing brightly colored shifts. And one got famous wearing down the opposition while carrying a handbag.

The trio of famous deaths this week seems incongruous. Yet these spirited women — two quintessential Americans known by their first names and one quintessential Brit known by her nickname — were all vivid emblems of their time."

"Vivid emblems of their time"? Okay. But how does one compare the lasting influence of Margaret Thatcher, a grocer's daughter who became one of the most influential modern British prime ministers, with the cinematic impact of "Beach Blanket Bingo"? Or find anything at all in common between the mother of modern conservatism and the Queen of Palm Beach Prep?

Who are the women of today providing "vivid emblems of their time"?

If you ask me, I would look beyond the West and refer you to the women of Egypt, 90% of whom have had their clitorises removed, i.e. undergone female genital mutilation. And yet, as the Obama administration continues to provide Egypt with $1.5 billion in annual aid, the ruling Muslim Brotherhood persists in its brutal oppression of women (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/you-just-wont-believe-what-obama-is.html).

These are sad times indeed.

Thomas Friedman, "The Arab Quarter Century": 90% of Egyptian Women Have Had Their Clitorises Removed

Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is back with more هراء, i.e. balderdash.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Arab Quarter Century" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/friedman-the-arab-quarter-century.html?_r=0), Friedman belatedly gets around to acknowledging that "the Arab Spring" is more akin to the Thirty Years' War than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yeah, who would have ever guessed . . .

But wait, Friedman is ready with a rejoinder for me:

"Some will say: 'I told you so. You never should have hoped for this Arab Spring.' Nonsense. The corrupt autocracies that gave us the previous 50 years of 'stability' were just slow-motion disasters. Read the U.N.’s 2002 Arab Human Development Report about what deficits of freedom, women’s empowerment and knowledge did to Arab peoples over the last 50 years. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are not falling apart today because their leaders were toppled. Their leaders were toppled because for too many years they failed too many of their people. Half the women in Egypt still can’t read. That’s what the stability of the last 50 years bought."

Well actually, Tom, Egyptian President Morsi is telling us that 61% of Egyptian women are illiterate (see: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tahir-square-tales-egypt/2013/apr/8/egyptian-president-morsis-iniative-support-womens-/). Okay, what difference does another 4 million illiterate Egyptian women make? Actually, a lot.

And then Friedman doesn't mention that 90% of Egyptian women have had their clitorises removed, i.e. undergone female genital mutilation.

Yup, the killing and chaos were coming, and Obama's "lead from behind" strategy in Libya, Egypt and Syria have allowed events to spin out of control. In Egypt, notwithstanding the barbarism being perpetrated against Christian Copts (some 10% of the population), oppression of women, attempts to rein in free speech, and pervasive anti-Semitism, the Obama administration has sought to continue to provide the Muslim Brotherhood regime with $1.5 billion in annual aid (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-millions-in-us-aid-for-egypt.html).

Friedman admits that he has been surprised by "two things":

  • "The first is how incompetent the Muslim Brotherhood has been."
  • "The second surprise? How weak the democratic opposition has been."
The Muslim Brotherhood's incompetence? Tom, just read about their stance on women's rights (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/you-just-wont-believe-what-obama-is.html). It was all in the cards, but you were having too good a time in Tahrir Square with Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof to take notice.

"How weak the democratic opposition has been"? Friedman truly is an imbecile. He honestly expected to see a strong democratic opposition in a country in which 95% of Egyptian Muslims believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics, and in which 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe that persons abandoning Islam should be executed (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

Friedman's conclusion:

"Given all this, America’s least bad option is to use its economic clout to insist on democratic constitutional rules, regular elections and political openness, and to do all it can to encourage moderate opposition leaders to run for office. We should support anyone who wants to implement the Arab Human Development Report and oppose anyone who doesn’t. That is the only way these societies can give birth to their only hope: a new generation of decent leaders who can ensure that this 'Arab Quarter Century' ends better than it began."

What a naif! Obama reads this poppycock? God help us.