Maggie's Farm

AIPAC’s new president was a key donor to President Obama’s campaign.

At today’s AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, attended by over 7500 of the leading Jewish activists from all over the country, Lee Rosenberg repeatedly received standing ovations, saying:

In any relationship, mistakes are going to happen, and even the best of friends are going to disagree. Disagreements over policy between the United States and Israel -- between any two allies -- happen. That is a given. But how friends disagree, how they react when missteps occur, that can determine the nature of the relationship….

Ladies and gentlemen, let us be clear, the reluctant partner in  this peace process is not Israel's elected leader Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The recalcitrant partner are the Palestinians and their leader -- President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestinians are bitterly divided between Hamas and Fatah -- that is a problem. The failure of President Abbas to end his nay-saying and come to the table for direct talks which Prime Minister Netanyahu has been committed to from the start -- that is a problem. The failure of the Arab world to begin normalizing its relationships with Israel -- that is a problem.

Obama has more than ‘splainen to do, as will Hillary Clinton when she speaks before the AIPAC Policy Conference tomorrow.

(Note: Commenters should realize the depth of the reality shock to liberal Jews, and other liberals, and accept it as one would anyone gaining sense, rather than using it as another opportunity to chastise past votes and donations, and remember that conservative Jews have been at the forefront of the conservative movement and reawakening.)

Our fathers and mothers, or grandfathers and grandmothers, were the “greatest generation” that took the world back from tyranny in WWII and from poverty after.  Ask them, and they were just doing what was right.

Those who served in Vietnam and those who supported us took the world back from despair and, vets actually doing better than their age peers, built the prosperity of the ‘80s and ‘90s.  We were just doing what was right.

Now, three generations who just did what was right will be joining with the next generation to just do what’s right.

Together, in the chilling dawn of the wake-up call that is the bankrupting powergrab sham that is ObamaCare and the sliming of integrity with which it has been pressed, with the abandonment of allies and the kowtowing to foes, the heavy prices will fall most upon them along with the rest of us.

“Damn Dems” will be the next greatest generation’s battle cry. A cross-generational battle cry.

BTW

This reminds me of this: It's not over 'til we say so.

Flag of the Resistance:

Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory:

Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and yesterday the same machinations pushed it across the finish line.

NYTs Understated: Legal and Political Fights Are Looming for Democrats

ObamaCare will hurt many among the poor and vulnerable.  ObamaCare will reduce employment prospects for those lower in the wage scale.  ObamaCare will reduce the economy’s growth that creates jobs, and pays the taxes for social and basic governmental programs.

Simple economic and business truth #1: Increase the cost of employing workers and fewer will be employed.

Simple economic and business truth #2: The more marginal workers and those with fewer skills will go first or not be hired.

Simple economic and business truth #3: To maintain or expand production, with fewer workers, substitute capital investment and use of more skilled workers.

Simple economic and business truth #4: Increased taxes on investments reduces the availability of capital and there’s less to invest or hire.

Simple economic and business truth #5: These truths don’t seem to hold for government workers, as taxes increase to keep them employed and their unions cut deals with politicians to not cut their wages, benefits or numbers.

Fess Parker died today at 85.  If you want to hear the ballad of Davy Crockett that had a generation of boys wearing coon skin caps, the Washington Post has that video. I have a VHS of the original Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier that started it all, and watch it with my boys. "Be sure you're right - then go ahead" is a good guide to living.

Here's another video, before the last battle at the Alamo.

The Democrats are exultant over the preliminary CBO score (preliminary because even the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had time to examine whether it jives with the previous Senate bill) issued this morning. The score (costing) is on the Democrats’ reconciliation adjustments to the Senate ObamaCare bill that it remains under $1-trillion in spending and that together with added revenues will further reduce the deficit.

There’s increasing amazement at this bald-faced assertion. The real score will be seen this weekend in the Democrats' trickery vote and the consequences they face next November.

The Republican leadership is still trying to decipher the fine print, but are quickly getting to the bottom line.  Senator McConnell issued a press release saying: “They get there with even higher taxes and deeper Medicare cuts than the first Senate bill. 

“Let’s start with Medicare cuts.

“The Senate bill that Speaker Pelosi said Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on cut Medicare by $465 billion.“This latest bill increases those cuts by about $60 billion more.

“How about taxes?

“The Senate bill that Democrats are so afraid to take a vote on raises taxes by $494 billion.

“This bill increases those tax hikes by at least $150 billion.

“So if you were worried about raising taxes in the middle of a recession, this bill raises taxes even more.

“If you were worried about cutting Medicare for seniors, this bill cuts it even more.

That’s real.  There’s more that’s real and unreal. The $500-billion taken from Medicare is real in its impact on seniors' health.  That doctors will have their fees further reduced is not real, many already operating at a loss on Medicare business and losses being shifted on to private insurance plans.  The tens of billions of spending in future years mandated upon the already near-bankrupt states for expanded Medicaid is real, though not counted by CBO.  The negative impacts on employment and the economy are real.

The Washington Post’s WonkRoom says:

One of the most stunning numerical changes is in the excise tax on Cadillac plans. While the bill changes the indexing from inflation plus 1 to inflation — strengthening the provision [ed: meaning another buy-off to unions] — it pushes back the entire effort to 2018 and significantly raises the thresholds. I suspect the bill makes up the difference with the payroll tax and the savings from the college loan provisions. More to come.

The Washington Post reports on throwing into the unrelated health care bill the entirely unrelated federal takeover (except for Democrat Senator Conrad’s state) of student loan lending:

The legislation would also spread some savings among other Democratic education priorities and reduce the deficit by $10 billion over 10 years.

On the Cadillac Tax, the New York Times reports:

Mr. Obama and White House officials reached a deal with organized labor groups to delay the implementation and limit the impact of that tax. As a result, the excise tax will raise only $32 billion over 10 years, according to the budget office.

Of course, that meant coming up with another $118 billion elsewhere to plug the hole. Not a problem: the final legislation imposes a 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” such as dividends and interest, or on regular income above $200,000 a year for individuals and $250,000 for couples.

The National Taxpayers Union says:

On page 8 of the report (found here) the CBO lists a quick add up of the kinds of new taxes and penalties they believe the American people will be facing in the next decade should this legislation pass.  Turns out by 2019, this bill would be responsible for an additional 145 billion in taxes and penalties.  Of which, 17 billion will be penalties paid by the uninsured (read: people making under $250,000) and 52 billion will be penalties paid by employers.  Imagine trying to job hunt then!  Whats more, thats really only a 6 year estimate because the politicians who crafted the bill wanted to make sure no new taxes were put in place before they had to face re-election.  Which means a ten year score (2014-2024) of the taxes and penalties would be significantly higher.

Page 24 of today’s preliminary CBO score says that $129.7 billion will be taken from Medicare Advantage plans, versus the $118.1 billion the CBO said a week ago would be taken away.

Then there’s the timing shenanigan of loading revenues up front and costs at the backend of the first 10-years.

What else lurks in the hearts of the Democrats rammming down a non-roll call vote they are planning for this weekend? Will a stake be driven through it?

P.S.: Federal budgets expert Keith Hennessey adds much more info.

From sea to shining sea, the effect of RomneyCare in Massachusetts on Washington state.

The Seattle Times reports that Walgreens and Bartell Drugs chains are no longer accepting new Medicaid patients for prescriptions.  Walgreens says “the state Medicaid program is reimbursing Walgreens below its cost to break even on nearly 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents.”

The report continues: “Washington was reimbursing pharmacies 86 percent of a drug's average wholesale price until July, when it began paying them just 84 percent.”

Why even lower since?: “Then in September came another blow. The adjusted wholesale price is calculated by a private company, which was accused in a Massachusetts lawsuit of fraudulently inflating its figures. The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed in a court settlement to ratchet its figures down by about 4 percent.”

FWIW, the man I respected most of any I've met in my life and to whom I was closest to came out as gay. He was a Navy veteran, who'd served at Pelelieu and elsewhere in the Pacific during WWII.  I sat with him through his last year before he succumbed to AIDS. He was an accountant when I knew him and learned from him, who insisted on honest and informative numbers.

The VetVoice Foundation’s poll of Iraq and Afghanistan vets’ attitudes toward Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell says that:

[B]y six points Iraq and Afghanistan veterans under age 35 lean toward favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly (41% favor to 35% oppose) while veterans over age 35 lean toward opposing by five points (31% favor, 36% oppose).  This recent bipartisan survey, conducted among service members in the United States, in many ways runs counter to the idea being asserted by many, that service members and the military cannot handle this change and are unwilling to do so.

That may or may not be so.  The poll itself, however, has some problems.

1. Its service composition is off. The poll has the following service who say they served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 50% Army, 12% Marines, 18% Navy, 22% Air Force.  According to Stars and Stripes in March 2008, for example, when most who’d served had been in Iraq, 73% were in the Army, 18% in the Marines, 3% in the Navy, and 6% in the Air Force.

2. The poll does not distinguish those in combat units (although many in non-combat units often were subject to hostile fire).  One of the key considerations regarding Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell is how it may affect combat effectiveness.

3. The methodology of the poll is clouded. Proper polling standards require full disclosure of the methodology.  This poll doesn’t. This is all it says:

* Methods:  Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers.  The survey reached a total of 510 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and/or Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).   The survey was conducted February 8-23, 2010.  Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States.  The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

The respondents’ answer to whether they served and to where is self-reporting and unverified.  How the sample was chosen is not detailed nor its representative validity presented. And, as seen in point 1 above, the service composition is off, and from point 2 above a critical question not asked.

4. The sponsoring organization is partisan.  Although claiming the pollsters themselves “designed and administered” it, it is frequent that sponsoring organizations influence the design.  VetsVoice Chairman is John Soltz, and only one vet Board Member is listed, J. Ashwin Madia.

On John Soltz (who supported disgraced Democrat congressman Eric Massa):

Mass was endorsed by the tough guy Veterans Political Action Committee (PAC) VoteVets. VoteVets is led by tough guys like Jon Soltz, a veteran of four months of duty in a division extended for fifteen months in Iraq. So far since 2006, VoteVets (click here for the This Ain’t Hell breakdown) has lied about Body Armor issues in a multi-million dollar campaign commercial used against Senator George Allen, had another veteran lie about his service in a Missouri Senate campaign commercial for Claire McCaskill.  Still following? VoteVets used a veteran who lied about being a veteran in Denver. A veteran who is not a veteran. There are lies and then there are VoteVets’ Richard Strandlof who is now facing jail time for claiming to be a wounded warrior.

For the past week,  Massa has further disgraced VoteVets in a gay scandal.

This is the legacy of VoteVets. You can’t blame them. When you are so desperate to prove your argument, even though you are absent factual truth or first hand testimony, you tend to get that guy on camera quick. So when you meet a fellow defeatist, pro-victimizing veteran, you grab them with both arms. Sometimes vetting these liberal “war heroes” would a good idea. But if Jon Soltz and VoteVets vetted everyone in their group claiming to have served in a combat zone, hell even Jon Soltz wouldn’t be a member of VoteVets.

On J. Ashwin Madia (who served as a Marine JAG in Iraq, defeated as a Democrat for Congress in 2008: “The district was ranked as one of the top ten most likely to switch parties in 2008. However, after a challenging campaign, the district remained in the Republican column.”):

I have experience advocating on behalf of unemployed people, immigrants, disabled children, battered women, and the LGBT community. In fact, I was one of the first marines to successfully defend a gay marine from “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Although influenced by Obama, I prefer to wait for the Department of Defense to complete and issue its study of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, in progress.

P.S.: I just received an Excel worksheet from the Defense Department's Press Operations Center breaking down by service and various demographics all those deployed from September 2001-January 2010.  I'd be happy to email a copy to the pollsters or journalists.

Megan McCardle at the Atlantic looks at the Gallup polls then and now:

Now, Medicare popularity did improve after it passed.  On the other hand, it wasn't passed despite terrible polling, with a controversial process, by a political party that was tanking in popularity thanks to a grinding recession.

Nor was Medicare partisan.

Summary of Party Affiliation on Medicare Vote 1965

SENATE

YEA NAY NOT VOTING

Democrats 57 7 4

Republicans 13 17 2

HOUSE

YEA NAY NOT VOTING

Democrats 237 48 8

Republicans 70 68 2

Source: http://www.ssa.gov/history/law.html

President Obama has jettisoned the US’ Grand Strategy that since World War II protected Western interests, according to Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace writing in the Washington Post.

The old strategy rested on a global network of formal military and political alliances, mostly though not exclusively with fellow democracies. The idea, Averell Harriman explained in 1947, was to create "a balance of power preponderantly in favor of the free countries." Under Bill Clinton, and the two Bushes, relations with Europe and Japan, and later India, were deepened and strengthened.

What has Obama replaced it with:

Israelis shouldn't feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the "special relationship" with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security.

Meanwhile:

Who has attracted attention in the Obama administration? The answer, so far, seems to be not America's allies but its competitors, and in some cases its adversaries. If there were a way to measure administration exertion in foreign policy, the meter would show the greatest concentration of energy, beyond the war in Afghanistan, has been devoted to four endeavors: the failed first-year attempt to improve relations with Iran; the ongoing attempt to improve relations with Russia; the stalled effort to improve cooperation with China; and the effort -- fruitless so far -- to prove to the Arab states that the United States is willing to pressure Israel to further the peace process. Add to these the efforts to improve relations with Syria, engage Burma and everything with Af-Pak, and not much has been left for the concerns of our allies.

Obama's Wiley Coyote foreign policy is taking the US and its allies over the cliff with him.

Bird Dog continues to be without power, due to the storm damage in the Northeast. But every cloud has a silver lining.

Here in San Diego, it's 80-degrees and sunny.  So, walking on the beach I happened upon a what I consider a Leprechaun's pot-o-gold, at the other end of the rainbow from Bird Dog.

I’m not one who shouts RINO at Republicans who differ from conservative lines, even when there is overwhelming agreement among conservatives about an issue.  I’d have to be shouting at myself sometimes.

But, there’s a difference between taking a position that is defensible at the time and later recognizing publicly that one was wrong, as experience may dictate.

Yesterday afternoon, I looked forward to one of Hugh Hewitt’s informed, civil discussions on his radio show with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney about RomneyCare.  After the first question, isn’t it proof that ObamaCare will be harmful or something like that, to which Romney replied that it didn’t contain some of the extra bads of ObamaCare or something like that, their phone connection was lost.

Personally, I tend to like Romney.  It’s true that the Mass. legislature went a bit to his Left in the final bill and since.  But, what else is to be expected when dealing with a Democrat legislature or one that has many Democrats or if trying to be bipartisan with Democrats? Further, the fact remains that the original bill went in the wrong direction, though not quite as far as ObamaCare.

The consequences, then, of RomneyCare are particularly applicable to ObamaCare.  If part way to ObamaCare has yielded such results as in Massachusetts, then ObamaCare (which Romney has opposed) will be even more harmful.

Grace Marie-Turner of the Galen Institute gives us some details in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today.  It is behind the WSJ subscription wall, but here it is (via the Galen Institute website) below the fold:

A map-equipped exercise machine can reenact any hike on Earth.

Aside from waiting, and waiting, for Barbara Boxer – a usual friend of Israel – to speak out in its defense, I’ve been waiting for the Republican contenders for the US Senate seat.  They and their surrogates and supporters have spoken and spoken about who is a friend of Israel.  As of right now, only Carly Fiorina has spoken, in a luncheon speech today at the Sacramento Press Club:

“Middle East policy has become an issue in this race, and that is because the U.S. Senate plays a vitally important role in national security decisions. President Obama said the relationship between the U.S. and Israel is ‘unshakable.’ Now his administration says our alliance is at risk over the construction of homes in Jerusalem,” said Fiorina. “Like most Americans, I believe Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It’s clear that the threat to peace comes from those committed to Israel’s destruction, not those building new houses and schools in Jerusalem.”

Last week, the Israeli government announced plans to construct a new settlement in East Jerusalem in an area that is not part of the settlement construction moratorium. Vice President Biden and other members of the Obama Administration derided the move. As a result, the United States’ relationship with Israel has been weakened, and many experts agree the action has damaged progress toward peace in the region.

“The Obama Administration has failed even to restart peace talks between the two sides, despite the unprecedented concessions of the current Israeli government. We should not allow a zoning decision to undermine our relationship with Israel,” continued Fiorina. “It’s time to tone down the hysterical rhetoric of the Vice President and the Secretary of State and instead put the onus on the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table without any preconditions and without further delay. And today, I am calling on Barbara Boxer to add her voice to those in the Senate who have challenged the Administration on this matter.”

Regardless of the latest Rasmussen poll, if Campbell and DeVore are not capable of reaching a conclusion and quickly speaking out on an important issue, how will either get ahead of or respond in a timely manner to Barbara Boxer during a campaign?

$3.2 trillion. (More here.) Plus near that over a full decade for ObamaCare.  Plus, the so-called Social Security trust fund is taking in less that is going out.  Plus, Medicare is already broke.  Plus, hundreds of millions of dollars added to states’ deficits by ObamaCare enlarging Medicaid. All adds up to minuses, from your pockets, from your health, from education and police and other services, from your future.

As the races for governor heat up in thirty-six states, the question of how to fix troubled state-sponsored pension plans may be one of the most challenging that candidates will have to face. State pension plans are underfunded by $3.2 trillion when misguided accounting practices are corrected according to research by Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management, and Robert Novy-Marx at the University of Chicago, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Furthermore, because pension funds are highly exposed to market risks, there is only a 5 percent chance that they will perform well enough to meet the needs of retirees in fifteen years.

Re: Freedom Of Information Act requests and denials during Obama's administration:

Not just fewer, but over ten percent fewer requests.  Putting those numbers together, the Bush administration had a denial rate of 9.6%.  The Obama administration has a denial rate of 15.9%.   Which President promised more transparency?  And why is the press 10% less interested in the inner workings of government now than it was in 2008?

Bird Dog continues without electricity from the storm damage in the Northeast.

But, he needn't fear the effect of high winds.  Al Gore's blowhardiness will save him in the future.  Al Gore blames global warming.

I wonder when he's going to blame global warming for my burnt toast this morning.

Combat Veterans For Congress.  Listed, so far.

About:

The Combat Veterans For Congress PAC is dedicated to supporting the election of fiscally conservative Combat Veterans to Congress.  We seek Combat Veterans running for Congress who believe in limited government, will rein in the out of control spending of Congress, are committed to preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution, and will support the independence and freedom of the individual as outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Needless to say, none are Democrats.

Nearly One-Third of Doctors Could Leave Medicine if Health-Care Reform Bill Passes, New England Journal of Medicine Says

So, who is going to care for those already covered, not to mention up to another 30-million more (although most already get care)?

From a Republican D.C. watcher:

As Democrats continue to push their health care reform bill against the will of the American people, they have trapped themselves in a vicious cycle: each time Americans reject their flawed approach to health care, they must find a new way to circumvent their constituents, which leads to even more anger and frustration, which Democrats must then work even harder to overcome.

We’ve seen this pattern going all the way back to August. When members of Congress went home for the August recess last year, their constituents gave them an earful, telling them they needed to start over on President Obama’s health care reform plans.  But Democrat leaders persisted, and pushed a bill through the House in early November and bringing a bill to the Senate floor on a strict party-line vote, despite historic defeats of Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia.

But the public remained opposed, so when the time came to pass the Senate bill, Democrat leaders needed a way to get wavering senators to vote for a 2,700-page bill that featured half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts and another half a trillion dollars in tax increases. So the special deals began: the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Gator-Aid, special breaks for Vermont, Massachusetts, and Montana.

Disgusted with this arrogant approach to health care reform, less than a month later voters in Massachusetts sent a clear message, electing Scott Brown to the Senate. Brown explicitly campaigned against the health care bill and the backroom deals made to pass it over public opposition.

But that still didn’t deter Democrats. To get around this roadblock thrown up by American voters, Democrats decided to pass a bill through the reconciliation process, never before used for something this partisan and of this magnitude. This maneuver requires passing the Senate bill in the House, something most House members had so far refused to do, either because they disliked the bill or their constituents did. So Democrats have come up with another scheme, this time to “deem” the bill passed without actually voting on it.

Each time Americans say no, Democrats arrogantly devise a new way to go around public opposition and as a vote approaches the backroom dealing and parliamentary scheming gets more and more unseemly. Even major newspapers can’t watch this process any longer. The Washington Post editorializes, “what is intended as a final sprint threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats' promises of transparency and time for deliberation.” The Cincinnati Enquirer is less sanguine: “This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our nation down the wrong economic path.”

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the floor this morning, “Democrat leaders have made it perfectly clear that they view their constituents as an obstacle, particularly on the issue of health care. At every turn, they’ve met fierce public opposition. And every time, they’ve tried to come up with a way to get around it. It’s become a vicious cycle. The harder Democrats try to get around the public, the more repellent their proposals become, and the more egregious their efforts become to get them through anyway”

My son and I are already watching pre-season baseball games on TV.  We hosted a viewing of the great film "The Jackie Robinson Story" for his Little League team.  Here's a book that examines the interracial baseball that barnstormed the country before then.

Interracial games had been a part of baseball for almost as long as the game has been played. Beginning as early as 1869 in Philadelphia, and becoming a component of professionalized baseball culture by the 1880s, teams of black players and teams of white players stepped out onto the diamonds and went at it for nine innings. Remarkably enough, it was possible for a team like the All Nations (with a roster of blacks, Native Americans, Cubans, Polynesians, Asians, and Italians) to “barnstorm” the country between 1912 and 1920, before they were transformed into the legendary Kansas City Monarchs of the original Negro National League. Otherwise, interracialism meant that all-white teams played against all-black teams. But even so, once the regular season ended, some of the stars of the Negro and Major Leagues (including Babe Ruth) would join the barnstorming tours for the competition, the fun, and the cash (though not necessarily in that order)....

And yet, even as Paige, Dean, and Feller demonstrated that baseball fans might well be ready for integration, the contradictions of Jim Crow America hung over them. Paige had mixed feelings about the prospects of integrating the game, successful as he was in the world of the Negro League and interracial barnstorming. What might integration hold in store for him? “You might as well be honest about it,” he reflected in the early 1940s, “There would be plenty of problems, not only in the South, where the colored boys wouldn’t be able to stay and travel with the teams in spring training, but in the North, where they couldn’t stay or eat with them in many places. All nice statements in the world from both sides aren’t going to knock out Jim Crow.”

The first night of Passover is March 29.  At the traditional meal, the Seder, we Jews fervently say, “Next year in Jerusalem.”  In Psalm 37, the mourning of the exiles in Babylon:

How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem,

            Let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee,

            Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth;

            If I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Has anyone in our commentariat mentioned that the real and spiritual ties of Jews to Jerusalem run longer, deeper and more central than the come-lately and secondary, or tertiary, of Moslems?  Indeed, for those regretting the “poor timing” of planning to build housing in a Jewish area of Jerusalem, have they mentioned the “poor timing” of the Obama administration’s bashing of Israel’s right to Jerusalem just before Passover?

OK, I get it.  For them it’s just pretty meaningless.  Meaningful is to cater to the ginned up claims and charges from those who proclaim their intent to destroy Israel or those who care little enough for Israel, truth or – for that matter – the same existential, murderous and nuclear challenges to the entire West as Israel faces.

For those who may want some facts, I recommend this fact-sheet about Jerusalem and this one about Settlements.

Keep these in mind.  Such are from actual cases, nut cases.

1. His Good Conduct Ribbon has a “V” on it..
2. Says the Government “lost” his service records so they won’t have to reveal the secret missions he was on, which is why he can’t wear his MOH.
3. His 12 rows of ribbons include the WWI Victory Medal.
4. Modestly claims he served with SOG, the “Special Operations Group” in Vietnam.
5. Has a harrowing story of how on his first day in country, he had to kill two “gooks” walking point on a patrol into Cambodia.
6. Can’t seem to remember what unit he served with, below the division level—if that—or just where he was in Nam. (I was all over!)
7. Says he enlisted in the Air Force, but was trained at Marine Corps Basic Training at Camp LeJeune by Marine Drill Sergeants for special service with the SEALs.
8. Appears to have been born about 1965.
9. His MOS of “Bandsman” was just a cover for the secret missions he was running in both North Korea and North Vietnam.
10. Starts telling you about the atrocities he committed.
11. Can’t remember his MOS, the names of anyone he served with, or which C-Rats had the big can main meals.
12. You show him your John Wayne and he doesn’t know what it is.
13 The reason the other POWs never heard of him is he was held in a separate camp because he knew too much.

Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club, one of the better sites to think well, brings us the link to Philip Jenkins “Third World War.”

First, Fernandez’ introduction:

In a process largely unnoticed in the West, billions of people in Asia and Africa have swapped out their indigenous faiths for either Christianity or Islam. And to an even greater astonishment of Western intellectuals most have chosen Christianity. Now the equalization of numbers has caused a fault line to appear through the Third World at about the tenth degree of latitude where the two aggregations face each other “at daggers drawn”.

The word “Christian”, associated in the 19th and 20th centuries with the missionary enterprises of Europe, has now come to mean something different in political terms. Today Christianity is a religion of the Third World. Europeans have largely converted to some soft and watered-down variation of  the West’s only indigenous creed, Marxism, as represented by John Lennon’s “Imagine” song. Christianity can no longer be associated largely with the West.

Now, Jenkins:

Christianity, which a century ago was overwhelmingly the religion of Europe and the Americas, has undertaken a historic advance into Africa and Asia. In 1900, Africa had just 10 million Christians, representing around 10 percent of the continental population. By 2000, that figure had swollen to over 360 million, or 46 percent of the population. Over the course of the 20th century, millions of Africans transferred their allegiance from traditional primal faiths to one of the two great world religions, Christianity or Islam—but they demonstrated an overwhelming preference for the former. Around 40 percent of Africa’s population became Christian, compared to just 10 percent who chose Islam.

The subtitle of Jenkins’ article is “The real showdown between Christians and Muslims isn’t in the Mideast.”  In this article, Jenkins doesn’t get around to one reason why: Christians have been driven out of most of the Middle East, and those who remain live in constant danger.  There are only between 10-12 million native Christians remaining, down from 20% of the population a century ago to 5% now. Last August, Kuwaiti commentator Ahmad Al-Sarraf wrote in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Quabas:

What sustained this stream of enforced emigration [of Christians from the Middle East] is the innumerable incidents of injustice to which local Christian minorities have been constantly subjected, and which in many areas have become routine. Thus, heads of [Christian] communities have been murdered; [Christian] places of worship have been set on fire; [Christian-owned] shops have been plundered; the Christians have been marginalized in their [host] societies, and their lives have been embittered - and this is only a partial list.

UPDATE: Still no word from Barbara Boxer, though some other Democrats are seeing the light between sense and Obama. Or is it the space between Obama and Americans?

Also, GayPatriot reminds us of Barbara Boxer's choice of Bill Clinton over Monica (no pun intended).

She does have a record of preferring partisanship.  While she once championed women allegedly victimized by sexual harassment, she was silent when a Democratic president was accused of such harassment.  Seems, for Mrs. Boxer, partisanship trumps all.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, although advocating the most extreme liberal views undermining national security, has been a firm supporter of Israel.

Now, Boxer faces the American Jewish dilemma.  She and over 75% of American Jews supported the election of President Obama.  Obama’s, can’t call it anything else, attacks on Israel has gotten roundly criticized by leading Jewish organizations (AIPAC  and ADL) and by Republican leaders (here, here and here).

Where is Boxer?  Nothing has been heard from her.

Is she waiting for marching, or parroting, orders from the White House?

At Politico, Laura Rozen reports that Congressional Democrats are waiting for a call from Obama’s ineffectual Israel-Palestinian negotiation envoy George Mitchell about what to think or say.

Or, maybe Boxer could have gotten a steer from Obama’s senior advisor bull, David Axelrod. Axelrod called an Israel building plan in a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem, 200 meters from pre-1967 Israel Jerusalem, “an affront, an insult.” Axelrod was scheduled to meet with the National Jewish Democratic Council tonight, but the event has been cancelled.

Boxer, like other Democrats, is boxed in between Obama and usual support for Israel.

As with ObamaCare, President Obama has given vulnerable Democrats another reason to avoid him, for their own self-preservation at the ballot box.

But, do Democrat Jews care as much about the box, possibly literally, in which Obama’s policies are putting Israel?

Should be interesting at the AIPAC annual conference in Washington, D.C. next week. Public smoothing over will predominate, but if private conversations are similar to the ones I hear from faithful Jewish Democrats there will not be smooth brows.

Here's the featured movie about Obama foreign policy:

New England is suffering power outages from a severe storm, so most of our posters are out in the cold.

However, Bird Dog is making the best of it.