Maggie's Farm

What the heck is the Hurva, and what is its current role in Israel-Palestinian and Israel-US tensions?  The Hurva (“ruin” or “wreck” in Hebrew) has become a target for the Palestinian campaign to denigrate Israel’s Jewish heritage, and the Obama administration is cooperating.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to avoid being smeared as was former Prime Minister Sharon as justification for Palestinian attacks upon Israel and Israelis, that the Obama administration is in its misguided incompetence encouraging.

Former Prime Minister Sharon was falsely accused of inciting the Second Intifada by the Palestinians by his visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000. However, on December 6, 2000, the semi-official Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam reported as follows:

Speaking at a symposium in Gaza, Palestinian Minister of Communications, Imad Al-Falouji, confirmed that the Palestinian Authority had begun preparations for the outbreak of the current Intifada from the moment the Camp David talks concluded, this in accordance with instructions given by Chairman Arafat himself.

Before Israel’s independence, the most important synagogue in Jerusalem was the Hurva.  The Hurva sat on the high ground in the Jewish Quarter.

Here’s an aerial photo from 1940. The Jewish quarter is at the bottom of the image. The two large domes are the Hurva Synagogue, at the lower right, and the Tiferes Yisrael Synagogue.  Both were destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, after starving out the Jewish inhabitants of the Jewish Quarter.

In 1948, British officers led their Arab Legion to destroy the Hurva, and other synagogues in the Jewish Quarter. The Jordanian commander is reported saying: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible." In sum:

After the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem was captured, the destruction, desecration and systematic looting of Jewish sites began and continued. 57 ancient synagogues (the oldest dated to the 13th century), libraries and centers of religious study were ransacked and 12 were totally and deliberately destroyed. Those that remained standing were defaced, used for housing of both people and animals. The city's foremost Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. Appeals were made to the United Nations and in the international community to declare the Old City to be an 'open city' and stop this destruction, but there was no response. This condition continued until Jordan lost control of Jerusalem in June 1967.

Christians also suffered under Jordanian rule.

In 1958, Jordanian legislation required all members of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre to adopt Jordanian citizenship. In 1965, Christian institutions were forbidden to acquire any land or rights in or near Jerusalem. In 1966, Christian schools were compelled to close on Fridays instead of Sundays, customs privileges of Christian religious institutions were abolished.

Israel commemorated the Hurva site with an arch.

Eight years ago a reconstruction of the Hurva started, and is to be opened this Monday.

(Notice that the nearby Moslem minaret is undamaged under Israeli rule, as all Moslem and Christian sites are not damaged by Israel, in contrast to the fate of Jewish sites under Moslem rule.)

As an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal concludes: “What is clear is that the inauguration of the old-new Hurva—twice destroyed, and now twice rebuilt—represents a deep and irrepressible Israeli urge to heal and rebuild, not in order to obscure memory but to preserve it.”

But, the Palestinians, seeking another way to attack Israel’s Jewish history, claim that the new Hurva is part of a plot to take away their Al Aqsa Mosque built upon the Mount where the Jewish Holy Temple stood.

Saraya, the Islamic Jihad newspaper, says that Hurva is being built on an Islamic neighborhood, and says that the construction of the Third Temple will commence on March 16th. The Al Aqsa Heritage Foundation says that the Hurva dedication will take place on Sunday and Monday, also to be followed by the public start of the building of the Third Temple, as well as more Jews "storming" Al Aqsa for Passover at the end of the month.

The Palestinians are encouraged by the Obama administration’s reaction in February to Israel naming two of Judaism’s holiest sites as heritage sites, to be renovated.

The Obama administration sharply criticized Israel on Wednesday [February 24]  for designating the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb, both in West Bank cities, to the list of Jewish heritage sites marked for renovation and preservation….

This reflected the Obama administration’s anxiety to show some progress after a year of alienating Israel and encouraging Palestinian intransigence by getting the Palestinians to agree to non-face-to-face talks with Israel.

Israel has good reason to be protective of its heritage sites, as demonstrated by the October 2000 Palestinian sacking and burning of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus and the September 2000 destruction of archeological remnants of the Jewish Temple on the Mount. Other examples.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided not to personally attend the ceremony for the reopened Hurva.  He says he’s “busy”.  Knowledgeables in Israel say that Netanyahu is afraid of being provocative in the wake of the Obama administration’s stink about adding Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs to the heritage sites for renovation and protection. The Obama administration added stink in a teapot during Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel last week, protesting Israel’s right to build within Jerusalem, although Jerusalem was excluded by a previous Israeli ban to please Obama and the unpleasable Palestinians on building in the West Bank.  The Obama administration adds fuel to the fire that Netanyahu is trying to avoid with the Palestinians by actually encouraging further intransigence by the Palestinians.

We know the Palestinians won’t be satisfied by anything less than the utter destruction of Israel.  The Obama administration is on the same course of destroying Israel’s ability to be Jewish.

As Caroline Glick said last June in receiving a prestigious honor: “Our enemies are right in choosing their targets. They are right because they know who we are. We are the children of Jerusalem, of Zion. Our physical and spiritual survival is dependent on our willingness to dedicate our lives in every generation to guarding both the physical and spiritual walls of this city. “

P.S.: Worth reading at the Washington Post. The unreality of Obama's Israel policy.  Also see Obamá's latest pretext for attacking Israel at Powerline.

UPDATE March 16: The New York Times reports on the Hurva dedication, sorta.  But forgets to mention that Hamas announced a "day of rage" for Tuesday and that Fatah echoes in competition for being worthy negotiation partners, according to Obama anyway.

The Washington Post’s editors took Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to task in February 2009 when she downplayed speaking out about human rights abuses during her trip to China. She'd said: "We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."  The Chinese were delighted. The Washington Post editors pointed out that the US speaking out hasn’t interfered in the past when there are mutual goals, “But Ms. Clinton's statement will have an effect: It will demoralize thousands of democracy advocates in China, and it will cause many others around the world to wonder about the character of the new U.S. administration.”

Last December, Hillary Clinton clarified. In an address at Georgetown University:

Under the first element of the agenda, Clinton said the United States would be working to hold everyone accountable for human rights in their countries. In order to “reinforce our moral authority,” she said, the U.S. will lead by example by way of reporting figures for human trafficking that occur within its borders for the first time.

Clinton said that while holding other accountable could entail public denunciations of a country’s leaders, “other times our negotiations would take place behind closed doors,” such as with China and Russia.

The second element, “principled pragmatism,” also applies to China and Russia especially, she said. The administration can deplore the murders of Russian journalists and violation of minority rights in China, but “the assumption that we must either pursue democratic rights or [national strategy] is wrong.”

The third element involved partnering with and supporting groups like NGOs which share U.S. goals, and the fourth involved highlighting success stories and rejecting the notion that some situations cannot be remedied.

Tomorrow, Monday, Sec. Clinton has the opportunity to effect her third element.

The Wall Street Journal editorial highlights Friend and Faux on Human Rights:

Some of the world’s most courageous champions of human rights will convene today, Monday, March 8, in Geneva, seat of the United Nations’s Human Rights Council [where gross human rights violator Iran is up for possible election to the UN Human Rights Council].  But don’t expect the Council itself to welcome these distinguished visitors.

The Geneva Summit -- organized by groups such as U.N. Watch and Freedom House, and chaired by Poland’s Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel -- will bring together political dissidents from China, Iran and Burma, rights activists for the Tibetan and Uighur peoples, a survivor of the North Korean gulag, plus a former Sudanese slave named Simon Deng who plans to speak about “the gross human-rights abuses by radical jihadists and the Islamic government in Khartoum.…

In 1975, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote that it was time “that the American spokesman came to be feared in international forums for the truths he might tell.” In Geneva today, the real truth tellers will be meeting down the block from the Council’s chambers. It would be nice to see the U.S. ambassador show up.

The world’s oppressed await.

California Republican Senate primary contenders Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore had an hour radio debate today, their first, slated to focus on national security issues.  I listened closely to the first 43-minutes, leaving to play 1-on-1 with my son after school and watch the basketball tryouts. I was struck that at the tryouts there was none of the under the basket elbows and knees I was used to from Brooklyn schoolyard basketball.  But there was plenty at the debate.

The current Newsweek reviews a new book about North Korea based on study of its internal news reports, art and school texts.  Threats, mostly hollow, and mild sanctions, by Bush and Obama, have not stopped North Korea’s nuclear bomb making or long-range missiles fired over Japan.

Kim Jong Il and, before him, Kim Il Sung based their legitimacy not on fabricated reports of the country's economic success (that line is directed at outsiders) but on a world view that casts them as "great parental leaders" who embody Korean virtue at its most untainted. In this national narrative, the Korean people "are too pure-blooded, and therefore too virtuous, to survive in this evil world" without the leaders' benefic guidance, writes Myers. This potent myth of racial superiority is aimed at confirming to the North Koreans that they are morally superior to Americans and the rest of the world, even if they lag behind it in technology or wealth. When visiting foreigners are covered by the domestic media, they are portrayed as being highly respectful--even obsequious--toward their North Korean hosts.

Today a North Korean colonel who spent 16 years in Austria procuring luxury goods for the father and son tyrants, before faking his death in order to defect, held a news conference to tout his tell-all book that “shows the deep divide between the lifestyles of the North Korean leadership and their citizens, who sometimes must subsist eating tree bark, knowing they will be sent to labor camps if they criticize the government.”

Kim Jong Ryul said the late dictator had dozens of sprawling villas — some of them built underground — filled with crystal chandeliers, silk wallpaper and costly furniture…. It was in these palatial homes that Kim Il Sung and his family would feast on an immense array of fine foods — including Austrian specialties….He also described how Kim Il Sung — while publicly denouncing "Western decadence and imperialism" — had an extensive luxury car collection that included Mercedes, Lincolns, Fords, Cadillacs and Citroens. Kim Jong Il, who liked taking fast sports cars for a spin, also appeared to share his father's passion.

There’s more tasty tidbits, like Kim Il Sung sending chefs to Austria to ferret out recipes from the best restaurants.

Admiring the North Korean regimented mass dance steps, Vietnam has imported North Korean marching dancemasters to advise the government on choreography for its celebration of Hanoi’s 1000^th anniversary.

Impoverished and isolated, North Korea has little to export [aside from nuclear materials and technology] and its tourism earnings have been hit by political wrangling with South Korea over the North's military threats to the region and nuclear weapons programme.

North Korea’s agriculture minister who defected in 1998 estimated that up to 2.8 million North Koreans starved to death during the ‘90’s, that’s about 10% of its population. Now, Pyongyang’s geniuses have committed “currency reform” that made its currency worthless, to wipe out the black market trade that kept many North Koreans alive.  Then there’s about 200,000 in North Korea’s prison camps, worked and starved to death in harsh conditions, along the way experimented on, tortured and even babies murdered.

Hey, but don’t let some dead or starved North Koreans, like this woman, stand in the way of a party.

A disastrous currency reform, which wiped whatever little savings North Koreans had, has compounded the effect of international sanctions. For many, survival has become impossible. Currently, ten million North Koreans are living on less than a dollar a day.

In the meantime, this year’s celebrations include the traditional Flower Festival.

For Kim’s birthday, the red kimjongilia was all the rave. The flower, a begonia, was created by Japanese botanist Mototeru Kamo of Shizuoka Prefecture and dedicated to Kim Jong-il.

Two sporting events were also held in the capital yesterday (figure skating and synchronised swimming) in honour of Kim who opted instead to attend a concert by the Unhasu Orchestra, organised to mark the new lunar year, which began on Sunday.

The North Korean leadership’s new motto: Party Hearty Like There’s No Tomorrow.  It’s worked so far, for them.

The Jewish celebration of Purim began tonight.  The story (Megilah) of the Book of Esther is read.  Persia’s King Ahasuerus’ new queen, unknown to him Jewish, Esther, relays to the king the plot overheard by her cousin Mordecai by the king’s councilor Haman to exterminate the Jews.  Esther reveals to Ahasuerus that she is Jewish, and the king learns that Mordecai previously saved his life.  Haman is ordered hanged.  Jews are given the right to defend themselves.  There’s much more to this exciting story of intrigue and integrity found, well worth rereading at least annually.

As important is what’s missing.  There is no appeal to or intercession by G-d.  This is the all the workings of man and woman.

The week of March 1, if you or yours is on many college campuses, “Israeli Apartheid” week will seek to spread a hateful and dangerous canard.  Its propagators are the most virulent and unprincipled liars, whose purpose is to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist and to support its same enemies who target the United States.

If you want to know more about actual conditions in Israel or to help turn the light on the darkness of the apartheid “big lie”, a good place to start is this website from a respected credible organization, CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America).

California Republicans are a minority.  Start with that reality.  Then see what allows a  Republican challenger to a Democrat US Senate incumbent to win.

1. A disliked or tepid campaigner Democrat incumbent.

2. A liked or respected star-quality Republican challenger.

3. Dire economics impelling desire for change.

4. Deemed political chicanery by the incumbent.

5. Enough money to campaign in a big population and area state.

The shape of the Republican primary campaign, thus far, is lacking in taking advantage of favorable factors and is even frittering them away.

President Obama’s proposals for health care legislation fiddles and fizzles, hardens disputes with opponents, excludes bridges to agreements, and ignores the root cause of overwhelming public unease. Rather than “change” he continues and exacerbates failure.

Summaries, inadequate, are available from the New York Times and Washington Post. The Washington Post, also, offers – more usefully -- the White House provided sketch of details.  All leave out in-depth analysis.

Essentially, Obama’s proposals are compromises between the entirely Democrat House and Senate legislation. It actually increases some taxpayer and industry garnishments to pay for enlarged entitlements, adjusting or delaying some. Similarly, the imposed mandate on the states to fund enlarged Medicaid eligibility is delayed a few years but remains a fiscal time-bomb impacting all other state services and driving tax increases. The penalty on large employers who do not provide medical insurance is slightly eased, for the first 30 employees, but the penalty increased, and it is still a sub rosa “mandate” and economic and competitive burden. Some additional database measures are added to perhaps and marginally combat Medicare fraud.

In essence, the Obama proposals continue on the path of grossly enlarged federal government intrusion into and control of individual choices and states’ variations that fit their circumstances and resources.

Indeed, it goes further than before in adding wholesale federal control over insurance premiums, imposing rates, exploiting ignorant furor at large increases in individual coverage premiums by Wellpoint (Blue Cross) in California. The Associated Press provides, however, some of the facts: the individuals segment is deep in the red; it is unfair for the employer segment or other states’ insured to subsidize it; overall profits are 35^th out of 53 industries in the Fortune 500 list.  Obama’s proposal only deepens the cost pit for 90+% of insured, while driving private insurers out of business which impels a default to more government-provided and dictated, taxpayer-paid medical plans.

The Obama proposals are meant to bridge differences among Democrats in control of the House and Senate, so they can turn the small procedural loophole of “reconciliation” into an override of all other procedures and precedents, not to mention public opposition. Further, Obama does not mention elements of the House and Senate legislation like wholesale cuts to Medicare spending (primarily of provider reimbursements, already low, which would drive more to not take Medicare patients) thus leaving the cuts included as a false way to mask the enormous budgetary costs because such drastic cuts are politically unlikely to actually occur. Meanwhile, taxes on high earners are increased even further than in the House and Senate bills.

“Reconciliation”, purportedly, allows the House to accept the Senate’s bill.  There’s reasonable vote-count doubt about that, as well as legal challenges.  President Obama’s proposals are, in effect, a new bill to be agreed by the House and Senate that fiddles with a “reconciliation” ram-through.  If the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides an estimate of the Obama adjustment proposals together with the remainders of the House and Senate bills, it should be evident that the costs will be much larger, especially if unrealistic ploys are identified and full implementation time periods are included. (See footnote, added)

Obama fails to address the fundamental opposition to vastly increased federal control over 1/6^th of the US economy and the lives of 100% of Americans, while deepening the race to national bankruptcy.

Obama fails to address the cost-driver of excess defensive-medicine, by various measures 10-30% of medical spending, that providers use to avoid excessive tort liability. Democrats’ largest contributors and supporters, tort attorneys, are left immunized from impact.  Similarly, the impact on rich union benefits – unions being the other largest Democrat contributor base -- is delayed and reduced.

Reductions in the ability to save pretax dollars for health care remain, via health savings accounts and cafeteria plans, reducing individual choice, rather than maintaining or spreading them to more.  Taxpayers or insureds who don’t use or support it are still likely to fund abortions.  Sponsors of legal immigrants are still able to avoid their promised financial responsibility for legal immigrants’ medical care. Insureds are still unable to choose benefit plans allowed by other states that better fit their needs and budgets.

Obama’s proposals are nothing more than a campaign ploy to appear reasonable but they  actually emphasize and enlarge the distance between Democrats’ floundering take-overs and the alternatives or discreet incremental measures that are widely supported.

Obama’s proposals are a transparent and hole-filled veil over what most already recognize as ugly and unacceptable.  And, it isn’t closing time, when vision is blurred or judgment desperate.  The public isn’t befuddled, and imperiled Congressional Democrats recognize that.

Rather than score, Obama again demonstrates himself as a crassly partisan loser, “arrogant” in the words of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, when it comes to accomplishing anything beyond words, his words no longer masking his ideologic inability to be practical.

House Republican Leader John Boehner sums Obama’s proposals as an “infomercial,” to be tuned out:

The President has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected.  This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes, and slash Medicare benefits.

* The CBO just wrote that President Obama's proposals lack sufficient details to "score" (i.e., cost) it, and even if it did that scoring would take longer than this week, past the so-called TV infomercial "summit."  How convenient for hollow proposals to have no relaible numbers.  More "ramming" with hidden horns.

Anyone who has coached or tutored their child knows how much resistance they meet.  I call my sons the "mother's curse": "You should have children like yourself."  I do, in trumps.  My mother is surely laughing her head off, above.  Still, after the daily battles, and perseverence, a light shines.

Keep on truckin', parents.  And, thanks Mom.  Couldn't do it without remembering you.

The University of California campus at Irvine was the scene a few days ago of pro-Palestinian demonstrators interrupting the presentation by Israel’s Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren.  Scott Johnson at PowerLine sums up the demonstrators’ core proposition: “The actions are based on the proposition that the defense of Israel in speech is beyond the bounds of civilized discourse just as the defense of Israel in deed is illegitimate because Israel is illegitimate.”

Martin Solomon posted a video of the action. More details at Solomon’s post. Oren conducted himself with dignity in not backing down from free speech. This key question: “Where are the grownups in the UC Irvine administration?”

The usual suspects defend the protestors as somehow engaged in rightful “civil disobedience.”

Max Boot, a graduate of "Berzerkley", wrote at Contentions, of this and similar campus attacks, “Anything short of expulsion, or at least suspension, would seem to be a wrist-slap that will only encourage more such misconduct in the future and make a mockery of the free speech that universities are supposed to champion.”

The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial read: “It was an embarrassing display of inhospitality [at Irvine]. It was also a wasted opportunity. The critics should have stayed and listened. As a U.S.-born scholar on the Middle East and a best-selling author with a Ph.D. from Princeton, Oren has much to say about one of the most important and interesting corners of the globe.”

By contrast, Ambassador Oren appeared at the University of California campus at San Diego a few days later.

Thanks to the firm position taken by UCSD’s administration led by Chancellor Marye Ann Fox, this lecture was not a repeat of the unfortunate incident in UC Irvine on February 8^th where the Israeli Ambassador’s speech was disrupted by a well-organized group of student protesters.

In sharp contrast, UCSD’s administration demonstrated resolve and determination to conduct a program in a peaceful and civilized manner and in the best traditions of the university’s commitment to freedom of speech and exchange of ideas. The presentation started with a strong statement from Peter Cowhey, Dean of the UC San Diego School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, that interruptions would not be tolerated during Ambassador Oren’s presentation and that members of the audience would have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the presentation.  The lecture proceeded smoothly…

Though the Q&A was dominated by pro-Palestinian students, “Ambassador Oren responded to each question with the knowledge of the accomplished historian that he is and with the wisdom of a true diplomat.”

The audience and the subject were treated with respect and benefited from civil discourse.  University administrators or others who are willing to forfeit that freedom of speech and minimal manners themselves do not belong on campus.

The Valentine sweetheart of Maggie's Farm is our dearly loved commenter Marianne Matthews.

Marianne is a classically trained musician, among many other wonderful things, with a sane, quick, and fun-loving mind.  I share Marianne's love of folk music, she broadening my appreciations beyond the labor and protest songs I was raised with to older and other countries' folk classics.  Marianne has been deeply involved with many of the greats. Marianne sent me a disc of some of her recaptured recordings from the 1950's, which you have to hear to soar.  We're working on a way to put at least one up at Maggie's Farm.  Meanwhile, you'll have to be content with this 1972 photo of Marianne and all-together now wishing Marianne a Happy Valentine.

FRIENDSHIP

Oh, the comfort -- the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person,
Having neither to weigh thoughts,
Nor measure words -- but pouring them
All right out -- just as they are --
Chaff and grain together --
Certain that a faithful hand will
Take and sift them --
Keep what is worth keeping --
And with the breath of kindness
Blow the rest away.

-Dinah Maria Mulock Craik

If Amsterdam airport had a high-tech body scanner, the Christmas panty-crotch bomber wouldn’t have gotten on board.  They’re in use at 19 US airports, so far.  For those with privacy concerns about the explicit images they can produce, there is the option of a pat-down search.

Can you visualize the pat-down searches?  Do you believe that a pat-down search would be as revealing of metal or non-metallic weapons, plastic or chemical explosives?

The Dutch are now using full-body scanners for US bound flights. “New software, however, eliminates that problem by projecting a stylized image onto a computer screen, highlighting the area of the body where objects are concealed in pockets or under the clothing and alerting security guards.”

Not to let science stand in the way of disarming security, the Figh Council of North America affiliate of the Islamic Society of North America and CAIR protesteth.

"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.

While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level.

I wonder if using them for this purpose would rise to that level?

An Arab Ambassador in the United Arab Emirates is suing his wife for emotional and moral damage after he married her without seeing her face and discovered that she was cross-eyed and had a beard.

Trick question: how many boats in the background?

I asked Tom Campbell pointed questions about his stance toward Israel, and his replies are below.

Tom Campbell, who leads in the Republican primary to unseat unhinged Barbara Boxer as US Senator from California, has come in for criticism of his support for Israel being inadequate, if not even hostile.

For example, Jennifer Rubin today wrote:

Tom Campbell, who has zipped into the lead in early polls, is quite another story [than Fiorina]. During his time in the House, Campbell was one of the few Republicans with a consistent anti-Israel voting record. In 1999, he introduced an amendment to cut foreign aid to Israel. This amendment, titled the Campbell Amendment, was defeated overwhelmingly on the House floor by a vote of 13-414. In 1999, Campbell was one of just 24 House members to vote against a resolution expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. In 1997, Rep. Tom Campbell authored an amendment (also titled the Campbell Amendment) to cut foreign aid to Israel. The resolution failed 9-32 in committee. In 1990, Campbell was one of just 34 House members to vote against a resolution expressing support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  The resolution passed the House 378-34. But Campbell has taken positions on more than just aid that have raised concerns about his views on Israel. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2000, Campbell, in his losing race against Dianne Feinstein, “told numerous crowds–including Jewish groups–that he believes Palestinians are entitled to a homeland and that Jerusalem can be the capital of more than one nation.”

Several weeks ago, concerned about Campbell's stance toward Israel, I contacted someone within the Campbell campaign for clarification of Tom Campbell’s views on Israel.  I was told that Campbell’s actions in the ‘90’s were about aid funds being taken from sub-Saharan Africa to add to Israel’s economic aid, and he thought this harming the more needy.  Similarly, Campbell is a strong supporter of the Vietnam era 1973 War Powers Act, requiring Congressional approval for US forces to be in a prolonged conflict.  In 2000, the Supreme Court, however, rejected his and 30 other members of Congress’ petition, re: the continued use of US air power in Kosovo beyond the War Powers Act’s 60-days, as lacking standing. (Congressional Research Service 2004 history of War Powers Act.)

Tom Campbell is known for not being sheepish about his views. In my questions, below, I asked for unequivocal answers, and Tom Campbell did personally reply without equivocation. Every politician should be asked the same direct questions for direct replies. See below:

When all else fails them to explain their failures in majority governance, particularly the drubbing of ObamaCare, Democrats trot out Germany’s pre-Hitler Weimar Republic collapse reasons: the commoners just don’t understand the enlightenment and react from irrational fears, and proportional representation minority parties undermine the better sense of enlightened democrats.

Los Angeles Times’ uberliberal Tim Rutten demurs from saying the US has fully entered its Weimar phase, while saying we’re nearing it.

When people's mistrust of their elected officials and the parties reaches these levels, there is little for political leaders to do but take counsel from their own anger and anxieties -- and, these days, the popular mood fairly seethes with both those things. Discontent with the present and apprehension about the future have become the background noise of our politics, yet both sides of the congressional aisle seem deaf to the din.

In one of his magisterial explorations of German politics between the wars, the historian Ian Kershaw mused that "there are times -- they mark the danger point for a political system -- when politicians can no longer communicate, when they stop understanding the language of the people they are supposed to be representing."

It would be reckless not to insist that this country and its politics remain, in crucial ways, far distant from Weimar. It would be rash, though, to pretend that the distance remains as great as it once was.

On the other hand, traditional puckish liberal Mickey Kaus is more on point, our politicians weren’t hamstrung by procedures, they listened and rejected ObamaNonsense.

Needless to remind, but we do not have proportional representation; our Democrats control the White House, have an overwhelming grip on the Congress, and froze out Republicans.  Needless to remind, we don’t have large, violent Nazi or Communist parties, nor are our corporate interests pre-WWI royalists.  Needless to remind, we’re in recession but hardly bankrupt, paying impoverishing WWI reparations, or suffering the Great Depression.

We do have, instead, defenders of Constitutional protections, economic sense, centrist opposition to transparent corruption, and preference for improvements in individual choice over statist schemes. As Krauthammer notes:

[Democrats, instead,] understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid, and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Hardly Weimar, except for those liberals who, themselves, are exposed as opposed to our Republic’s democracy.

Oh, there is this reminder, burning money then and now:

President Obama epitomizes Abba Eban’s summation of the Palestinians, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Palestinians insist on destroying Israel, regardless of concessions, declining steps that improve relations, repeating bromides that fail to meet facts.  President Obama, likewise, insists on a total upheaval of modern health care, regardless of compromises, declining widely supported incremental steps, repeating support for the various Democrat health care bills whose details are overwhelmingly rejected by Americans.

Instead of cooperating for widely supported steps to improve health care, President Obama called for a televised half-day “summit” in which Republicans are supposed to take as their starting point the Democrats’ health care bills, instead of starting from scratch with Republican proposals. The New York Times labels it a “gambit” in the first paragraph of its report. Then,

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement that he welcomed the bipartisan meeting on health care and called on the president to begin the dialogue “by shelving the current health spending bill.”

“The fact is Senate Republicans held hundreds of town halls and met with their constituents across the country last year on the need for health care reform, outlining ideas for the step-by-step approach that Americans have asked for,” Mr. McConnell said. “And we know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf.”

When asked by Ms. Couric if he would agree to discard the bill and start over, the president said he would not. The starting point, aides said, would be with the proposals that passed the House and Senate.

Obama insists on 1967 or 1947 lines despite “facts on the ground” a la Palestinians, instead of working together.  Indeed, as Senators Grassley and Snowe found when trying to work together, the Democrats my-way-or-the-highway forced them to take the high way, the Democrats taking the low way.

I outlined last Friday, in a 711 word op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, ten separable, incremental steps to health care improvements.  They don’t require thousands of tiny type pages of imposed, centralized, statist regulations like the Democrats’ schemes.  They don’t require throwing out the baby with the bath water.  They build on what successfully exists, which most Americans are satisfied with.  Most Americans agree with these steps.  They are not partisan.  Indeed, they contain many elements of Democrat preferences. There are other such steps that a true summit could address.

Instead, Obama wants a campaign-mode, one-sided event, never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Jules Crittendon adds an "ouch" and then some to Obama's "reality TV."

Is wearing fraudulent medals of valor just a harmless pick-up line?

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school who is not involved in the two cases, said the Stolen Valor Act raises constitutional questions because it bans bragging or exaggerating about yourself."Half the pickup lines in bars across the country could be criminalized under that concept," he said.

The AP reports that defense attorneys in two Stolen Valor prosecutions are challenging the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, passed unanimously in the US Senate and by acclamation in the House in late 2006. They say, the AP reports, “the First Amendment protects almost all speech that doesn't hurt someone else. Neither man has been accused by prosecutors of seeking financial gain for himself.” In rebuttal, “Craig Missakian, a federal prosecutor in the California case, said deliberate lies are not protected. He said that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to raise and support an army and that this includes, by extension, ‘protecting the worth and value of these medals.’ ”

First Amendment scholars may find this case "interesting," but it means more than an item of interest to those affected.

A noted First Amendment defender, law professor Eugene Volokh filed an amicus brief, in which his draft says, although “the [Supreme] Court has never articulated a clear rule for which knowingly false statements of fact are constitutionally protected and which are not,”

… But though the Stolen Valor Act does treat some false statements differently from others, it appears to fit within one of the exceptions to the R.A.V. principle: “the nature of the content discrimination is such that there is no realistic possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot.” Id. at 390. False claims of military honors are not limited to any particular viewpoints, or even particular topics of debate. They can equally be raised by people who are anti-war, who are pro-war, or who are just trying to get themselves elected to an office that is entirely unrelated to the military.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Stolen Valor Act, if read to apply only to knowingly false representations, is likely facially constitutional.

 

I spoke with BJ Burkett, whose book Stolen Valor led to the 2006 Act.  Burkett says, as does the federal prosecutor above,“The decorations are part and parcel of the Constitution creating the military, and anything that denigrates that weakens the Constitution.”  In an age where strict respect for the Constitution is chancy, that argument may not hold.  But, the fraud statutes are not challenged, at least where fraudulent gain is involved, and specific frauds do have additional prohibitions.  Further, false claims that demonstrably cause harm to others are upheld, from “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to falsely claiming not to carry H.I.V. and infecting a bar pick-up.

So, where does that leave the constitutional issue in the Stolen Valor challenges? Many liberals and conservatives should be in a quandary. Many liberals support “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws when aimed at designated groupings.  Many conservatives oppose restrictions on “freedom of speech.”  On the other hands, veterans in general, and medals of valor recipients in particular, are a grouping that earned elevated respect, and free speech is constitutionally limited when causing demonstrable harm.

So, is there demonstrable harm in falsely claiming medals of valor?

It is clear that almost all veterans and medals of valor recipients, along with a unanimous Congress, believe there is, which should be prosecuted.  It is clear that such frauds gain honors they do not deserve.  Indeed, many also materially gain, in direct benefits and prestige used to further their careers.  For example, there are more claimants at the VA to being POWs, who receive a medal, than were. Taxpayers are harmed, as well as other vets who are placed on lower priority.

This is not a right to burn the flag, our nation’s flag not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and not analogous in that burning a symbol may hurt patriots’ feelings but falsely claiming medals of valor directly contravenes the sole lawful authority of the DOD to issue them.

It is important to note here that the reluctance of the DOD to create a comprehensive database of legitimate medals of valor recipients is inexcusable.  (I wrote about it here.)

Burkett hopes that the prominence of this challenge may lead to the DOD getting its act together, and to raising the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony.  Look at this gay clown claiming unearned medals of valor to support "gay rights."

Several weeks ago I posted a longer version of this.  The San Diego Union-Tribune liked it, and asked for a shorter version.  711 words from 1200+.  Yes we can!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/05/no-gop-ideas-try-these-10/ 

Obama’s Chicago enforcer Rahm Emanuel got lots of heat for calling my-way-or-the-highway liberals “f**king retards.”  All the criticism was for him using the disparaging word “retards” and none for his frequent use of the adjective.  Hmm?  Via Instapundit, an Emanuel theme song.  That’s the Chicago way, and mine from Brooklyn, and probably yours too.

Down the mall from Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, a new museum will open next November, the National Museum of American Jewish History.  It tells the story of Jews in America, the many contributions from Nieuw Amsterdam to “God Bless America” to today in every walk of life, and the appreciation for the opportunities coming from being freer than elsewhere due to freer markets, speech and observance under the rule of law.  It’s the same story for every immigrant group to America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBmglA-yCCk

Does President Obama “feel your pain” or is he feeling his own, getting kicked in the bottom by the Tea Parties?  Do establishment Republicans, late to the party, join the conga line or waltz around the Tea Party theme?

Remarkably, Internet-power Instapundit Glenn Reynolds and MSM Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift sorta agree about the impact of the Tea Parties.

Reynolds, early and consistently encouraged by the people power of the Tea Party movement, writes in today’s Washington Examiner that,

It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.

But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.

Reynolds believes the Tea Party movement will have even more power going in to the 2010 elections, as it develops a Contract From America.

It's a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it's not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters -- it's more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.

This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I'm guessing that the political class won't like it much, either.

But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they'll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job.

Dan Riehl comments re: "fragmentation" of Tea Party movement. It is already, and that's a strength, bottom up instead of top down.

Eleanor Clift, columnist at Newsweek, reluctantly recognizes the Tea Parties past successes, despite the Conventional Wisdom (i.e., from liberals like her).

Less than half a year later, the tea-party movement is the tip of the spear shaping the White House policy agenda, putting Obama on the defensive on spending and forcing Democrats to elevate deficit reduction as a priority.

Clift is correct in recognizing the grass-roots pragmatism of Tea Partiers, supporting moderate candidates as long as they represent a turn away from more government intrusion into our pockets and lives.  Clift concludes by asking limited government types to reply to President Obama’s newfound interest in hearing from those who oppose him.  And, we are to believe that Clift, Obama, and their ilk will now, after never listening before?

To offer your two-cents to the Contract From America, here’s your invite.

My July 4th Tea Party in LotusLand with photos.

Health care may contribute to the defeat of Senator Barbara Boxer next November, or it may work in her favor.  California’s legislative Democrat majority are going for broke (literally) with their party-line votes in prior years for single-payer health care and yesterday’s state Senate vote for the same.

There are some legitimate arguments to be made (low Democrat turnout and many of the Democrats voting for Brown being confused about health care or actually wanting a more radical plan than in Congress) that ObamaCare was less decisive in Massachusetts than conservatives think.  So, there may be some reason to believe the issue will play out a bit less positively for Republicans in California, Democrats hope.

My last post California Is Not Massachusetts spoke to why Senator Barbara Boxer will be a tougher political opponent than Coaxley in Massachusetts: demographics are more amenable to Boxer (e.g., almost 5 times larger percentage of Hispanics in California; Boxer hasn’t alienated the influential overwhelmingly liberal Jewish vote in California, whereas leading Republican Campbell is negative toward Israel’s security needs); and her likely Republican opponents are not the able campaigners that Brown was in Massachusetts. I, also, posited that tempers against Obama and his Washington Democrats are likely to cool some between now and November, as some  Democrats chill on their extremism.  To the last point, that really does remain to be seen, and hollow words are less likely to be given credence by Independent voters now than in 2008. Further, Boxer’s extreme liberal stances are not likely to either change much or be hidable by her.  (Note: a stat aficionado journalist corrects me on another point. There is a higher proportion of Democrat congressmen in Mass. than California, and California’s lower percentage of Independent voters is because California does not hold open-primaries as does Mass.)

On the other hand, although early polls are poor indicators, Boxer does currently lead prospective Republican candidates: 45% Boxer, 41% Campbell; 47% Boxer, 39% DeVore ; 48% Boxer, 40% Fiorina. Yet, Boxer’s lead has narrowed some, and her favorables  have dipped by about 5% to 40% with 45% disapprovals.

Senator Barbara Boxer is a firm supporter of ObamaCare.   Single-payer is a more extreme and direct takeover of health care.  Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the same prior two attempts by the Democrat legislators, and would do so again, if passed before November.  The leading Democrat contender for governor, former governor Jerry Brown, spoke in favor in 1992 but is “stonewalling” about it now.  The leading Republican contenders are opposed.  This sets up an issue to be debated in the 2010 governor race.

Boxer will be affected or drawn in to the health care debate. Tom Campbell opposed  ObamaCare. So do the other Republican contenders.  Thus, it should be expected to be a factor in the Senate race.  A legislator and oral surgeon dismembers the California Democrats' bill. Another commenter calls it all “political kabuki”:

A serious bill would talk about where, exactly, the $200 billion a year [more than the entire California budget, already tens of billions in deficit; proponents say that all sources of health spending in California is about that or more, assuming they can redirect it all into the government’s hands, and power] is going to come from and just how California will be able to afford a single-payer system at a time when the budget is awash in red ink.

But that’s what a serious bill would do and this isn’t a serious bill. For Democrats, it’s a feel-good vote that lets them show their supporters that they feel their pain, without having to face the possibility of actually having to make a single-payer system work in California.

It’s no better on the GOP side of the aisle. Republicans will win political points with their conservative backers by attacking a single-payer plan and ignoring the millions of Californians who would like to see them come up with a health-care alternative.

When single-payer disappears from the political radar for another year, both Republicans and Democrats will be able to say that they fought the good fight.

The latest California Field poll displays the core liberal-lean among California’s registered voters, which Boxer will depend upon.  Sixty-five percent of registered voters disapprove of the “way Congress is doing its job,” 69% disapprove  of the “way Congress is handling health care,” but just shy of 50% say they’re inclined to vote for a Democrat for the House in 2010 versus 32% for a Republican (a similar proportion holds across age groups; only among those earning above $100k do Republican leaners top 40%).  A third less immigrants are inclined toward Republicans, immigrants comprising about 17% of California’s registered voters (Latinos – 27% of all Hispanic voters - lean Democrat by 50-24, and White Hispanics by 44-37).

Long story short, unseating Boxer will depend upon her, Sacramento and Washington Democrats continuing to piss off voters as much as they have up until now (ever flexible apologist for whatever latest version of ObamaCare Ezra Klein is depressed at its diminished emphasis by the Obama admin, meaning it will be deemphasized) and the California Republican candidates being as effective as Brown in Mass. in presenting themselves positively and be viewed as honestly in tune with popular discontent.  I remain skeptical of both, as we move into the stretch.

After all I’ve counseled, my 9-year old son insists on doing it his way in tomorrow’s 4^th grade elections to the student council.

His speech is about how he will tell the students what the council decides, rather than tell the council what the students want. Liberal.

And, he’s carrying in a bag of candy for the students, to get the students to elect him. Corrupt.

If he wins the election, will he bring home congrats letters from Pelosi and Obama?

Grrr!

I'll post the election results in the comments.

Meanwhile, this approach might have been better:

OK, OK, I've failed as a husband, too!

If my children take out student loans for college and decide to work in the private sector, President Obama makes them (as Mark Steyn says) “schlubs.”  A schlub is a blockhead, in the Yiddish vernacular.

President Obama wants to nationalize the $1-trillion college loan market, companion to his other nationalization pursuits as in healthcare.  Now, he plans to go further.  At taxpayer expense, he wants to cap the percentage of income that former students pay on their loans and increase forgiveness of student loans by lower-paid former students after 20-years instead of 25-years. But, if the former student works in the public sector for 10-years, the balance of the loan would be waived.

1. Very nice for former students who take virtually useless majors.

2. Even nicer for those who take government jobs, where average wages and benefits are now higher than in the private sector.

3. And, even nicer for Democrats’ union allies who are Democrats’ main financial supporters.

4. Also very nice for the heavily liberal college faculties and administrators who can continue to charge high tuitions and delay inevitable modernized instruction and conferencing without the posh, big fixed cost campuses.

5. Not so nice for taxpayers, as with this latest proposal, politicians find ways to pay off their constituencies whenever they get ahold of another money stream or power. The takeover of the student loan market, says the Congressional Budget Office, might save up to $47-billion over 10-years, especially the CBO says if defaults don't increase. The latest proposed, in effect, give-away "defaults" via lowered repayments and waivers of repayment, not yet scored by the CBO, will eat up much of or more than that to buy off Democrat backers and buy votes. Take a look at this map of which states have the highest average student debt.  Overlay which states are “blue” and you can see which states’ residents stand to get the most bailouts from their student loans.

As the New York Times reports, “Most U.S. Union Members Are Working for the Government, New Data Shows.”

According to the labor bureau, 7.2 percent of private-sector workers were union members last year, down from 7.6 percent the previous year. That, labor historians said, was the lowest percentage of private-sector workers in unions since 1900.

Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008.

And, government employment is the only major sector with job growth. “Notwithstanding the recession, government employment grew last year, inching up 16,000, to 22,516,000, according to the bureau.”

Rather than reflect on the growth of their union allies in government jobs, where most states and localities are cutting back basic services in order to pay their salaries and benefits, Obama’s Labor Secretary instead sees the answer in expanding the ease for unions to expand in the private sector via “card checks” that obviate the secret ballot and further increase their members in the public sector.

Meanwhile, those former students who take private sector jobs, who actually generate the taxes to support government workers, are second-class citizens, schlubs or blockheads, for not feeding at the federal teat and supplying the milk for those who do.