Obama and Venezuela;s Hugo Chavez. (Photo source: Huffington Post)

The LAT article, by former Dick Cheney adviser John Hannah, was entitled: “The U.S.: MIA in the Mideast.” It makes the case that despite Obama’s success in the war against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, overall his foreign policy of “retreat” has destabilized the region:

In private conversations I’ve had with Middle Eastern officials, the sense of unease and dread expressed are only more severe. Fairly or not, these leaders appear to have taken Obama’s measure and found him wanting. Their bill of indictment includes retreat from Iraq and, soon, Afghanistan; betrayal of longtime U.S. allies, especially Mubarak; indulgence of enemy regimes in Tehran and Damascus; overblown promises to end the Palestinian conflict; and a persistent failure to mount the type of credible military option that these leaders believe is necessary for addressing the region’s most urgent threat — Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The hardening conviction that the U.S. is disengaging from the Middle East should be cause for real concern.

Hannah also attacks “the administration’s lack of strategic vision, its instinct for retreat and its complicity in the unraveling of a benevolent imperium that has for decades underwritten the region’s security.” He notes that a perception of U.S. weakness is “one that left unchecked will breed uncertainty, instability and even war.”

The Washington Post article, by columnist Jackson Diehl, declares: “Obama’s foreign initiatives have failed.” Like Hannah, Diehl questions the conventional political wisdom, which sees foreign policy as a strong card for Obama to play in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death.

Diehl concludes that Obama’s major foreign policy initiatives–pushing Israelis to the negotiating table, disarming the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and engaging anti-American dictators–have all been failures:

Veterans of the Middle East “peace process” shook their heads in wonderment as what at first appeared to be a rookie error evolved into a two-year standoff between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu….

The New Start nuclear arms agreement with Russia merely ratifies warhead reductions already underway in Russia, while imposing a modest cut on the U.S. arsenal. More ambitious multilateral initiatives by Obama — to control nuclear materials, for example — have made little progress, despite an elaborate summit the president hosted in 2010….

Khamenei spurned the U.S. outreach. Relations with Putin warmed for a time but now have grown cold again. In Egypt and across the Middle East, the president’s popularity is lower today than when he gave the Cairo address.

That’s largely because, in pursuing “engagement,” Obama has mishandled the biggest international development of his presidency: the popular revolutions against autocracy.

Diehl ends by observing that despite presiding over an effective counter-terrorism effort against Al Qaeda, “his signature initiatives have flopped.”

Granted, these two articles appeared in the opinion pages of the LAT and the Post, respectively. The inclusion of these perspectives would have been more praiseworthy in the news section. Still, in an era when mainstream media outlets are reluctant even to publish opinions that run counter to the left’s narrative on foreign policy, these articles are refreshing–and on the mark.

Brandon Darby broke the story at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com that the protests “pose special dangers for women” because of the rapes and sexual assaults taking place. He notes several such incidents:

• A 14-year-old runaway was allegedly sexually assaulted at Occupy Dallas.
• A 19-year-old student activist was allegedly raped at Occupy Cleveland.
• A man was arrested on charges of indecent exposure to children at Occupy Seattle.
• A female reporter was threatened by activists at Occupy Oakland.

Also at BigGovernment, John Nolte wrote about the protesters’ “rap sheet,” which numbers 119 cases of sexual assault, violence, vandalism, anti-Semitism, extortion, perversion, and lawlessness. These are hardly law-abiding protesters, as the lawyers at the National Lawyers Guild and Center for Constitutional Rights maintain. These incidents are occurring because of the complete breakdown of law and order in the makeshift tent cities of the Occupy movement. Under political pressure, the local and even federal authorities have ceded the space to the protesters, effectively abdicating law enforcement’s role. As a result, when police finally do move into these places, as we saw in Oakland, they are met with violence from organizers of the protests. When the police defend themselves, they are accused of police brutality. This accusation was a prominent charge made in Thistlethwaite’s piece.

The protests are, in fact, illegal since there are no city or federal laws which allow tents, food preparation, and other such activities in the cities where they are taking place. Some of the demonstrations have no permits or expired permits. They have made it impossible for truly law-abiding citizens to enjoy these public and private parks. Everything fell into place when I found Ms. Thistlethwaite’s bio, disclosing that she works at the Center for American Progress, the group funded by billionaire currency speculator George Soros. This is the man who has exploited international financial markets around the globe to make himself rich but now insists that capitalism is a much greater threat to human progress than communism. Isn’t it interesting that at almost every turn, when we examine those making propaganda for the occupy movement, we find the hidden hand of convicted inside trader Soros?

“What we are struggling against in the U.S. is the deliberate creation, especially over the last thirty years, of an economic system that is squeezing out the middle and lower classes, the 99%, and creating a small group of mega-rich, the 1 percent,” she says in her Post column. Taking money from a mega-rich atheist like Soros apparently does not concern Ms. Thistlethwaite, who carries the titles “Dr.” and “Reverend” and is officially the “Senior Fellow in the Faith and Public Policy Initiative” at the Center for American Progress (CAP).

She has a new definition of violence, saying that “violence is the child who goes to bed hungry, and becomes more and more malnourished as child hunger is rising dramatically in our nation.” Perhaps she ought to convince Soros to give his billions to the poor, rather than left-wing progressive non-profit groups that pay their leaders big bucks. CAP itself has an annual income of $38 million. Interestingly, she cites a petition protesting police handling of the demonstrations. She writes, “Faith leaders are uniting to condemn violence by police in a petition from the group Faithful America.” It turns out that “Faithful America” is Faith in Public Life, another Soros-funded group. It got $450,000 from his Open Society Institute in 2009. One year later, it received an additional $25,000 “to expand work focusing on the Catholic community.” Thistlethwaite sits on the board. In this context, it is significant that Tom Chabolla, the Assistant to the President at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is also on the board of Faith in Public Life. He previously served as Associate Director of Programs for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).

Matthew Vadum’s excellent new book, Subversion Inc., has many pages on CCHD, calling it “Alinsky-inspired” and a major funder of ACORN until the revelations about its corruption prompted a cut-off. In the case of Ms. Thistlethwaite, who is the former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, we find another interesting connection. The Chicago Theological Seminary is affiliated with Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended for 20 years. “Since our beginning,” it says, “Chicago Theological Seminary pushes at the growing boundaries of the church in order to make our faith relevant and transform our society in the image of justice.” We all know what this means.

Back in 2008, Thistlethwaite wrote a column claiming that a member of Trinity United Church of Christ had told her that there were “spies” among them in the pews, “strangers who take notes during the service and try to record the message.” This paranoia reflected concern that Wright’s radicalism would taint Obama’s run for the presidency. It did, although Obama tried to distance himself from Wright with the help of the major media. What we find, when we further examine her background, is that the U.S. taxpayers have been giving her a platform. Her works include Interfaith Just Peacemaking: Alternatives to War, published by the federally-funded United States Institute of Peace. In other words, Thistlethwaite is now helping to shape U.S. foreign policy.

She is a strange kind of Christian indeed. In regard to the rise of Islamist political parties in Egypt and other countries in the Middle East, she has argued that this “is inevitable and not necessarily all negative.” In Egypt, this has led to the increasing persecution and even murder of Christians. In her Post column, sounding like Jeremiah Wright, she babbles on about “the institutionalized violence of income inequality” and suggests a solution in the form of a question “…will we exercise the power we have as the 99 percent and find another way?”

This open-ended commitment to something that sounds almost extra-legal is very disturbing, coming from someone claiming to be a religiously-motivated Christian. It is as if she is apologizing for the illegal demonstrations and wants them to continue and move into a new and more dangerous phase. “I believe all of those who are demonstrating around the country at the occupy encampments are getting us on the right track, and causing us to ask the right questions,” she says.

What can be said with certainty is that she ignored the real and actual violence taking place within the demonstrations and “occupations.” It is shameful that the Post would publish such a column in its “On Faith” section. To demonstrate her Christianity, Thistlethwaite should go to the protests and defend her sisters from rapes and sexual assaults. That would be a demonstration of social justice that actually protects people and saves lives.

Remember the Left’s incessant ”No Blood for Oil“ smear against President Bush for the ”illegitimate” wars in Iraq?  According to the Left, and rarely challenged by the Make-Believe Media, Bush’s war in the Middle east was only about getting oil.

But it’s now 2011, not 2003.  There’s a new sheriff in town.  Apparently, blood for oil is a good thing now.   The radical leftwing media source The Guardian only reports how Obama has ”chalked up Libya as another foreign policy success to place alongside the killing in May of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden” and, more ominously, that Gadhafi’s bloody assassination signals a “prescription” for actions against other Middle East countries including Syria.  Syrian President Assad may be wondering if he’s on the White House Secret Assassination List. No mention of blood-for-oil. No mention of illegal regime change.

Still, it’s one thing to strut around taking credit for killing a terrorist outlaw like Bin Ladin.  Miscreant though he was, Gadhafi was the undisputed leader of a sovereign nation.  Regime change, while sometimes necessary, should never be viewed flippantly.  Thus the odd lack of dignity when the Administration’s official response to Gadhafi’s death comes as a snarky gloat from the Secretary of State quipping “We came, we saw, he died.”   Spiking the ball is one thing.  Let’s just hope we don’t see Gadhafi’s head sitting on an iron spike in front of the White House anytime soon.

Left undecided is whether the Make-Believe Media puppet masters will direct the Occupy Wall Street miscreants, Code Pink, ANSWER etc. to wake up the old chant “NO BLOOD FOR OIL” and march en masse on the White House to protest President Obama’s war for Libya’s oil.

I’m not holding my breath.

On Monday former Israeli Member of Knesset Rabbi Hanan Porat passed away after an extended illness. In its obituary of this leader of the Religious Zionist movement had this gem of a line (my emphasis):

Mr. Porat was a child of the kibbutz Kfar Etzion, which is on land that was later won by Jordan during Israel’s 1948 war of independence. He re-established the community after the 1967 Middle East war, when the land was conquered by Israel.

Jordan won the area. Israel conquered it.

It seems the Old Grey Lady is once more taking sides.

Its really amazing how little the progressive mainstream media really understands. In yesterday’s NY Times, media reporter Jeremy Peters issued a warning to young journalists in a front page article “Covering 2012, Youths on the Bus” The warning?  There are partisan bloggers out there who are out to embarrass mainstream journalists. By partisan bloggers Peters means conservative bloggers, because to the NY Times a liberal bias is the definition of fair coverage.

CNN fired Octavia Nasr, its senior editor for Middle East affairs, after she composed a 19-word Twitter message expressing sadness after the death of a Hezbollah leader.

Some reporters have even found their personal e-mails leaked and used against them. David Weigel, now a columnist for Slate, was pressured into leaving his job at The Washington Post last year after he attacked conservatives in private messages that found their way to a right-leaning Web site, The Daily Caller.

JournoList was not about personal emails but correspondence with an on-line message board composed of major “Journalists”  and academics.  It was revealed was these people were colluding to skew the news to help the liberal point of view.  As for Weigel his job at WAPO was to be the “house conservative,” and report on conservative news in a “gossipy” kind of way.  His Journalist letters proved he had a true disdain for the people he was writing about and had  misrepresented himself to his editors and to his readers.

The NY Times warning was correct in this respect,  there are many conservative bloggers (myself included) who are looking over the shoulder of the mainstream press. It remains an easy task because those liberal media organizations believe that we are looking to embarrass them personally.  To be honest, we don’t care if they spend their days goofing off, smoking joints,  and/or sleeping with sheep. We are looking to see if their stories are truthful and fair. If they cover Michele Bachmann’s religious beliefs, they should cover Barak Obama and Jeremiah Wright. If they publish Rick Perry’s college transcripts, then dig up the president’s also. When they find that one crazy person who may show up at a tea party rally of thousands, then they should also cover all of the Nazi signs at the Wisconsin Union protests.

And Be truthful !  Just in the three examples the NY Times used in their message to young reporters, it misrepresented the truth. Keep in mind the basic warning of the article, we are there with you, not to trip you up but to be quality control agents for the public, a role the mainstream media discarded a long time ago.

To paraphrase Harry Truman, “We don’t embarrass them, we just point out the truth they are ignoring, and they find it embarrassing.”

The purpose of this column was to criticize Senator Joe Lieberman for joining Glenn Beck for his August rally in Jerusalem called “Restoring Courage.”

“I’d love to participate,” Lieberman confirmed when The Post’s Felicia Sonmez found him in a Capitol hallway. “It’s just going to be a rally to support Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

This nearly caused me to plotz [faint].

Notice how cleverly Milbank stuck a Yiddish word into his column to prove his Jewish “street cred?”

Joe Lieberman, first Jew on a presidential ticket, was embracing Beck, the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes in the mass media. One of the most visible Jews in America was making common cause with a man who invoked apocalyptic Christian theology in promoting his rally in Israel.

I admire Lieberman, and I’ve defended him over the years when he defied party and faction. But if he shares a stage with this creature, he will surrender the decency that has defined his public life. [my emphasis]

Its interesting that Milbank uses Yiddish to establish his Jewish “street cred”, but calls him the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes” If Milbank truly wants to prove his Jewishness, perhaps he should learn the concept of, “motzi shem ra“is the spreading of malicious lies,” which according to the Rabbis is a severe sin. With this comment, Milbank is showing he buys into the George Soros/ Media Matters strategy of trying to destroy Glenn Beck by branding him as an anti-Semite (the history of this strategy is outlined here).

For those of you who are not familiar with the Beck rally allow me to present this explanation.

Israel is in the most precarious position she has faced since the 1967 War. Palestinian terrorists are on three of its borders, Fatah in Judea and Samaria,  Hamas in Gaza,  Hezbollah in Lebanon. Adding to the threat is that the Syrian regime is  facing collapse, so it is tying to divert its people’s attention from hating it leaders to hating Israel, Egypt is becoming radicalized and most of the parties with potential to twin the next election and take over leadership of the country are promising to tear up the Camp David treaty. And Iran, close to developing the capability to send a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv continues to threaten to wipe the Jewish State off the map.

All this is happening in the background of a United States President, who’s policies are the most anti-Israel in the short 63-year history of the Jewish State. Let’s face it, Israel is more isolated today than she has ever been.

The purpose of Beck’s Restoring Courage rally in Jerusalem in August is to show the world that good people of all faiths from across the world are standing with Israel.

It is time for us to courageously stand with Israel.

“I invite you to join me in Israel this summer to stand together and show the world what living a life of faith and honor really means. I invite you to join me in my quest to Restore Courage,” Glenn said.

Honesty, it would be nice if American Jewish Organizations created such a rally, but unfortunately most Jewish leaders in this country are more concerned with protecting the President’s progressive agenda no matter what, than protecting Israel, which is not only the Jewish homeland, but the United State’s biggest ally in the Middle East. But neither religious heritage nor the best interests of the United States are as important to most of these Jewish leaders as is reelecting Barack Obama and maintaining political power. Beck is throwing his rally partially because American Jewish leadership does not have the guts to do it themselves.

Milbank on the other hand feels that Beck’s religion should eliminate him from leading such a rally:

It’s nice that Beck wants to defend Israel before the United Nations attempts in September to create a Palestinian state. But this support comes with an asterisk. Beck’s descriptions of his event as a gathering and a restoration echo his Mormon faith’s theology: there will be a “Gathering of Scattered Israel” in which Jews return to the Holy Land and are converted to Christianity as part of “the restoration of all things” and the Second Coming.

Hey Mr. Plotzing Shanda, did you know that Jewish theology is something very similar? In fact the tenth blessing of the Amidah prayer Jews recite every day is called, Kibbutz Galuyot ingathering of exiles :

“Sound the great shofar for our freedom and raise a banner to gather our exiles and unite us together from the four corners of the earth. Blessed are You, LORD, who regathers the scattered of His people Israel.”

The sounding of the Shofar part is all about the coming of the Messiah (Jews believe the Messiah has not come yet and when he does will be a regular man). With his comment about Beck’s religion is he saying that all Christians should not have freedom of religion in Israel or just Mormons?   Or maybe he believes Jewish practice should be banned  also, because he criticizes Beck for quoting a Jewish prophet.

Announcing his event on the radio last month, Beck invoked “the words of Ezekiel” – a prophet associated with end times theology – and said: “There are people who will say, ‘oh you are crazy, that’s not going to happen. People have been saying this is Ezekiel for 5,000 years, yadda yadda yadda.’ I have no idea if these are the Times. I just know that the old hatreds are starting up, and God will not hold us blameless. I choose to stand and be counted.”

….Beck assumed a Messianic role: “The peace that is promised comes from standing in the place where He asks us to stand. I believe I have been asked to stand in Jerusalem.” He predicted his gathering would send “a global shockwave. It will ripple across the earth.”

Mainstream Mormonism has de-emphasized this notion of a literal gathering of Jews in Israel, but megalomaniacal Beck sees value in it.

So Dana Milbank a Jew who based on his writing knows very little about Judaism, is now also an expert on the Mormon religion also (Note to Milbank: If you went to Broadway  to see  Book of Mormon, I hate to break this to you, but it is a work of fiction).

Beck is not Milbank’s only Israel related target.  Another frequent target of the progressive WAPO writer is Israeli Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu.  For example after Obama’s Middle East speech earlier this month, where he unilaterally called for negotiations to start with the 1948 armistice lines, Milbank criticized the President, not for abandoning an ally but because criticizing Israel will generate more support for Netanyahu.

… Obama bungled his Middle East speech. He unwittingly strengthened Israeli hawks such as Netanyahu and made the already remote prospect of peace that much more distant.

Milbank goes on to describe the reaction to Bibi’s speech to AIPAC and Congress by his Israeli au pair, Inna who he describes as a moderate who was suspicious of the uncompromising Netanyahu, the episode turned her into a supporter.

She’s aware that Netanyahu isn’t about to strike a peace deal. After she listened on Tuesday to Netanyahu’s list of requirements for a Palestinian state — a list one Palestinian official called a “declaration of war” — she knew it was a nonstarter. “I can’t imagine it on a map,” she said.

Its interesting that Milbank is upset that Inna has become a Bibi fan, he does not argue against the President’s plan, only Inna’s reaction. He talks about the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu’s speech but ignores the fact that the Palestinians (even President Abbas who is considered a “moderate”) refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish State and Obama refuses to push them toward that acceptance.

So what is a Shanda? Well, the fact that Senator Joe Liberman or any American Jew or not joins Glenn Beck in Jerusalem is not a shanda (if I could afford it, I would be there).  What is a shanda is the fact that the leadership of major American Jewish organizations are too cowardly to stand up to a progressive president and join the Beck rally).

What is also a shanda is a Washington Post columnist trying to establish his Jewish “street cred” by using Yiddish when he has no real idea about what Judaism is all about, uses progressive talking points to smear someone who is doing what those Jewish Leaders should be doing, protects the most anti-Israel President in history while falsely disparaging an Israeli Prime Minster.  The fact that Dana Milbank acts the part of balmalocha (Yiddish for expert) regarding Judaism, Mormonism, and Israel when he is only a partisan progressive schmednrik (Yiddish for stupid person) that is a shanda.

This specific article attacks young academics and entrepreneurs who have taken serious risks to better the livelihoods of those living abroad. It also attacks U.S. initiatives overseas. Most disturbing, the New York Times specifically stated that some of the information obtained came directly out of “classified diplomatic cables.” When will the New York Times madness stop?

Historically, this is nothing new for the New York Times. On the 24^th of May 2010, the New York Times had written another article titled U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast. Within the 2010 article, it stated that an expansion of clandestine activities were to occur in the Middle East.

“The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.”

It would have been nice if the New York Times revealed the military source where it obtained the May of 2010 information because if this were true, it is highly likely that the document is classified, it has been leaked, and an investigation needs to result charging individuals who released this information similarly to the Bradley Manning and Wikileaks affair.

Sunday’s article is even more alarming than the 2010 article. This most recent propaganda attack against the United States identifies non-government persons, institutions, and specific locations where they operate. The details of this article are exactly what Al Qaeda and any other adversary to the United States, including rogue regimes like Iran, needs for targeting endeavors. They can skip the intelligence process because the New York Times just did it for them.

While the New York Times claims that they did their homework to write this detailed article, they failed to do their homework in full. U.S. media have an obligation to protect their sources but they also have a moral obligation to protect the nation. It is obvious that the New York Times could not care about their sources nor does it care about this nation’s security. If they cared about these aspects of journalism, they would have done their homework to ensure no life would be endangered—yet they failed and many are in austere danger because of their wrongdoings.

No matter how much fact, misinformation, or absolute disinformation was written yesterday, people’s lives are now in danger. The New York Times just endangered the lives of many. Our enemies have specifically stated that they will avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Now, our enemies have a long list of persons, places, and infrastructural targets to choose from.

Bush was president right after Grover Cleveland, I believe.

You remember Bush, don’t you? The media hated the guy. They hated him because he started two wars. He started them because this guy named Saddam Hussein (who became nicer the more they hated Bush) picked a fight with Bush’s Daddy and it was basically that simple (oh, there was some oil mixed in there too, so you can pick either reason). There was also a Good War and a Bad War. Afghanistan was Good, Iraq was Bad.

Today the same people who hung on every word said by anti-war Cindy Sheehan during the Bush presidency can’t find Cindy anymore and there are only Good Wars.” We actually have three wars going on now and they are suddenly all good. One is kinetic, which means it just happened and nobody could help it or stop it. We certainly can’t blame anybody for it. Besides, nobody is really getting killed in this latest war (somewhere in Africa, I believe) because we don’t see them being killed on TV anymore. It’s tough to get video signals for those live shots out of Libya these days, and cameras don’t work well in the deserts of North Africa. There’s sand and all that stuff. You know what happened the first time you took a camera to the beach.

Since Bush left the White House more than a century ago, there is a new Commander in Chief. Barack Obama. Way back in 2005, this Obama guy was right there with the media hating everything Evil Bush was doing with the wars.  He said this on the Daily Show.

Iraq is sort of a situation where you’ve got a guy who drove the bus into the ditch. You obviously have to get the bus out of the ditch, and that’s not easy to do, although you probably should fire the driver.

This was before “The Beast” got stuck in Ireland, so he probably wasn’t talking about that.

I’ve heard that line about driving the car into the ditch somewhere before, so it must be one of his favorites, but in this case he talks about Bad Wars and says the driver should be fired. I think he’s talking about Bush here, but since Bush was president during the Dark Ages, I can’t be really sure. Besides, I believe we’ve won that war in Iraq, so it’s probably a good thing we stayed there and got the job done. You remember Iraq, don’t you? My memory is fading. I think it was called Mesopotamia back then and the Mongols, Turks, and Ottomans were involved. Not sure, don’t quote me on that. I’m just a little ol’ media guy and I know it was a long, long time ago.

Oh…there’s more here, I dug very, very, very deep (it took :07 seconds to google search: “Obama war quotes”) and I came up with this gem from Obama on Jan 3, 2007.

There is no military solution to the war in Iraq. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And all the troops in the world won’t be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future.

Maybe that quote was from a different Obama, Fred Obama from San Francisco. I’m going to have to check on that.

I’m not 100% sure what actually happened to help end that Evil Bush Iraq War for Oil and Revenge because it was so long ago, but I believe it was something called a “surge.” A surge of troops, or something like that. I wonder if the media heard about the surge? Probably not, because about that same time they were busy cheering over Evil Bush’s Vice President’s Assistant (somebody named Scooter) getting busted for a process crime in the case where a guy in an entirely different department (called “State,” I believe) leaked the name of a non-covert CIA agent. But that was all sooooo long ago. How could the media possibly remember all this? Besides, maybe that war was won because of a Kinetic Surge that just happened because motion just happens.

It’s also nice that the media has forgotten about that prison called Gitmo being closed. I remember them saying that Gitmo was creating terrorists. Putting people in prisons made otherwise nice people angry so we should close the prisons, was the argument.  Like if somebody steals your car, if they didn’t have prisons that person would not have gone bad and stolen your car. This makes perfect sense and Obama agreed with the media on this as well, or they agreed with him, it’s hard to know which came first because it was so long ago. Too bad the internet wasn’t created way back then, so the media can’t search for those quotes.

I saw a news show recently where the media called Obama a “Cowboy, like Cary Grant or Matt Dillon.” My memory is not very good, but I think that Bush guy and another guy called, Reagan, were also called Cowboys by the media back in the day, but they were Evil Cowboys, and now we must have a Good Cowboy (did you hear he shot bin Laden? Ask him nicely and he may show you the picture in his wallet) because they love him so, even when he starts wars and drops bombs from Predator drones on innocents. Nowadays somebody called NATO is to blame. A funny name for a warmonger, but since the recession closed the library near my house, I can’t walk there to check to see who NATO is. I worked with a weather guy name NATE once, but he would never start a war.

So, since there is no way to verify much of what has gone on here since reel-to-reel tape recorders weren’t invented while all this was happening, I just have to go by my gut instincts and figure that the media flip-flopped on the Evil Bush Wars Started Because Cheney Used to Run Halliburton when their Good Cowboy took over. I guess it is that simple.

It’s not. It hasn’t been for a while. For years, it has been slanting news stories against the right, against America and against Israel. It has done this subtly in many cases. However, when it comes to the Middle East, the organization no longer seems to care about even the appearance of impartiality.

Following Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to both houses of Congress, the “news” organization published a Fact-Check of the speech. When they say “fact check,” they really mean “blatant attack and distortion of facts as well as misrepresentation of what was said in the first place.”

The author of the hit piece, Josef Federman attempts to take cherry picked quotes and then refute them.

“NETANYAHU: “You don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.”

THE FACTS: “Israel is a leading recipient of American foreign aid, including more than $1 billion in military assistance each year.”

Clearly “THE FACTS” have absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s statement. With that, it should be kept in mind that the entirety of that military aid needs to be spent in the United States. That aid is actually a net loss to the Israeli economy. Israel still has no need for American troops.

“NETANYAHU: “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.”

THE FACTS: While the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, is promised to the Jewish people in the Bible, the international community considers the West Bank occupied territory. Israel captured the area in the 1967 Mideast war but has never annexed it. Its occupied status is underscored by the presence of tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers who protect Israeli settlements and control the movement of Palestinian residents in the name of security.”

The League of Nations voted at San Remo in 1920 to unanimously set aside the area then known as Palestine as the National Homeland for the Jews. Part of that land, to the East of the Jordan River, was later set aside to be given to the Hashemite family for their help to the British during World War I. The remaining land, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was, by international agreement, in its entirety intended for Jewish settlement. When the League of Nations was subsumed by the United Nations, all member states accepted as obligatory all binding resolutions including the Mandate for Palestine. The partition of Palestine by the UN was only binding with the acceptance of both sides and only one side was willing to accept it. The 1949 armistice agreement specifically precluded setting any permanent borders. Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967 and were used as  launching grounds for countless terror attacks as well as the ’67 war.

The fact that thousands of Israeli soldiers are there to protect the Jewish inhabitants says more about the Arab residents and has no bearing on the land’s status as occupied.

“NETANYAHU: “You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it.”

THE FACTS: Israel does give its Arab minority full civil rights, including participation in elections. But Israeli Arabs suffer from systematic discrimination in housing and the workplace. Also, more than 2 million Palestinians living in the West Bank do not have Israeli citizenship and therefore cannot vote in Israeli elections.”

Yes, that’s right. Arabs have full civil rights, they are members of the parliament, hold ministerial positions, high ranking officers in the army, supreme court judges, university professors, businessmen with full freedom of the press, religion, and assembly.

“NETANYAHU: “The vast majority of the 650,000 Israelis who live beyond the 1967 lines reside in neighborhoods and suburbs of Jerusalem and greater Tel Aviv.”

THE FACTS: Nearly all of these communities were built in the face of overwhelming international opposition and are considered illegal settlements by the world, including the U.S. There are 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem, making a total of 500,000.”

There is no real legal opposition to Israel building in Judea and Samaria. The land, by definition, is not “occupied” since they never legally belonged to anyone except Israel as defined by the San Remo conference of 1920.

“NETANYAHU: “The Palestinian economy is booming. It’s growing by more than 10 percent a year.”

THE FACTS: The West Bank economy is indeed growing rapidly. But the World Bank has noted that the growth comes after years of contraction during fighting with Israel and has been fueled by huge amounts of foreign aid. It warns the growth is unsustainable unless Israel does more to encourage the Palestinian private sector.”

There is one reason and one reason alone for the contraction of that economy during those years: the overwhelming belligerence of the Arab inhabitants of the area as well as endemic corruption. It was only following the Arafat years that the Arabs actually made an effort to build some economic infrastructure. I’m still not sure why Israel is responsible for encouraging the Palestinian private sector.

“NETANYAHU: “Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaida.”

THE FACTS: While Hamas and al-Qaida have killed hundreds of people in religious holy wars, they have no connection, and Hamas has in fact come under criticism from the global terror network for being too moderate. Al-Qaida preaches global jihad. Hamas says its struggle is solely against Israel, not the West at large. In its Gaza stronghold, Hamas has violently clashed with smaller armed groups that claim inspiration from al-Qaida.”

This guy is clearly an idiot. I know, that’s an ad hominem attack, but this attack is completely without merit. Netanyahu isn’t saying Hamas is the same as al-Qaida, he’s making a clear metaphor to which  the American audience can relate. Al-Qaida has stated that it wishes to topple America and build an Islamic state in its place. Hamas has stated it wishes to topple Israel and build an Islamic state in its place. That aside, Hamas has repeatedly voiced support for al-Qaida and its genocidal push for Global Jihad, both are off shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact that Hamas has clashed with smaller groups that claim inspiration from al-Qaida is nothing more than a local power struggle and has no ideological basis.

That the AP would put this nonsense out on their news wire is another nail in the coffin of journalism.

On Thursday, President Obama threw Israel under the bus with his declaration that negotiations should start with the premise of Israel returning to the 1967 borders. At the same time he unilaterally ripped up an agreement between Israel and the United States made during the last administration.

As expected supporters of the Jewish State were very upset and they cheered Israeli PM Netanyahu when he stood up for his country during a White House press op the next day.

But to the progressives this act of insubordination by Netanyahu was deplorable. The support of Bibi Netanyahu by some American Jews proved was a reason to bring out their anti-Semitic meme that Jews are not really Americans, they are frauds whose first loyalty is to Israel not to the United States. They also brought out their bigoted contention that the powerful Jewish lobby controls the government and the media.

George Soros funded M.J. Rosenberg, who regularly uses anti-Semitic buzz words claiming the Jews control the government and the media was quick to announce that the outrage displayed by friends of Israel was both bogus and a product of what anti-Semitics describe as their dual loyalty, although Rosenberg calls them “Israel-firsters.”

And suddenly all hell broke loose. But not immediately. Initially, the right-wing of the “pro-Israel” claque praised Obama for not saying anything that challenged Netanyahu but then Netanyahu said that he was outraged by the reference to the 1967 lines.

And then the robotic Israel-firsters switched their line as quickly as Red 1930’s folk singers changed their lyrics when Moscow complained of deviation. (Stop bashing Nazi Germany; we just signed a pact with it).

This is not to say that MJ is an anti-Semite or one of those “self-hating Jews,” he is a capitalist. He understands generally the progressive left is anti-Israel and the progressive media is a major source of income. Heck George Soros pays part on his salary. So in order to prove his loyalty to the progressive media he acts with venom toward Israel and stereotypes his own people. Rosenberg is just trying to show his progressive handlers that MJ stands for Malign Jews.

Our “friends” at the daily Kos said that the anger regarding Obama’s words was based on the fact that he was the first President to stand up to that powerful and nefarious “Jewish Lobby.”

They don’t trust Obama because he is more objective than past US Presidents, and he is less afraid of the Jewish lobby. Republicans are salivating because they see Obama is in trouble with the Jewish lobby. Mr. Romnney accuses Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus,” and Glen [sic] Beck is planning a rally in Israel.

Some notes to the Kossaks, the Beck rally was announced before the President’s speech, Beck spells his first name with two “n”s, Romney spells his last with one and the only Jewish lobby I know of that exists outside of the minds of anti-Semites is in my shul, and quite honestly it needs a paint job.

[...]

Here is what Nathan J. Diament is director of public policy at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America advises Mr. Obama in Politico.

Israelis and their U.S. supporters want to believe the president is in their corner — the U.S. is the most important, and often only, ally Israel has in a hostile world. We do not want the president to be dispassionate and “even-handed.” Only then will Israelis be ready to take risks for peace.

So Obama must not only say he is in Israel’s corner; he must find a way to make Israelis and their American supporters feel he is in Israel’s corner.

I wonder where his loyalty lies

…The bottom line is, as long as there is a powerful Israeli lobby, there are Fox News and Neocons, there are unprincipled Republicans, and there are fundamentalist Christians, America will ignore what is in its best interest and continue to support Israel.

A commentator for the Newark Star Ledger Dr. Aref Assaf said:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the one issue foreign lobby that has and for decades distorted America’s foreign policy. Our president must know that pro-Israel lobbies, headed by AIPAC, exist for the sole purpose of diverting precious American military, financial and political support to Israel and to maintain a status quo contrary to American policies and ideals. The cost of such support has even cost American lives and earned us the enmity of the Arab and Muslim world.

Gee whiz those Jews are good!

Now before I go on, some of you Media Matters types are thinking “sure criticize Israel and you are called an anti-Semite.” So let me be perfectly clear, criticizing Israel does not make one an anti-Semite. Questioning the Jewish people’s loyalty to America or conjuring up a nefarious Jewish lobby that controls the world does make someone an anti-Semite.

A review of the progressive media would show that this may be this is the biggest outbreak of the “dual-loyalty” and “powerful Jewish lobby” slanders since 9/11 when  things got so bad it infiltrated sports programming. For example in the days after 9/11 sports jocks Mike Francesa and Chris Mad Dog Russo were suggested that American Jews take a loyalty oath,  and were protected by their station management.

There is no central leadership of Jews that set policy, believe me, because if there was anti-Semites such as Al Sharpton, Michael Scheuer, and Pat Buchanan would have stopped appearing in the mainstream media a very long time ago,  along with purveyors of Jew-hatred such as MJ Rosenberg and his boss Mr. Spooky dude.

It is very strange that while the progressives question the loyalty of Jews when they support the an Israeli Prime Minister questioning the policy of an American President, when they supported Mexican President Felipe Calderon stood before a joint session of Congress and ripped Arizona for its controversial immigration law. There were no accusations of dual-loyalty toward the Mexican-Americans who supported Calderon’s “rudeness.”

I wonder how these same progressives acted 27 years ago when Archbishop Desmond Tutu “thoroughly trashed” President Reagan’s South African policy, during a similar “photo-op” as the Obama/Netanyahu one.

The fact is that Israel and American Jews are held out differently by the progressives in America,  they are their happy little targets who are allowed to give them financial and electoral  support every election year,  only to get in return a “Kick Me” sticker on our backs.

Its time my liberal friends in American Jewry wake up and smell the gefilte fish!  The progressive movement is a major source of Antisemitism in this country.  The Huffington Post and Daily Kos are two of the most anti-Semitic website on the web, and the progressive media watch-dog Media Matters features the anti-Jewish ranting of MJ Rosenberg.

The Progressive Obama administration continues to take advice from people within the administration like Samantha Power who rails against the “Israel Lobby” controlling the government and people outside the administration such as Robert Malley who has made the same charge. It’s time for American Jews to stop voting for people who hate them.

During the George H.W. Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker was asked about the Jewish vote, he exclaimed “F**K the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.”  Today the progressives believe “F**K the Jews, they will vote for us whatever we do.”  It’s time for Jewish voters to prove those claims wrong and vote the progressives out of office.