Testing Your Mettle Quiz

"A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." — Benjamin Franklin

In days past I always made trivia quiz for our family Christmas parties. With that in mind I thought I might take a shot at putting forth a quiz based on current political and social events.

In constructing this examination, I tried to be fair, but firm. Don’t fret if you fare poorly. Remember: There are no stupid answers, only stupid people — and they are at MSNBC, waiting for Dennis Kucinich to tell them where the aliens are going to land.

Question 1:

Dominique Strauss-Kahn is:

1. The maître d’ at Oprah Winfrey’s favorite restaurant.
2. A minor character from the film “The Boys from Brazil.”
3. The disgraced ex-head of the International Monetary Fund.
4. Trying to figure out if that crossbeam in his cell can hold his weight.

Question 2:

The IMF:

1. Secretly controls the universe from its headquarters.
2. Is the real-life basis for the DC Comics’™ Legion of Doom.
3. An enormously influential — albeit shadowy — intergovernmental economic group.
4. A national chain of greasy-spoon pancake joints.

Question 3:

President Barack Obama recently sold out Israel in order to:

1. Demonstrate his commitment to continuing the peace process.
2. Drive down real estate prices close to the beaches in Haifa.
3. A result of his comprehensive ignorance of Middle Eastern politics.
4. Get a discount at the DuPont Circle falafel cart.

Question 4:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s intransigence in dealing with Obama is:

1. Uncalled for. Obama is the WORLD’S President! Why can’t Netanyahu see that?
2. Likely to knock him off George Soros’ Yom Kippur card list.
3. A bold, statesmanlike stand by the strong leader of an embattled country.
4. Going to give Jimmy Carter a coronary if he keeps it up.

Question 5:

Pakistan appears to be edging closer to China’s sphere of influence because:

1. Pakistan leaders figure Islamofascism and communism are no less compatible than Islamofascism and freedom.
2. The ChiComs ask fewer questions about trafficking in human slavery.
3. Pakistan is as loyal to its allies as teenage girls are to fashion trends.
4. Pakistan is taking lessons in “how to roll over dissidents with tanks and still host the Olympics.”

Question 6:

Harold Camping’s prediction of the End of Days didn’t turn out because:

1. He skipped a couple of important pages in Apocalyptic Cults for Dummies.
2. God was out enjoying the beautiful spring weather.
3. Please tell me you didn’t need help with this one.
4. The world actually DID end Saturday afternoon; it’s just that purgatory isn’t as bad as we had been led to believe.

Question 7:

Herman Cain’s decision to run for President:

1. Is really a cynical effort to boost his radio talk-show ratings.
2. Is really a cynical effort to widen the market for lousy pizza.
3. Will make a somewhat-moribund race for the GOP nomination much more interesting.
4. Will give liberals another target for their racism besides Clarence Thomas.

Question 8:

Tim Pawlenty’s decision to run for President:

1. Was greeted with all the fanfare of double-coupon day at the Stop & Shop.
2. Gives Mitt Romney a challenger in the “Most Stereotypical White-boy Republican” competition.
3. Gives moderate agricultural-state denizens someone to consider besides Obama.
4. Will redeem Minnesota’s Presidential politics image after that whole Mondale ’84 disaster.

Question 9:

Jon Huntsman is:

1. The tennis pro at the Salt Lake City Country Club.
2. The real-life model for the “Politician Ken” doll; coming soon from Mattel™!
3. Still a better choice in 2012 than Obama, for whatever that’s worth.
4. Keeping that “Just for Men™” endorsement deal in his back pocket as an insurance policy.

Question 10:

Obama’s reelection message is “We need more time” because:

1. He spent too much of his first term kicking it with the New Black Panther Party.
2. It looks better on a bumper sticker than: “Mr. Soros says he has enough cash left over from the Media Matters for America ‘Hatefest 2011.’”
3. Four years isn’t enough to utterly foul up both foreign AND domestic policy.
4. Michelle Obama wants taxpayers to foot the bill for a few more 5-star vacations.

Question 11:

Donald Trump abandoned his Presidential aspirations because he:

1. Couldn’t face four years of competing with his hair for attention.
2. Couldn’t face four years of competing with other world leaders for attention.
3. Couldn’t face four years of guys like me making lame comb-over jokes.
4. Couldn’t convince NeNe Leakes to join his cabinet as Secretary of Temper Tantrums.

Question 12:

Cynthia McKinney recently appeared on Libyan state TV in order to:

1. Boost her chances to win the Miss Islamofascism pageant.
2. Debut her new single: “Let your hate flow.”
3. Remind people that she’s so much more than just the “crazy broad that even Hank Johnson’s congressional district thought was too embarrassing.”
4. Give Green Party members something to do besides reread their dog-eared copies of Unsafe at Any Speed.

Question 13:

The floods wreaking havoc in the Midwest are caused by:

1. Global warming (aka global cooling, aka global climate change, aka An Inconvenient Slide Show).
2. Al Gore and the staff at Current TV.
3. The same meteorological and geological cycles which have existed for billions of years.
4. An evil conspiracy of Piltdown Man enthusiasts, space aliens and the International Society of Phrenologists.

Question 14:

Obama’s trip to Ireland was:

1. A journey of self-discovery for a man in search of his roots.
2. A result of the fact that “First Black President” doesn’t mean you can cut in the beer line on St. Patrick’s Day.
3. A nicely staged photo-op designed to convince American voters that a small Irish village should play a big role in selecting the leader of the free world.
4. An expensive (for the taxpayers) way to make Obama look like he drinks beer instead of white wine spritzers.

Question 15:

America’s still-declining image in the Arab World is the fault of:

1. George Bush.
2. Dick Cheney.
3. Obama’s ham-fisted, spineless foreign policy and the lack of respect it engenders.
4. America’s stubborn insistence on allowing women to drive, vote and leave the yurt without being stoned to death in an honor killing.

Time’s up. Pass your papers forward so that I may collect them, grade them and then use them for heating fuel this winter when utility rates are higher than Michelle Obama’s wardrobe budget. If you fared poorly, fret not. The good folk of Detroit are still trying to remember how to spell their names at the top of their tests.

Never let it be said that I am not hip enough to know what the kids are into these days. But don’t forget: Your final exam is set for November 2012. Study hard.

Source of questions: Personal Liberty Digest. Did you think I was clever enough to think of all of these questions myself? I just thought I would have some fun by passing the questions on. Some of the multiple choice selections are good for a laugh during this crazy political season.

It’s Always up to the Judges

"I bet after seeing us, George Washington would sue us for calling him 'father.'" — American humorist Will Rogers (1879-1935)

Fox News reports that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi strikes down Wisconsin collective bargaining Law:

“Wisconsin's law taking away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most public workers was struck down Thursday by a circuit court judge but the ruling will not be the final say in the union fight that brought tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol earlier this year.

The state Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for June 6 to decide whether it will take the case and Republicans who control the Legislature could also pass the law a second time to avoid the open meeting violations that led to the judge's voiding the law Thursday.

Gov. Scott Walker pushed for the law as a way to help balance the state budget. His spokesman had not seen the ruling and had no immediate comment. Spokesmen for Republican leaders in the Legislature also did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Walker and Republican leaders have said they would pass the law again as part of the state budget next month if necessary.

A spokesman for Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office defended the state, did not return a call. Ismael Ozanne Whil, the Dane County district attorney who argued for striking down the law, also did not immediately return a message.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law during the run-up to the bill's passage in March. She said that renders the law void. She had previously put the law on hold temporarily while she considered the case.

Sumi said violating the open meetings law betrays the public's trust.

"The court must consider the potential damage to public trust and confidence in government if the Legislature is not held to the same rules of transparency that it has created for other governmental bodies," she wrote in a 33-page decision. "Our form of government depends on citizens' trust and confidence in the process by which our elected officials make laws, at all levels of government."

The law called for public workers at all levels, from janitors at the state Capitol to local librarians, to contribute more to their pension and health care costs, resulting in savings to the state of $300 million through mid-2103. The law also strips them of their right to collectively bargain any work conditions except wages. Police and firefighters are exempt.”

In another, but unrelated case the United States Supreme Court has upheld Arizona’s law penalizing employers over illegal immigrant workers in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The Associated Press reports:

“The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.

Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.”

While these cases are distinctly different they have one thing in common — the will of the people through their elected representatives be challenged by the left. In the Wisconsin case it’s about the unions finding a sympathetic county judge who will over rule the will of the legislature and the governor. After rioting in Madison and a boycott by the Democrat members of the Wisconsin State Senate legislation was passed to curtail the bargaining capabilities of the public service and teachers unions.

The legislation was eventually passed by the elected Republican majority. It did not take long for the losing Democrats find a sympathetic and Democrat county judge and file suit against the new law. The judge reached into her bag of tricks and found a reason to overturn the law. No doubt this will go to the Wisconsin Supreme Court where the law will be upheld by the conservative majority and the Democrats will no doubt look to he federal court for relief. This is what the Democrats do. When they lose at the ballot they turn to the courts.

The Arizona case is different, but similar in the challenge. This is a law that gives the state of Arizona the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized (illegal immigrant) workers. In this case the Court said:

“The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various business and civil rights organizations (collectively Chamber) filed this federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administering the Arizona law, arguing that the state law’s license suspension and revocation provisions were both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. The District Court found that the plain language of IRCA’s preemption clause did not invalidate the Arizona law because the law did no more than impose licensing conditions on businesses operating within the State. Nor was the state law preempted with respect to E-Verify, the court concluded, because although Congress had made the program voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent States from mandating participation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.”

The Court stuck to the Tenth Amendment in its decision:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

These two cases are indicative of how the courts and judges have usurped the will of the people and their elected representatives. They interpret the Constitutions of the federal and state governments based on their political agendas. The latest example was the Senate’s defeat of the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals —than God.

Liu is one of the new brand of “constitutional scholars” who believe the Constitution must adapt to changes in the world — just like Obama. Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That's prompting opponents to argue that Liu is "too far outside the mainstream" to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

"He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day," said the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they're doing."

Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called "Keeping Faith with the Constitution," in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.

"Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

That theme — that the Constitution's text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world — repeats throughout the book and raises eyebrows among conservatives.

The ACS is an extreme left-wing group that believes we should literally tear up the Constitution — a document that has severed this nation well for over two hundred years — and become an oligarchy of judges, not representatives of the people. They believe they know better than the people and the Founders. Mr. Liu and his cohorts at ACS have repeatedly shown a lack of respect for the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land:

Mr. Liu holds a radical view of constitutional rights. For example, in his 2008 Stanford Law Review article he supports a judicial role in establishing constitutional welfare rights--i.e., "affirmative rights," to education, shelter, subsistence, health care and the like, or to the money these things cost. This is the view of rights President Obama raised that caused a stir, and which Judge Sotomayor rejected when asked if she took such a view during her confirmation hearing.

In a 2006 article entitled "Education, Equality, and National Citizenship", Liu suggests that the Constitution "assigns equal constitutional status to negative rights against government oppression and positive rights to government assistance on the ground that both are essential to liberty."

Mr. Liu has stated: "it becomes pretty clear why 'originalism' or 'strict construction' don't make a lot of sense. The Framers deliberately chose broad words so they would be adaptable over time."

Mr. Liu recklessly attacked the nominations of Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In the case of Roberts, he wrote, in an op-ed, that "[h]is legal career is studded with activities unfriendly to civil rights, abortion rights, and the environment." These unfounded charges were dismissed by judicial experts on both sides of the aisle and Roberts was confirmed with bi-partisan support.

Mr. Liu actually testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of Alito. Liu testified that then-Judge Alito was "at the margin, not the mainstream," and that the America envisioned by his record on the bench "is not the America we know. Nor is it the America we aspire to be." Alito was also confirmed with bi-partisan support.

In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, Mr. Liu wrote that judges should engage in "socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society" and to "determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine." According to a Washington Times editorial: "Mr. Liu's goal was to create a judicially enforceable, constitutional right to welfare."

It has been noted that Mr. Liu doesn't meet the standards for federal judges outlined by the American Bar Association. These standards include "at least 12 years' experience in the practice of law" and "substantial courtroom and trial experience." Mr. Liu, who is only 39 years old, hasn't even been out of law school for 12 years and has no experience as a trial lawyer.

42 of California's 58 county district attorneys opposed Liu's nomination in a March 2010 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying they believe Liu is hostile to the death penalty.

Mr. Liu implies racial quotas should continue indefinitely and in remarks before the American Constitution Society in August of 2003 advocates reviving "the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action."

Mr. Liu offered an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in which he and others argued that the state's ban on same-sex marriage (approved twice by the voters of California) was unconstitutional.

According to a trustworthy source, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel initially vetoed Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu’s candidacy for the Ninth Circuit on the ground that Liu’s left-wing record made him too controversial. But new White House counsel Robert Bauer, eager to please the Left, successfully pushed back.

Judges and potential judges like Goodwin Liu are anathema to our Constitution and the principles and values of our founding fathers. This is just another reason we must return the Congress and Presidency to Republican control. We don’t need judges like Goodwin Liu or anyone connected with the ACS or ACLU.

Morris sees Romney as the Front Runner

"It is one of the maladies of our age to profess a frenzied allegiance to truth in unimportant matters, and to refuse consistently to face her where graver issues are at stake." — British writer Norman Douglas (1868-1952)

The following is an analysis I received in an e-mail from Dick Morris regarding the ranking of candidates for the GOP presidential nomination:

“On arriving at the Democratic Convention of 1960, reporters asked Adlai Stevenson who would emerge as the nominee. "The last survivor," he answered. Perhaps the 2012 Republican nomination will be determined by the same criterion.

With the departures of John Thune, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Donald Trump and, now, Mitch Daniels, we have constantly to revise or scenarios of the likely outcome.

As always, the geographic mix of primaries is overshadowed by the ideological aspects of the contest. On the center court, Mitt Romney stands to win the moderate-Republican quarterfinal now that Trump, Daniels and Thune have dropped out. Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman are his only rivals. Huntsman, hobbled by his service in the Obama administration, is unlikely to make much progress while Romney is running, but Pawlenty might be more viable. The former Minnesota governor enjoys important advantages in next-door Iowa. If he can finish above Romney there, he could be a viable opponent down the track. To knock Pawlenty out of the race, Romney needs to beat him in Iowa.

Meanwhile, in the conservative quarterfinal, Michele Bachmann is the odds-on favorite now that Huckabee has gotten out of the way. An Iowa native, she seems ideally poised to win the first caucus. Her main rivals will be Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. Newt has to finish above Bachmann. Will enough conservative women flock to Michele to overcome Gingrich's advantage among the right-wing faithful? A lot depends on whether she can contain the grassfire of enthusiasm spreading for the Tea Party favorite, Cain. Now that enough insiders have dropped out, there might be running room for the charismatic former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. But Bachmann's role as the leader of the Tea Party Caucus in the House gives her a big advantage. From that perch, she can protest Boehner's deals with Obama and demand a militancy as popular on the hustings as it is anathema in the House Speaker's Office.

The most likely outcome in Iowa would be: Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Cain, and Huntsman.

Then attention will turn, of course, to New Hampshire, where Romney has a big lead whose solidity is questionable. Having failed to win there in 2008 facing McCain, can he prevail now that he has been out of office as Massachusetts governor for six years? Romney needs to win or he will be badly hurt. And, following a likely Bachmann win in Iowa, Gingrich must finish at least second to remain in contention.

The most likely result is that Bachmann and Romney head into South Carolina with major momentum. There, next door to Georgia, Newt will make his last stand. Failing an upset, the Mitt and Michele show will take to the road.

A battle of Romney vs. Bachmann would be less a struggle between the center and the right of the Republican Party than of its top against its bottom. The party establishment, its donors, its business allies and its elected officials would rally to Romney while the Tea Party and evangelical voters will back Bachmann. (In the Democratic Party, it's always wise to bet on the bottom, but in the Republican Party, the top usually prevails.)

(If Chris Christie enters the race, all bets are off. He could win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and everyplace else. But this particular dragon seems too reluctant to run.)

Working for Romney is a sense of legitimacy. The Republican Party is essentially monarchic, always looking for a duly anointed heir. With Bush leaving office intestate, Romney's good run in 2008 and his loyalty to the GOP since create a sense that it is his turn. On the other hand, his RomneyCare legislation in Massachusetts will offer the Tea Party ranks of Michele Bachmann a huge target in primary after primary. Has the Republican Party become enough like the Democratic — dominated by an energized grass roots — that an upset is possible? We'll see.”

Dick Morris pretty much says what I said in my post yesterday about Romney. In the latest Fox News poll Romney now leads the pact of GOP potentials with 30% while the rest of the pack lingers in single digits — and he hasn’t even announced his candidacy yet. While I would love to see someone more openly conservative than Romney at the head of the GOP ticket I am a realist and believe the will be nominee.

A survey completed on May 23rd shows Mitt Romney seizing a decisive national lead in the Republican Presidential Primary. Romney, who was getting only 22% of the vote before Trump and Huckabee pulled out, now swells to 30% of the primary vote (if Sarah Palin does not run). The survey also found that former House Speaker Newt Gringirch was neither helped nor hurt by his rocky announcement of his candidacy and has come through the firestorm triggered by his gift giving to his wife and his criticism of Paul Ryan's Medicare cuts unscathed. The survey also shows real momentum for the bottom of the GOP field, notably for former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. With Palin out of the race, the Morris Poll found the following results:

Romney = 30%

Gingrich = 15%

Bachmann = 7%

Cain = 7%

Pawlenty = 5%

Santorum = 3%

Huntsman = 1%

With Palin in the contest, Romney still leads with 25% of the vote, followed by Palin at 16% and Gingrich at 11%. No other candidate gets more than 6%.

Essentially, this poll shows the GOP field taking shape. Romney is far out in the lead and Gingrich is fending off challenges from Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty, and Santorum for the right to be his chief opponent.

The rise of Cain is particularly notable. Coming off a strong debate performance in the second tier GOP debate in May (neither Romney, Gingrich or Palin attended), the charismatic African-American is building up momentum and winning the votes of many of the Tea Party activists. Particularly if Palin does not run, Bachmann, who has yet to announce, also has great potential to overtake Gingrich for second place.

It would be the utmost folly to play into the hands of the Democrats as Republicans did in 2008 and allow the split between conservative and moderate Republicans allow Obama to be elected again. It will be disastrous for the country.

I hear a lot about voting for principles, especially from the conservative radio talkers, and while I agree that this may hold in local House elections it does not hold in national elections. Look what happened to McCain when the conservatives abandoned him — we got Obama.

The Democrats will remain united behind Obama — that is what they do. According to a Gallup Poll taken in August 2009 self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate. Even though conservatives out number liberals by almost two to one it’s the 35% who claim to be moderate that determine elections. It was many of those “moderates” who voted for hope and change in 2008, but switched to the conservatives in 2010 when the House went to the GOP. The big determinant was ObamaCare.

Even in the Democrat victory in the special House election in New York’s 26^th District. In losing to liberal Democrat Kathy Hochul by a margin of about 47% to 43%, State Assemblywoman Corwin lost the Buffalo-area district that had been firmly in Republican hands since the late Jack Kemp won his first term in Congress there back in 1970.

But in so doing, the GOP got a good and alarming look at what to expect in 2012. Inarguably, the spirited Democratic effort to link Corwin to the GOP budget plan crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan helped make a cliff-hanger out of a race that should have been a “slam dunk” for the GOP.

In speeches and debates, Erie County Clerk Hochul almost always brought up her opposition to the Ryan plan, which Corwin endorsed early on. Hochul’s television salvos slammed Corwin for supporting a plan which, the Democrat charged, “would essentially end Medicare.”

Corwin, who also carried the ballot lines of the Conservative and Independence Parties, hit back at Hochul, but, critics said, she was responding too late. She emphasized her support for Medicare for those 55 and over (for whom which the Ryan plan leaves the current Medicare structure intact) and her opposition to ObamaCare (A Siena University poll a week before the voting that showed Hochul leading Corwin by a margin of 42% to 38% also showed voters district-wide opposing ObamaCare by a margin of 50% to 12%).

The GOP cannot focus on the entitlements of Medicare and Social Security in 2012. They need to keep the pressure on ObamaCare and other budget busters such a Medicaid and food stamps. ObamaCare, Jobs, the economy, debt, deficit and foreign policy should be the issues to attack Obama with. Libya and Afghanistan will still be viable issues to attack the Democrats on. These will keep the moderates and seniors in the fold.

Once there is a Republican president along with a Republican House and Senate the entitlements of Social Security and Medicare can be tackled in a rational debate. But, they have to get elected first.

Conservatives will have to back Romney

“The Democrats are more radically liberal and irresponsible than they have been at any time since 1933. The damage they will do to every aspect of federal action over the next two, four or six years will be substantial—perhaps grave. For me, defeating that danger is the highest priority. After the election, beating up backsliding Republicans will be a task I will return to with relish.” — Tony Blankley

We are still eight months from the Iowa caucuses and seventeen months from the next general election. The media is playing the “what if game” with possible and potential candidates for the Republican Party’s next presidential candidate. This is what the media and political junkies do. It’s their way of earning a living.

Before we continue let’s take a look at pervious years and see the candidates that were running for the GOP nomination. If you are old enough to remember some of these candidates you might get a chuckle or two out of the list. The eventual nominees are shown in bold type. [Source: Eric Erickson of Red States]

In 1964 we had:

Hiram Fong of Hawaii

Barry Goldwater of Arizona

Walter Henry Judd of Maryland

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts

Nelson Rockefeller of New York

George Romney of Michigan

William Scranton of Pennsylvania

Margaret Chase Smith of Maine

Harold Stassen of Minnesota

In 1968 we had:

Frank Carlson of Kansas

Clifford Case of New Jersey

John Lindsay of New York

Richard Nixon, then of New York

Ronald Reagan of California

Jim Rhodes of Ohio

George Romney of Michigan

Nelson Rockefeller of New York

Winthrop Rockefeller of Arkansas

Harold Stassen of Minnesota

John Volpe of Massachusetts

In 1980 we had:

John Anderson of Illinois

Howard Baker of Tennessee

George H. W. Bush of Texas

John Connally of Texas

Phil Crane of Illinois

Bob Dole of Kansas

Larry Pressler of South Dakota

Ronald Reagan of California

Harold Stassen of Pennsylvania

Lowell Weicker of Connecticut

In 1988 we had:

George H. W. Bush of Texas

Bob Dole of Kansas

Pierre S. du Pont, IV of Delaware

Alexander Haig of Pennsylvania

Jack Kemp of New York

Paul Laxalt of Nevada

Harold Stassen of Minnesota

Pat Robertson of Virginia

In 1996 we had:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee

Pat Buchanan of Virginia

Bob Dole of Kansas

Robert K. Dornan of California

Steve Forbes of New York

Phil Gramm of Texas

Alan Keyes of Maryland

Richard Lugar of Indiana

Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

Morry Taylor of Ohio

Pete Wilson of California

In 2000, we had:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee

Gary Bauer of Kentucky

Pat Buchanan of Virginia

George W. Bush of Texas

Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina

Steve Forbes of New York

Orrin Hatch of Utah

John Kasich of Ohio

Alan Keyes of Maryland

John McCain of Arizona

Dan Qualye of Indiana

Bob Smith of New Hampshire

In 2008, we had:

Sam Brownback of Kansas

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas

Jim Gilmore of Virginia

Rudy Giuliani of New York

Duncan Hunter of California

Alan Keyes of Maryland

John McCain of Arizona

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts

Ron Paul of Texas

Tom Tancredo of Colorado

Fred Thompson of Tennessee

Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin

This year so far we have:

Michele Bachmann of Minnesota

Herman Cain of Georgia

Newt Gingrich of Georgia

Jon Huntsman of Utah

Gary Johnson of New Mexico

Ron Paul of Texas

Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts

Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania

Some of them dropped out before the primaries, some after, and some garnered votes at the convention without doing much. But looking at the field, 2012 doesn’t seem more or less weak than most of the others.

Right now the front runner in all of the polls, even though he has not officially announced his candidacy is Mitt Romney. The candidate that seems to be drawing most of the attention from the media and a favorite of the Tea Parties is Herman Cain. No doubt the smartest of all the candidates is Newt Gingrich, but the ex-Speaker of the House has done irreparable damage to his candidacy in the past week with his remarks on Meet the Press two Sundays ago regarding Paul Ryan and his plans to reform Medicare.

All of the other candidates are ranging in the 8%-10% range in the polls with 87% of potential GOP voters saying they do not know who they will vote for.

As a conservative I like Herman Cane and I wish him well. I like his style and I like what he has to say, but I also know it is doubtful he can raise the money it will take to beat Obama in the general election — and the smart GOP donors know this.

Last week Romney spent one day in Las Vegas at a fund raiser and he walked away with over $10 million in donations. This is what will be needed to take on Obama in the 2012 general election. Obama plans to raise $1 billion dollars. And he probably will.

Romney is a business man and a former governor. He was tested in 2008 and most of his skeletons are out of the closet. The only real issue he has is his signing the Romney Care bill in Massachusetts. He can deal with his in a simple manner by stating he will sign, if passed, the repeal of ObamaCare the big issue with the Tea Party.

Romney is a slick, good looking candidate who no doubt will be able to handle Obama in debates, especially on the economy and job creation. As a former Republican governor blue state he will be able to play on that experience and claim he was able to get partisan side to work with each other.

I realize many of my conservative friends do not much care for Romney — neither do I, but I believe the stakes are too high to play long ball in 2012. If the GOP, with the support of the Tea Parties, take back the Senate and elect a Republican president in 2012 we will move the ball well down the field. The pressure from a conservative House and Senate will drive the legislation and all we really need from the president is his pen. This is why we need Obama out and a Republican in.

I am not the biggest fan of Romney, but when I look over the field of GOP candidates I do not see any of them rising to the top except Romney. I know the Tea Party folks will not be happy with this, but I remind them that before you can do anything you need to get elected. I Republican controlled House and Senate with a Republican in the oval office is the goal for 2012. Romney is smart enough to know, if elected he has he conservatives to answer to.

We have another year to watch the field thin out and someone rise to the top. I just hope it is someone that can capture the votes of the independents and not a lack luster John McCain. If it is true that America is a center-right nation than we need a center right candidate in 2012. We need a candidate that can generate some passion in the voters — especially the Tea Party voters.

I could be wrong, but this is the way I see the 2012 election shaping up today.

Obama Drinks Guinness while Benjamin Netanyahu Addresses Congress

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East!” — Benjamin Netanyahu, May 24, 2011, before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

While President Obama gave it the old college try while visiting a pub in Moneygall, Ireland by drinking Guinness and getting his monstrous black limousine stuck on a a steep driveway Benjamin Netanyahu was getting ready to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

Not since Winston Churchill addresses a joint session of Congress in January

Winston Churchill addresses a joint session of Congress in January 1942

1942 has a foreign leader gotten such unanimous acceptance and applause. The Israeli prime minister did a very good job. He connected with the members of Congress. There was applause more than 50 times, half of those standing ovations.

Netanyahu moved the debate where it needs to go: to the threat posed by Iran, the sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad’s Syria, a jihadi regime working overtime to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

He then went on to emphasize that he and other Israelis are willing to accept a Palestinian state. It is acceptance of a Jewish state by Palestinians and other Arabs that is lacking. In such a circumstance, how can there be progress toward peace? As Netanyahu said, to loud applause (and with President Obama clearly in mind), peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. And Israel does not have a negotiating partner. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s extermination. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will not even sit down and talk with Israelis face to face.

This speech had more truth in it than Congress has heard in years. Netanyahu stood up, just as he promised, and told the unvarnished truth about what it will take to make peace with the Palestinians.

Early in the speech he established that Israel is not only a true democracy, but that all of the Arabs that live in Israel enjoy real democratic rights, which is unparalleled in the Middle East. He went on to say with vigor:

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East, Israel is what is right about the Middle East!”

Here are some of the Highlights from Netanyahu’s speech.

On Israel’s unique standing in the Middle East:

“In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.”

“My friends, you don’t have to — you don’t need to do nation- building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. And you don’t need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves.”

“In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.”

“Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.”

On the ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions:

“A great convulsion is shaking the earth from the Khyber Pass to the Straits of Gibraltar… The tremors have shattered states. They’ve toppled governments. And we can all see that the ground is still shifting.”

“Now, this historic moment holds the promise of a new dawn of freedom and opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are determined to change their future. We all look at them. They muster courage. They risk their lives. They demand dignity. They desire liberty. These extraordinary scenes in Tunis, in Cairo, evoke those of Berlin and Prague in 1989. We must also remember that those hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979. You remember what happened then.”

“The brief democratic spring in Tehran was cut short by a ferocious and unforgiving tyranny. And it’s this same tyranny that smothered Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution and inflicted on that long- suffering country the medieval rule of Hezbollah.”

“So today the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. And like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty.”

On being interrupted by a young female Code Pink protester yelling “No more occupation and Israeli war crimes!”

“You know, I take it as a badge of honor, and so should you, that in our free societies you can now protest. You can’t have these protests in the farcical parliaments in Tehran or in Tripoli. This is real democracy.”

“So as we share the hopes of these young people throughout the Middle East and Iran, that they’ll be able to do what that young woman just did — I think she’s young; I couldn’t see quite that far.”

On the Iranian nuclear threat:

“When I last stood here, I spoke of the consequences of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Now time is running out. The hinge of history may soon turn, for the greatest danger of all could soon be upon us: a militant Islamic regime armed with nuclear weapons.”

“Militant Islam threatens the world. It threatens Islam.”

“A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It would give terrorists a nuclear umbrella. It would make the nightmare of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger throughout the world.”

“See, I want you to understand what this means, because if we don’t stop it, it’s coming. They could put a bomb anywhere. They could put it in a missile; they’re working on missiles that could reach this city. They could put it on a — on a ship inside a container; could reach every port. They could eventually put it in a suitcase or in a subway.”

“Now, the threat to my country cannot be overstated. Those who dismiss it are sticking their heads on the stand. Less than seven decades after 6 million Jews were murdered, Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust of the Jewish people while calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Leaders who spew such venom should be banned from every respectable forum on the planet.”

On confronting that threat:

“The ayatollah regime briefly suspended its nuclear program only once, in 2003, when it feared the possibility of military action. In that same year, Moammar Gadhafi gave up his nuclear weapons program, and for the same reason. The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation. And this is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message that America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.”

On the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“So far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.”

“Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about.”

“President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people — and I told you, it wasn’t easy for me — I stood before my people and I said, “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”

“Those six words will change history. They’ll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end; that they’re not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it.”

“And those six words will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace.”

On the demographic/geographic conditions for peace:

“In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”

“The border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.”

“Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel.”

“The Palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the United Nations will not bring peace. It should be forcefully opposed by all those who want to see this conflict end. I appreciate the president’s clear position on these — on this issue.”

“Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated.”

On Hamas:

“Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. That we will not do.”

“So I say to President Abbas: Tear up your pact with Hamas! Sit down and negotiate. Make peace with the Jewish state. And if you do, I promise you this: Israel will not be the last country to welcome a Palestinian state as a new member of the United Nations; it will be the first to do so.”

On the United States’ special role in the world:

“My friends, the momentous trials over the last century and the unfolding events of this century attest to the decisive role of the United States in defending peace and advancing freedom. Providence entrusted the United States to be the guardian of liberty. All people who cherish freedom owe a profound debt of gratitude to your great nation. Among the most grateful nations is my nation, the people of Israel, who have fought for their liberty and survival against impossible odds in ancient and modern times alike. I speak on behalf of the Jewish people and the Jewish state when I say to you, representatives of America: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your unwavering support for Israel. Thank you for ensuring that the flame of freedom burns bright throughout the world.”

You can read the full text and watch the complete video of Netanyahu’s speech by clicking here. When you watch the speech note that when Bibi says that “Jerusalem must never again be divided” Speaker Boehner is clapping and Biden's hands remaining together on the surface in front of him. I imagine Biden's response mirrors that of the Administration.

I close this post with a personal anecdote about Bibi Netanyahu. Netanyahu was a captain in the IDF before going on to earn his M.S. degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1977, and studying political science at Harvard University. While in the IDF he served with my partner in the civil engineering firm I was part owner of. My partner, a Sabra and citizen of the U.S. related this story to me.

The story takes place during one night when my partner was leading a patrol along the border with Jordan to detect any Palestinian terrorist infiltration. It was a cold, dark night and the patrol stopped to get warm and drink some hot tea. While they were resting and enjoying their tea and snack they were jumped by several men dressed in black and wearing balaclavas. The assaulting men pointed their assault rifles at them and told them to get on the ground. They then informed the men of my partner’s patrol they were all dead. Once the patrol was lying prone on the attackers removed their balaclavas and it was Bibi Netanyahu leading a crack anti-terrorist team to check on the performance of the patrol. After a thorough dressing down by Netanyahu the patrol was allowed to get up and continue their nightly rounds with a greater sense of duty and security. Netanyahu understood the threat from the PLO terrorists and he wanted to make sure the men and women of the IDF did.

Netanyahu did not only talk the talk, he walked the walk.

Chris Wallace gets it Wrong

"For what is meant by saying that a government ought to educate the people? Why should they be educated? What is the education for? Clearly, to fit the people for social life — to make them good citizens. And who is to say what are good citizens? The government: there is no other judge. And who is to say how these good citizens may be made? The government: there is no other judge. Hence the proposition is convertible into this — a government ought to mold children into good citizens, using its own discretion in settling what a good citizen is and how the child may be molded into one." — British author, economist and philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

During an Interview with Herman Cain, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Cain what he would do about the “Right of Return” of the Palestinians to the “occupied territories.” You can watch the complete interview by clicking here. Wallace’s question regarding Israel comes at 08:42 into the video.

I think Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday is one of the better interviewers among the various news channel hosts. He is prepared, and pushes pretty hard with everybody, though not in an obnoxious fashion. He chooses to remain the interviewer, and not become the story. Unfortunately, Wallace injected himself into an interview Sunday, with the use of language that can be best described as inflammatory and historically inaccurate.

In an interview with newly announced GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain, Wallace asked a few questions about Cain's support of Israel.

He then asked him about the Palestinian right of return. When Cain seemed unaware of the issue, Wallace tried to clarify the issue for him that the right of return was for the Palestinians who were "kicked out" by Israel in the 48 war. Wallace’s question to Cain was:

“Do you think the Palestinian refugees, the people who were kicked out of the land in 1948, should be able or should have any right to return to Israeli land?”

This statement is evidence that Wallace is unaware of the circumstances of the 1948 war or the history of the refugees since that war.

The 1948 war began with Arab attacks the day the U.N. passed the partition resolution in November 1947, which was accepted by the Zionists, and rejected by the Arabs in mandate Palestine and the Arab nations. The war escalated when 5 Arab armies invaded in May 1948 when the British withdrew, with a goal of wiping out the Jewish presence. About 600,000 Arabs abandoned homes in the war that went on for over a year. Very few of them were kicked out or driven out by the Zionists.

That did happen, but only in a few places. The great majority of the Arabs left due to other circumstances — fleeing a war zone where hand to hand close range fighting was going on, or because they were encouraged to do so by the invading Arab armies, telling them to come back to their homes after the Zionists were eliminated. All the contemporary news accounts of the day, and statements by Arab leaders support this conclusion.

While this war was going on, an equal number of Jews in Arab countries — Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other Arab countries — were driven from their homes and their countries. Most of the Jewish refugees moved to Israel, and were accepted as full citizens. None of them lingered in refugee camps for decades. The treatment of the Arab refugees by Arab nations was different. Many were never resettled, and many never obtained citizenship in their new countries. Many were never allowed to work, but were forced to remain in stagnant camps, funded by the UNWRA, (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) where indoctrination of future generations consisted mainly of blaming Israel for their plight.

Israeli official sources, foreign press, officials present at the time and historians have claimed that the refugee flight was instigated by Arab leaders. For example, Yosef Weitz wrote in October 1948: "The migration of the Arabs from the Land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion — it was a tactic of war on the part of the Arabs.” Israeli historian Efraim Karsh wrote, "The logic behind this policy was apparently that 'the absence of women and children from Palestine would free the men for fighting', as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Abd al-Rahman Azzam put it." In his book, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Karsh cited the substantial, active role the Arab Higher Committee played in the exoduses from Haifa, Tiberias, and Jaffa as an important part of understanding what he called the "birth of the Palestinian refugee problem."

A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article attributed the exodus from the city of Haifa to fear, Arab orders to leave and a Jewish assault. The Economist attributed the exodus from Haifa to orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive as well as expulsion by Jewish troops.

In the case of the village of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas was told by the villagers that the cause of their flight was twofold: first, it was caused by fear that came out of the Deir Yassin massacre, and second because "the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure."

Khalid al-`Azm who was prime minister of Syria from December 17, 1949 to March 30, 1949 listed in his memoirs a number of reasons for the Arab defeat in an attack on the Arab leaders including his own predecessor Jamil Mardam Bey:

“Fifth: the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to flee from it and seek refuge in adjacent Arab countries, after terror had spread among their ranks in the wake of the Deir Yassin event. This mass flight has benefited the Jews and the situation stabilized in their favor without effort. Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homeland, while it is we who constrained them to leave it. Between the invitation extended to the refugees and the request to the United Nations to decide upon their return, there elapsed only a few months.”

After the war, a few Arab leaders tried to present the Palestinian exodus as a victory by claiming to have planned it. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Said was later quoted as saying: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

The Arab National Committee of Haifa, the Arab leadership in Haifa in 1948, wrote and delivered a report on the flight of roughly 60,000 Arabs from Haifa. The report said, "The removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town was voluntary and carried out at our request."

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring, brotherly states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down," wrote Habab Issa of Al-Hoda, the leading newspaper for Lebanese Maronites in the United States. A Muslim weekly newspaper in Beirut similarly reported, "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders?” The Arab States and Lebanon amongst them, did it!"

Mahmoud Abbas, at the time Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, would later recall: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

In 2009, veteran opponent of Israel, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, wrote about his vision for a One-state solution, saying that the Arabs fled "in fear of violence at the hands of Jews after 1948 — violence that did not occur, but rumors of which led to a mass exodus." He added that "it is important to note that the Jews did not forcibly expel Palestinians. (I suggest Chris Wallace take time to read the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus by clicking here.

After the 1948 War the population east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees who made up one-third of the population; another third of the population was Palestinians on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of the original inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, which meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem that was the key issue of Jordan's domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled "life or death" for Jordan and would remain the country's overriding national security issue.

King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt's President Nasser, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, which gave financial support. The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and Israel was also subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian Fedayeen; these often drew reprisals that killed and injured Jordanians. The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. Due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population however, many of King Hussein's orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border began giving the Palestinian raids passive assistance.

On September 18, during the time of turmoil, Syria tried to intervene on behalf of the Palestinian guerrillas. President Hafez al-Assad told his biographer, Patrick Seale, that Syria's intervention was only to protect the Palestinians from a massacre. The Syrians sent in armored forces equivalent to a brigade, with tanks, some of them allegedly hastily rebranded from the regular Syrian army for the purpose. Other Syrian units were the 5th Infantry Division (with the 88th and 91st Tank Brigades and the 67th Mechanized Brigade with over 200 T-55 tanks) and Commandos. They were under the command of the Palestine Liberation Army's (PLA) Syrian branch, whose headquarters were located in Damascus, and which was controlled by the government. They were met by the 40th Armored Brigade of the Jordanian Army. The Syrian Air Force, under orders of Assad, never entered the battle. This has been variously attributed to power struggles within the Syrian Baathist government (pitting Assad against Salah Jadid), and to the threat of Israeli military intervention.

As King Hussein dealt with threats by both Palestinian refugees in his country and invading Syrian forces, the king asked "the United States and Great Britain to intervene in the war in Jordan, asking the United States, in fact, to attack Syria, and some transcripts of diplomatic communiqués show that Hussein requested Israeli intervention against Syria." Timothy Naftali said. "Syria had invaded Jordan and the Jordanian king, facing what he felt was a military rout, said please help us in any way possible."

A telegram indicates that Hussein himself called a U.S. official at 3 a.m. to ask for American or British help. "Situation deteriorating dangerously following Syrian massive invasion", the document said. "I request immediate physical intervention both land and air to safeguard sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Jordan. Immediate air strikes on invading forces from any quarter plus air cover are imperative."

On 21 September the Syrian 5th Division broke through the defenses of the Jordanian 40th Armored Brigade, and pushed it back off the ar-Ramtha crossroads. King Hussein was thrown into a near panic. On 22 September the Royal Jordanian Air Force began attacking Syrian forces, which were badly battered as a result. The constant airstrikes broke the will of the Syrian force, and on the late afternoon of 22 September the 5th Division began to retreat.

Whatever the case, the swift Syrian withdrawal was a severe blow to Palestinian hopes. Jordanian armored forces steadily pounded their headquarters in Amman, and threatened to break them in other regions of the kingdom as well. The Palestinians agreed to a cease-fire. Hussein and Arafat attended the meeting of leaders of Arab countries in Cairo, where Arafat won a diplomatic victory. On September 27, Hussein was forced to sign an agreement which preserved the right of the Palestinian organizations to operate in Jordan. For Jordan, it was humiliating that the agreement treated both sides to the conflict as equals. This was the beginning of the “Black September” movement, a terrorist organization that would plague the world with airline hijackings, bombings and the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Of the 600,000 original Arab refugees, perhap 75,000 are alive today. Yet the Palestinians claim 5 million refugees. They do this because alone among the refugee populations of the world, the U.N considers descendants of the original refugees, whether 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation, as refugees, even though they never even set foot in Israel in their lives. The Palestinians and Arab nations blame Israel for the plight of the refugees, but it is their cynical use of the refugee issue, that has kept alive a refugee population 63 years after a war, and embittered Palestinians from ever accepting a Jewish majority state of Israel.

The Palestinians want to flood Israel with five million "non-refugee refugees" in order to become a majority in Israel and change the character of the state. All the so-called foreign policy experts who have looked at ways to resolve the conflict, and all the U.S. Presidents who have spoken about the issue, including Obama on several occasions, have argued that Palestinian refugees would need to be resettled in a new Palestinian state, or in Arab countries, or Western countries, with some compensation provided, assuming a two state solution that ended the conflict could be achieved.

Since the 1948 War of Independence there have been numerous peace conferences and accords. None of them have worked and they never will. Just as there will never be “peace” between India and Pakistan or the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka so there will never be peace between Islamic nations and the Jews. Judaism is the sworn enemy of Islam. The best you can hope for is the absence of war and this can only be achieved by a strong Israel with secure and defensible borders. As George Washington said; “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” And for Israel to be prepared for war it needs defensible borders and a committed, unified population.

Calling for a right of return to Israel is part of a strategy to end the Zionist state, the same strategy that created the refugee situation in the beginning. There are consequences to starting wars and losing them. Click here to read more.

Wallace might want to read up a bit, and then tell his viewers next week that his statement was incorrect.

The Cognitive Dissonance of the American Jew

When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all, an example of adaptive preference formation, designed to reduce cognitive dissonance — The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena. In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs.

Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

A classic example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation. [Source: Wikipedia and Science Daily]

The most prevalent example of cognitive dissonance is the attitudes and beliefs of the American Jew when it comes to Israel. I say American Jew because the Jews in Israel (Israelis) so not have this same physiological disease and there aren’t many Jews left in Europe.

For generations the American Jew has supported liberal, progressive, socialist and even communist ideologies. They have done this out a sense of justice and more so empathy. They are more in tune with the philosophies Marx, Lenin and the Fabian Socialists than of Locke, Burke, Smith or Frederic Bastiat. They have this ideology because of their generally higher levels of education, especially in the area of the arts where empathy rules and logic is looked upon as a conservative value.

A perfect example of this can be found in the great novel by Herman Wouk, The Winds of War and his sequel War And Remembrance. One of the main characters in the books is Aaron Jastrow, an intellectual Jew living in Italy. Jastrow has written several acclaimed and scholars books and sees himself as a person of some prominence. AS the war clouds gather over Europe Jastrow is warned several times by his niece’s fiancée, Leslie Slote, U.S. State Department official to get his affairs in order and return to the United States.

As the plot unfolds Jastrow keeps ignoring Slote’s warnings by claiming that Jew have always been able to weather the storms of history and that Hitler was really no different than other anti-Sematic tyrants of the past. This is Jastow’s cognitive dissonance (CD). When Hitler invades Poland and WWII breaks out in full Jastrow still claims to be safe in Italy. Finally after much persuasion by his niece, Natalie, and Slote Jastrow finally consents to return to the U.S. But, he has one problem — through neglect he has allowed his passport to expire and he must get a new one issued at the Embassy in Rome. Before this can happen Pearl Harbor is attacked, and Germany and Italy declare war on the United States. Now Jastrow is an enemy alien in a nation where a state of war with his country of citizenship.

Throughout the books as Jastrow is moved from an internment camp at Baden Baden to the “model” Jewish ghetto at Theresienstadt and finally to Auschwitz where he is murdered in he gas chamber and his body burned in the ovens.

All through the novels and the mini-series Wouk a Jewish naval officer who served in the Pacific) shows Jastrow in a constant state of denial as to what would happen to him if he did not take action to save himself and his niece. To me Aaron Jastrow, through the eyes of Herman Wouk, displayed the ultimate example of CD that affects so many American Jews today or as I like to call it the “Aaron Jastrow Syndrome” (AJS).

Last week in his speech before the State Department (an arm of our government with a long history of anti-Semitism) Obama dropped a bombshell by saying:

“So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

What the president had said is essentially that rather than borders and boundaries being established as an end result of negotiations, the two states that will be created should be based on the 1967 lines, a conclusion that gives the Palestinian Authority its own desired boundaries — and takes away from Israel the necessary buffer zone it gained after the 1967 war, and from which it has been able to prevent attacks on its own people.

It is akin to the policy in which the Obama administration focused on their demand that Israel give up settlements, leading Fatah and Abbas to adopt a position that, until then, they were willing to negotiate. Ultimately, it put them in a corner from which they could not back down.

Moreover, the newly developed Hamas-Fatah “unity government” agreement has already made it clear that the Palestinian leadership will not honor the requirement that the existence of a Jewish state in the region must be accepted. As the president put it, “how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?” Not only have the PA leadership not provided “a credible answer to that question,” they have in effect done the exact opposite — made it clear that they will never do what is required.

In effect, the president is rewarding Abbas for his bad behavior, after the PA leader’s own recent op-ed in The New York Times in which he revealed his intransigence. Statehood, as he perceives it, is not an end in itself, but is put forth as the new means for waging a continuing war against Israel. That is why Jackson Diehl’s article in The Washington Post is so important. Diehl points out: “Desperate to jump-start an Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Obama administration and its European allies are piling pressure on Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, demanding that he offer a plan, concessions — something — that will provide the basis for starting negotiations with Palestinians.” As I said in a previous blog post there are two things you not do in public — make love and make peace. You can read more on this issue by clicking here.

Today I watched Obama address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) where he clarified and somewhat modified his previous remarks on Israel, but did not deviate from his comments on the 1967 borders. He received a standing ovation for the AIPAC crowd of Jewish donors. To me this was like Hitler telling the same audience he was ordering some great new ovens from Krupp and would be used to bake matzah.

Obama said to the AIPAC Crowd:

"There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations,"

"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately," he added, saying his remarks were no different than a "well-known formula" that has been worked on for a generation.

"It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two peoples. Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.”

There has been talk of peace between Israel and its Muslim neighbors for 63 years and the same old, tired sayings and proposals are brought out. What Obama did do that was different was to tell the Muslim states he was on their side of this issue and wanted to pressure Israel into a corner.

Obama is an anti-Semite. He was mentored in Chicago by Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan — both virulent anti-Semites. His sympathies lie with the Islamic states and those at AIPAC just could not see it or choose to ignore it due to AJS. This is tantamount to people saying Hitler was not going to be influenced by the likes of Himmler, Heydrich, Julius Streicher and the rest of his NAZI cohorts. People who thought that were like Aaron Jastrow.

The American Jew just can’t let go of his devotion to the Democrat Party — no matter the consequences. I know because I had a Jewish partner who was born in Israel, fought in the 1973 war on the Golan Heights as a tank commander and still suffered from AJS.

The President of the United States has willingly and with forethought placed our long term ally, Israel, whose existence America has guaranteed since 1948, in an untenable situation by his attempt to impose a course of action that, if not followed by Israel, will further inflame the Muslim world and cause international sentiment to turn against Israel.

President Obama is attempting to force a settlement on terms dictated by the Arabs in the Middle East. By setting as a pre-condition the surrender of territory commensurate with the pre-1967 boundaries in any negotiations with the Palestinians, he has instead guaranteed further conflict.

Mr. Obama, the “smartest and ablest person to ever occupy the Oval Office” (as confirmed by his demeanor and sycophants in the media), either is naive and overweening (synonymous with the Left) or unaware of the failures throughout history caused by intimidating one's ally into giving up land in exchange for peace with someone bent on their destruction. I believe it’s the later. After all a community organizer doesn’t have to study any history beyond the 1965 and the civil rights movement.

However, in case the President wasn't aware, about this time 73 years ago there was an eerily similar situation taking place in Europe. Czechoslovakia was a country formed out of the re-drawing of boundaries after the horrific slaughter of World War I and the surrender of Germany and Austria. Much of the Czech border was adjacent to what was left of Germany. But it was defensible border against a nation which for decades exhibited a particularly aggressive stance against its neighbors.

The new nation quickly developed its own economy, government and military while avoiding much of the financial and political chaos taking place in Germany during the 1920's and 30's. However, along its border with Germany was a region called Sudetenland which contained many ethnic Germans, who for the most part were quite content to live within the boundaries of Czechoslovakia.

Adolf Hitler upon assuming power in Germany almost immediately began to cast his eye on recapturing and re-instituting the old German-speaking Empire in Europe. Once he realized that the other strong Western European powers would not stand in the way of his immediate ambitions, such as the re-occupation of the Rhineland (controlled by France), he cast his eye toward Czechoslovakia.

In April of 1938, Hitler, together with his allies in the Sudeten Nazi party, issued a demand that Sudetenland by made autonomous and allied with Nazi Germany. A request if granted would leave Czechoslovakia nearly unprotected, as almost all its border defenses were located in this region, as well a large portion of its industry. The Czech government refused to acquiesce to these absurd demands.

Hitler then, knowing that the governments of France and the United Kingdom were set on avoiding war at any cost, ratcheted up his demands and threatened to begin a war by invading Czechoslovakia. Both France and Britain advised the Czech government to accede to Hitler's demands or they would not support them in the event of a war.

Hitler and his henchmen then began to foment unrest in the Sudetenland, which prompted military action by the Czech army in an attempt to restore order. Hitler then claimed that the Czechs were indiscriminately slaughtering Sudeten Germans (a wholly false accusation). He demanded that the French and British acquiesce to the German takeover of the region. They agreed and issued an ultimatum to the Czechs, making their commitment to Czechoslovakia's existence contingent on accepting Hitler's demands.

The Czechs reluctantly accepted; however Hitler then increased his demands once more insisting that the claims of ethnic Germans in Poland and Hungary also be satisfied which would have the effect of further decreasing not only the border with Germany but also that of Poland to the north and Hungary to the South. The remaining Czechoslovakia could not survive in such a diminished state.

The Czech government refused these new demands and began to mobilize its military. On September 28, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlin, appealed for a conference with Hitler on this matter along with France and Italy. Czechoslovakia was not invited.

A deal was reached the next day. The German army was to occupy the Sudetenland by October 10, 1938, and an international commission would decide the fate of the other disputed areas; Hitler agreed that he had no further designs on the country and would leave the balance of the Czechoslovakia in peace. The allies would therefore guarantee the survival of the remainder of the country.

Czechoslovakia was informed by Britain and France that it could resist Nazi Germany alone, as they would not honor their defense agreements with Czechoslovakia or submit to the annexations and the terms of the Agreement. Given that option the Czechs capitulated.

Neville Chamberlin flew back to London and proclaimed this Agreement, now known as the "Munich Pact", together with a new peace treaty with Germany as "Peace in our time."

1. Within six months Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as:
2. October 1938: Germany occupies the Sudetenland
3. October 1938: Poland occupies parts of northern Czechoslovakia
4. November 1938: Hungary occupies parts of southern Czechoslovakia
5. March 1939: The remaining Czech territories were annexed and became part of Germany

Hitler having so successfully intimidated and bullied the European allies over Czechoslovakia and other territory then set his sights on Poland which was invaded in September of 1939 thus triggering the most devastating war in the history of mankind.

It is not a casual observation to notice how many parallels there are with the saga of Czechoslovakia and today's Israel.

Many of the immigrants to the new state of Israel in 1946-1948 originated in the cauldron that was Europe in the 1930's and 40's. They and their progeny remember what happened to Czechoslovakia and other countries that relied on the guarantees of so-called allies for their survival. Israel is surrounded by those whose primary ambition is to destroy and annihilate the people of that country. Barack Obama, by his recent actions, has forced a major question to be asked: will the United States reprise the role of France and Britain in 1938? Will Israel be intimidated and bullied into accepting terms that will have as their end-game the dissolution of the country?

Despite numerous efforts over the past forty years by Israel to negotiate and surrender some land, among other concessions, nothing has or will accomplish peace with the Palestinians and Muslim radicals unless and until all parties have an equal commitment to peace and most importantly respect for each other. How can this happen when Hamas and Hezbollah, both deemed terrorist organizations, are the main parties of any negotiations with Israel.

It would do well for the President to understand not only history but human nature before he attempts to satisfy his misguided ambition for an exalted place as the savior of the Middle East. His ham-handed attempt to force a settlement by appeasing the radical Arab street at the expense of Israel will only lead to a potential world-wide conflagration as Iran and it's jihadist allies will only be emboldened to seek more concessions and ultimately war.

So far the only potential Republican candidate for the Presidency to give a clear evaluation of Obama’s misguided Middle East policy has been Sarah Palin. You can see her remarks on FNC by clicking here.

For reactions from Israel click here