Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:

● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.

Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

In the United States, Jews have long been stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Indeed, they’ve never voted for Republicans by more than about 40% (Reagan) and typically they do about half that: McCain got 21%, Bush got 19%. But the left’s passion for a little anti-Semitism will not be denied. And Jews may soon find themselves in an uncomfortable position vis-à-vis the Democratic Party.

Until the late 1980s, the Democrats promoted the idea that Republicans are anti-Semitic. Indeed, you heard this claim a lot: that Republicans “hated” blacks, women and Jews. This was usually supported with some vague urban legend about some religious right personality talking about converting Jews or sometimes a mention of the Inquisition. . . I kid you not. This was then combined with a demand for unquestioned support for Israel.

Then Bill Clinton came along.

It wasn’t that Clinton was anti-Semitic, because he wasn’t. But after Clinton decided to make Middle-East peace his legacy, Israel elected the Likud Party, which refused to playing along with Clinton’s “peace process.” Team Clinton responded by becoming the first American administration I can think of that broke with the unquestioned support for Israel stance (in fact, they actively undermined Likud). Suddenly, it became acceptable to disagree with Israel in liberal circles.

At the same time, Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam ilk were making inroads in both the black community and the Democratic Party. This is a group that railed against Jews, particularly buying into the world-wide Zionist/banking conspiracy theories, and preached to blacks that Jews were “the hooked-nose blood suckers of the black community.” Interestingly, this wasn’t condemned by liberals at the time, unlike Jesse Jackson calling New York “Hymietown” in 1984.

In 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon. The wire services and groups like Al Jazeera slanted their coverage of this war to make Israel look like it was trying to kill civilians. In fact, at least one Reuters reporter got caught faking photos of supposedly dead civilians. But the deceptions worked and the world was outraged, including many in the anti-War/ anti-Bush left in the US. Suddenly, members of the American left were demanding war crimes charges be brought against Israel.

Fast forward to the financial crisis in 2008. When Wall Street imploded. The left started tossing around all the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes only without the word “Jew” attached to them. In other words, it became acceptable for leftists to rail against “Jewish bankers” so long as they only implied the “Jewish” part.

Then Obama got elected. Obama came through Rev. Wright’s “Christian” version of the Nation of Islam and his friends were 1960s radicals. Why does this matter? Because some of the radicals were Palestinians who had been fighting Israel for decades.

In 2010, a group of Palestinians tried to force their way through the Israeli blockade of Gaza. They used force and Israeli commandos responded by killing nine “activists.” The liberal world was outraged at Israel and friend-of-Obama Bill Ayers and Code Pink both became involved in trying to break the blockade and get Israel condemned at the UN.

Later in 2010, OWS is born from a jackass. . . like Damien from The Omen only dumber. Within days they start trotting out anti-Semitic statements and carrying anti-Semitic signs. They even allowed the NeoNazis to join them in some locations.

Just this week, Obama’s ambassador to Belgium told an audience that there are two types of anti-Semitism, the “traditional” kind, “which should be condemned,” and Muslim hatred for Jews, “which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” and which, by implication, is apparently acceptable.

Enter George Soros.

The Center for American Progress, the Democratic Party’s “key hub of ideas and strategy,” and George Soros’s Media Matters have started attacking the Democratic Party’s “staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership.” In fact, they have gone to war with those who would support Israel:

● MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters spends his days online “heaping vitriol” on those who support Israel. In particular, he openly questions the loyalty of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin when it comes to Israel. . . this is an old tactic of anti-Semites and racists, to suggest secret foreign loyalties.

● Both CAP and Media Matters have attacked anyone who tries to argue that Iran is trying to build a bomb, even the White House, as Israeli stooges. CAP’s Eric Alterman accused the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC of trying to get America to go to war for Israel and called this AIPAC’s “big prize.”

● They attack people who support sanctions against Iran as “Israel-firsters,” implying racial supremacist beliefs in such actions. In one instance, Rosenberg blasted Democrat Brad Sherman for supporting sanctions as “the most ugly expression yet of this country’s almost bizarre obsession with punishing Iran, its people along with its government.” Note the idea that opposition to Iran is aimed at Iran’s people, i.e. “racism,” and it’s a result of a mental condition.

● Matt Duss at CAP wrote this: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza, and the entire Israeli occupation for that matter, is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values.”

● They get really conspiratorial too. For example, Eli Clifton of ThinkProgress attacked a Quinnipiac poll that referenced Iran’s “nuclear program” because the poll was creating a presumption that such a program exists when there is no “definitive evidence.”

● And they actually called Holder’s idiotic idea that Iran is working with Mexican drug cartels a creation of “conservative think tanks” and AIPAC.

Incredibly, CAP only halfheartedly distanced itself from this after people pointed out these comments were “borderline anti-Semitic.” Incredibly, they claimed these comments, posted on their own blog, were not their official opinions. Yet, they have not taken them down, retracted them, condemned them, or fired anyone.

So what you have here is THE Democratic think tank and THE group that controls the media for the Democrats turning on Israel and batting about the idea that Jews in American (AIPAC) have some hidden control over our government which is being used to help world-wide Jewish interests. This is otherwise known as the International Zionist Conspiracy conspiracy theory. It is anti-Semitism at its worst.

Add in the fact the Democrats have made the Wall Street banker into the new enemy of mankind and their street urchins are actively spouting anti-Semitism in support of this, and American Jews may want to rethink their relationship to the Democratic Party.

The trend is there. I wouldn’t ignore it.

Anti-Semitism Is Back In Fashion

View Detail

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

Currently, the Obama administration has requested $550 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority for 2012. That request is based on present notions and past reality. Although the head of the Palestinian Authority is Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, all assumptions were based on his retaining sole authority over all of Palestine. But that is simply not the case.

While Fatah may hold nominal leadership of the P.A., it has never fully-controlled the artificial creation called Palestine. Though Fatah has its strongest representation in the West Bank, it had a strong rival in Gaza. It is estimated that Fatah controls about 40% of the Palestinian population while its rival controls approximately the same percentage. The rival is terrorist Hamas. Hamas is Iran-fueled, anti-American and pledged to the destruction of Israel.

Until recently, the American State Department could maintain the fiction that it was dealing only with the duly-constituted government of Palestine, namely the Palestinian Authority controlled by Fatah. Then last May, P.A. chairman Abbas entered into an agreement with Hamas to form a "unity government." The strength of Hamas in the negotiations is evidenced by the recent exclusion of American trained economist and current Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from the future unity government.

For all practical purposes, the United States would now be negotiating with a government that American law says we cannot deal with, let alone fund. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act conditions aid to the Palestinian Authority on its exclusion of any group which will not renounce violence, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by current agreements. Until now, the U.S. has also maintained that it is America's policy to abide by the decisions of the Middle East "quartet" comprised of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations which require that the Palestinian Authority maintain all agreements between the P.A. and Israel.

It will be well-nigh impossible for the Palestinian Authority to continue to adhere to any of these foundational agreements once Hamas is part of a unity government. Hamas is pledged to its very core to the destruction of Israel. That is its guiding principle. This created a problem of serious proportions during the Bush administration when Hamas won the parliamentary elections of 2006. The "quartet" reacted to this by issuing its firm statement that it would not tolerate any Palestinian government controlled by a terrorist group such as Hamas.

After an angry Hamas seized the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007, a coalition government which did not place any Hamas members in important executive positions was formed. The pretense continued, but will no longer be viable once Hamas is actually made a formal, active member of the Palestinian unity government. Yet the Obama administration acts as if tomorrow were yesterday, and continues to request aid for a government which will be openly hostile to both the United States and Israel. The vast majority of rocket attacks on Israel are already launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. It will soon have the entire area to work from.

The chairman of the House Appropriations foreign aid subcommittee, Republican Kay Granger of Texas and the ranking minority member, Democrat Nita Lowey of New York sent a joint letter to Abbas warning the P.A. that forming a government with Hamas would "threaten the provision of United States assistance and support." That prompted the Obama administration to request the $550 million aid package to counter the objections of the subcommittee.

A decision will have to be made, and the potential victim is Israel if Obama prevails. With the exception of the mass-murder part, the President seems far more in tune with Palestine than with our longtime ally Israel. Obama has been openly contemptuous of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It is hard to say at this point how the whole matter will play out. If Congress refuses to fund the new unity government, there is always the chance that Obama will simply issue an executive order diverting funds from other targets and giving them to the Palestinian Authority. The House's sole power of the purse means very little to constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama.

More Buckets of US Money For Palestine?

View Detail

Busting Adbusters and Occupy Wall Street

Busting Adbusters and Occupy Wall Street

We finally got past Foreskin Man's antisemitic campaign to ban infant circumcision when a state court declared the San Francisco and Santa Monica ordinances in violation of California law and a violation of First Amendment religious protection. But never fear. The new antisemitism is alive and well and occupying Wall Street.

In a previous post, I mentioned that much of the early organizational impetus for the "spontaneous" Occupy Wall Street movement came from Nazi collaborator and currency manipulator George Soros in Adbusters, the Canadian magazine which first started organizing people to descend on New York City (see: Twitter Twits). But Georgie Boy is the puppetmaster who likes to stay hidden behind the screen. The real brains and major funder behind the magazine and the public image of Adbusters is retired Wall Street stock trader Robert Halper.

It seems that Halper subscribes to two dicta: "There's no antisemite like an old antisemite," and "I got mine, f--- you." Halper still lives in luxury in Upper West Side New York City, near his old haunts at the New York Mercantile Exchange (he is a former VP of that organization) and various other Wall Street locations. He continues to lob missiles and missals at the voraciousness of Wall Street, but as of this writing has not donned sackloth and ashes nor given away all his wealth to the unwashed poor occupying the sidewalks of New York.

But he did write Adbusters a check for $20,000. His checks to the magazine are usually between $50,000 and $75,000. Don't take my word for it. My source is The New York Times (absent my editorial comments, of course): He Made It On Wall Street.

Halper and his magazine claim to be solely anti-corporation and anti-capitalism, but there is a much darker side to their dogma. Their most famous headline from 2004 in an article about American neo-conservatives was entitled "Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?" At age 54, Halper is not as experienced as Soros at disguising his antisemitism, and in fact at times seems to take pride in it. Both Soros and Halper know how to manipulate currency and manipulate ignorant people.

Adbusters has run articles that are often distinctly anti-Israel and at the same time covertly antisemitic (in the sense that "antisemitic" means "anti-Jewish"). Following up on its suggestion that all, or nearly all, neo-conservatives are Jewish, it then blamed the Iraq war on them. Some time later, it blamed the Israelis for the violence in Palestine. It even managed to suggest that the Holocaust Museum's images of the Warsaw Ghetto were somehow ironically symbolic of the way Israel treats the Palestinians in Gaza. Much of what Adbusters prints is allegedly political humor. It ain't funny.

The Wall Street occupiers have multiple inchoate and unfathomable "causes" to promote, and it's impossible to say honestly that its main theme is antisemitism. But it is certainly a major motif. Dozens of antisemitic and anti-Israel placards (many of them professionally-printed, out-of-town shall we say?). We all know in our heart of hearts that Wall Street=Jewish=rich=bankers=conspiracy. Don't we? When these signs and rabid antisemitic speakers show up to stoke the mob's anger at almost everything, the mainstream media yawns. The crowd does nothing to to quell the bigots.

When a few racists showed up at Tea Party rallies, the Partiers exercised their own right to expel them and loudly denounce them. Yet unlike the Wall Street situation, the MSM treated the Tea Party rallies as if they were huge convocations of a newly-revitalized Ku Klux Klan. Liberals and other Democrats also ignore the antisemitism being displayed at the Occupy rallies nationwide, preferring to claim that these are spontaneous, peaceful demonstrations expressing frustration with the current economic conditions. Grassroots, don't you know?

Among the prominent Democrats supporting and encouraging the Occupy mobs are Nancy Pelosi (who called the Tea Party "astroturf"), Hillary Clinton (and her occasional husband Bill Clinton), and The One, Barack Obama himself. The ignorant, self-centered, half-assed socialism being espoused by the potentially-dangerous mob now has a strong historical "enemy" to aim its anger at. The Jews did it. We're all poor and downtrodden because of those Wall Street Jews. Most disgusting of all, Democratic leaders want the votes of these know-nothings so badly that they completely ignore or downplay the resurgence of American antisemitism.

We finally got past Foreskin Man's antisemitic campaign to ban infant circumcision when a state court declared the San Francisco and Santa Monica ordinances in violation of California law and a violation of First Amendment religious protection. But never fear. The new antisemitism is alive and well and occupying Wall Street.

In a previous post, I mentioned that much of the early organizational impetus for the "spontaneous" Occupy Wall Street movement came from Nazi collaborator and currency manipulator George Soros in Adbusters, the Canadian magazine which first started organizing people to descend on New York City (see: Twitter Twits). But Georgie Boy is the puppetmaster who likes to stay hidden behind the screen. The real brains and major funder behind the magazine and the public image of Adbusters is retired Wall Street stock trader Robert Halper.

It seems that Halper subscribes to two dicta: "There's no antisemite like an old antisemite," and "I got mine, f--- you." Halper still lives in luxury in Upper West Side New York City, near his old haunts at the New York Mercantile Exchange (he is a former VP of that organization) and various other Wall Street locations. He continues to lob missiles and missals at the voraciousness of Wall Street, but as of this writing has not donned sackloth and ashes nor given away all his wealth to the unwashed poor occupying the sidewalks of New York.

But he did write Adbusters a check for $20,000. His checks to the magazine are usually between $50,000 and $75,000. Don't take my word for it. My source is The New York Times (absent my editorial comments, of course): He Made It On Wall Street.

Halper and his magazine claim to be solely anti-corporation and anti-capitalism, but there is a much darker side to their dogma. Their most famous headline from 2004 in an article about American neo-conservatives was entitled "Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?" At age 54, Halper is not as experienced as Soros at disguising his antisemitism, and in fact at times seems to take pride in it. Both Soros and Halper know how to manipulate currency and manipulate ignorant people.

Adbusters has run articles that are often distinctly anti-Israel and at the same time covertly antisemitic (in the sense that "antisemitic" means "anti-Jewish"). Following up on its suggestion that all, or nearly all, neo-conservatives are Jewish, it then blamed the Iraq war on them. Some time later, it blamed the Israelis for the violence in Palestine. It even managed to suggest that the Holocaust Museum's images of the Warsaw Ghetto were somehow ironically symbolic of the way Israel treats the Palestinians in Gaza. Much of what Adbusters prints is allegedly political humor. It ain't funny.

The Wall Street occupiers have multiple inchoate and unfathomable "causes" to promote, and it's impossible to say honestly that its main theme is antisemitism. But it is certainly a major motif. Dozens of antisemitic and anti-Israel placards (many of them professionally-printed, out-of-town shall we say?). We all know in our heart of hearts that Wall Street=Jewish=rich=bankers=conspiracy. Don't we? When these signs and rabid antisemitic speakers show up to stoke the mob's anger at almost everything, the mainstream media yawns. The crowd does nothing to to quell the bigots.

When a few racists showed up at Tea Party rallies, the Partiers exercised their own right to expel them and loudly denounce them. Yet unlike the Wall Street situation, the MSM treated the Tea Party rallies as if they were huge convocations of a newly-revitalized Ku Klux Klan. Liberals and other Democrats also ignore the antisemitism being displayed at the Occupy rallies nationwide, preferring to claim that these are spontaneous, peaceful demonstrations expressing frustration with the current economic conditions. Grassroots, don't you know?

Among the prominent Democrats supporting and encouraging the Occupy mobs are Nancy Pelosi (who called the Tea Party "astroturf"), Hillary Clinton (and her occasional husband Bill Clinton), and The One, Barack Obama himself. The ignorant, self-centered, half-assed socialism being espoused by the potentially-dangerous mob now has a strong historical "enemy" to aim its anger at. The Jews did it. We're all poor and downtrodden because of those Wall Street Jews. Most disgusting of all, Democratic leaders want the votes of these know-nothings so badly that they completely ignore or downplay the resurgence of American antisemitism.

Busting Adbusters and Occupy Wall Street

View Detail

Like Father, Like Son

Like Father, Like Son

For a couple of decades now, we’ve been subjected to the entertaining but left-skewed works of film director Oliver Stone. The torch is being passed to a new generation in the form of Stone’s son, Sean. Sean Stone has accompanied his father on grand visits to such fine people as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and supports them as enthusiastically as his father. Sean has inherited his father’s taste for dictators and mass-murderers.

Sean is not exactly a big-time legendary actor, having appeared in small parts in his father’s movies such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and most notably (or ignobly) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. We’re supposed to believe that his acting career and his father’s tutelage will make him a great director. That may be true, but like his father, it may also make him a big-time nutcase propagandist.

Sean was returning from the Toronto Film Festival when he got cornered by reporters with nothing better to do. So they asked him about his plans to become a director in light of his recent favorable remarks about Iran and its apocalyptic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The younger Stone bypassed arguments that Iran’s current nuclear development is all about energy-production, and went straight to defending Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. Says Sean: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran has the right to them. Every nation has the right to self-determination for defense.”

Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t go so far as to admit that Iran’s nuclear facilities are going to be used for the production of nuclear weapons. He still spouts the pretense that only the production of energy is involved in those facilities, despite the fact that his nation is sitting on an ocean of oil. But like young Sean, Ahmadinejad will, if pushed, loudly and clearly proclaim Iran’s right to have nuclear arms to defend against nuclear Israel.

So, let’s count the number of times that Israel has been the aggressor in Middle East Wars. Um, zero. But it has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors many times, always to the dismay of the members of the People’s Republic of Jihadistan who lose wars like I lose car keys. Iran is about the only nearby Muslim neighbor that hasn’t attacked Israel. But a nuke or two might just make the odds more attractive. Only the blind, the stupid, and Sean Stone could believe for a minute that the weapons would be for self-defense.

Iran must be wiped off the face of the map. No, wait. It’s Israel that must be wiped off the face of the map, or so says Ahmadinejad. In a war that Iran will initiate in self-defense, no doubt. Stone doesn’t say the magic Jew words of Ahmadinejad, he merely defends them. A-Jad denies the Holocaust, says unreservedly that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the loathsome US/Israel alliance to stir up aniti-Muslim hatred, and categorically proposes that both World Wars were started by Zionists to increase their wealth and create the State of Israel.

Does Stone outright defend these vile libels? No. After all, he’s a big intellectual who is far more nuanced. Stone tosses out his defense of Ahmadinejad in a different way: “He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated. A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”

Now how one “mistranslates” something like “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map” is entirely beyond me. But what do I know? I’m not a film maven. From daddy Oliver’s love for Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Chavez, it’s only one small step for son Sean to tout Ahmadinejad and Iran. Sean even makes sure you understand how well he knows Iran and its regime by stating “Iran is ruled by law.” Yep, Sharia law. You know, the law that would wipe out most of his potential stars because of homosexuality, lack of Islamic devotion, and general all-around immorality since Iranian Sharia requires death for each of those offenses.

Stone also supports the right of benign leaders like Ahmadinejad to maintain law and order against pesky dissidents. When challenged about Ahmadinejad’s brutal suppression of the growing freedom movement in Iran, Stone shot back: “People don’t like Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t warrant a war or an uprising.” Stone has previously supported exactly that in several nations during the “Arab Spring.” But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Sean has no doubt that his mind is big enough to pick and choose which rebellions to support.

Iran has arrested or banned all Iranian film-makers who have dared to utter a word of criticism against the current regime. In this, A-Jad has had the active assistance of the ayatollahs. But there probably won’t be the same enmity toward Stone, who apparently knows more about the lack of repression in Iran than actual Iranians and sees the actions of the regime as simply avoiding civil unrest. If an American cop looks the wrong way at a property-damaging anti-government rioter, Stone goes off the cliff in his condemnation of brutal, fascist American tactics. But in Iran, where enforcement of civil order includes government-sanctioned rape and summary execution, well, we just don’t understand Iran as well as he does.

So what is Stone actually planning—film-wise? He says he wants to introduce Persian culture and civilization to the West in his upcoming films. He had better introduce them to the Ahmandinejad regime first, since anything that doesn’t comport with the ayatollahs’ primitive form of Islam is ruthlessly suppressed. Omar Khayyam would have been hanged from the mosque minaret if only for his admiration of “comely youths.” Any culture that was uniquely Persian prior to its Islamization has been wiped from the official registry of Iranian culture.

Knowing that Stone will be welcomed with open arms and open wallets by the Hollywood crowd, I want to cash in on his future fame. I am writing a movie script for him in which it is revealed that a Jew who hated the ayatollahs conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate John Kennedy by using a Kaballah-blessed magic bullet. It should be a big hit, and Sean can pride himself on the fact that he discovered the true conspiracy that his father missed when making JFK. Maybe I’m a film maven after all. Anyone have a suggestion for a working title?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! At 7 PM (Eastern/Blogger Time), 4 PM (Pacific Time) The T-Rav Sockpuppet Theater will live blog the Republican debates and at the same time give you plenty of time to make pre-debate predictions. Come early, stay late.

For a couple of decades now, we’ve been subjected to the entertaining but left-skewed works of film director Oliver Stone. The torch is being passed to a new generation in the form of Stone’s son, Sean. Sean Stone has accompanied his father on grand visits to such fine people as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and supports them as enthusiastically as his father. Sean has inherited his father’s taste for dictators and mass-murderers.

Sean is not exactly a big-time legendary actor, having appeared in small parts in his father’s movies such as The Doors, Natural Born Killers, Any Given Sunday, and most notably (or ignobly) Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. We’re supposed to believe that his acting career and his father’s tutelage will make him a great director. That may be true, but like his father, it may also make him a big-time nutcase propagandist.

Sean was returning from the Toronto Film Festival when he got cornered by reporters with nothing better to do. So they asked him about his plans to become a director in light of his recent favorable remarks about Iran and its apocalyptic leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The younger Stone bypassed arguments that Iran’s current nuclear development is all about energy-production, and went straight to defending Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons. Says Sean: “Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran has the right to them. Every nation has the right to self-determination for defense.”

Even Ahmadinejad doesn’t go so far as to admit that Iran’s nuclear facilities are going to be used for the production of nuclear weapons. He still spouts the pretense that only the production of energy is involved in those facilities, despite the fact that his nation is sitting on an ocean of oil. But like young Sean, Ahmadinejad will, if pushed, loudly and clearly proclaim Iran’s right to have nuclear arms to defend against nuclear Israel.

So, let’s count the number of times that Israel has been the aggressor in Middle East Wars. Um, zero. But it has been attacked by its Muslim neighbors many times, always to the dismay of the members of the People’s Republic of Jihadistan who lose wars like I lose car keys. Iran is about the only nearby Muslim neighbor that hasn’t attacked Israel. But a nuke or two might just make the odds more attractive. Only the blind, the stupid, and Sean Stone could believe for a minute that the weapons would be for self-defense.

Iran must be wiped off the face of the map. No, wait. It’s Israel that must be wiped off the face of the map, or so says Ahmadinejad. In a war that Iran will initiate in self-defense, no doubt. Stone doesn’t say the magic Jew words of Ahmadinejad, he merely defends them. A-Jad denies the Holocaust, says unreservedly that 9/11 was an inside job executed by the loathsome US/Israel alliance to stir up aniti-Muslim hatred, and categorically proposes that both World Wars were started by Zionists to increase their wealth and create the State of Israel.

Does Stone outright defend these vile libels? No. After all, he’s a big intellectual who is far more nuanced. Stone tosses out his defense of Ahmadinejad in a different way: “He did come to America to extend a hand. And there’s a lot of mistranslation, literally, I’ve seen it. Ahmadinejad will say something and it will be mistranslated. A lot of this is bullshit, mistranslation. It’s an aggressive attitude on both parts, mostly on the American side.”

Now how one “mistranslates” something like “Israel must be wiped off the face of the map” is entirely beyond me. But what do I know? I’m not a film maven. From daddy Oliver’s love for Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Chavez, it’s only one small step for son Sean to tout Ahmadinejad and Iran. Sean even makes sure you understand how well he knows Iran and its regime by stating “Iran is ruled by law.” Yep, Sharia law. You know, the law that would wipe out most of his potential stars because of homosexuality, lack of Islamic devotion, and general all-around immorality since Iranian Sharia requires death for each of those offenses.

Stone also supports the right of benign leaders like Ahmadinejad to maintain law and order against pesky dissidents. When challenged about Ahmadinejad’s brutal suppression of the growing freedom movement in Iran, Stone shot back: “People don’t like Ahmadinejad, but that doesn’t warrant a war or an uprising.” Stone has previously supported exactly that in several nations during the “Arab Spring.” But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and Sean has no doubt that his mind is big enough to pick and choose which rebellions to support.

Iran has arrested or banned all Iranian film-makers who have dared to utter a word of criticism against the current regime. In this, A-Jad has had the active assistance of the ayatollahs. But there probably won’t be the same enmity toward Stone, who apparently knows more about the lack of repression in Iran than actual Iranians and sees the actions of the regime as simply avoiding civil unrest. If an American cop looks the wrong way at a property-damaging anti-government rioter, Stone goes off the cliff in his condemnation of brutal, fascist American tactics. But in Iran, where enforcement of civil order includes government-sanctioned rape and summary execution, well, we just don’t understand Iran as well as he does.

So what is Stone actually planning—film-wise? He says he wants to introduce Persian culture and civilization to the West in his upcoming films. He had better introduce them to the Ahmandinejad regime first, since anything that doesn’t comport with the ayatollahs’ primitive form of Islam is ruthlessly suppressed. Omar Khayyam would have been hanged from the mosque minaret if only for his admiration of “comely youths.” Any culture that was uniquely Persian prior to its Islamization has been wiped from the official registry of Iranian culture.

Knowing that Stone will be welcomed with open arms and open wallets by the Hollywood crowd, I want to cash in on his future fame. I am writing a movie script for him in which it is revealed that a Jew who hated the ayatollahs conspired with the Mafia and the CIA to assassinate John Kennedy by using a Kaballah-blessed magic bullet. It should be a big hit, and Sean can pride himself on the fact that he discovered the true conspiracy that his father missed when making JFK. Maybe I’m a film maven after all. Anyone have a suggestion for a working title?

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! At 7 PM (Eastern/Blogger Time), 4 PM (Pacific Time) The T-Rav Sockpuppet Theater will live blog the Republican debates and at the same time give you plenty of time to make pre-debate predictions. Come early, stay late.

Like Father, Like Son

View Detail

The Arabs Spring

The Arabs Spring

I was fed up to the neck with the drooling announcements of the "Arab Spring" about thirty seconds after I first heard the expression. Fools in the American government and on the left actually believe the overturning of repressive regimes in the Middle East somehow was the foretaste of western-style democracy. That is nothing short of criminal naivete.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (only worse). As the Arab Spring develops in Egypt with all the happy peace-loving Egyptians skipping down the streets of Cairo, holding hands, and singing kumbaya, something seems slightly amiss. Former strongman president Hosni Mubarak is going on trial for acting like a typical Arab leader, but in one way he was atypical. He maintained peace with his neighbors, most particularly Israel.

The usual Egyptian mob showed up for the weekly freedom (choke) demonstration in Tahrir Square, but as mob mentality took over, the mob decided demonstrating against a government that had already fallen just wasn't enough fun anymore. So last Friday's fun-fest turned into a march on the Israeli embassy in the nearby Giza district. Things aren't working out so well in Egypt. Tourism is down dramatically. The "free elections" have been kicked down the road. Money is becoming hard to come by for the average Egyptian. All good Arab Muslims know why things are so bad. It's the damned Jews.

The average Egyptian has probably never heard the line "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves." Knowing that Islam is never in error, and that Egyptians are the very salt of the earth, someone has to be behind the troubles that have made Egypt's situation worse rather than better after the fall of Mubarak. We all know what the default position for failure is in Arab nations--Israel did it. Hatred of the West, the United States, democracy, freedom and civilized values in general are thoughts shared among the denizens of Jihadistan. But hatred of Israel is almost genetic and extremely visceral.

So the mob broke through barriers and entered the Israeli embassy. Shades of Saigon and Tehran. The violence in Eqypt was not as widespread, but the pattern was the same. Throw a thousand years of diplomatic rules and sovereign territory out the window and loot. The Egyptian military at first stood idly by as the mob vandalized everything in sight inside the embassy, destroying a peace that had existed between Egypt and Israel since 1979. After the embassy was gutted, and the Israeli diplomats had escaped, the military finally took charge, killing two members of the mob and injuring many others.

The Egyptian provisional government had already proved itself adept at shooting itself in the foot. One of its first acts was to show those Jews what's what by ending its exports of natural-gas to Israel. That instantly took almost $355 million out of the nation's already-staggering economy (incidentally and entirely coincidentally almost the exact same amount taken out of the American economy by Obama's gift to bankrupt Solyndra). Even after trying Mubarak friends in kangaroo courts, 12,000 of them to be exact, the thirst for the blood of those to blame for Egypt's woes was not slaked. Israel must pay.

The Arab Spring in Egypt is beginning to look a lot more like the long, hot summer. The Egyptian Israel-haters have been encouraged by Barack Obama's ongoing public disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama's support for an independent Palestinian state which includes parts of Jerusalem haven't helped much either. But at least some of Obama's diplomatic functionaries recognized that they have been a little too cozy with the new Egyptian bosses, and forced Obama to render assistance to the trapped Israeli diplomats at the embassy.

Unlike the arrogant and self-centered Obama, Netanyahu behaved like a statesman and a gentlemen (both expressions entirely foreign to the amateur President). Netanyahu praised Obama, saying that the American President "used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us--we owe him a special debt of gratitude." Watch your back, Mr. Netanyahu.

I was fed up to the neck with the drooling announcements of the "Arab Spring" about thirty seconds after I first heard the expression. Fools in the American government and on the left actually believe the overturning of repressive regimes in the Middle East somehow was the foretaste of western-style democracy. That is nothing short of criminal naivete.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (only worse). As the Arab Spring develops in Egypt with all the happy peace-loving Egyptians skipping down the streets of Cairo, holding hands, and singing kumbaya, something seems slightly amiss. Former strongman president Hosni Mubarak is going on trial for acting like a typical Arab leader, but in one way he was atypical. He maintained peace with his neighbors, most particularly Israel.

The usual Egyptian mob showed up for the weekly freedom (choke) demonstration in Tahrir Square, but as mob mentality took over, the mob decided demonstrating against a government that had already fallen just wasn't enough fun anymore. So last Friday's fun-fest turned into a march on the Israeli embassy in the nearby Giza district. Things aren't working out so well in Egypt. Tourism is down dramatically. The "free elections" have been kicked down the road. Money is becoming hard to come by for the average Egyptian. All good Arab Muslims know why things are so bad. It's the damned Jews.

The average Egyptian has probably never heard the line "the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves." Knowing that Islam is never in error, and that Egyptians are the very salt of the earth, someone has to be behind the troubles that have made Egypt's situation worse rather than better after the fall of Mubarak. We all know what the default position for failure is in Arab nations--Israel did it. Hatred of the West, the United States, democracy, freedom and civilized values in general are thoughts shared among the denizens of Jihadistan. But hatred of Israel is almost genetic and extremely visceral.

So the mob broke through barriers and entered the Israeli embassy. Shades of Saigon and Tehran. The violence in Eqypt was not as widespread, but the pattern was the same. Throw a thousand years of diplomatic rules and sovereign territory out the window and loot. The Egyptian military at first stood idly by as the mob vandalized everything in sight inside the embassy, destroying a peace that had existed between Egypt and Israel since 1979. After the embassy was gutted, and the Israeli diplomats had escaped, the military finally took charge, killing two members of the mob and injuring many others.

The Egyptian provisional government had already proved itself adept at shooting itself in the foot. One of its first acts was to show those Jews what's what by ending its exports of natural-gas to Israel. That instantly took almost $355 million out of the nation's already-staggering economy (incidentally and entirely coincidentally almost the exact same amount taken out of the American economy by Obama's gift to bankrupt Solyndra). Even after trying Mubarak friends in kangaroo courts, 12,000 of them to be exact, the thirst for the blood of those to blame for Egypt's woes was not slaked. Israel must pay.

The Arab Spring in Egypt is beginning to look a lot more like the long, hot summer. The Egyptian Israel-haters have been encouraged by Barack Obama's ongoing public disrespect for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama's support for an independent Palestinian state which includes parts of Jerusalem haven't helped much either. But at least some of Obama's diplomatic functionaries recognized that they have been a little too cozy with the new Egyptian bosses, and forced Obama to render assistance to the trapped Israeli diplomats at the embassy.

Unlike the arrogant and self-centered Obama, Netanyahu behaved like a statesman and a gentlemen (both expressions entirely foreign to the amateur President). Netanyahu praised Obama, saying that the American President "used every considerable means and influence of the United States to help us--we owe him a special debt of gratitude." Watch your back, Mr. Netanyahu.

The Arabs Spring

View Detail

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

Last week, the official White House site made a subtle but important change to one of the pictures it has been displaying. Previously, there was a shot taken in "Jerusalem, Israel." "Jerusalem" is now an island without a country, and "Israel" has been deleted from the photo. If Obama can make the victims of Fast and Furious into non-persons, I guess they can turn Jerusalem into a non-capital.



There has been a two-administration battle between Congress's insistence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the administration's insistence that such a determination belongs to the executive branch through its constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. As far as the executive branch is concerned through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.



Fair enough. But the White House website has always shown the picture of Jerusalem in conjunction with the word Israel. The photo was a picture of Vice President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2010. It was entitled: "Biden and Peres meet in Jerusalem, Israel. Suddenly, Biden met with Peres in Jerusalem, (fill in the blank). Either that, or they met in just-plain-Jerusalem.



The whole brouhaha was set off when American naturalized citizens wanted their passports to read: "Birthplace--Jerusalem, Israel." Before removal of the word "Israel" from the photo, the state department issued a brief statement reiterating the administration's position that "US citizens born in Jerusalem may not have 'Israel' listed in their passports as their place of birth." Yet in another photo, still extant on the website, there is a story about a trainee foreign service officer whose "first assignment will be in Jerusalem, Israel, beginning August 2011."



The closest historical parallel I can think of is the airbrushing out of Nazis loyal to Hitler and communists loyal to Stalin when those same dictators decided that the loyalists had become a drug on their respective agendas. In 2002, Congress passed a law allowing naturalized American Jews to include the word "Israel" on their passports if they chose to do so. The representatives who supported the move claim it had no foreign policy significance whatsoever, and merely addressed the concerns of naturalized American Jews that a simple elementary truth be imprinted on the passports.



There's an old Borscht-belt comedian's joke that somewhat fits the situation. An angry husband comes home to find a man hiding in his wife's closet. He asks: "What are you doing in there?" The man replies: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere." Likewise, every city has to be somewhere. So where is Jerusalem--Mars? The State Department is consistently inconsistent. Its address for the US Consulate is officially in zip code 91002--no country. But in applications for social security deposits and its official guidebook to Jerusalem, it gives "Jerusalem, Israel" as its address.



The department has not been nearly so scrupulous about its unitary authority on diplomatic documents when it comes to other disputed homelands. Since 1994, naturalized Americans from Taiwan have been allowed to state their birthplace as simply Taiwan, or alternatively, Taiwan, China. It seems the State Department is less worried about offending a superpower than it is about offending Jihadistan and the Palestinians. China has never acknowledged Taiwan as a separate nation, and continues to deem it an unlawful breakaway province. Officially, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a formal state or country either, but it's a whole lot looser about what can be written on a passport.



To put another exclamation point on the silliness, the State Department is not nearly so doctrinaire about certain other "disputed homelands" in the Middle East. Naturalized American citizens from the Golan Heights are free to declare Syria as their birth nation. This is in spite of the fact that the Golan Heights have been under Israel's control since 1967, and were formally annexed into Israel in 1981. Before that time, the Golan Heights were Syrian for only twenty-three years, previously having been a French protectorate and part of the Ottoman Empire.



So now the question becomes, "is this change on the White House website a reflection of a genuine difference of position between the executive and legislative branches, or merely a prelude to another Obama apology tour of the Middle East?" It also raises the question "why now?"

Last week, the official White House site made a subtle but important change to one of the pictures it has been displaying. Previously, there was a shot taken in "Jerusalem, Israel." "Jerusalem" is now an island without a country, and "Israel" has been deleted from the photo. If Obama can make the victims of Fast and Furious into non-persons, I guess they can turn Jerusalem into a non-capital.



There has been a two-administration battle between Congress's insistence that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the administration's insistence that such a determination belongs to the executive branch through its constitutional authority to conduct the nation's foreign affairs. As far as the executive branch is concerned through both the Bush and Obama administrations, the status of Jerusalem remains unsettled.



Fair enough. But the White House website has always shown the picture of Jerusalem in conjunction with the word Israel. The photo was a picture of Vice President Joe Biden meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2010. It was entitled: "Biden and Peres meet in Jerusalem, Israel. Suddenly, Biden met with Peres in Jerusalem, (fill in the blank). Either that, or they met in just-plain-Jerusalem.



The whole brouhaha was set off when American naturalized citizens wanted their passports to read: "Birthplace--Jerusalem, Israel." Before removal of the word "Israel" from the photo, the state department issued a brief statement reiterating the administration's position that "US citizens born in Jerusalem may not have 'Israel' listed in their passports as their place of birth." Yet in another photo, still extant on the website, there is a story about a trainee foreign service officer whose "first assignment will be in Jerusalem, Israel, beginning August 2011."



The closest historical parallel I can think of is the airbrushing out of Nazis loyal to Hitler and communists loyal to Stalin when those same dictators decided that the loyalists had become a drug on their respective agendas. In 2002, Congress passed a law allowing naturalized American Jews to include the word "Israel" on their passports if they chose to do so. The representatives who supported the move claim it had no foreign policy significance whatsoever, and merely addressed the concerns of naturalized American Jews that a simple elementary truth be imprinted on the passports.



There's an old Borscht-belt comedian's joke that somewhat fits the situation. An angry husband comes home to find a man hiding in his wife's closet. He asks: "What are you doing in there?" The man replies: "Everybody's gotta be somewhere." Likewise, every city has to be somewhere. So where is Jerusalem--Mars? The State Department is consistently inconsistent. Its address for the US Consulate is officially in zip code 91002--no country. But in applications for social security deposits and its official guidebook to Jerusalem, it gives "Jerusalem, Israel" as its address.



The department has not been nearly so scrupulous about its unitary authority on diplomatic documents when it comes to other disputed homelands. Since 1994, naturalized Americans from Taiwan have been allowed to state their birthplace as simply Taiwan, or alternatively, Taiwan, China. It seems the State Department is less worried about offending a superpower than it is about offending Jihadistan and the Palestinians. China has never acknowledged Taiwan as a separate nation, and continues to deem it an unlawful breakaway province. Officially, the US does not recognize Taiwan as a formal state or country either, but it's a whole lot looser about what can be written on a passport.



To put another exclamation point on the silliness, the State Department is not nearly so doctrinaire about certain other "disputed homelands" in the Middle East. Naturalized American citizens from the Golan Heights are free to declare Syria as their birth nation. This is in spite of the fact that the Golan Heights have been under Israel's control since 1967, and were formally annexed into Israel in 1981. Before that time, the Golan Heights were Syrian for only twenty-three years, previously having been a French protectorate and part of the Ottoman Empire.



So now the question becomes, "is this change on the White House website a reflection of a genuine difference of position between the executive and legislative branches, or merely a prelude to another Obama apology tour of the Middle East?" It also raises the question "why now?"

A Small Detail But A Large Statement

View Detail