Not that long ago, Joseph Robinette Biden was supposedly gravely insulted by Israel announcing that potential housing to be built in Jerusalem had passed one stage of a multi-stage approval process. Biden was so insulted by this dastardly act that he stood up the Prime Minister of Israel for 90 minutes and that he and various Obama Administration officials proceeded to lambaste Israel for "insulting" Biden.

Hillary Clinton proclaimed; "it was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States." "There was an affront, it was an insult", huffed Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod. Hundreds of newspapers immediately penned editorials denouncing Israel's grave insult. The essence of it was that Israel had insulted Biden by laying claim to Jerusalem during his visit.

There's just one problem with this. In 1995 Biden himself served as a co-sponsor of S. 1322, known as the Jerusalem Embassy Act. (Additional Senate co-sponsors included such obscure legislators as John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Jesse Helms, John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, Strom Thurmond and Bob Dole.) Let's look at the text of the Jerusalem Embassy Act now.

(a) STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES-

(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;

So if we believe the White House, in 1995 Senator Biden co-sponsored a bill in which he laid out a Statement of the Policy of the United States as that of an "Undivided Jerusalem" that is the undivided capital of the State of Israel. In 2010 that same Biden however was gravely insulted by a potential Israeli housing project in Jerusalem.

But surely that was an accident. After all Biden might not have known what resolution he was actually co-sponsoring. Except that in 1992 Biden also served as co-sponsor of Senate Consecutive Resolution 113. It states that;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress--

(1) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the reunification of that historic city;

(2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as they have been by Israel during the past twenty-five years; and

(3) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to issue an unequivocal statement in support of these principles.

So in 1992, Biden "strongly believed" that Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capitol and even wanted the President to issue an "unequivocal statement" in support of that. Fast forward a bit and Biden is supposedly gravely insulted because Israel believes unequivocally that Jerusalem is its undivided capital.

Now certainly Senator Biden twice co-sponsored resolutions and bills that proclaimed Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital. But he couldn't for the love of god have done it three times? Or could he have.

In 1990 Senator Joseph Robinette Biden co-sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 which stated that;

Whereas ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem raise concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided and access to religious sites in Jerusalem denied to Israeli citizens; and

Whereas such concerns inhibit and complicate the search for a lasting peace in the region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress--

(1) acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel;

(2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; and

(3) calls upon all parties involved in the search for peace to maintain their strong efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and Palestinian representatives.

Now just so we're keeping track, Biden co-sponsored three Senate resolution, all three of which insisted that Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital. One of which insisted that it was vital for the peace process that Jerusalem should be affirmed by US policy as Israel's undivided capital.

So naturally, like any good politician, he was insulted by Israel taking him at his word. To argue that Biden was gravely insulted by Israel, is to argue that he was insulted by the policies he himself supported.

Not just passively supported, but co-sponsored in three Senate resolutions which repeatedly stated that these were meant to be the policy of the United States.

But of course the hypocrisy train doesn't just stop at Joe Biden Station.

Hillary Clinton who claimed that Israeli housing "was not only an insult to Biden, but an insult to the United States", in 2007 (barely 2 and a half years ago) issued a paper stating,

"Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."

And barely 2.5 years later, Hillary Clinton is vocally doing the questioning. And the woman who not that long ago said that an "Undivided Jerusalem" must never be questioned, was pretending that Israel approving housing in Jerusalem was a grave insult to the United States.

The question must then be asked, if Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton supported an undivided Jerusalem and if Israeli housing projects in Jerusalem are an insult to the United States-- weren't Hillary and Joe insulting the United States. Or were they just insulting the Jewish voters who believed their empty promises?

But the "insults" don't stop there. In 2008 Obama gave a speech in which he said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." To be fair to Obama, he didn't waste too much time  divorcing himself from the statement he had just made. It actually took him only a day to explain that he actually supported dividing Jerusalem, he just didn't want it divided by barbed wire. No, seriously.

You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given. The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ‘67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent.

After a prolonged study by experts in semantics, it turns out that Obama felt that "Undivided Jerusalem" was subject to all sorts of misinterpretations, such as it being undivided, when he actually meant that it should be cohesive and coherent. Unlike Obama himself. Since no one knows what in the world "cohesive and coherent" might mean as applied to a city, that made it a safe statement to make.

So to sum up, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and even Obama were enthusiastic supporters of an "Undivided Jerusalem" not too long ago, but in the spring of 2010 they were gravely insulted because Israel moved housing in Jerusalem to be built on deserted land through one stage of a multi-stage approvals process while Biden happened to be in the country.

Now this dog just won't hunt. Either an "Undivided Jerusalem" is a grave insult to the United States and completely destructive of the peace process... in which case Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Obama have all insulted the United States and are destructive of the peace process... or they are completely shameless liars and hypocrites.

Just to close off this sad chapter with one more stop for the Hypocrisy Express at Joe Biden Station, let's tune in to Joe Biden circa 2001.

“Why is it that the one ally we have in that part of the world [Israel], that we have the right to publicly chastise them? We would not do that with any other friend … As much as the Middle East is always on our minds, the best thing we can do is keep it off the US and world press.” He also said that such criticism “emboldens those in the Middle East and around the world who still harbor as their sacred goal the elimination of Israel … It is not for you to tell them [Israel], nor for me, what is in their best interests. We should give them the right to determine what chances they will take”

Fast forward to 2010 where under the guidance of Barack Hussein Obama, Biden staged a very loud and public bashing of Israel.

One is reminded of the question, how can you tell when a politician is lying? Easy, his lips are moving.

(Spanish Language Translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)

Several hundred years ago when the forces of Islam wanted to capture Vienna, they came with the sword and the cannon and laid siege to the city walls. Today they simply take a plane. While Vienna was able to resist repeated sieges, it was not able to resist Islamic immigration, and as a result the city looks a good deal more the way it would have had it fallen to an actual siege. Today as much as a third of Vienna is of foreign origin. And as many as 50 percent of Viennese schoolchildren have a non-German language as their mother tongue.

Gates of Vienna Battle

Austria itself is projected to have as many as half a million Muslims. This would be catastrophic enough in a country with a smaller population than the state of New Jersey, but it is far more catastrophic considering how much of that population skews youthful. The Muslim birth rate is nearly double that of the Protestant and Catholic birth rates. This results in a demographic shift in which statistics may deceptively peg the Muslim population of a country at only a fraction of its real power and growth potential, thereby blinding the government and the population to the reality of how bad things already are.

The practical implications of this are obvious enough, as they are everywhere else. The majority of Turkish immigrants polled by the Interior Ministry said that they want to see Sharia law introduced in Austria. Those same immigrants also stated by a decisive majority that Islamic laws were more important than Austrian laws, and blamed "democracy" for crime. The Austrian government has predictably tried to treat it as an integration problem, but as the survey shows, Muslims are enthusiastic enough about integration. They just mean to integrate Austrians into an Islamic Republic of Austria, rather than the other way around.

The example of Vienna, where the Islamic conquest of Europe was once halted, is a telling testament to the power of the Immigration Jihad. What the armies of Islam could not do en masse over several centuries, a permissive attitude toward Islamic immigration managed to do in only a few decades. The Gates of Vienna have not only been breached, they have been occupied by the enemy. And now the motto of the Vienna Tourism Bureau urging visitors to come is, "Vienna: Now or Never".

Where once upon a time Islamic armies had to lay siege, plant gunpowder charges and finally breach the walls in massive costly charges-- today they can simply hop a plane. And so what started out as a few newspaper vendors, factory workers and janitors, morphed into a full blown cultural invasion complete with a network of Islamic schools where students are taught that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and where 8.5 percent of the teachers surveyed said that it is understandable when violence is used to spread Islam. The pattern however is not limited to Vienna, it exists worldwide.

Muslims move into former depressed manufacturing centers, such as Detroit, Jersey City and Buffalo in the United States or Manchester in the UK, and buy in cheaply. and take over the base economy, moving into the lower echelon job market, replacing existing stores with cheap family run places, essentially servicing the decline. Like bacteria attacking an already weakened part of the body politic, they move into places already suffering from a declining population and looking for some means to revitalize themselves. And initially the rising Muslim population, which buys up property, opens new businesses and injects new energy into the city appears to be doing just that. Except of course whatever they put in, they quickly take out in the form of social services expenditures. The municipalities discover that the price for their newfound Muslim population is rather high.

A Muslim Hate Protest in Vienna

Muslim involvement in politics quickly follows with the aim of normalizing the services and standards of municipal government to their standards. Social services are used to underfund more Islamic immigration and expansion. Men import multiple brides from their home country and register them as cousins. Social services covers the bills for these poor unfortunate "single mothers" who are actually in a polygamous marriage with their "cousin". Entire areas of the city become "No-Go" Muslim areas, effectively capturing portions of a city and turning into mini-Islamic states. And these portions will of course expand and grow, displacing surrounding residents and neighborhoods. And once they have a foothold in a major regional city, they also have their boot on the region itself. By exploiting the conditions in an economically depressed area, Muslim immigration can quickly gain a much larger grip on the entire country. Even as their mosques and schools prepare the next generation to fight in every sense of the word, for an Islamic takeover, the rising presence of Islam in the country begins to move the Immigration Jihad to the next stage.

But like any takeover in which the enemy is allowed inside the gates, it could not happen without the active collaboration of those on the inside. And they have their various motivations. Left of center politicians and parties often expect that Muslim immigrants will serve as a reliable voting base for them, and they are correct about that-- in the short term. Meanwhile more middle of the road pols see rising population figures as a regional net benefit and a shot at elevating their own political importance, without examining the consequences down the road. Companies are always on the lookout for cheap labor, and particularly in countries and areas with a low birth rate, there are always some dirty jobs that need doing. The jobs that Americans, Austrians, Frenchmen, Israelis and Norwegians don't want to do. But those same jobs are also part of the critical infrastructure of a local economy. And by capturing them, they capture the base processes by which the system exists.

More civilized countries self destruct in order to save a penny, than in the name of any belief or ideology. And cheap labor and cheap votes are one of the more appealing economic drugs on the market. American industry dismantled itself to save money, and shipped off the parts to China, which now resells them to America. European industry tried to make do with Turks, Pakistanis and Yugoslavian Muslims. The American results were arguably less devastating, because the United States simply shipped its economy overseas to its enemy, instead of inviting its enemy in to maintain its economy for it.

And now even as European countries can't help but notice that they are destroying themselves through Muslim immigration, still the process continues. Because there are too many powerful people who have too much to gain from the process to cut it off. And in many cases, it would often be too late to do so without a civil war. Vienna, which once effectively used residency registration to carefully control its population, now has entire foreign districts where few non-Muslims would willingly set foot for long. Because control is an illusion when you have imported enough Muslims, something that uptight social regimes slowly begin discovering to their own misfortune, only once there are clusters and collectives of them embedded in one area.

Islam Now Inside the Gates of Vienna

For Muslim countries, the Immigration Jihad is a profitable way to dispose of their own excess population. The average Muslim country suffers from heavy unemployment, or rather people employed on the far margins of the system, due to a rising birth rate. Immigration exports the population, and profits from the money they send back home to their relatives. Meanwhile the borders of Islam expand, and in the long term they are certain that the immigration targeted countries will eventually fall into their hands. And that is likely to be the case. The majority of Austrian Turks identify with Turkey, not Austria. Meanwhile Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan delivered an address to thousands of European Turkish politicians and leaders urging them to hold on to their dual citizenshps, to become politically active but not assimilate into their societies. Like the Saudi royal family, Erdogan sees an Islamic takeover of Europe happening. His mission is to speed it up by achieving EU membership for Turkey and the Islamization of the rest of Europe.

Unlike the old forms of conquest, the Immigration Jihad is profitable for the Muslim countries that launch it, while its main expenses are borne by the non-Muslim countries who are its victims, and are forced to subsidize the social services burdens, crime and terrorism costs imposed on them by their growing Muslim populations. It is a mass invasion on the cheap. One where the new immigrants send back the loot to their old countries, spearhead crime and smuggling networks that reach from Eastern Europe and to the Middle East, plunged like a fishhook into Europe. Where the cost of each child who is taught to grow up and fight for Islam is borne by the country he is being trained to destroy. And so the Gates of Vienna have fallen. And the rest of Europe is not far behind.

Multiculturalism is one of those political words that liberals have successfully added to the day to day lexicon. It's become so that no business or political party can describe itself without employing multicultural language. One of liberalism's major crusades in the last generation has been to incorporate multiculturalism into everything, and make its lack seem like guilt or evidence of a crime. And all this championing of multiculturalism appears to make liberals seem friendly and interested in promoting different cultures. But in fact that's a fraud and a lie.

To begin with let's remember that America was always a collection of different cultures. Even in its earliest days, the Scot, the Englishman, the German, the Irishman, the Jew, the Russian, the Dutchman, the Frenchman and many others were part of the stew bubbling in the American kettle. As immigration expanded beyond a few European companies and states, the number of cultures in the mix expanded as well. This went on without an ideological program, but because American opportunity and freedom beckoned to people across the sea. Some such as indentured Irish servants or African slaves came without choice or freedom, but for the most part America has always consisted of people who wanted to live life in their own way. And no condition of involuntary servitude has endured in America for more than a century.

But when liberals talk about multiculturalism what they mean is very different from the existing American reality of people from different cultures valuing their own traditions while interacting with each other. Liberals pretend that multiculturalism overturns the old "hostile to different cultures" melting pot, but in fact the melting pot was itself a progressive liberal idea which sought to meld together all peoples into their idea of what a universal American should be. The melting pot has always reeked of centralized government controlled culture, which is exactly what it was, an attempt to manufacture an artificial American identity defined by their own values through government, popular culture and the education system. The people shaped by that process often became loyal Democratic party voters because they were taught a universalized political idea of Americanism that was quite alien to the real thing. And that version of Americanism, all festive banners festooning a base of progressive liberal ideas, can be seen everywhere today, including most vividly in Obama's Presidential campaign which successfully resurrected the symbols and rhetoric of the Great America era of liberalism, to cloak a far more radical agenda.

Liberal multiculturalism is the melting pot by a new name. It is still artificially constructed culture employed for political ends. It simply represents a change of tactics and a different brand. Where old line liberalism offered top down solutions, new line liberalism prefers to hide its collectivism in phony bottom up solutions. So where old line liberalism would simply have the government pass laws that would enforce their agenda, new line liberals prefer to spend time working the ground, setting up multiple front groups and creating a public demand for their agenda, before having the government pass laws that enforce their agenda. Multiculturalism follows that pattern by maintaining the myth that it represents change as derived from the people, rather than being like all liberal plans, imposed on the people.

But multiculturalism is also much more than just new liberalism, it's also the New Left. And where liberals wanted to build their ideal America, the New Left wants to tear most of it down. Where liberals, for all their criticism of American capitalism with some reforms, the New Left believes that the rot goes too deep for that, and believe that most of the country needs to be smashed and rebuilt in an entirely new reform. (The Obama Administration is almost entirely New Left, but cloaks itself in a liberal facade in order to appeal to more traditional Democratic party voters.) So where liberals once believed that the melting pot would lead to a better America, their modern day New Left equivalents view multiculturalism as a weapon aimed at America. Just as their European counterparts view it as a weapon against their own home countries.

What is liberal multiculturalism really? It's divide and conquer by a new name. The name multiculturalism suggests an authentic interest in different cultures, but the left has no use for culture except as a vehicle for political ideas or goals. The left does not see any element in society as politically neutral. Languages, scientific fields, artistic trends, fashion styles and anything you can imagine is classified as either reactionary or progressive. (Case in point, the USSR at one time banned the field of cybernetics, the Hebrew language and Cubism as counterrevolutionary.) To people who politicize everything, all cultures clearly cannot be of equal worth. Nor are they likely to have any interest in a cultural work on its own terms, only in relation to its larger social and political context. The same goes for ethnic, religious and racial groups.

Modern liberal multiculturalism is primarily racial, while sidelining everyone else into the "Privileged White Cultural Majority" tab, despite the fact that these represents a tremendous variety of cultures and groups. But this is not because the left itself is racist, but only because they look for outsider groups to exploit as a wedge against American society as a whole. Early 20th century liberals were often quite concerned and fascinated with Irish, Jewish and Italian workers. They wrote extensively on their plight and romanticized their traditions. However when these groups successfully moved up the ladder, and transitioned into the middle and upper classes, liberals sneeringly shoved them into the "Privileged White Majority" tab, because they no longer represented outsider cultures. And the left is only interested in outsider cultures.

Liberal multiculturalism is not a celebration of different cultures, it is the political exploitation of specific cultures and groups as a weapon against the larger American society. As outsiders, the left romanticizes them as primitive, natural and spiritual. It uses their "plight" as an indictment and proof of America's evil. But once they've made it, the left not only has no further interest in them, but sometimes even harbors an open hostility toward them for "betraying the revolution" by joining the middle class. This is an internal political game of Divide and Conquer, in which the left tries to manufacture and exploit Fifth Columns in order to take and hold power, and to radically transform American society as a whole.

Multiculturalism exists in order to promote diversity. Another politicized word, which like multiculturalism does not mean what it seems to mean. And diversity is of course defined from the top down, making the entire thing a fraud from the start, and exposing the entire thing as an affirmative action sham, itself a rebranding of the old quota systems that were part and parcel of the melting pot. Diversity is naturally limited to those cultures that the left considers to be of political value. Its actual goal is to replace the natural existing American multiculturalism, with an artificial one with purely political goals. The goal is not culture, but power. Diversity is not about actual diversity, it is about giving the left a tighter grip on the political, cultural and economic arteries, while shaking up the existing establishment and forcing it to live by its own codes.

Liberals do not care about cultivating an authentic diversity of cultures or even authentic cultures, what they want is to be able to repackage their own policies with the language of another culture, and sell it as empowerment and political change. This is a variation on the melting pot, in which liberals attempted to sell their own policies as a universal American identity. And their New Left core also wants to use those cultures as a weapon against America as a whole. This weaponization of culture is typical of the left's Marxist roots, in which every group and culture was to be enlisted in the worldwide revolutionary struggle under a variety of facades, until victory was achieved and they could all be forcibly unified into one.

With this same goal, the European left facilitated and propagandized for the large scale Muslim immigration that threatens to transform them into Eurabia. The left believed that it could weaponize Islam to radically transform their home countries. They were right and they were wrong. The Muslim immigrants they imported were already weaponized, and the left will one day wake up and realize that rather than weaponizing Muslims, the Muslims have weaponized them. That debate of course will only be settled by who ends up on top in the end.

In America, liberals have weaponized racism, just as they once weaponized cultural and economic inequities. By weaponizing racism, they have turned it into a double edged sword, exploiting it on the one hand to attack their political enemies and on the other to attack members of minority groups with those same same racist stereotypes when they step out of line. This is how liberals routinely used racist attacks against Bush nominees, deriding them as tokens while treating their own minority nominees as victories for multiculturalism. So Condoleeza Rice was a "house slave" while Sotomayor was a "wise latina". To liberals there is no inconsistency, because by weaponizing racism, they also define racism in relation to their own political ideology. Thus a liberal can never truly be racist, because at the core they define racism not by discrimination or slurs used toward a group or race, but by resistance to the progressive force of liberalism-- which of course is inherently racist.

It is not about race, like everything else on the left, it is about politics. Culture and race are only vehicles for political agendas. Multiculturalism represents the weaponization of cultures and ethnicities for the political power of the left. They are not in fact interested in traditions, unless those traditions can be interpreted or adapted to suit their agendas. If not, they will manufacture traditions and overlay them across the existing traditions. When the left wishes to use them as agents of disruption, it will create havoc. When it wants to climb to power on their backs, it will turn them into marginalized voting bases. But it is never about accepting a multiplicity of cultures, but of enforcing a single idea. Their idea. Their way. And when seen correctly, all those facades of multiple cultures and beliefs recede into one.

(Spanish Language Translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)

Democratic Party Changes Name to Undemocratic Party

In compliance with Truth in Advertising regulations, the Democratic party has announced that it will be changing its name to the Undemocratic party.

"We've done the research and crunched the numbers," said party Chairman Tim Kaine, "and people don't want to run their own lives. They want a bunch of lawyers who take bribes in order to get elected to run their lives for them. And that's what the Undemocratic party is all about. No one wants democracy anymore, except the majority of Americans, and who cares what they want anyway?"

In line with the new name change, the Undemocratic party has announced a new election strategy which will consist of pointing nuclear weapons at swing states, until they agree to swing their way.



Bin Laden Announces Plans to Run for President

From an undisclosed cave near Kandahar, Osama bin Laden became the first candidate to announce his plans to run for President of the United States in 2012 under the slogan, "Vote for a Real Terrorist". Critics however question whether Bin Laden's campaign promise to free Al Queda terrorists and destroy America weren't redundant after 4 years of Obama.



Health Care Too Important to be Left to the American People

Barack Obama congratulated Congress on its determined willingness to pass a bill that no one besides unions, lobbyists and congress actually wanted.

"Today by reforming health care we have sent a decisive message to the American people that health care is too important to be left up to them. It's time we put an end to the idea that people can take care of themselves. People can't take care of themselves. That's what government is for."

If the American people still fail to get the message, HR 1111 calls for turning the Grand Canyon into a giant crib and hanging rattles overhead.




Republican Party Accused of Racism for Refusal to Support National Wax Museum Bill

Convicted Democratic congressman Alcee Hastings accused Republicans of a "Blatant campaign of racial hatred and intimidation" because of their refusal to support his bill calling for the creation of a National Wax Museum.

"The idea that there are still people today who would reject spending 2.1 billion dollars to create a museum where children of all races could come and see wax figurines of me, one of the greatest figures in American history is shocking," said Congressman Hastings. "There is only one possible reason for their refusal, and that's racism."

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert agreed. "Every time I think that we've moved on from Selma and George Wallace. From the mobs that beat civil rights workers and burned churches, the Republicans obstinately decide not to support another Democratic piece of legislation, and then it's just like Bobby Kennedy was assassinated all over again."





Nancy Pelosi Founds First Congressional Terrorist Organization

House speaker Nancy Pelosi ushered in the founding of the first Congressional terrorist group simultaneously with the passage of the Destroy Health Care in America Act. The "Martyrs of 2010 Democratic Brigade" consists entirely of congressmen who are expected to lose office as a result of voting for the act. In retaliation its members have pledged to carry out a campaign of political terrorism against Americans by voting for increasingly insane and totalitarian pieces of legislation on a monthly basis.

Historians however point out that the Martyrs of 2010 would just be carrying on congressional business as usual.



Congressman Runs for Public Office in Order to Spend Less Time With His Family

Battling a trend of politicians suddenly retiring in order to spend more time with their families, would be senator George Cheever has announced that he is running for office in order to spend much less time with his family. Cheever, who is running to replace Senator Evan Bayh, who retired in order to spend more time with his family, has made no secret of his hatred for his own family.

"Those people?" Cheever said. "I can't even stand being around them. And the people of Indiana can be confident that they won't catch me leaving office in order to spend more time with them. If I retire, the only possible reason for it would be to avoid being convicted of a major crime."




Drunken Idiot Extremely Offended by Israeli House

Vice President Biden was gravely offended on his drunken visit to the Middle East by an Israeli house. It is unknown what the house said or did to offend the Vice President, but the Israeli government immediately offered to censure the house and ring its doorbell several times as punishment. This did not satisfy prominent Atlantic liberal pundit, Andrew Sullivan who called for invading Israel in order to find and punish the house responsible. This was only the 10th time that Sullivan had called for invading Israel this month.

In response the Obama Administration has threatened to stop pretending to be serious about imposing sanctions on Iran. A panicked Netanyahu immediately promised to pretend harder to believe that the administration is serious about imposing sanctions on Iran.



Governor Schwarzenegger Announces He Will Run as Independent Against Himself

Wildly unpopular California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger who is battling 71 percent unpopularity ratings announced a plan to return from the future and run against himself as an independent candidate.

"Peeple of Khalifornia," Governor Schwarzenegger said, "for the last several years you have been ruled by an evil clone of myself. But now I have come back from the future to save you all from my own high taxes by running against my own politics of failure and bring Khalifornia into a wonderful economic state where we can jingle all the way home."

Critics as usual pointed out that the Governor's speech made no sense and speculated whether one of the Arnolds would have to change his name to avoid voter confusion.





Barack Obama Trapped Inside Mirror by Lure of his Own Image

A year of terror finally came to an end, when a clever young lad and his owl sidekick succeeded in trapping Barack Obama inside a mirror. The young lad succeeded in doing what no hero had been able to do, by approaching Obama carrying a full length mirror. Unable to look away from his own reflection, Barack Obama has been stuck in place for over a week now, which has prevented him from engaging in his usual fanciful habit of spending a billion dollars a day. Expert sorcerers suggest that the mirror may have successfully trapped Obama by the lure of his own image. The lad meanwhile has moved on to climbing a nearby beanstalk in order to deal with a local giant.

The forces of tyranny are strong around the world, as Chavez completed his crackdown on the independent media with the arrest of the President of Globovision Television. Globovision was Venezuela's equivalent of CNN, the country's first 24 hour news network. Chavez had previously shuttered Radio Caracas Televisión, resulting in student protests and a violent crackdown that foreshadowed the actions taken by Chavez's Iranian ally, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Unsurprisingly this hasn't resulted in much in the way of media coverage. Apologists for the Chavez regime typically claim that the stations being targeted were engaging in attempts to overthrow the regime (while naturally ignoring the fact that Chavez had been doing the same thing). This was the same defense used by liberals who defended Stalin's Moscow Trails.

Meanwhile the same Western media which gave extensive coverage to the non-coup in Honduras against Chavez ally Manuel Zelaya, and sympathetic coverage to the struggles of the radio station of Zelaya's political ally, David Romero Ellner, who had a Marxist terrorist past, had molested his own daughter and said that Hitler was justified in carrying out the Holocaust. Despite all this hundreds of stories were filed on David Romero Ellner's heroic struggle against censorship. The arrest of Guillermo Zuloaga will naturally not get this kind of publicity, because he isn't a left wing terrorist.

And of course it gets so much worse in Chavezstan,

Chávez’s crony courts have charged Álvarez Paz with conspiracy, “public instigation of criminality” and “spreading false information”–crimes that could draw sentences of 13 to 27 years. Álvarez Paz was indicted for televised statements on March 8 acknowledging the fact that Venezuela has become a haven for drug trafficking and citing accusations by a Spanish court that the Chávez regime supports Basque and Colombian terrorists.

Álvarez Paz’s real crime is that of being the clear-headed conscience of Venezuela’s opposition. The 67-year-old former governor of the State of Zulia who sought his party’s presidential nomination in 1993, Álvarez Paz has gained notoriety for his weekly columns in which he chronicles his country’s tragic, inexorable march to dictatorship under Chávez.

But the same people who go mad every time Israel puts up a house, have very little interest in actual left wing tyranny. Much like the liberals who weekly denounced British warmongering in the 30's, while Stalin was butchering people wholesale. But the left must have its socialist heroes such as Stalin and Chavez, all the more heroic for the atrocities they commit that shore up their revolutionary credentials.

When left wing activist and sometime actor Sean Penn called for reporters who call Chavez a dictator to be jailed, he got to the root of the left's support for Chavez. Chavez does what they only wish they could do here. What they wish Obama would really do.

This is what they want for America. This is what America would look like if they had their way.

The Judiciary in Venezuela is made up of Chavez loyal followers, named directly by the regime, in open violation of the constitution. Just to give readers an example of the low ethical quality of these magistrates I enclose a video in which the members of the Supreme Tibunal of Justice, dressed in full regalia, when opening sessions sometime ago, stood up and sang: “Uh, ah, Chavez no se va”…. (Chavez is not going) as if they were members of a cheer leader team.

Can you imagine this happening in the U.S. Supreme Court?

In these videoclips an assembly of the judicial power, led by the Chief Justice of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, chants political party slogans. President Chávez refers to Venezuelan federalism and states that any local authority figure that does not follow his lead is engaged in "disloyalty" and "treason." He also states that approaching the judiciary to oppose his decisions is treason against the people and against the revolution.

And further...

One of the main members of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Luis Velazquez Alvaray, was accused of thievery by other members of the regime. He had proposed a modification of the Constitution to name Hugo Chávez president for life. Ater being accused of corruption, he counter attacked, calling the Tribunal "a nest of drug traffickers," adding: "they should put a bomb in that place."

More recently, a female judge, Maria Lourdes Affuni, who decided very correctly the freedom of a Chavez poliical prisoner, was immediately sent to jail without being tried. Chavez said: “She should stay in jail for 30 years”. She has been in prison since last year, simply on orders from the dictator.

Remember this the next time a liberal like Sean Penn praises Chavez. He isn't ignorant. He knows exactly what he's doing and what he wants done here.

The Cato Institute has a video message from Zuloaga here.

Meanwhile the Iraqi election featured a Baathist going up against a Shiite, and we actually have to breathe a sigh of relief that the Baathist won. To be fair Allawi is a longtime opponent of Saddam Hussein, but essentially it's as if the USSR had been liberated only to nearly fall into the hands of Communist China, forcing us to actually be relieved when a more moderate dissident Communist won the election. That's essentially what just happened in Iraq with the Maliki vs Allawi showdown.

For all the positive media spin, Maliki served as the secretary-general of the Islamic Dawa Party, a group with Sadrist ties and rivalries, as well as close ties to Iran. The Dawa Party has murdered Americans and was against the liberation of Iraq. You can of course read through the Taqiya on their official "English" site in which Islamic is painted as the wellspring of freedom and equality, but the reality is that the Islamic Dawa Party stands for the supremacy of Islamic law, and only such freedoms as are compatible with Islam. Which is unsurprising as the Dawa Party was essentially a clerical attempt to combat the rise of Arab Socialism by repackaging some of that same appeal in Islamic language.

In the case of al-Da'wa, al-Sadr laid out four mandatory principles of governance in his 1975 work, Islamic Political System. These were:

1. Absolute sovereignty belongs to God.

2. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam.

3. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers.

4. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality.

Mind you this was considered fairly progressive by Islamic legal standards, mainly because of 3, in which the people, rather than the Caliph or other rulers were considered the vice-regents of Allah.

But this only seems progressive when taken out of context. This is the kind of thing that Western apologists for Islam routinely seize on as proof that Islam is progressive. Never mind for the moment that this is not actual popular sovereignty, under this arrangement the Koran serves as the Constitution and the Clerics as its Supreme Court.

But this embrace of populism was developed in 1975 at a time when Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (Yes the terrorist hive Sadr City was named after him) was trying to organize a popular uprising against Baath Party rule. Which meant that he developed a code in which the people (only believing Shiite Muslims of course), not Saddam Hussein, held legislative and executive powers, which would conveniently provide religious justification for an armed popular uprising. Two years later he was sent to jail and later executed by Saddam Hussein for supporting Iran.

The story gets even better because Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr's son in law, who runs Sadr City and the terrorist Mahdi Army, which is backed by Iran, is Muqtada Al Sadr. When the Sadrists oversaw the execution of Saddam Hussein on Maliki's watch, they chanted Muqtada and Long live Mohammed Baqir Sadr. (Just to make the internal politics of this more convoluted however, the Sadr's and the Dawa Party had actually parted ways a while back, and Maliki's people blamed Allawi's people for orchestrating the whole thing.)

The Maliki vs Allawi showdown is yet another episode in the drawn out battle between Arab Socialism and Islamism. The US has tended to back the socialists on the grounds that they seem more moderate and committed to some kind of democratic society. This is generally a fallacy, but the Islamists are also a good deal worse. This however has served as an excuse for too long to back Arab Socialists, even when they're still terrorists. Fatah vs Hamas is a case in point. As was Saddam Hussein vs the Mullahs.

Allawi and Maliki are both representatives of political elements that go back a century in Iraqi life, through families and factions that may have been fighting for even longer than that.

Meanwhile Allawi's actual victory was a very narrow one, which will require him to form a coalition. And Maliki might have done much better if Muqtada Al Sadr's openly terrorist Iraqi National Alliance which included the local version of Hezbollah hadn't stolen a lot of the Shiite vote.

What that means is that the Islamic Dawa Party will have to become even more extreme to sideline the Iraqi National Alliance, or unite with it. Either way the result will be a more Islamist and Iranian dominated future for Iraq. Allawi's victory is likely to prove very fleeting and a breakup of Iraq may yet be inevitable. To survive Allawi has to bring together Kurds and at least some Shiites. Meanwhile Iran will be funding terrorist acts to destabilize the country.

Allawi forms a delicate balance as a Shiite who is secular enough and with enough of a Baathist past to reassure Sunnis, but thus far he has done much better at picking up the Sunni vote. While some media outlets are trying to spin it as another Orange Revolution, it's essentially another bump in the road.

The failure to remove the likes of Muqtada Al Sadr from the equation will haunt America for some time to come. But for now an Anti-Iranian leader in Iraq may help check the Iranian takeover of Iraq.

In a quick blog roundup, Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch continues covering the farce of Khaddafi's supposed abandonment of terrorism.

Israpundit has an interview with Italian politician Fimma Nirenstein, courtesy of Pajamas Media.

The Italian politician and author talks about the East Jerusalem flap and makes some startling statements about the similarity of views between the European left and jihadists.

The Italian journalist Fiamma Nirenstein is the author of numerous books on anti-Semitism, Israel, and the Middle East conflict, including (in English) Israel is Us and Terror: the New Anti-Semitism and the War against the West.

In April 2008, she was elected to the Italian Chamber of Deputies as a member of Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Freedom (PDL) party. She is presently the vice-president of the chamber’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. In February, she accompanied Prime Minister Berlusconi on a three-day visit to Israel.

Gateway Pundit has video and photos of the Cuban Freedom Rally in Miami.

Dan Friedman sends along a satirical little piece about the traditional Pesach proclamation "Next Year in Jerusalem" and our New Pharaoh Obama.

Obama: Passover Wrap Up, "Next Year In Jerusalem ," Deemed "Provocative"

By Shana Habbab (AP White House Correspondent)

(AP) — An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included an urgent request from the President that the traditional closing refrain “next year in Jerusalem” be deleted during the upcoming Passover holiday, calling the ancient passage provocative and unhelpful for the future of peace talks. Calling it “an easy fix,” Obama strongly urged the Jewish People to replace it with “next year in peace” or “next year in Tel Aviv,” leaving the exact wording to final status talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Netanyahu is said to have balked at the request, indicating that the refrain dates back well before the UN Partition of 1947 and well before the U.S. Declaration of Independence, for that matter. The Prime Minister reportedly attempted to diffuse the situation by offering to remove it from the conclusion of the lesser-known Yom Kippur service, and suggesting the phrase was defunct anyway since Jews have controlled all of Jerusalem since 1967. However, a visibly irritated President Obama flatly rejected the compromise, adding it was another indication the “stiff-necked” Prime Minister did not appear “serious about peace.”

Shortly after the meeting, both sides issued a terse statement saying that no agreement had been reached on the matter.

Comrade Workers, Peasants and Welfare Recipients of America,

For four long years we have battled the economy, and now I am pleased to announce that the economy is finally ready to surrender. Representatives of the economy have met with the party leadership and signed a preliminary surrender agreement. This means that our prolonged War on the Economy has been successful, and the complete destruction of the economy is at hand. And with these newly liberated resources from the private sector, we believe that it may actually be possible to drive unemployment down beneath 50 percent.

Throughout the long years of battling against the economy, there were many who thought that we would not prevail, that an economic recovery would somehow occur and the American people would be forced to return to their private sector jobs, instead of spending all day waiting in the unemployment line. But under the inspired leadership of the party, the collective organizers engaged in the people's struggle refused to accept handouts from the capitalist bosses. Instead they remained dedicated to bringing them to their knees. And they have. The American Economy is no more.

Nationalized health care. Cap and Trade. Open Door Immigration. The 80 percent Redistribution Tax. The New Constitution. Statehood for Mexico. And of course the atomic destruction of Ohio and Indiana to prevent them from swinging over to the reactionary forces of the counter-revolution, marked the end of American Capitalism. Today the American People live better than ever, unchained from the artificial parameters of the Standard of Living. Over their heads waves the banner of the party which cares and provides for all party members.

Comrades, our struggle is still not over. Outposts of capitalism remain active around the world. Their competitiveness threatens to dampen our revolutionary spirit.

And we must remain vigilant against outbreaks of capitalism at home. These infestations can seem innocent at times. Take the young boy selling homemade lemonade from a wooden crate on his front lawn. But has that boy paid all his business taxes? Has he provided health insurance for all his employees. Has he passed his party administered business ethics exam? Does he provide preferential service to party members and oppressed peoples? Is he using Comrade Chavez's "Green" corn syrup, instead of the decadent sugar? We already know the answer to these questions, because if he were doing all these things, a glass of his lemonade would cost 50 dollars, not 50 cents.

So while it may seem harsh of us to seize that boy and transport him behind the frozen chain link fence of the Al Franken Memorial Reeducation and Obesity Center in Minnesota, the alternative would be to return to the bad old days when there were capitalist factories with smokestacks on every corner and supermarkets with variably priced food in them, instead of our delicious free Universal Grade Government Gruel. The lesson of the last four years is that we cannot let capitalism get its foot in the door of our Great Socialist Homeland. No, Comrades. We must stand strong against their temptations, because a truly equal society is almost here. A society in which all party members will be equal, regardless of race, sex or degree of transvestism.

Comrades, our glorious America today is exactly the one envisioned by Comrades Washington, Jefferson and Ayers, our great founding fathers, who created this country, writing, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all progressive party members were endowed with equal obligations by the party leadership, that among these are collectivism, equality, and the pursuit of the people's collective struggle."

And as the great preamble of our New Constitution reads, "The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute the economic foundation of the United States" and further, "The land, its natural deposits, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, post, telegraph and telephones, farms as well as municipal enterprises and the bulk of the dwelling houses in the cities and industrial localities, are state property, that is, belong to the whole people." This glorious consolidation of the rights of the people, under the wise leadership of the Democratic People's Congress has made America the happiest and freest of nations.

It is in the spirit of that glorious collectivism that the old capitalist American greenbacks will be replaced by shining red currency. From this day forward the American basic economic unit will no longer be the Dollar, but the Debit. As our annual interest on the national debt has long since surpassed our gross national product, the Debit is the people's way of repaying the great debts amassed by the party leadership on their behalf. As there is no more gold in Fort Knox, our national debt serves as the new basis for our economy. With each Debit you receive, you take on a greater share of the national debt and a heavier burden of taxation. Therefore it may truly be said that in America the rich are the poorest of us all.

Comrades, many of you cannot even begin to understand how much effort the Party and its Organizers have put into your welfare. For four years we have battled the forces of counterrevolutionism in order to usher in a bright socialist future. And even now when the last of the dissenters are chipping away at their blocks of ice in the wilds of Alaska, we must remain vigilant against the plotting of the reactionaries who wish to restore an oppressive free market economy. To uproot the freedoms we have fought so hard to impose. To destroy the aspirations of the party and the glorious collective people's struggle.

Yes there have been setbacks. We have been forced to withdraw from California and Texas. And continued occupation of Florida may be untenable. But that is only because the high morality of the Party has prevented it fighting with the same ruthlessness as our enemies. We have only used nuclear weapons once in this conflict against crucial swing states. By contrast the foul bestial viciousness of our enemies knows no boundaries. They mock our leaders, lampoon their effigies and draw hurtful cartoons of them. They deride the Party leadership and subvert our glorious revolutionary imperative.

Know this though, the Party leadership remains strong. And the nation is united behind the Party in its determination to bring peace and freedom to the murderous hordes of the reactionaries who would take away our free Universal Government Grade Gruel, our wise Death Panels and the People's Dole, and replace them with chaos, competitiveness and misery. And so I call upon you to listen to your organizers and to report any reactionary propaganda to the appropriate White House email address, as usual.

The War is going gloriously. The defeat of the economy will make the economy stronger than ever. And the War on the Economy will be truly won when the War on Employment succeeds in finally reaches the fabled 60 unemployment percent mark. Something that has never been accomplished in any country before. Meanwhile the War on the Harvest is going well, with 98 percent of the harvest successfully gathered and redistributed to those who need it most, the hardworking members of the Party. The War on Health is also going well, with the latest Cholera outbreak in Detroit claiming less than ten thousand lives. Truly it can be said that everything the Party does, it does perfectly.

Comrades, as you sip your Government Universal Grade Gruel through a straw, peering through the windows of your Census mandated temporary mobile housing unit, and prepare for another hard day of toiling in the fields or collecting unemployment checks-- you can be confident of looking forward to another four or four hundred glorious years of the same thing.

B.H. OBAMA

The debate over how to handle Islamic terrorism essentially comes down to those who advocate managing Islam in order to control its propensity for violence, and those who believe that instead we should be managing anything and everything that might provoke Muslim rage.

While controlling violence by managing Islam is the logical and direct approach, the weight of the establishment in numerous countries has come down on the side of suppressing all things that might provoke Muslim rage. This disturbing position expresses itself in numerous ways, whether it was the censorship of the Mohammed cartoons, the ongoing attempt to blame Israel for attacks on US troops, or the entire grand theory of the left which blames all Muslim violence on the domestic and foreign policies of their targets.

Given the choice between blaming the criminal for his crimes, or his victims for having provoked him-- the political and cultural elites of the very countries targeted for terror have chosen to turn the blame inward. They have placed their sordid faith in the belief that the best way to manage Islamic rage, is by relentlessly appeasing and avoiding any provocations that might cause it to flare up.

This phenomenon is often seen in abuse victims who have to cope with their abuser's enraged violence. By accepting responsibility for being the cause of his anger, they make it seem controllable and predictable. Their coping mechanism is to blame themselves, rather than face the real problem, which is that they live together with a violent and dangerous individual, who will sooner or later kill them. This is the relationship between the West and Islam.

The victim accepts the abuser's narrative that he is a good and decent person, unless provoked. So too the civilized world accepts Islam's narrative that it is the Religion of Peace, and that it is peaceful, unless it is provoked. By accepting the enemy's narrative, the victim accepts the blame for his blows and assaults, and comes to feel that controlling the abuser's rage is their duty. So too the civilized world accepts that Islamic terrorism is its fault, and that it must "behave better" in order to avoid future blowups. Meanwhile the smallest requests of the Muslim world that it behave better are met with outrage and anger, much as the abuser explodes into a rage at any insinuation that he has an anger management problem.

By identifying with the abuser, victims take on a peculiar form of empowerment. By joining in their own abuse, they become the abuser, winning victories over their own helplessness. The growing identification by the West with Muslims can be viewed in that light. Today the civilized world is abusing itself, and after every lesson, it opens the door to usher in more Muslims to violate its cities, murder its citizens and work toward their Endlosung, their Final Solution for the free world, whether it is Al-Andalus, Eurabia, Palestine, Amerabia-- it is still death by any name.

But one of the ugliest expressions of his mindset is when the abuser enlists the victim in finding him more victims to abuse. This occurs when abuse victims help abuse their own children or lure in other women to be abused. At this point the identification of the victim with the abuser is so total, that they begin to take an active joy in his crimes. What else can one make of the relish and hate with which so many Europeans pursued Yugoslavia and now pursue Israel. While Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan openly threatens the ethnic cleansing of Christians if they don't cease complaining about Armenian genocide, Europe howls outraged over Israel. And its own cities burn and its own citizens die at the very hands of the people they are so eager to fight beside.

This is what happens when rather than dealing with the rage, you instead try to dampen the causes of the rage. The problem of Islamic rage is not caused by foreign policy or global warming or the rain in Al-Andalus. It is caused by the Muslim belief that they have both the right and the power to express their anger through violence. It may not be possible to do anything about their sense of right, because it is not up to us to reform the morality or the morally retarded. But we can do something about that sense of power. And we can begin by refusing to tolerate their anger.

When cartoons which suggest that Islam is a violent religion are censored because Muslims might react with violence, the serpent has officially swallowed its own tail. The very idea that we must censor any suggestions that Muslims are violent for fear that they might kill us, adequately telegraphs the mental paradoxes and hypocrisies required to enact such a policy. It is not driven by sensitivity or open-mindedness, but by a cloak of self-deception thrown over naked fear.

Meanwhile the same US military brass which covered up Nidal Malik Hasan's violent Islamism, both before and after his attack, is sending signals that the real threat to the lives of US soldiers is Israeli housing. In fact of course Israeli houses have not killed anyone. Houses rarely do unless they fall on a wicked witch in the fabled land of Oz. It is killers, not houses, that kill. Hasan was an enemy from within. One of those friendly Religion of Peace types whose poor sensitive feelings every level of government has spent so much time nurturing. Yet none of it prevented him opening fire on the unarmed soldiers he was supposed to care for. Instead all the years of tolerating his growing homicidal rage sent him the signal that his anger was justified and that he could act with impunity.

What truly endangers the lives of US soldiers and civilians is the extraordinary tolerance provided to Islam, the willingness of our leaders to minimize and even justify their anger as legitimate. Which nurtures their anger and takes them down the path to seeing it through, as they see even their enemies confess and act guilty before them. And that seals their fate.

Every excuse made for Islamic terrorism, ends up causing exactly that which it claims to want to prevent. And yet the modern cottage industry of the media and academic world in numerous countries is justifying Islamic terrorism, penning books and articles that defend those explosions of violent rage. Always willing to help the abuser find new victims.

The left believed that criminals were simply the product of social conditions that forced them to express their anger and helplessness through crime. And so the left coddled criminals, and crime spiraled out of control. A new generation of politicians bolstered by outraged voters helped shut down these experiments in reform in the United States. But when the criminals were being coddled, the entire society found itself in prison because of them. So too today when Islam is coddled, everyone who lives side by side with them finds themselves in prison.

It is important to remember this essential split, between those who favor managing Islamic anger and those who favor managing anything that might provoke that anger. It is the great debate of our time, between the courageous and the cowards, between the warriors and the appeasers, between the defenders and the victim/abusers. Only by confronting Islamic anger, can we put a stop to it. And for as long as we try to control its causes, censoring ourselves, burning our own books and sacrificing new victims to its insatiable hate, that rage will grow until it consumes us all.

One of the unreported aspects of Obama's manufactured insult over an Israeli housing project in Jerusalem is the way in which the administration has targeted Jewish refugees from Muslim countries.

While media reports frequently denounced Interior Minister Eli Yishai, as a "Right Wing Extremist", for approving one stage of the planned housing project-- what they did not report was the larger story. Eli Yishai is the head of the Shas party, one of Israel's largest political parties, which represents the interests of Sefardi and Mizrahi Jews from Muslim countries. And the housing project would have benefited Jerusalem's sizable population of Jews from Muslim countries.

In the 20th century a vast exodus took place in which as many as a million Jews from Muslim countries fled or otherwise departed, often leaving behind homes and valuables. Some came to America and Europe. Many more came to Israel instead. Today three million Mizrahi Jews live in Israel, indeed the majority of Israeli Jews are not the "immigrants from Brooklyn" derisively referred to by Israel-bashing pundits, but Jews whose families came to Israel from Muslim countries, or who spent many centuries living in Jerusalem under Muslim dominion.

They came from Yemen, Turkey, Libya, Syria, Morocco, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria. Some were driven out by enraged Muslim mobs. Others had their children stolen and their property seized by the government. Others remained behind "sand curtains", unable to leave. The ways in which some of these Jews were smuggled out of the country through a virtual "Underground Railroad" is unknown to most. And this is a story that continues today.

Consider the story of one woman who successfully helped smuggle out thousands of Syrian Jews by bribing Syrian government officials. And though she describes the work in terms of the Holocaust, "How do you negotiate the price of human lives? I was breaking up children from their parents. It was like the 1940s – they were desperate to get their children out", in fact the last family she saved was in 2001.

This is what a million Jews from Muslim countries escaped to begin their lives again in Israel. They left behind life in Muslim countries where they were Dhimmis, legally treated as second class citizens under Islamic law. They thought that they had turned their backs on a state of affairs where Muslims could dictate that synagogues should be built no taller than mosques, where their lives were worth less than a Muslim's and were paid for with blood money and forced to live in ghettos. That is until Obama decided to be gravely insulted because they had decided to live in a place that he thought they had no right to live.

Some commentators have speculated that Obama's goal by manufacturing the "insult" scandal, was to force Shas out of the government coalition, thereby disenfranchising the millions of Jews from Muslim countries living in Israel. Apologists for Obama have cloaked this in the guise of some sort of campaign against the "right wing", but Shas, which has been part of coalitions with the Labor Party, including Yitzchak Rabin, is hardly right wing. It voted for the Oslo Peace Accords. It has been fairly open to all sorts of concessions. But its political leader Eli Yishai drew the line at turning portions of Jerusalem into a Jewish Ghetto, while reserving the remainder of the city for Arab Muslims.

And let us consider for a moment, Eli Yishai. Like so many other children of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, Yishai was born in Jerusalem. His father, Zion Yishai, however came from Muslim Tunisia. Jews have lived in Tunisia for over 2,500 years. But where they once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, today there are hardly a thousand Jews left. The majority of Tunisian Jews now live in Israel and Europe.

The introduction of Tunisian Jews to Islam began under Idriss I, a direct descendant of Mohammed himself. Idriss I persecuted and massacred the Jews, demanding that they pay Jizya and deliver a certain number of virgins annually to his harem. And thus Idriss I showed himself to be a true greedy and perverted descendant of Mohammed. Several years later Idriss I was fatally poisoned by his Jewish doctor. But despite this coda, as the centuries passed, the discrimination and persecution of the Jews of Tunisia continued.

In the 15th century a Flemish nobleman wrote as follows; "The Jews, on the other hand, have no freedom. They must all pay a heavy ... tax. They wear special clothes, different from those of the Moors. If they did not do so, they would be stoned, and they therefore put a yellow cloth on their heads or necks; their women dare not even wear shoes."

Tunisian Jews were forced to live in ghettos called "Haras", subject to Muslim riots and atrocities. One in 1864 was described as follows, "Muslim fanaticism ... unleashed against our brethren on the island of Djerba... synagogues profaned and defiled. The Scrolls ... torn in pieces and burnt ... men injured and trampled ... all the women and girls raped .... My pen refuses to set down the terrifying ... atrocities ... in all [their] horror."

In 1869, the rabbis and leaders of the community of Tunis appealed desperately to the government in Paris that "in the face of Muslim ferocity, eighteen Jews have fallen to the knives of the fanatical murderers.

Tunisian independence, celebrated by liberals as the end of colonialism, opened the door to a renewed wave of Muslim anti-Jewish violence. Today of the 105,000 Jews that lived in Tunisia in 1948, barely a thousand remain. This brief recitation of history is important because it is a reminder of what so many of the millions of Mizrahi Jews of Israel and their fathers and grandfathers suffered. And those liberals who cynically condemn Eli Yishai as a "right winger" because his party would like to provide housing for Jews in Jerusalem, rather than returning to the Tunisian ghettos are cynically exploiting the real victims of Islamic colonialism.

Obama and those in the EU who are striving to turn Jerusalem into another ghetto with areas where Jews may live and areas where they may not live, are once again inflicting the horrors of Islamic Occupation on the Jews who fled from it. It is of course understandable that Obama would sympathize with Muslims over non-Muslims due to his own extensive Muslim heritage, a fact he himself emphasized in a speech at Al Azhar Islamic University. But where Obama might have chosen to redeem his ancestors' religion by showing tolerance to the Jewish refugees whom his family's co-religionists had persecuted for over a thousand years, he instead chose to perpetuate their legacy of oppression by manufacturing a scandal over the "insult". The insult being that Jewish refugees and the descendants of Jewish refugees might have actually been able to live in their ancient city in homes built on empty land. And as a result Muslim anti-Jewish riots have broken out in Jerusalem, that bear some resemblance to those in Tunisia.

"I think that the Arabs want to control the whole world. That is obvious; after all, it is written in their Koran. Furthermore, you can't trust them. For instance, my parents were their neighbors in Yemen. When my parents decided to immigrate to Israel, the Arabs tried to rob them of their possessions." So speaks Avraham Yitzhaki, one of the original residents of the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood.

The Shas party meanwhile has promised to use Obama's attacks in their own campaign commercial and their newspaper answered Barack Hussein Obama even more bluntly in its weekly newspaper, describing Obama as "a Palestinian stone throwing youth in East Jerusalem, and not a strategic leader" and his actions as, "a creative solution coming from an Islamic extremist". The editorial concluded, "Today it is here, but tomorrow it will be in the U.S. and Europe".

(Spanish Language Translation at REFLEXIONES SOBRE MEDIO ORIENTE Y EL MUNDO)

What exactly was the difference between the United States and the USSR? Both were political unions occupying large land masses. Both believed themselves to be unique political experiments which would redefine the nature of human governance around the world. Both even believed that government existed for the benefit of the people. Yet beyond the specifics, there was one fundamental difference between the two. Not simply in how they were governed, but why they were governed.

In the United States, government existed through the consent of the governed. Government was simply a mechanism through which the people ruled themselves. In the USSR by contrast, government derived not from the people, but for the people. Not "Of" or "By", just "For". With the typical logic familiar to the nanny state, Communism existed to benefit the people, and so did not require their actual input, only their support. And their support was assumed to be a given, because after all the government existed for their benefit. Therefore it was completely impossible for them not to support it.

This kind of circular political logic routinely runs through the intellectual veins of progressives. It can be seen blatantly in the health care power grab, as Democrats insist that they are passing a bill for the people, while completely ignoring the polls showing widespread opposition to the bill. But that is the difference between the US and the USSR. While the US grounded its idea of "The People" in one man, one vote, representation-- ideological tyrannies such as the USSR or the EU, ground theirs in an ideological understanding of "The People."

When Americans used to talk about the "Will of the People", they meant the voting citizens. When the left talks about the "Will of the People", what they mean is the people's will as expressed in the tenets of their socialist ideology. Thus when an American said, "The People Want Change", he meant that it was the express view of the American people, on a person to person basis that there be a change. When a Communist or Leftist said, "The People Want Change", he was expressing an ideological conception of what his ideological conception of the people wanted. It had nothing to do with what the people, individually or collectively, might want. Because they didn't figure into it.

To the left, "The People, were and are an ideological construct, not a real living and breathing group. But to poll them would in their mind be generally useless and redundant. Similarly a scientist might conduct a research study to determine the healthiest diet for monkeys. But it would never occur to him to ask the monkeys what they want to eat. Because not only don't monkeys have any opinions worth listening to, but he considers his own research methodology to be the best way of finding out what monkeys should be eating. Similarly when the left wants to find out what they people want, they wouldn't bother asking the people except as a political tactic. Instead they would read their Alinsky or their Marx or their Moore or Ehrenreich, if they want people they feel are "qualified" to talk about the working class, and what "The People" really want.

To understand this better, think about a theocracy. Imagine a country led by a man who claims to follow the Will of God. But he does not actually ask God what to do. God to him is a "concept". He uses that concept to justify his rule and his actions. He is not doing the will of God, he is doing his own will, as he derives from whatever framework of ideas and beliefs he uses to rule. He is sure that God would approve, but he is not actually interested in any feedback from him. So too the Left and "The People". The left rules on behalf of the People, and in their name. It just isn't interested in hearing from them. 


This in a nutshell is why the US is slowly becoming the USSR, the United States of Socialist Republics. Because its transition into a socialist nanny state moves it further from a nation of, for and by the people-- and toward a generic socialist tyranny in which the people are not meant to have any say in its governance. As the Democratic Party has slid further and further to the left, it has parted from Jeffersonian democracy, and embraced an ideological radicalism in which the wishes of the people are already embedded in the ideology, thus making democracy itself redundant. And the result is tyranny, as liberals replace the Will of the People, with their ideology, while pretending that the two are really one and the same.


Where the United States believed that government exists as a tool of the people to manage their larger affairs, the USSR, both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Obama's United States of Socialist Republics, believe that government exists to manage the lives of the people in tune with their ideology. The ideology of the rulers, not the people. To the left, whether it be the Politburo or the present day Democratic congress, the people are the ruled, not the rulers. Where the United States was founded on the belief that the people are naturally free, the Left rules on the belief that the people are naturally slaves. 

In the ideological formulae of the Left, the American people are slaves of capitalism, industry and political elites, and the reactionary ideologies that these use to control them. The Left seeks to "liberate" them from their oppression, but since the people are not ready or mature enough to handle their own affairs, the Left's "activists" and "organizers" must first teach and enforce the tenets of their own ideology on them in order to set them free. Once again this is the circular logic of the left at work, in which freedom and the will of the people can only be derived from and measured in relation to their compliance with the left's own ideology.

This is George Owell's 1984's "Freedom is Slavery", the formula by which the will of the people is defined as obedience to party doctrine. Anyone who disagrees with party doctrine is a reactionary, a tool of the astroturfing elites, a racist, a right wing extremist, a fascist-- and so on and so forth. But the essence is that the Nanny State disposes of democracy, replacing it with political conformity. Which is inevitable when you define the Will of the People based on ideology, rather than what they people actually want. That too is why the Republican Party goes back and forth in its positions, while the Democratic Party only grows more extreme in its own.


When you replace the Will of the People with ideology, what remains is the tyranny of the few over the many. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small number, for the supposed benefit of the many. The state extends its control into the daily life of every man, woman and child-- for their supposed benefit again. There is no freedom anywhere, only an omnipotent tyranny that proclaims its own benevolence at every turn. And so in the "Name of the People", the people are deprived of their freedom, their income and their lives. This is the ultimate and final hypocrisy of the Left.

The Left is not democratic. It cannot be democratic, because it believes that the will of the people is knowable only through their ideology, not through the ballot box. And when and where it takes over, democracy and freedom wither and die. The left's takeover of America, at the cultural, economic and political levels is ushering in a United States of Socialist Republics, detached from the original America, even as it uses the old country's symbols. Much as Orwell predicted in the forties that a Socialist dictatorship in England would still make use of the monarchy as a symbol.

And that is why only the Will of People can defeat the Left and its tyrannical ideology. Because the Left is built on the lie that its ideological agenda is that of the people. Once in power it works to suppress the people, precisely because their will is a threat to it. The Elitism and Collectivism of the Left is built to dominate and control the people. And when confronting popular discontent, the Left's only mechanisms are political propaganda and tyrannical force. When the former is swept away, only the naked reality of the latter remains. And so the masks come off and the Left is seen for what it really is. Tyranny.

And the United States of America was built on destroying tyranny by the will of the people.

Three is just not just the number of graces, fates and gorgons-- for the Obama Administration there were three major pieces of legislation they had in mind that would radically change America. The first of these was government health care, an approach that would not only eventually lock in all Americans deeper into the government's cradle to grave programs, but would also make it virtually impossible to reduce government spending, while providing carte blanche for just about any mandatory public health program to be implemented.

Government Health Care was meant to implement control over the people. The second was to be Cap and Trade, which would implement government control over American industry and turn the financial markets into a government program to push the environmentalist agenda. The third was an overhaul of immigration that would aggressively seek remake the American population and replace the base type of American with a more amenable and controllable type.

Government Health Care went first, because it seemed like the potentially most popular and least enraging of the three. Democratic lawmakers seriously thought that it would be a breeze and that its popularity would serve to deter Republican opposition. And having achieved a decisive legislative victory on those grounds, Obama and the left would have intimidated any potential opposition when it came to taking on the next two items on the agenda.

Additionally government health care was supposed to prepare the ground for Cap and Trade and Immigration, by buying public trust for the former and creating an incentive for immigrants in the latter scenario. But as is so often the case with politicians and their ambitions, the Democrats were tripped up by the very situation that they had leveraged to seize power. The economy.

By pushing health care as their number one priority, the Democrats were very clearly ignoring the number one concern of the public-- the economy. And selling an expensive health care boondoggle was going to be much more of a challenge at a time when people were being much more budget conscious, both in their budgets which would be strained by such provisions as mandatory health insurance, and the national budget, which was already unworkable to most people. But if government health care couldn't be sold in tough economic times, Cap and Trade which would kill uncounted numbers of jobs, and immigration, which would wreck an already tight job market, certainly couldn't be sold.

And that is why Obama refuses to back down from his big health care push. It isn't simply Rahm Emanuel's borrowed testosterone at work, though obviously the collapse of health care would be a severe blow to his credibility. But if Obama folds on health care, he folds on everything. Where Bill Clinton could deftly retreat from an unpopular program and do whatever he had to do to stay in office, Obama is a manufactured candidate, elevated for a specific purpose. He has never fought his own battles. His agenda is being set by the people who got him this far, and they didn't get him this far just to keep him in office. They did it to radically change America.

Where Bill Clinton was a sleazy politician always looking out for himself, Obama is an ideological figurehead for a team effort whose overall price tag is likely to be in the billions. And those billions were not invested in the man, but in the idea. Hope and Change. A dramatic recreation of America that tosses out the old ways and transforms the country into another declining European socialist hive state that the likes of Soros can rob and that Muslim immigrants can turn into a charnel house.

So the only way is to push ahead. For the Obamanites, health care has become not a Waterloo, but a Stalingrad, and they are determined to break through, one way or another. They may be starving and running low on ammo, but they have no choice but to win, because there is no going back. If Rahm Emanuel is trying to position himself as the voice of reason, while looking for a way to transition to a safe Illinois Senate seat, it's because he sees himself surrounded by compulsive ideologues... and like his old boss Bill, Rahm is only out for himself. He has no interest in killing his career for the cause.

Meanwhile his current boss, Barry, has led too charmed a political life to understand that he can lose. Because he has never been allowed to lose. He's the kid whose parents never let him play kickball and whose home runs were all scored for him. He's overflowing with self-esteem but while he poses with the ball, he has no idea what to do when things aren't going his way. His reaction to any setback is to launch a political hate campaign, deliver a speech or schedule a conference. He has no conception of other people as independent entities, and so is incapable of listening to them. All he does is talk over them, talk down to them or try to win a debate with them. All of which make sense with his background, but they aren't how you win the game.

What's even more disastrous is that he's surrounded by people who think just like him, the privileged left wing elite. Golden children who waited for a decade or two for the chance to get into the White House and rewrite all the rules, again without understanding any of them. The sloppy command structure and the poor damage control typical of the White House right now are endemic to most left wing organizations, which are good at offense, but terrible at defense, and while calling for everyone else to be accountable, lack the basic skills to get their own house in order. Even when it's the White House.

The left spent a lot of money putting these Brightest Boys and Girls in the Room into a position where they could implement all their bright ideas. And it never occurred to them that a populist movement could threaten them, that congress would bog them down, or that the people would have anything to say about it. Like most amateur generals, they could only see the endgame, not the hard work in between. And like Obama, they could not see people as individuals, only as counters in a political game between them and the Republicans.

For all the sloppy history fed out of buckets to American students, it was not JFK's vaguely idealistic poses that radically changed America, but the canny LBJ who was a practical politician in a way that JFK was not. But Obama has been much too arrogant to allow an LBJ anywhere near him. Instead he has Joe Biden, who has LBJ's gift of gaffe, but not his political horse sense. Obama wanted someone who would make him look strong and smart, and Biden accomplishes that just by showing up. But politics is a team effort, and most of Obama's team is as out of touch as he is. They can't help him, because they don't even understand the problem.

Health care seemed like a slam dunk to them, because of the ideological logic. They had no ability to relate to its end results. Only to the ideological purity of their aims. And so like the tone deaf ideologues that they were, they treated each setback as a teachable moment, telling the American people repeatedly, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate", without realizing that this very approach was not only condescending, but betrayed their inability to hear what was being said to them.

Customer service representatives are taught to deal with angry customers by assuring them that they hear what they're saying, only to then repeat their policy again. The theory is that once the customer understands that he or she is being heard, they will stop feeling frustrated and accept whatever they are told. This theory doesn't work too well in customer service, and it works very badly when the people who are angry are not your customers, but your bosses. And a constant diet of, "We hear that you're confused and angry, but we want to tell about a great new service that the government will provide for you for the trifling sum of only 2 trillion dollars" only made the situation worse.

Yet the Obama Administration, this great Empire of the Out of Touch, is the logical outcome of a political system in which politicians increasingly have to appeal to their patrons, more than to the voters. Obama got as far as he did, to the highest office in the land, without ever once learning how to understand people. And that happened because he got there on fraud, smear campaigns and a whole lot of money backing his cult of personality. More importantly he got there because powerful people were standing behind him all the way up, paving the way for him, clearing away the roadblocks and moving him up the red carpet escalators to the sky. But how do you clear away a roadblock as big as the American Electorate?

So far no one in Obama's Empire of the Out of Touch has found an answer for that.