Steelers and Cardinals

As a lifelong Steeler fan (since 1955), I am obviously happy that the Steelers are going back to the Super Bowl with a chance to win a record 6th Super Bowl title. I am also happy to see the Cardinals going as well. They are a decades old-league doormat that has finally, for the first time since 1948, made it to the championship game. While I never had any emotional attachment to the Cardinals, I would say they were the franchise in the NFC I liked the best.

When (at the age of ten), I began to root for the Steelers, they were a traditional doormat in the NFL's Eastern Division. Since their inception in 1933, they had never won a divisional title, in fact, they usually finished last in their division. It wasn't until 1972 that they won their division for the first time. I was present in San Diego when they beat the Chargers 24-2 to clinch that championship. The first playoff game was decided by Franco Harris' Immaculate Reception" to beat the Raiders. The following week, they lost to Miami. Two years later, they won the first of their 5 Super Bowls. Since then, they have been strong most every year.

But even as the Steelers were turning a woeful franchise into one of the NFL's most successful, the Cardinals languished, first in Chicago playing in old Comiskey Park, then St Louis and now Phoenix. Their last NFL championship was 1947, a record of sports franchise futility exceeded only by the Chicago Cubs.

This year wasn't expected to be much different though they were in a weak division, which allowed them to get into the playoffs with a 9-7 record.

The rest is known to the reader, so let me close by saying that I view this as a very attractive match up, which most fans probably don't. I will, of course, be pulling intensely for the Steelers. But if the Cardinals do win, there will be a consolation.

The Anti-Israel Rallies-What is This Talk of Hitler and Ovens?

At the recent rally against Israel in Ft Lauderdale, a young woman in a hijab has been caught on tape shouting at counter-protesters, "Go back to the ovens!" "You need a bigger oven!" Similarly, at a recent anti-Israel rally in front of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles on January 6, a couple of young men in kaffiyas are seen on tape yelling, Long Live Hitler", "Hitler Rest in peace", "Jews are fossil fuel", Put Jews in the ovens", and "Hey, Jews, F---them", as others laughed and whooped it up.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the below videos taken from the above referenced demonstrations.








http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpMbUliY3Ao



No matter how you feel about the current Israel-Palestinian conflict, you have to stop and wonder about much of the rhetoric coming from the Palestinian supporters at rallies taking place in the US. While the Arab/Muslim community is speaking out strongly about the recent events, they are also being aided and abetted by the radical American groups like A.N.S.W.E.R., as well as other anarchistic and socialistic groups, but it seems that the Middle Easterners are using expecially inciteful rhetoric. I think it is time that America's Muslim community be asked a simple question; do you hate Jews?

And why not ask them that question? Expressions of Jew hatred can be found in the Qu'ran and Hadiths. It is a known fact (though not reported in the media) that Mein Kampf is a best seller in the Middle East to this day. Hitler is indeed revered by millions of Muslims. Now we have the ugly specter of some Muslim demonstrators spouting the vilest expressions of Jew hatred ever heard-using none other than Adolf Hitler as an inspiration. It is also a fact (also ignored by the media) that almost one million Jews were driven from Arab lands after 1948. Few still live in Muslim countries today.

This is a topic that cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. If anti-Semitism in America is on the rise and being fueled by recent Muslim immigrants (and their children), it must be addressed directly-including by our president, who needs to speak out on this issue. Muslims must understand that we are not willing to allow them to import their ancient hatred of Jews into our country and stoke the fires of hate on our soil. Anti-Semitism, while it has historically shown itself on our shores, is not an American value. And as former Australian Prime Minister John Howard publicly told the Muslim community in his country a few years back, "if you cannot assimilate and accept our values-then leave."

There is absolutely no room in the US for these kinds of expressions directed toward our Jewish citizens. History has shown us where it can lead.

The Border Patrol Commutations

As a former federal law enforcement officer having written before on the case of Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, I am gratified and relieved that President Bush has granted commutations to the ex-Border Patrol agents involved in the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, a drug smuggler who was fleeing back to Mexico when wounded.

It is true that there were troubling aspects to the agents' actions. Federal agents are not supposed to shoot at fleeing felons unless there is a danger to the agent(s) or bystanders posed by the felon. The agents maintained that they had seen what they thought was a weapon in Davila's hand. Normally, that explanation should be given credence in the minds of the jurors as opposed to the words of the drug smuggler. Yet, they apparently chose to believe the words and testimony of Davila (who was given immunity by the government to testify). It is likely that the actions of the agents in cleaning up the scene of spent cartridges and their post-incident reports damaged their own credibility. I don't know.

I do think, however, that the 11-12 year sentences handed down were excessive. They also sent a message to the Border Patrol that they had less than 100% support for their mission from a Bush Administration that showed little interest in thwarting illegal immigration.

It appears that Bush pardons will be few. That is the way it should be. In general, I am an opponent of pardons unless they are based on a belief by the President that a miscarriage of justice was done or the sentences were excessive. What has soured me on the pardon process is the corruption of said process by Bill Clinton and the former Governor of Tennessee, Ray Blanton, who went to prison for selling pardons. It has also been reported that no pardon has been granted to former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The charges leveled are much too serious, and, without pre-judging his case, there is no indication at this point that a miscarriage of justice is in progress.

I will be happy if no further pardons or commutations are handed out by President Bush in the next 24 hours. I do believe, however, that these commutations were the right thing to do.

Pacifism and Peace (Continued)

Martin Luther King



Mohatmas Gandhi



In response to my last peace on "Pacifism and Peace", one of my co-respondents (Lance) has pointed out the examples of Martin Luther King and Mohatmas Gandhi, two apostles of peace and non-violence who achieved great success in bringing reform to the United States and India respectively. I think his point is worthy of a longer response, so here goes.

The point of my original article is that pacifism in the face of evil does not bring peace. As examples, I used Code Pink and Adolf Hitler. The implication was obvious given world events. I was equating Hitler to Hamas. In terms of degree, perhaps not a fair comparison, but I consider Hamas evil because they use terror as a tactic, desire no negotiated settlement and want to destroy the State of Israel. My point was that pacifism toward Hamas and their terror tactics is useless.

As for Gandhi and King, that is a different situation. Both men led protests against injustices in India (a British colony at the time) and the US. Their efforts were anything but futile. India gained independence, and King (though assassinated) inspired a nation to end segregation and protect the rights of black people. The important difference here is that both men were operating in countries and systems that were fundamentally civilized, decent, and grounded in the idea of equality (even if not always practiced). Both nations were able to reform their inequalities peacefully within the system without the need for a violent revolution.

Lance, in his retort, points out the lynchings of blacks that occurred in the US South. Indeed, those were barbarous practices, often carried out with the acquiescence and/or participation of local law enforcement officers. Yet, never did they represent something that was legal, nor were they approved of by the United States Government. Beginning in the Civil Rights era, the Federal Government began investigating such crimes. True, many local all-white juries often acquitted defendants, but even today, state murder charges or federal civil rights charges are being brought against those men who did these crimes decades ago. (The civil rights charges are a tool used by the US Government when state prosecutions have been thwarted.)

Let me turn to the Palestinian issue. Since Israel is a democracy and a civilized state, I firmly believe that had the Palestinians emulated the practice of Gandhi and King, they would have reached a settlement with Israel and had their own state decades ago. Indeed, all they had to do was accept the 1948 arrangement, which would have set up two states. Instead, the whole Arab world rejected it and turned to war. Then, unable to defeat Israel by force of arms, the Palestinians turned to terror-killing innocent civilians, not only of Israel but other nations as well.

So can the Israelis practice pacifism in the face of those who hate Jews and want to wipe their country off the face of the map? I say no more than they could have with Hitler. Sadly, Martin Luther King and Mohatmas Gandhi would have achieved nothing against Hitler and the Nazis. They would have been arrested and never heard from again. (Yes, I know that both men were arrested in their own countries, but for very short periods, and they were quickly released. Let me also point out that their assassinations were not orchestrated by the American or British governments.)

In short, people like King and Gandhi are usually successful in decent countries when their cause is just and the population sees that changes are needed. When they are dealing with corrupt, brutal governments or other entities that want only their death and destruction, they can accomplish nothing except garner international support (which Israel has little of). The only solution for a government like Hitler's was to overthrow it. The Germans were unable to do that; thus, it took a horrific war to remove Hitler. And yes, tragically, millions of innocent Germans (and Japanese) had to die because of their evil governments.

People like Hamas, Hezbollah, the radical Islamic terrorist organizations, and the government of Iran are not interested in negotiated settlements unless as a ruse or to provide a needed temporary respite. Their ultimate goals remain unchanged-to eliminate Israel and spread Islam world-wide even by force if necessary.

In dealing with people like Hitler, Hamas and Islamic-terror, there is only surrender or fight.

Pacifism and Peace

Pacifism in the face of evil doesn't bring peace.




Hitler Enters Prague

Pacifism in the face of evil brings slavery.




Berlin 1945

What brings peace is a just and successful war.

Ban Ki-Moon Calls for Cease Fire and Israeli Withdrawal From Gaza

This is what the UN is trying to rescue



BEIRUT, Jan 17 (Reuters) - "U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on Saturday that if Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip it should include a timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Hamas-ruled enclave.

Israel is planning to announce on Saturday a halt to its three-week Gaza offensive without any deal with Hamas, an Israeli official said.

Ban said he could not confirm whether Israel would declare a halt to the fighting, though he hoped it would.

"This unilateral declaration should be accompanied by a timetable for Israeli withdrawal," Ban told reporters in the Lebanese capital Beirut.

Ban confirmed that he would be attending a summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on Sunday organized by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to discuss Gaza. (Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Dominic Evans)"



Well, isn't that nice? Once again, the UN calls for a cease fire every time Israel fights back. Where was the UN as Hamas was lobbing rockets into southern Israel. Did they ever call for a halt to that-or take concrete steps to end it? How many times Did Ban-Ki-Moon or any of his woeful predecessors ever go to the Middle East to try and stop the terrorist acts upon Israeli civilians?

But as soon as Israel goes after the Hamas killers (or Hezbollah killers), all the terrorists have to do is take shelter among innocent civilians, show the media the dead and presto! The whole world, the EU and the UN all call for a cease-fire, which only means that the Israelis cease operations, withdraw and hunker down for the next wave of rockets and terrorist attacks. They can't even build a wall to keep out suicide bombers without these same bodies and the ubiquitous Jimmy Carter crawling out of the woodwork.

For all you outraged Americans who are taking to the streets to condemn Israel, ask yourselves this simple question; imagine if Cuba were launching rockets into Miami and other parts of South Florida, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians. What would you expect the US to do? Would you expect the US to go to the UN and ask them to demand a cease fire from Cuba? Ask the UN to issue a few resolutions, perhaps? Go to the EU and asked them to stop all trade with Cuba or place an embargo upon that country?

Or would you invade Cuba and take out the killers? And suppose the Cuban troops all donned civilian clothes and fought back from civilian centers like schools, hospitals, and crowded residential areas? Would you expect the American military to stop operations and withdraw back to the USA?

Here is my fervent hope: I hope that Israel ignores calls for a cease fire and finishes the job of killing the Hamas terrorists. Then I hope they turn to Hezbollah and finish that job as well.

And the UN, the EU and world opinion? They can all take a giant leap as far as I am concerned. If they insist on siding with terrorists, then their voices should be ignored.

Sooner or later, sensible people must realize that Israel's fight is our fight, their enemies our enemies. Israel is fighting the battle (in self-defense) that the whole civilized world should be fighting. It is not about the rights of Arabs who conveniently identify themselves as "Palestinians", a questionable term that has never represented any national or government entity in recorded history. It is about the fact that the Arab world that abounds Israel cannot accept the idea of a Jewish (or any non-Muslim state) in the region. These so-called Palestinians could have had their "Palestinian State" as far back as 1948. Instead, they rejected the two-state solution and drew their swords-because they wanted it all-and still do, no matter what their spokesmen may tell you from time to time. Read the Hamas charter. It calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Read the words of Ahmedinejad of Iran who has publicly stated that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.

May God forgive us if we stand aside and let these terrorist barbarians who go by the name of Hamas, Hezbollah (and Iran) destroy Israel and create another Holocaust in the process.

Paul "The Worm" Krugman Strikes Again

Paul "The Worm" Krugman


There are few editorialists who are more contemptible than Paul "The Worm" Krugman. I call him "The Worm" because he delights in using his pen to attack those with whom he disagrees until someone confronts him face to face-like Bill O'Reilly. Then he all but crawls under the table in looking for a place to hide.

Of course, President Bush is far too gentlemanly to hit back. He has withstood the slings and arrows of his attackers for 8 years without sinking to their level. Therefore, worms like Krugman just keep on attacking.

Witness Krugman's latest broadside against Bush in the New York Times, yet another call for the Obama Administration to investigate and prosecute Bush and others in his administration for imagined crimes.

Below is Krugman's hit piece, interspersed with my comments. Krugman's words are in quotes and italics.

"Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. 'I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,' he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

"I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years —and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies."

Torture and illegal wiretapping: What Krugman is referring to here is water boarding and the NSA intercepts of overseas calls from known or suspected terrorists to the US in the wake of 9-11. These were actions used not to maintain political power as Saddam Hussein and countless other dictators have done-but to protect American lives and prevent future 9-11s. In the case of the wiretaps, Bush received legal counsel-rightfully or wrongfully- that told him such action was legal. Yet Krugman wants Bush and everyone else who carried out such acts to be prosecuted-including those who water boarded people like the poor terrorist mastermind, Mr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that prevented planned terrorist attacks and saved countless lives.

In the above paragraph, Krugman also refers to such crimes as Bush's environmental policy and voting rights! What crimes would these be, Mr Krugman? Are you referring to the Kyoto Treaty and all those poor voters in Florida who didn't get their votes counted a third time in the 2000 election?

"At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians."

Nice throw-out lines, Mr Krugman, but would you care to be specific as to how minority voting rights were undermined? Are you saying that folks like ACORN were not adequately protected as they committed massive voter fraud? And which Democratic politicians were "persecuted"? And political influence in the Justice Department. What a novel idea. Ever heard of the Clinton Justice Department?

"The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job."

Strange analogy, to say the least. Furthermore, Krugman makes it sound like this never happened in previous administrations-like Clinton's. I am not trying to excuse this age-old custom, but is it criminal?

"Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed."

If Mr Krugman wants to prosecute every administration that had this problem, he could start with Washington and continue through Bush.

"There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?"

Yes, I seriously doubt that. Whatever history decides on the wisdom of Iraq, I believe Bush was acting on intelligence provided to him. If Bush lied on WMD, then so did Clinton, Albright, Berger, Cohen, Gore, the CIA, the British, Israeli intelligence services and countless others. Even leading Democratic politicians believed in WMD, such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton etc. If you don't believe that, go back to their own public declarations at the time. (They were also briefed.)

And those six government agencies that experienced major scandals? Is he referring to the agencies that were under Clinton cabinet secretaries like Hazel O'Leary, Ron Brown, Janet Reno (and Erik Holder), Alexis Herman and Henry Cisneros? Is he referring to the scandals of the (Erik Holder OK'd) pardons to Marc Rich, FALN terrorists, the leaders of the New York Hasidic Jewish community (that switched their votes from traditionally Republican to Hillary Clinton in 2000 in exchange for pardons), or the Secret Service, whose director tried to assert a non-existent right of privilege to keep his agents from being called to a grand jury to testify about Monica Lewinsky?

"Why, then, shouldn't’t (sic) we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn't’t (sic) there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?"

Again, start with Washington and keep on going. By the way, Mr Krugman, politicization of government, while certainly lamentable, is not, in and of itself, a crime.

"Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators."

Interesting that, as Krugman raises the specter of other administrations committing abuses, the only mention of Clinton is to "advice" he received from the media to "let sleeping dogs lie". I think it is clear that George Bush, himself, was loathe to authorize an investigation into the abuses of the Clinton years.

"Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again."

Oh, they will happen again alright, Mr Krugman. Already we have a cabinet forming of a Secretary of State who will be negotiating Middle East issues with governments that have poured millions into her husband's, coffers, a Treasury Secretary who neglected to pay over $34,000 in income tax, and an Attorney General up to his neck in the corrupt pardons of Marc Rich, and FALN terrorists who hadn't even asked for a pardon.

"Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

"And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make."

Maybe Mr Obama, knowing he lives in a glass house, is smart enough not to throw stones.

Of course, anyone familiar with Paul Krugman knows that he has a far-left political agenda. How else could he seriously call for a criminal investigation into the Bush Administration while ignoring one of the most corrupt administrations in US history (Clinton)? Krugman, of course, is an economist, not a legal scholar. He might want to stop and reflect that before he calls for prosecutions, he should find some actual crimes. A better place to start would be in the Clinton Administration.

"America's Sheriff" Guilty on One Count

Ex-Orange County (Ca) Sheriff Mike Carona


This morning a federal jury in Santa Ana, California returned verdicts of "not guilty" on 5 of 6 counts in former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona's corruption trial. Carona was convicted on one count of witness tampering. The overall verdict is being received with a general sense of shock by the local media.

As the verdicts were read, Carona began sobbing and laid his head on the table in front of him. He remains free pending sentencing on the one count of witness tampering, in which he faces a maximum sentence of 5 years.

This verdict will probably add to California's reputation as a place where high-profile defendants are difficult to prosecute. Add Carona to OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake and Phil Spector, previous famous defendants who were acquitted. In this case, the most damning evidence was the taped recordings of Carona's own words to Don Haidl. Yet, it appears the jurors chose not to believe their lying ears.

One local radio station reporter, in reporting the verdicts direct from the courtroom, speculated that the not guilty verdicts might endanger the plea deals that co-conspirators Don Haidl and George Jaramillo made with the government based on the fact that guilty verdicts were not reached (except for one count). That is absolutely incorrect. First of all, the government's deal with a cooperating defendant or co-conspirator does not hinge on guilty verdicts. That is in the hands of the jury. As long as the government is satisfied that the cooperating defendant fully upheld his/her end of the deal and testified truthfully, the verdict does not matter. In the case of Haidl, however, there is a suspicion he may have perjured himself in his testimony when he testified that he had never engaged in illegal campaign activities with others besides Carona. If that is, in fact, the case, then his deal might be in jeopardy. As for Jaramillo, the government chose not to call him as a witness.

As a former law enforcement officer with strong feelings about corruption, I sincerely hope Carona gets the maximum 5 years. There are few things worse than corruption in law enforcement, and Carona violated every trust put in him by the citizens of Orange County. He destroyed the reputation of a major law enforcement agency that is made up overwhelmingly of honest and dedicated people.

One could only hope that we shall not see his type again.

One Million Middle Eastern Jews

The below post is written by my friend and colleague Reut Cohen. Reut has her own blog at Reut R Cohen. She is a recent graduate from UC-Irvine, where she took the lead in documenting the hate speech brought onto our campus by the Muslim Student Union. For this effort, she put herself in harm's way and received no support from the university.

Reut is the descendant of Middle Eastern Jews who were driven from their homes because of the issue of the State of Israel. This is a story all but ignored by our media. It needs to be told.


"According to the definition of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who:

Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.

The Jewish people have had a continued presence in what are known as Arab states today since the Babylonian captivity of around 597 BCE. Discrimination against indigenous Middle Eastern Jews was continuous throughout history, particularly during the period of the rise of Islam.

With the rise of Arab nationalism in the early 1900s, Jews in what became Islamic lands found that they had become a scapegoat. No longer living under colonial rule, their situation began to worsen. Even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews found that they were being discriminated against--in many cases, being Jewish was practically outlawed.

In 1948 the Arab League declared all Jewish people enemy citizens, regardless of the fact that several had no will or motivation to leave their homes. Jewish bank accounts and property were confiscated, Jews were arrested and fired from their jobs, and synagogues were attacked. Homes were looted, women were raped and people were killed.

According to official Arab statistics, approximately 900,000 to 1,000,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries from 1940 until the early 1970s. Over 600,000 resettled in Israel. Their descendants, and those of Iranian and Turkish Jews, now number 3.06 million of Israel's 5.4 to 5.8 million Jewish citizens, thereby accounting for more than half of Israel’s population. The plight of the Jews in Arab lands worsened following the 1967 Six-Day War, prompting the remaining Jews to flee.






Today, fewer than 3,000 Jews remain in Middle Eastern lands, many living in poverty. They also often find themselves the recipients of religious hate-crimes.

In 2007, similar resolutions (H.Res.185 and S.Res.85) were proposed to the US Senate and Congress, to:

Make clear that the United States Government supports the position that, as an integral part of any comprehensive peace, the issue of refugees and the mass violations of human rights of minorities in Arab and Muslim countries throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf must be resolved in a manner that includes (A) consideration of the legitimate rights of all refugees displaced from Arab and Muslim countries throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf; and (B) recognition of the losses incurred by Jews, Christians, and other minority groups as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict. S. Res. 85. These resolutions were discussed on July 19th 2007 at the bicameral Congressional Human Rights Caucus in preparation for voting.

Over the course of the next few days, I will publish information about Jews from several Middle Eastern lands. As a daughter of indigenous Middle Eastern Jews who were robbed of their birthright, dignity and history, I have always been deeply attached to this issue. The lack of recognition this issue receives astonishes me. I hope that I can do my part to educate others."

Reut R Cohen

Just in Case.................

Just in case you were wondering or had forgotten where my sympathies lie.

Great Ironies in History

Hillary (and Bill) Clinton set to take over Middle East diplomacy (with their financial benefactors in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc)



Governor Rod Blogoyevich swears in Illinois Senate (that is impeaching him)




OJ Simpson sentences Nevada judge to prison



Marie Antoinette inspects new government guillotine



Saddam Hussein names new official government hangman



Ex-Justice Dept official (who created the wall between CIA and FBI) and 9-11 Commisioner Jamie Gorelick grilling a witness over 9-11 failures



Treasury Secretary-designate Tim Geithner vows to shake up the IRS

The Obama Cabinet-More "Change"

Timothy Geithner





William J Lynn III



As candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly offered us not only "Change we can believe in", but openness and transparency in government. As President-elect, he has proceeded to bring in a sackful of former Clinton Administration officials, some with questions lingering over the heads (Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, etc).

Add to this list the names of Treasury Secretary-designate Tim Geithner and his pick for Asst. Secretary of Defense, William J Lynn III.

Geithner, who as Treasury Secretary, would oversee the IRS, has recently, shall we say, been overseen by the IRS. Geithner owed back taxes to the IRS in the total of $34,023 for the years 2001-2004. In 2006, he paid part of it back when that agency audited him. Then, just recently, he paid the remainder plus $8,679 in interest.

Just how recently? As soon as Obama picked him for the Treasury spot.

What is Obama's reaction? "It was an honest mistake."

Change.

Let's leave aside the question of what would happen to you and me if we owed the IRS $34,000. Doesn't this pick put the lie to Obama's claim of Change and Transparency? What goes into the thinking of pushing a man through as Treasury Secretary who failed to pay over $34,000 in back taxes-until he was audited and then nominated for the top spot at Treasury? The answer is easy; it is the same thinking that selects Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State despite the fact that her husband is receiving millions and millions of dollars from countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

Change.

Then there is Obama's selection of William J Lynn III to be Asst. Defense Secretary. Lynn, who served at Defense in the Clinton Administration, then went on to become a lobbyist for the Raytheon Corp-a defense contractor. What is the problem here?

Didn't Obama pledge that no lobbyists would hold any position in his administration?

Yes, he did-emphatically.

Yet, Obama now insists that Lynn came so highly recommended that he had to make an exception.

Change.

So where is all the change that Obama promised us? To me, it looks like business as usual in Washington. Except for Obama himself, not even the faces are new.