Moshe Dayan's Progressive Hubris Made Jerusalem an Issue Today

Tonight begins Yom Yerushalayim, Jerusalem Day. It celebrates the day in 1967 that the IDF returned the Old Jerusalem to Jewish hands.

It is also appropriate to remember on Yom Yerushalayim is that if it was not for the progressive hubris of the man who is considered the hero of the Six-Day-War, Moshe Dayan, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount would not be the issue it is today.

Jews were denied access to the Holy sites in the Old City Jerusalem since 1948, when Jordan took it over during the War of Independence. In the intervening 19 years the Jordanians waged systematic destruction, desecration and looting of Jewish sites.

But on that day 44 years ago was a miracle 1900 years in the making, even if you cannot understand the Hebrew in the recording below, you can understand the joy, and reverence as Jews approached the Temple mount for the first time in nearly 20 years. (if you cannot see audioplayer and video below please click here)

Playing: Historic Broadcast

Listen to Historic Broadcast

For those who don't understand Hebrew, the below is a translation of the key passages of the broadcast.

Colonel Motta Gur All company commanders, we're sitting right now on the ridge and we're seeing the Old City. Shortly we're going to go in to the Old City of Jerusalem, that all generations have dreamed about. We will be the first to enter the Old City. Eitan's tanks will advance on the left and will enter the Lion's Gate. The final rendezvous will be on the open square above.

[The open square of the Temple Mount.]

[ Sound of applause by the soldiers.]

...Colonel Motta Gur announces on the army wireless: The Temple Mount is in our hands! I repeat, the Temple Mount is in our hands!

All forces, stop firing! This is the David Operations Room. All forces, stop firing! I repeat, all forces, stop firing! Over.

Lt.- Col. Uzi Eilam blows the Shofar. Soldiers are singing 'Jerusalem of Gold'.]

Uzi Narkiss: Tell me, where is the Western Wall? How do we get there?

Yossi Ronen: I'm walking right now down the steps towards the Western Wall. I'm not a religious man, I never have been, but this is the Western Wall and I'm touching the stones of the Western Wall.

Soldiers: [reciting the 'Shehechianu' blessing]: Baruch ata Hashem, elokeinu melech haolam, she-hechianu ve-kiemanu ve-hegianu la-zman ha-zeh. [Translation: Blessed art Thou Lord God King of the Universe who has sustained us and kept us and has brought us to this day]

Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Baruch ata Hashem, menachem tsion u-voneh

Yerushalayim. [Translation: Blessed are thou, who comforts Zion and bulids Jerusalem]

Soldiers: Amen!

[Soldiers sing 'Hatikva' next to the Western Wall.]

Rabbi Goren: We're now going to recite the prayer for the fallen soldiers of this war against all of the enemies of Israel:

[Soldiers weeping]

Rabbi Goren sounds the shofar

Merciful God in heaven, may the heroes and the pure, be under thy Divine wings, among the holy and the pure who shine bright as the sky, and the souls of soldiers of the Israeli army who fell in this war against the enemies of Israel, who fell for their loyalty to God and the land of Israel, who fell for the liberation of the Temple, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and Jerusalem the city of the Lord. May their place of rest be in paradise. Merciful One, O keep their souls forever alive under Thy protective wings. The Lord being their heritage, may they rest in peace, for they shalt rest and stand up for their allotted portion at the end of the days, and let us say, Amen.]

Since that day in 1967, the Muslims have been trying to reclaim Jerusalem's Holy Sites, not because of any 'religious ties" but to de-legitimize the Jewish claims to the city. During the past twelve months, President Barack Obama has joined in on the efforts to de-legitimize Jewish Heritage. The sad part of Israel's struggle to retain her capital is that it might not have been so fierce if Moshe Dayan didn't give away the Temple Mount almost 42 years ago.

When Israel gained possession of the Temple compound during the Six Day War, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol wanted to create a multi-faith council to run the compound. The Muslim Mosque would not have been touched, but all faiths would be allowed up on top of the mount.

Dayan thought the Temple Mount should remain in Muslim possession. In his biography Dayan clearly stated that the last thing he wanted was the Beit Hamikdash (the Jewish Temple) rebuilt.

Of course there was no way, that a third Temple would be built, by Jewish tradition that is supposed to wait until the coming of the messiah, but that didn't stop Dayan, like most progressives he felt he knew better than anybody. He didn't consult the Prime Minister or the Knesset, nor did the Israeli people have a say.

Dayan took it upon himself, he "gave" control of the Temple Mount back to the Arabs because he wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a third Temple.  There was nothing that Prime Minister Eshkol could do about it, after all Moshe Dayan, was a war hero.

Today is a wonderful celebration but it would have so much extra meaning if Israel could celebrate Yom Yerushalayim with a beautiful ceremony where the two Temples stood, on top of the Temple Mount, but that isn't possible because of Dayan.  Thanks to the General, only Muslims are allowed to pray on top of the Temple mount.

The Jewish people have lost possession of the the Temple Mount three times since King David purchased the site 30 centuries ago. Only once, was the site given away voluntarily, when Moshe Dayan gave it away 44 years ago. Moshe Dayan will go down in history not as a hero, but as the man who gave away the Temple Mount, providing Barack Obama and the Muslims the opportunity to make Jerusalem an Issue:

.........."It's true," Eldad said, "that the original sin was when the Jewish People, immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, ceded its hold on the Temple Mount in an unholy alliance between the Chief Rabbinate and Moshe Dayan - each side for its own reasons - but now the danger is that the Arab sovereignty on the Temple Mount will spill over to the Western Wall plaza, and from there to other places."

Then-Defense Minister Dayan, just days after Israel's liberation of the Old City, informed the Muslims running the Temple Mount that they could continue to run the mosques there - and later went further by preventing Jewish prayer all over the Mount.

"It was evident that if we did not prevent Jews from praying in what was now a mosque compound," Dayan later wrote, "matters would get out of hand and lead to a religious clash... As an added precaution, I told the chief of staff to order the chief army chaplain to remove the branch office he had established in the building which adjoins the mosque compound."Source Israel National News

 That is what Jews call a shanda (a shame).

Interview With Ben Shapiro On His New Book Primetime Propaganda

My friend John Hawkins of  Right Wing News  interviewed Ben Shapiro about his new book, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV.”

This was a fascinating interview because it covers a subject most conservatives are interested in and provides new information. Did you ever wonder how Hollywood went from being so patriotic and conservative in WW2 to the sad state it's in today? Well, you will wonder no more after reading this interview. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

Ben Shapiro talks about his own personal experience with the Hollywood blacklist for conservatives.

About three weeks later, he calls me back and he says, “I’m not sure we can represent you.” I said, “Oh really? Why is that?” He said, “Well, we started getting your stuff out to some people and we got a call back from a producer. The producer liked your stuff and he Googled you. When he Googled you, he found your political opinions online and he called us back and said I will never work with anybody of that political persuasion. I think it’s going to be very difficult for us to find you work in this town.” So, even if you get your toe in like I did, it will get chomped off by a liberal alligator. I have tapes to document this. There is no question that there is a vast liberal bias in the industry and that they will exclude you from the industry if you do not agree with their prevailing ideal.

Ben Shapiro on the demographics scam that helped turn Hollywood liberal.

In Hollywood, the only rating that really matters is the 18-49 demographic. The 18-49 demographic and really, the 18-34 demographic, is considered more valuable than older demographics. So you’ll see shows like Glee that actually make more ad dollars than shows like NCIS because the conservative shows appeal to older audiences.

So if you’re skewing young, you’re inherently skewing liberal. This is why MTV as a network skews liberal. The key to that is that it’s utterly false. The 18-49 crowd is worth more than people who are 50 and up — it’s just not true. In fact…

Right, there’s more money in the over 50 crowd.

Yeah, that’s exactly right. It’s unbelievable that this has worked for 40 years. If you think about it for half a second, you realize wait a second people who are 18 have no money, they’re living in their parent’s basement. They’re not spending a lot because they have no money. They have no savings, they have no job.  

Well I found out, this is the really fascinating part — (emphasizing the 18-34 demographic) was a concerted scam on the part of the TV industry. This was not something that happened by accident. It’s no coincidence that the shift to liberal television happened at exactly the same time that the shift in the demographic appeal happened. It used to be that in the 1960s, television was for the most part conservative. By the time you got to the late 1960s and 70′s, it turned massively liberal. That’s because there were three networks at the time; ABC, NBC, CBS. ABC only had affiliates in the big markets. It had no affiliates in any of the rural markets. CBS had affiliates everywhere. It had rural, it had urban — it was kicking the crap out of ABC on a daily basis. The top shows in the country were shows like Beverly Hillbillies,Green Acres, Petticoat Junction…. They were for what people in Hollywood derisively called “rural trash.”

What happened is that ABC saw that it was getting its ass kicked in the ratings so they have to make their case to advertisers somehow. So they hire a guy to do a study for them that says that the young, urban crowd is actually worth more than the older crowd. So even if CBS is drawing bigger numbers by far, our audience is more valuable than their audience to you. …So they go to the advertising agencies with that. The advertising agencies which are generally staffed by people who happen to be young and urban say, Well of course I’m worth more than the schmuck who lives on the farm in Alabama.”

So, what they do is they start buying into the ABC view of advertising. Pretty soon, CBS looks at ABC, which is starting to gain in terms of advertiser revenue, even though they’re getting their ass kicked in content, and they say okay we need to shift our orbit. We need to go totally liberal…so they bought into the whole thing. It was an enormous scam.

Note as many of you know I spent 16 years in the media buying industry, this is not exactly true. First of all the bias comes from the advertiser not from the agency or the network. Ben is right when he says there is a bias against rural America and older demographics and the reason is two-fold.

First when Ben says "Well of course I’m worth more than the schmuck who lives on the farm in Alabama," unfortunately he is telling the truth, and there is a reason for it.  People who live in City and Suburban settings make more on average and spend more than people in rural settings.  It is not politics nor is it "looking down on rural America" its a matter of fishing where the fish are.  I have worked on products such as Bayer Aspirin and Homelite chainsaws whose usage was more concentrated in rural areas and we targeted those areas with our advertising.

The other reason is simple,  older people and people in rural communities watch more TV and are over-represented in most TV audiences. Therefore any advertiser who does not target older and/or rural audiences have to go overboard the other way just to make thing even.  In other words, if a big part of your TV buy doesn't go toward younger urban audiences, your entire ad effort is going to be directed toward people who may not be as likely to buy your product. Thus in many cases where a brand's target audience is A18-49, they will purchase their TV based on 18-34 with the full knowledge that they will get the 35-49 audience anyway.

Understand also, that Ben comes at it from the creative side and I come at it from the business side.

There is much more to this interview, John has done a great job in getting Ben to talk about his experiences and perspective.  I recommend strongly that you click here and go to Right Wing News to read the rest of this interview.

http://rightwingnews.com/interviews/interviewing-ben-shapiro-on-his-new-book-primetime-propaganda-the-true-hollywood-story-of-how-the-left-took-over-your-tv/

Major Oil Find in Texas, 3,000 Wells in 12 Months (Unless Obama Stops This Also)

Texas has a reputation of doing things in a big way and this time is no different, one of the worlds largest oil fields have been found right here in the U.S. in the western part of Texas.
And companies are rushing to get it out of the ground. More than a dozen companies plan to drill up to 3,000 wells around here in the next 12 months.

Eagle Ford the name of the Texas field, is just one of about 20 new onshore oil fields that industry sources say could collectively increase the nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade.

The "problem" is, at least to environmentalists, the oil fields are of the "shale oil" variety, and the way to get it it out of the ground is by fracking a process that makes environmentalists nervous. Fracking involves injecting water, with sand and other additives, into the rock to push the oil and/or gas into accessible pockets. Improvements in technology allow drilling horizontally from a single, above-ground well, reducing the above-ground hit on the environment.

Based on the industry’s plans, shale and other “tight rock” fields that now produce about half a million barrels of oil a day will produce up to three million barrels daily by 2020, according to IHS CERA, an energy research firm. Oil companies are investing an estimated $25 billion this year to drill 5,000 new oil wells in tight rock fields, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a senior director at PFC Energy, a consulting firm.

“This is very big and it’s coming on very fast,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. “This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.”

In the most developed shale field, the Bakken field in North Dakota, production has leaped to 400,000 barrels a day today from a trickle four years ago. Experts say it could produce as much as a million barrels a day by the end of the decade.

The Eagle Ford, where the first well was drilled only three years ago, is already producing more than 100,000 barrels a day and could reach 420,000 by 2015, almost as much as Ecuador, according to Bentek Energy, a consultancy.

That's only four years from now, but don't start celebrating yet environmentalists are trying very hard to stop the use of fracking. According to a recent report released by Congressman Issa, the Obama administration is doing its best to make it difficult to use the fracking method of extracting oil and gas.

Despite the success of fracking, federal agencies appear to be in a race to see which one can regulate it first. The Department of Interior announced last November that it will consider regulating fracking on federal lands. The EPA, which concluded seven years ago that fracking "poses little or no threat" to drinking water supplies, is revisiting the issue. Having found no evidence that fracking chemicals reach drinking water, EPA now wants to study the entire lifecycle of the water used. In addition, DOE has convened a study group to review the fracking process. In a written statement, DOE Secretary Steven Chu stated, “I am looking forward to hearing from this diverse, respected group of experts on best practices for safe and responsible natural gas production.” Although the study groups members are certainly highly respected, a survey of their biographies indicates none has recent industry experience with the advancements in the technology.

Additional regulation of fracking is unnecessary because, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson pointed out, fracking is not an unregulated activity. Federal regulation by EPA, DOE, and DOI would cause needless delay and uncertainty along with multiple additional layers of red tape. Ultimately, federal intervention will chill investment and decrease energy independence.  Quite the opposite - the states, not the federal government, have always regulated the process and have done so with a solid track record. Officials in state after state have gone on the record to say that fracking has not caused any problems and any reports to the contrary are inaccurate.

Oh and there is that other "thing." According to the Washington Examiner, the 3-inch dunes sagebrush lizard could hinder drilling in West Texas, as it could be named a new endangered species. If put on the list in December, drillers fear the lizard’s new status would slow down or halt drilling in the area.

Based on his track record of preventing drilling in the guild and the canceling of shale drilling contracts in Utah, it will not be surprising if President Obama finds a way to stop this drilling also.

Egypt: Where Moderates and Judges Endorse Terrorism

By Barry Rubin

In September, the leaves will start falling off the trees in the West. And so will their policies toward the Middle East. That month, Egypt will elect a radical and largely Islamist parliament. That parliament will write a radical and largely Islamist constitution. The new government will follow a radical and at least partly Islamist policy. It will be Iran all over again.

Of course, Egypt is different. The problem will not be as large or intense as Iran. But as the Shakespearean character said when given a fatal sword wound in "Romeo and Juliet": “No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, ‘twill serve.”

There was a violent demonstration at the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. The protesters set fire to an Israeli flag and demanded the Israeli ambassador be expelled. The demonstrators attempted to storm the embassy; 185 people were arrested, 18 police injured by thrown rocks.

The demonstration was organized on Facebook by the April 6 Youth Movement. The same "moderate" and "democratic" group so highly praised in the West for "leading" the Egyptian revolution.

Asmaa Mahfouz is a leader of the April 6 Youth Movement. In fact, she claims that she personally began the revolution with her January 18 video calling for demonstrations. Now, Mahfouz is trying to launch a new revolution against the military rulers. One of the reasons she’s protesting the transitional military regime is that the army protected the Israeli Embassy from being stormed and seized by the demonstrators.

President Obama believes these people are the hope for the future and backs them 100 percent. Of course, there are real moderate democrats in Egypt, but they are few and terrible at organizing a political structure. There is no strong moderate party running in the parliamentary election. The Muslim Brotherhood is well-organized. Smaller Islamist and radical leftist parties are organized.

The dominant emotion today in Egypt is fear. The dominant response today in the West is blindness.

Meanwhile, an Egyptian court took Egyptian citizenship away from a leading Coptic Christian activist and banned him from entering the country. Among the charges was supposedly insulting Islam and asking the United States and Israel to interfere in Egypt's internal affairs.

Former Deputy Head of Egypt's Court of Appeals Judge Mahmoud al-Khodheiri, gave an interview on al-Jazira (thanks to MEMRI for video and translation) and said:

"We should stop exporting natural gas to Israel.” But is it all about the money? No: “I consider the export of gas to Israel an act of treason, and we should stop it. I salute the people who bombed the gas pipe, because this is my blood that is being transferred to my enemy."

A man who’s been a high-ranking judge salutes terrorists who blew up a pipeline. Yet judges are supposed to uphold the rule of law. If a judge can cheer those who blow things up that opens the door to supporting other acts of lawless violence. Wherever al-Khodheiri draws the line others will find justification for mayhem. Attack Christians? Kill Jews? Assassinate secularists or government officials? Once lawlessness is rationalized as absolute right there are no limits.

A former high-ranking judge calls for ignoring a legal contract. Judges are supposed to uphold contracts. Of course, he could call for renegotiating the contract through legal channels, but that isn’t what he does. So the acceptable resort to an agreement where you aren’t currently gaining an advantage is violence and unilateral abrogation. What does this tell us about other agreements (contracts) that Israel might make with Arab neighbors or the Palestinians?

Israel is an enemy. Despite a peace treaty 33 years ago, most Egyptians regard this as merely a temporary truce. The return of the Sinai, reopening of the Suez Canal, reopening of Egyptian oilfields in western Sinai do not suffice to make them feel at peace with Israel, whatever continuing sympathy and support they might give the Palestinians. Nor does Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the creation of the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s acceptance of its arming and transfer of funds, nor Israel’s other actions. Why should we believe that Israel’s turnover of east Jerusalem, the West Bank, and creation of a Palestinian state would change anything? I wish that were true but I’m not going to pretend it is when I see it isn’t.

Selling gas is “treason.” And what does one do to traitors in the Arabic-speaking world? One kills them. While al-Khodheiri isn’t a cleric, he has been a career judge, the people who lay down the law of the state as Muslim clerics rule on Sharia (Islamic) law. So in a real sense what he ‘has done is to issue what one might call a “secular fatwa.” If an official of Egypt’s energy authority is murdered tomorrow the killers can cite al-Khodheiri as justifying it, just as previous killers or the would-be assassin of Naguib Mafouz, Egypt’s great novelist, rationalized their acts because of clerics’ statements.

Remember, al-Khodheiri is a Mubarak-appointed judge! What will the judges selected by the next government sound like?

Finally, “blood.” The resort to passion rather than reason is dangerous. The English-language expression “as sober as a judge” doesn’t just refer to intoxication with alcohol but to a “judicious temperament,” calm, cool, and rational.

If judges call for violence and murder, invoke blood and treason how might common people behave? What example is being offered to the national political culture?

President Barack Obama and European leaders don’t get it. We are about to be projected back to the bad old days of radical Arab nationalist regimes competing with each other in militancy, anti-Americanism, and hatred of Israel. Except this time they’re Islamists and that’s worse.

When top judges yell for fire and vengeance your society is in real trouble. And so are its neighbors. No democratic state can be built on such a foundation. Ignore all those soothing and ignorant journalists and “experts” on television and in the newspapers. Here comes the judge. And he’s a hanging judge.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Consumer Confidence, Manufacturing And Housing- More Signs of Coming Recession Part Two

The Conference Board announced today that their Consumer Confidence Index fell to a six-month low of 60.8 from a revised 66 in April, a further sign that the still stagnant job market and the high gas prices based somewhat on the President's continued strangle-hold on domestic oil, is fraying the public's confidence of the United State's economic future.

The drop was a surprise (isn't it always) as economists had expected an increase to 67. Anything over a 90 is indicative of a healthy economy.

"Consumers are considerably more apprehensive about future business and labor market conditions as well as their income prospects," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center. She said fears of inflation that had eased in April picked up again in May.

Adding fuel to the fire, the housing market continued its slide back into recession.

The U.S. housing market is in a “double dip” – the second wave of falling prices since the Great Recession gained steam in 2008, according to the folks who operate the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index.

The index tracks 20 large metropolitan areas, including Portland, and found that current house prices are back where they were in mid-2002, on average, for those cities.

And if that isn't enough all indications are that the manufacturing sector is slowing down:

The May ISM purchasing managers index is forecast to drop to 57.5 in May from 60.4 a month earlier according to a survey of economists by Market News International.

It would mark the first time this year that the closely-watched manufacturing index has fallen below 60, though it is still well above the 50 mark that indicates growth in the sector.

HSBC economist Ryan Wang said U.S. exports, which fueled a rebound in manufacturing earlier this year, are now a key reason for the slower pace of growth in May.

"The slowdown seems to be global. That's impacting the U.S.," Wang said in an interview. "The key question is whether it turns into a more serious pullback."

Regional manufacturing indicators across the board have signaled a slowdown is on the cards. The Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing index plunged to 3.9 in May from 18.5 the previous month.

The New York Fed's Empire State report and Chicago PMI have also shown slower growth in their regions, while the Dallas Federal Reserve and Richmond Fed indexes reported contractions in May.

If this was any other President, or at least a republican one, the media would be all over the place screaming double-dip recession. With each passing day, the numbers seem to confirm that we are heading into another tailspin, which is why businesses and consumers alike seem to be keeping their money hidden in their mattresses. If this trend continues, sadly more people will find themselves out of work, and without a home.  If it continues long enough one of those jobless people will be President Obama--beginning in January 2013. Its time for the GOP to pick of the mantra of the Bill Clinton campaign "its the economy stupid!"

When Palestinian President Abbas Said NO To A Settlement Freeze

The reason the Palestinians give for not negotiating with Israel is that the Jewish State refuses to halt building new housing units in existing communities in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.  That claim is nothing but a red herring. First of all the entire Israeli Settlement Freeze issue was a creation of the naive administration of Barack Obama, just as important is the fact that the "moderate" terrorist, Palestinian President Abbas refused a generous offer by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to continue last years 10-month-long freeze, if the Palestinians recognized Israel as the Jewish State.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements,cessation of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new "settlements" in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view it was if they were telling adults that their children could not purchase a home in their neighborhood.

This was a major error by the Obama administration and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State turned the Israeli population against Obama. In fact the only thing that Obama's public berating of Israel accomplished is to unite the Israeli populace against him.


Additionally Obama's  demand for a freeze  broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says  Obama's contention is simply not true (diplo-speak for he they are lying).

The Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement freeze. It was approved and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9+ months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on the liberal media.

Yet the onus was put on the Jewish State to extend the freeze, the administration did not question the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze via Hilary Clinton. Based on their experience with the Obama Administration, they demanded that any proposal be presented in writing. In other words,  as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."

As Israel waits for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. does not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

That didn't stop Netanyahu from trying to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October he made a very simple offer to the PA.  If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze.  As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

 President Obama believes that the unrest in the Middle East, the so called Arab Spring is the perfect opportunity for crafting a peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. But how can he try and make peace if he does not recognize the fact that the Palestinian side refuses to make the most basic of acknowledgments, that Israel is the Jewish State. Until they recognize that fact, it is clear that the Palestinians have no desire to make peace.

Newsbusted: Did Obama Send Mitt Romney a Dead Fish?

After his overseas trip last week we learned of President Obama's Irish roots, but he may have some Italian in him also.  According to Newsbuster's Anchor Jodi Miller the President may have responded to a gesture by Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney with a dead fish.

Other exclusives covered in today's edition of the twice-weekly feature from Newsbusters.org  include the real reason why the President signed the Westminster Abbey guest book using a date from 2008, why the President has been criticized for being too Al Gore-like and just who are those Israelis who say they support Obama's new Middle East plan.

Please don't let yourself miss this issue of  Newsbusted.  Because should you miss it, the blue bird of happiness will crap all over your bar-b-que. Click play below and remember, if you don't, Snookie will come visiting.

Oh, and if you cannot see video below click here  

Why I haven't Covered Weinergate

I have been asked by a couple of readers why I am not covering the Wenergate scandal. While I enjoy a good wiener joke especially at the expense of Anthony Weiner who I believe is a blight upon Congress, there is something I do not trust about the story.  Can't put my finger on it, and until I believe something is true it wont appear here.

Just to make one more thing clear, having written over 150 posts for the Breitbart sites since March of last year, I do not believe that the "bigs" invented the story either (some one else might have, but my experience has been that they have questioned me about links and sources for stories with implications much smaller than this story).

The bottom line is if the Weinergate story is true, it could not only hurt Weiner's career but his marriage, therefore I want to be convinced it's real before covering it.

Thanks for understanding.

This Weekend

Folks Hopefully you noticed that I took much of this weekend off, spending time with my family.  Among other things, my son and I saw both Thor and Pirates of the Caribbean, and spent other time with my wife and daughter.

I hope you understand and I will be back up and running full time very early tomorrow morning.

Barack Obama's "Muslim Problem"

By Barry Rubin

The idea that President Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim is ridiculous. (And don’t write me disagreeing because there’s no proof.)

BUT this red herring has blocked a serious discussion of what is Obama’s attitude toward Islam. As so often happens regarding the Middle East and Islam, people spend their time and passions focusing on the wrong issue.

I think two points can be made reasonably:

• Based on his youthful experience, Obama thinks he is a great expert on Islam. He isn’t. And the Islam he came in contact with at the time (in Indonesia mainly) was quite different from what he has to deal with in the Middle East today. Particularly, he genuinely does not seem to comprehend revolutionary Islamism. And since that's the main international threat in the world today his failure creates a gigantic problem for the future of what used to be called the Free World.

• Obama has a strong sympathy and empathy for Muslims. In theory, that’s just fine but it has led to a policy of trying to win the love of the Muslim-majority world rather than to develop strategies that work and protect U.S. interests. Another theme that emerges from this is his relentless mirror-imaging in which Egypt's revolution becomes equivalent to Rosa Parks protesting against segregation on buses in the Southern United States and the quest for democratic liberty by America's Founding Fathers.

So Obama's "Islamophilia" makes him have a huge "Muslim problem." The problem is not that he "likes" Muslims but that he doesn't distinguish among them. It's the difference between loving Russia, its people and its culture a generation ago, and not understanding the problem of Communism. 

By believing that the only problems are: a tiny group of evil people (al-Qaida) and mistakes made by U.S. policy, Obama is missing the biggest political development in the world today. 

It's like saying after the Russian Revolution that the real problem is a small group of anarchists who want to hijack Bolshevism, but that if the United States is only nice enough to the Communists, shows them that America isn't their enemy, and helps them get rid of a few extremists everything will be great.

 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
 

In One Sentence Here is What Obama Doesn't Understand About the Middle East

By Barry Rubin

Here's the sentence:

The changes in the region are producing more extremism, not more moderation.

That applies to attitudes toward America and Israel as well as on internal social issues.
Rachi Ghanouchi, head of Tunisia's Islamist movement--a man long portrayed as a moderate in the West--just publicly came out and called for Israel's destruction. And what does Voice of America tell us and the Arabs? That Ghanouchi is a moderate who doesn't want an Islamist state! Your tax dollars at work. What does CBS News tell us? That the Islamist party denounced the killing of a priest. Obviously very tolerant people.

Of course, the Tunisian Islamists are far weaker than those in Egypt. Still, the West is deluding itself in thinking they are moderate.

Yet let's listen--thanks to MEMRI--at what the VOA and CBS producers counterpart in the Arab world is saying. In an article written for a Qatari and a Jordanian newspaper, entitled "Israel Is Surely Temporary," Samir al-Hijjawi says

"It's time for Israel to go... It's time for the end of the great lie... It's time [for Israel] to go because the regimes protecting [it]... are toppling one by one." He added that the recent  protests on Israel's borders prove the Palestinians and Arabs will never relinquish all of Palestine because it is sacred Muslim territory.

I'll bet that every producer and pretty much every staff member of al-Jazira--the station Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recommended as accurate--agrees.
Get it? For Obama, the "Arab Spring" means moderation and democracy. To most Arabs and Muslims, it represents a resurgence of Islamism and nationalism, the prelude for getting rid of Israel and U.S. influence in the region.

I'd be bothered less if Obama acknowledges that but claimed that his proteges would win. The fact that he has zero percent understanding of the threat is the prelude to disaster. The fact that almost all Western newspapers and television news operations think the same way as Obama makes the situation even worse.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

 

The Key to Obama’s Foreign Policy: The World Turned Upside Down

By Barry Rubin


“If buttercups buzz'd after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse....
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.”

--“The World Turned Upside Down,” English ballad, 1643

I think I’ve made a breakthrough in understanding President Barack Obama’s foreign policy of punishing friends, rewarding enemies, and taking risks toward empowering enemies by bashing friends. It isn’t that Obama is a Muslim or a Marxist; it’s that...

He is America's first (and hopefully last) 1960s' New Left president.

Think of how the American left looked at the Cold War. For them, the phrase “Free World” was a joke. America’s allies were often repressive dictators. In Europe, even democratic states like Britain and France were, or until recently were, colonial powers.

Vietnam: America supported South Vietnam (boo) and fought North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front (LBJ, how many kids have you killed today; Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win).

Latin America: In Chile, America supported the army (boo!) and fought President Salvador Allende and the Communists (yeah!). Not to mention those military dictatorships who murdered peasants in South America and killed Che Guevara. And how about those Sandinistas. They wanted land reform and to help the poor and the United States plundered them for United Fruit and other greedy capitalists.

Great Britain: America supported Britain and thought Winston Churchill was a hero but what about colonialism (Get his bust out of the White House!)? Say, in a country like Kenya? Mau-maus (possibly Obama's grandfather) who were called "terrorists," good guys; British, bad guys.

Middle East: America supported the bad guys (Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) against the good guys (PLO, Egypt, Syria, Iraq).

The Communists: had their shortcomings but at least they wanted to help people, right? And if the USSR was old-fashioned and degenerated at least there were a lot of cool new revolutionaries.

Africa: Obama's own father opposed a generally U.S.-backed Kenyan regime. In theory, he was a leftist and a man of the people. In reality, he was a womanizing, alcoholic and corrupt politician, just the kind of "progressive" Third World politician who pretends to represent the voice of the masses.
And so on.

So the leftist view has been that American allies were bad guys. And since America was also the bad guy, American allies were doubly bad guys.

In contrast, those opposing U.S. policy or allies—notably, Latin American guerrillas; Fidel Castro, the Viet Cong (or National Liberation Front if you wish); Mao Zedong; Che Guevara (remember that Che Guevara poster in the Obama election headquarters in Arizona, was it?); Patrice Lumumba; and so on and so forth were heroes.

Pakistan has it both ways. On one hand, it is an American “ally” but since it just takes money, hides al-Qaida leaders, and sponsors cross-border terrorism against India, it is enough of an enemy to receive favored treatment.

So, the bad guys to America were the good guys and the good guys to America were the bad guys.

I’m putting this in slangy language but I’m very serious.

And for someone raised personally and politically the way Obama was (hat-tip, Stanley Kurtz and Dinesh D’Souza) this was taken for granted.

Thus, be it England or Egypt or Israel or Colombia, if you are partnered with the United States it proves you are bad. And for Venezuela, Syria, or the Palestinian Authority, the more hostile you are to America the better you are.

Hence, the business of American policy should be to win over the heroic guerrillas who fight on behalf of the wretched of the earth (reference: Che Guevara, Franz Fanon, The Communist “Internationale”), these are the people who—as they say in Hollywood—we’d like to be in business with.

Consider Obama’s profound disrespect for realpolitik as evidenced in his State Department speech:

“For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”

He says that the United States will continue to do these things. But listen to the subtle differences in that list:

“We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”

For decades, the United States wanted mainly to keep hostile countries from getting nuclear weapons, while Obama’s policy is to put the priority on eliminating nuclear weapons (including those of the United States) entirely. “Countering terrorism” becomes stopping al-Qaeda! How about stopping Hamas and Hizballah or the Muslim Brotherhood? Nope. Not part of the policy. “Standing up for Israel’s security” becomes the generic “we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”

Tolerate aggression across borders? But the Obama Administration does tolerate Syrian aggression against Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq; and Iranian aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and against Israel. Soon it will be tolerating Egyptian aggression against Israel.

Perhaps he is referring here to Israel’s holding on to part of the West Bank captured in 1967 as aggression across borders? He certainly has—in contrast to the other cases—tried to do something about that!

Talking about “standing up for Israel’s security” is reserved for speeches.to AIPAC.

In addition, however:

“We must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.”

Yes, the old U.S. policy conducted under lots of presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, were focused on U.S. interests. Now, however, Obama defines this as "narrow." The United States must show itself in favor of “the broader aspirations of ordinary people.”

And in the twenty-first century who could be cooler than Facebook Kids, those liberty-loving rascals rebelling against an American-backed dictatorship. Don’t we want to be on their side? We cares about national interests? What could possibly go wrong? The clerical-reactionaries (not that there’s anything wrong with that) couldn’t possibly win against the progressive (Progressive?) forces of history. Power to the people!

This, however, raises two questions:

First, which aspirations?

Second, as expressed by whom?

Suppose the aspirations of the people are against U.S. interests? Example, in the early Cold War the United States covertly intervened in French and Italian politics to make sure Communist parties didn’t win. Did that thwart the aspirations of the people? Quite possibly. Should it have been done: You bet!

The United States has believed that it has no interest in promoting the anti-American aspirations of people. What if the aspirations are to have radical Islamism? What if the majority wants to persecute Christians? What if the majority wants to expel U.S. influence from the region? What if the majority wants to wipe Israel off the map and commit genocide on the Jews?

So no, U.S. policy often needs to oppose the aspirations of the people or certain people. When possible, it does so because it believes that by doing so they will be better able to fill their stomachs (example: Communism as a system failed to do so) and speak their minds (ditto).

But ultimately its goal is not to promote the aspirations of other people. Its main priority should be to promote the aspirations of the American people. Yet if America is not an exceptional, better country, but often a worse one; national identity is out of date, and promoting your own country's interests is a form of racism; if America is rich and greedy, taking more than its share of resources and causing global warming because its living standards are too high, then the aspirations of Egyptians or Venezuelans are equally or more important than those of the American people.

What other wordview could imagine something like "Cap and Trade" in which the U.S. taxpayers paid other countries for the right to use their own air? This is a transfer of wealth from America to others, in no way in the American interest or the interests of Americans.

Remember, Obama is desperate to be popular abroad. And he views popularity as giving the people abroad what they want, whether or not that’s in U.S. interests. If, for example, the “people” of the Middle East don’t want the United States to support Israel, then according to his worldview it shouldn’t.

Let’s face it: If not for the State Department's desperate intervention, Obama would be campaigning for the overthrow of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments. And at the same time, fighting against seeking the overthrow of the Iranian and Syrian governments.

It's not just Israel, though that country is first on the list. If you are a U.S. ally there must be something wrong with you. And if you are a U.S. enemy there must be something right with you. Or, perhaps I should say, "left" with you.

Obama says:

“I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.”

So Obama is on the side of the “masses,” whatever the masses ”want.” But conservatives and liberals in power during past presidencies generally understood that authoritarian regimes and totalitarian movements pretended to represent the masses and through good organizing and rigid discipline pushed themselves to the head of the line.

Those who remember Nazism and Fascism and Communism, not to mention the dozens of Third World dictators who pretended to be the voice of the masses, know this. Such experiences and education did not shape Obama. Perhaps Bill Ayers could explain to him how front groups and revolutionary vanguards and the dictatorship of the proletariat work.

Didn't the Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Japanese militarists, Ba'thists, Nasserists, Fidelistas, the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, Tupamaros, Sandinistas, and all those other groups represent their people's aspirations? We could deny it but certainly at the time that seemed to be true.

So why isn't it true for Hamas, Fatah, Hizballah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the dictator in Venezuela and the one in Syria?

Well, we know that this money and self-sacrifice to help the masses of people abroad usually just puts money into the Swiss bank accounts of the dictators and their supporters, the already fat elite. What percentage of U.S. aid money to the Palestinians actually benefited "ordinary" Palestinians? How much will the destruction of American oil-drilling and sending money to Brazil so they can produce oil going to benefit the "ordinary" Brazilian? It certainly won't benefit the ordinary American.

But to return to my main theme, for Obama the world is upside-down from the historic American political mainstream. Again, I stress, both liberal and conservative. For him, the friends of America are bad; the enemies of America are good. He must win over the enemies of America—and “the people” in other countries—by showing him that he appreciates that idea.

From this ideology, rather than some conspiracy or secret identity, he does much harm. And no matter how much experience he accumulates Obama isn’t going to learn any better.

In this world, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is a "reformer" while elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a reactionary who doesn't want peace.

To him, America has been on the wrong side. Now it will be on the “right” side. And, unfortunately, that side is the enemy side. The enemy of America and, ultimately, of the people it claims to represent.

This is not some minor mistake. It is his worldview.



Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

On Memorial Day Remember Those Who Kept us Free

Let us not forget that today is much more than Hot Dogs and Parades:

The Original Order Creating the Memorial Day Holiday:

(if you cannot see two videos in this post Click HERE)

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way, arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are here to play, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull and other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldiers and sailors widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander in Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.

A Prayer For the United States On Memorial Day

Lord who grants salvation to kings and dominion to rulers, Whose kingdom is a kingdom spanning all eternities; Who places a road in the sea and a path in the mighty waters - may you bless the President, the Vice President, and all the constituted officers of government of this land. May they execute their responsibilities with intelligence, honor and compassion. And may these United States continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave

To those of you who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our liberty, we humbly say...Thank You

Robot Video Premiere is a Featured Secondlife Destination event!

Join London on Monday, May 30, 2011 for a special event!  A real life musical artist recently shot a video in the London sims and the video will premiere in Hyde Park!  We have a  huge pre party planned and you will get a chance to meet the artist.  Stay tuned for more information and check out the London Gossip Group inworld for times and other information.

The Real Mr. Smith Video Event

Attend the live premiere of The Real Mr. Smith's latest music video "Robot," which was shot in Second Life. Event begins May 30 at noon (Pacific). After the premiere, the artist and filmmaker will be available for a live Q&A with attendees. More info: http://robotmusicvideo.blogspot.com

Visit in Second Life

St. Mary Abbotts Church is a Secondlife Destination!

London is pleased to announce that St Mary Abbotts Church in our Kensington Sim, is now a Secondlife Destination in the category Spirituality & Belief.  All denominations are welcome to reflect or find inspiration.

St. Mary Abbotts Church

St. Mary Abbotts Church is a replica of the real-life church in the same location in real-life Kensington, United Kingdom. Visitors can take in the stained glass and enjoy the peace and solitude as they search for religious inspiration, or simply need a quiet place to worship. All denominations are welcome.

Visit in Second Life

And The New Leader of the Free World Is...Saudi Arabia?

By Barry Rubin

Since the United States is not leading the anti-Islamist forces in the Middle East and protecting the relatively moderate Arab states, the new leader is...Saudi Arabia.

But, you say, isn't Saudi Arabia also Islamist? Well it's as Islamic as you can get without being revolutionary Islamist. Isn't Saudi Arabia profoundly anti-Jewish? Yes, but it mostly just talks about it. Isn't Saudi Arabia anti-democratic? Yes, we'd prefer the United States but President Barack Obama is busy with other things.

Obama wants Middle East Muslims to love America. There are only two problems:

1. His policy doesn't work. They don't love America.

2. The Muslims he keeps appealing to are those who are radical and pro-terrorist. For those who are Muslims but don't want to overthrow their neighbors, go to war with Israel as soon as possible, throw out U.S. influence, and transform their countries into something like Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, Obama is a problem.

So the Saudis are doing what I've been telling the Obama Administration to do for 2.5 years: Form an alliance opposing revolutionary Islamism. Of course, the Saudis won't include Israel (at least publicly) and they won't get Europe, but at the moment they're all we've got.

This was completely predictable. Some weeks ago, Nawaf Obeid, who speaks for the Saudi government, in an informal and deniable way, of course. And he voices the Saudis anger and disappointment with a U.S. government that fails to fight against revolutionary Islamism and protect it from Iran.

I've been writing about this split for two years and now it has happened. The thing is that the Saudis are right and Obama is wrong.  It helped overthrow the Egyptian regime and was ready to help bring down the government in Bahrain. The Saudis have had enough. The Jordanians would do the same if they could, as would Israel.

And there are plenty of countries in South America, Central Europe, and Asia that also feel this U.S. government has let them down.

Wasn't this the U.S. government that was going to win over the Muslims, make the Arabs love America, and make the United States popular again?

Saudi Arabia has plenty of shortcomings. It won't even let women drive! But at least it won't let Tehran and the Muslim Brotherhood get in the region's driver's seat.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. 

New Poll: Almost Two-Thirds of Voters Want a Balanced Budget Amendment

Since Congress won’t fix the problem, Americans want a Constitutional amendment to protect them from Congress. A new Sachs/Mason-Dixon Poll released by the Daily Caller this afternoon finds that almost two out of every three Americans (65%) support a constitutional amendment that would require the budget to be balanced every year.

“Americans are concerned about our nation’s deepening deficit and as a result, an overwhelming number support a balanced budget amendment,” said Alia Faraj-Johnson, Partner and Executive Vice President of Ron Sachs Communications. “Candidates from both parties would be wise to support the measure, which will help keep Congress’ spending in check and ensure our government is tightening its belt, like many American families.”

Support for the Amendment is wide-spread; Republicans (81%) and Independents (68%) support an amendment.  As expected Democrats are more reluctant to give up their “political crack,” but still slightly more 45% support the amendment than oppose it.

A balanced budget amendment would put the federal government on the same footing as most of the state budgets. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures 45 of the 50 states have a constitutional provision requiring that the budget be balanced each year.  Four states are required to have a balanced budget by statute only (and we know how easy it is to amend statutes). One state, Vermont has neither.  

The survey also reports that 46% of Americans would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports a balanced budget amendment while 21% indicated they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

Just as with the first question there are vast differences depending on party affiliation. Only 21% of Democrats would be more likely to support such a candidate (versus 37% who would be less likely), 64% of Republicans would be more likely (versus 7% less likely) and 51% of Independents (versus 19%).

Two things could be gleaned from these results. First the American people are serious they want the country to find a way to dig out of the budgetary hole we created by over spending. The second point is for potential GOP presidential candidates. Unless a particular candidate is hoping to get most of its votes from the opposition party, there is no downside to supporting a balanced budget amendment, Republicans and Independents both will be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting the amendment.

American's simply do not trust politicians to fix the problem themselves, only through an amendment to the Constitution will our leaders be forced to deal with the hard choices that need to be made.