Obama Admin is Disguising Its Major Policy Shift to the Muslim Brotherhood

By Barry Rubin


Here’s the headline: “U.S. to resume formal Muslim Brotherhood contacts.” But that’s not true. In fact, as the Reuters article itself admits, there have never been “formal” contacts before but only informal ones. Let’s examine the language, which stems from a “senior U.S. official,” to see what the Obama administration thinks about the Muslim Brotherhood:

A step that reflects the Islamist group’s growing political weight but that is almost certain to upset Israel and its U.S. backers.

Note how it is portrayed as an Israel-related issue. Won’t it upset people who care about U.S. interests? Won’t it upset Egyptian Christians? The Saudis and Jordanians and other relatively moderate Arab regimes? Won’t it upset Muslims who oppose revolutionary Islamism?

We are supposed to believe that only Israel and the Jews will be upset about the Obama administration moving closer to a radical antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist group that wants to repress women, kill gays, and overturn pretty much every existing government in the region. But just those Jews and their friends will be upset. You know, just like in the 1930s when certain people said that opposition to the totalitarian threat of those years was just coming from the Jews.

Reuters portrays the Brotherhood, as do many, as “a group founded in 1928 that seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society.” Conservative? You mean they are like the Republican Party? You mean they are for the status quo? And of course one of the things they did since 1928 was to ally with Nazi Germany, and the Brotherhood continues to voice the same political line toward Jews that it did back then

We are also told that the Brotherhood “long ago renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt….” This is simply not true. The Brotherhood merely temporarily renounced violence within Egypt because they knew that any resort to it would get them wiped out by the regime and the army. They postponed using violence until the revolutionary era arrived. Of course, if they can take over Egypt without violence they are happy to do so.

But there’s more. Every day for decades the Brotherhood has supported violence against Israel. It has supported violence against Americans in Iraq, and on various other fronts. Why is this so hard to see?

The result has been a dilemma for the Obama administration. Former officials and analysts said it has little choice but to engage the Brotherhood directly, given its political prominence after the February 11 downfall of former President Hosni Mubarak.

That is arguably true, but by recognizing the Brotherhood and having contacts with it, the Obama administration also makes a unilateral concession encouraging the Brotherhood. People who know the Middle East understand how this works: Soon many Egyptians will say (as they said in Iran and as they now say in Turkey) that the United States wants the Islamists to win.

But, the article continues:


U.S. President Barack Obama will surely face criticism for engaging with the Brotherhood, even tentatively.

And who do they go to — Middle East analysts who can explain why this is dangerous? No, to the head of AIPAC in order to perpetuate the theme that this is merely a problem with the Jewish lobby! And who is presented to refute this? Former American diplomats. So it is the people who know versus the Jews.

And what are we told about the Brotherhood’s goals? This:


The group says it wants a civil state based on Islamic principles, but talk by some members of an “Islamic state” or “Islamic government” have raised concerns that their goal is a state where full Islamic sharia law is implemented. The group says such comments have been taken out of context.

“Some members” include the leader and deputy leader of the group. It is apparently too much trouble to read and quote what Brotherhood officials say, or their publications openly state, or their political platform calls for. Never are these statements fully quoted. Always they are dismissed as insignificant, like the statements of the late Usama bin Ladin once were.

Moreover, Egypt under Mubarak could reasonably be said to be a “civil state based on Islamic principles.” And since “Islamic principles” are mandated by Allah, democracy is ultimately unacceptable since no human vote could alter those principles. How can an elected parliament pass a law limiting a man to one wife, or accepting religious conversion, outlawing amputations, or maintaining peace with Israel — to cite just a few examples — since those are against “Islamic principles,” at least under the interpretation of Islam held by the Brotherhood?

So we just can’t tell if the Muslim Brotherhood wants a radical Islamist state before it takes power. Just like it was presumably a mystery about what Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted to do in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

And finally the article doesn’t even mention the most important development in U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood relations during that group’s eighty-year history: President Barack Obama’s explicit (and uninvited) statement accepting the Brotherhood being in government. U.S. policy is paving the way for a radical, possibly Islamist, Egypt. It is a catastrophic strategy.


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.

Obama Yesterday: Congress Must Work Harder--Obama Today: Not Me, See Ya!

At yesterday's press conference President Obama criticized the Congress for not working hard enough to fix the deficit. And he should know, the president has been in Washington every day, well except all of his fundrasing trips,  and the trips he took overseas especially the ones he took that were more like family trips, like the one to South America.  Oh and except for the 75 golf outings, which is a record for recent presidents.

The President also implied the the Congress did not work as hard as his two daughters, explaining that the girls were the type of student who finished their homework the day before its due (which explains why the poor  "goody two-shoes" get their butts kicked by bullies every day.

Speaking of goody two-shoes, today Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell invited the President to meet with  Republican party leadership and discuss their differences.





However, the President rejected the offer, White House press secretary Jay Carney said McConnell was asking Obama to visit and "hear Republicans restate their maximalist position" in the negotiations to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. "We know that position. That's not a conversation worth having," Carney said at his daily briefing.

Besides the President is very very busy.

The president heads to Pennsylvania Thursday evening for a fundraiser at a downtown hotel, followed by a private dinner at the home of Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen, tickets for which start at $10,000.

 And then the rest of the weekend??? Well lets just say the POTUS has plans:

Lid On The Radio: Won't Somebody Buy My Corporate Jet?

Yesterday, I appeared on the radio twice, the first was a short appearance on the Dana Loesch Radio Show. That was followed by a midnight appearance on the Stage Right Radio show late last night. (If you cannot see the two videos below click here )

For those of you who are not familiar with Dana Loesch, she is the Editor of  Big Journalism, Radio Host, one of the Founders of the St. Louis Tea Party and a CNN Commentator. I called Dana to help me with a "problem".  Telling her that after the 2008 stimulus bill I purchased a corporate Jet to be patriotic, since there were tax breaks...Well  you listen to it:




Almost as soon as I got off the phone there was a tweet in my mailbox from Meredith Dake, the famous producer Dake of the Stage Right Radio Show and a great contributor to the Breitbart sites herself.

Stage Right Radio host, Larry O' Connor, editor of Breitbart TV and another fine Breitbart writer, wanted me on the show to talk about some of the posts I had written about President Obama earlier that day, but first I had to ask him to help unload my jet.  The full show is below (I appeared during the first half hour of the show).  As soon as I can I will replace with a trimmed version of last night:

UNBELIEVABLE! Obama Administration Puts Israel On List Of Countries That Support Terrorism

Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

This is no joke and Alan Funt is dead so you can't be on Candid Camera. As reported by CNS News

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General published the list of "specially designated countries" as an appendix to an unclassified May 11 report--"Supervision of Aliens Commensurate With Risk"--that was publicly posted on the Internet. (The appendix is on page 18 of the document.)

As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

The five countries on the list that do not have majority Muslim populations--Kazakhstan (47 percent Muslim), Eritrea (36.5 percent Muslim), Israel (16.9 percent Muslim), the Philippines (5 percent Muslim) and Thailand (4.6 percent)--have had internal problems with radical Muslim terrorists, as reported by the State Department. 

Isn't that kind of blaming the victim?

ICE officers are supposed to check all aliens they take into custody against the Terrorist Watchlist, which includes the identities of individuals the U.S. government knows or reasonably suspects to be terrorists. When ICE holds a citizen from a “specially designated country” in its own detention facilities, according to the agency’s standing policy, the individual is also supposed to be run through a TAC.

“In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” says the inspector general’s report.

“The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien,” says the report. “ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody. As a result, ICE does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under supervision.”

The inspector general recommended in the report that ICE change its screening policy “to require officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not just those held in ICE detention facilities.”

OK lets get this straight. Based on new Department of Homeland Security procedures, illegal immigrants who are caught breaking the law will not be deported, but the Inspector General is no recommending that every Israeli that visits the US should be subject to special screening procedures.

Wait! It gets crazier:

Even though the adminisration includes Israel among “specially designated countries” that it believes "have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNSNews.com that the U.S. also considers Israel, as well as some other countries on the “specially designated countries” list, as partners in the struggle against terrorism.

“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself.”

OH Israelis will now be subject to extra screening because the country arrests terrorists.
That makes sense?

ICE declined to say who put Israel on the list or when Israel was put there. However, in her written statement, ICE spokeswoman Christensen said the “specially designated country” list had been created "at least" seven years ago--which would have been during the presidency of George W. Bush--and that ICE was not responsible for creating it.

True but when this final list was proposed in March 2008 Israel was not on the list but North Korea was, today that is reversed.

“So many federal agencies have created different lists that U.S. officials contemplated adopting a single one to streamline the process, Stark wrote,” said the McClatchey report. “The proposed list, which officials said had yet to be adopted, includes 35 countries, most with significant Muslim or Arab populations.”

“The group of agencies--which included ICE, the National Security Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--not only recommended one list but also suggested an interagency definition of ‘special interest alien,’” said the McClatchey report. “Under the proposal, a special interest alien would be an immigrant with terrorist ties or an immigrant who by nationality, ‘ethnicity or other factors may have ties or sympathies’ with the listed country.”

The 35 countries plus the West Bank and Gaza that were on the proposed list discussed in the ICE memo uncovered by McClatchey in March 2008 almost exactly matches the “specially designated countries” on the list published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General on May 11, 2011. There are only two differences: North Korea was on the list proposed in 2008; it is not on the May 2011 list. Israel was not on the list proposed in 2008; it is on the May 2011 list.

See how this administration cares about Israel?  Even though the list was already set, they made a change to put our ally on this special list. Boy oh boy, just like he is with Great Britain, whose Queen he gave an Ipod full of his speeches and Broadway Show tunes, Barack Obama is a real friend of Israel.

Obama always says that despite his constant criticism of  Israel, America will always have a special partnership with the Jewish State.  Now we understand he means putting Israel on a "special" terrorism watch list.

OH MY! President Obama is Having Short-Term Memory Issues..OR WORSE

Folks the President of the United States may be folding under the pressure, at the very least he is exhibiting a frightening short term memory problem.  Take for example what he said during his press conference today.

“If everybody else is willing to take on their sacred cows and do tough things to achieve the goal of real deficit reduction, then I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say the tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done.’’

The problem with that statement is that tax breaks for corporate jets are not a Republican sacred cow, they are a Democratic Party invention.  These tax breaks were part of the Democratic Party stimulus rammed through by the progressive Congress shortly after he was inaugurated and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel in February 2009:

That's right. Buried in the nearly $800 billion stimulus plan signed last week by President Barack Obama is a provision allowing companies to speed the depreciation of newly purchased corporate jets. On a popular model like the $530,100 Cirrus SR22 GTS, companies can now deduct about $418,000 -- a huge improvement over former limits. 

The new tax laws are a desperately needed lifeline for general-aviation manufacturers, which have shed some 11,000 jobs in the past three months. Given the jobs and taxes at stake, lawmakers are absolutely right in attempting to resuscitate the general-aviation industry. Unfortunately, it was the very same lawmakers who helped put the industry on life support in the first place.

 My friend Warner Todd Huston uses an AP Article to point out the President's demography on his blog.

The difference is that he believes that Barack Obama is being a demagogue, sorry buddy but I have to disagree. No one in their right mind could ever believe that the press would miss such a blatant error. And President Obama would never lie to us unless there was a mechanical problem with the TOTUS.  So the only explanation is that Barack Obama is no longer in his right mind, he is either having short term memory issues or even worse. 

Are Jewish Democrats Beginning to Say No To Obama ?

It seems as if everything is finally beginning to add up. According to several dozen interviews conducted by Politico, Americans of the Jewish faith are finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. And the best efforts of Democratic spin-masters isn't going to change the truth.

David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

But its not just this particular speech, it seems as if it is a cumulative effect of all of the times Obama has thrown Israel and its leaders under the bus since he was elected President.

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

Ainsman is correct Obama's "war on Israel" began just a few days after inauguration and continued through his first year and even through today. For example, these are only some of the articles I wrote about Obama and Israel during his first months in office, and all this happened prior to his getting involved in the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

• Jan 29th 2009 Israel-Hating Samantha Power Named Key Obama Adviser
• Feb. 2009 Obama Appoints Anti-Israel Chas Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Board
• June 4th 2009 Obama's Cairo Speech Threw Israel Under the Bus
• Sept. 29th 2009 Obama Tosses Israel Under The Bus--AGAIN !
  

Politico reports that the recent speech was the straw that broke the Camel's back:

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.”

Ben Smith, the reporter who wrote the article believes that it is hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Mentally challenged Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told Smith detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Of course the reporting was not inaccurate, like most Democrats in Congress, Wasserman-Shultz was defending her party's President. Well, either that or the reporting was
written above the third grade reading level.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Democrats argue that during this point of every presidential race there are arguments that this will be the year Jews abandon the Democratic party.  Truthfully, the only time that actually happened was the reelection campaign of Jimmy Carter.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

Obama was aided in the turn-around by prominent Jews such as former NY Mayor Ed Koch and New Republic Editor Marty Peretz who gave the candidate a "Kosher on Israel" certificate. They will not be supporting Obama this time.

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

...A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

Its not just the votes, this "Jewish Awakening" will also hurt him in the pocketbook.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

People involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fund raising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.

The bottom line is that even hard core pro-Israel Jews do not vote on only one issue. Certainly Israel wasn't the only reason that 55% of American Jews voted against Jimmy Carter in 1980.  But, just as what happened 31 years ago, Barack Obama's anti-Israel policies are causing liberal Jews to take the rose-tint off their glasses and evaluate what has happened since January 2009, domestically, his foreign policy and his policy toward the Jewish state, and what they see is not very positive.

Lets just hope the trend continues because in the end a one-term Obama Presidency would be the best thing for America.

Petraeus Replacement Testifies: Obama's Afghanistan Withdrawal Plan Went AGAINST Military Advice

Yesterday Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The General has been nominated to replace Gen. David Petraeus as head of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

As part of his testimony the General was grilled by Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. He eventually gave a startling answer. The withdrawal plan announced by President Obama was not at the bottom of the scale of options recommended by the Generals on the ground, it was below all recommendations offered by the Military.

(If you cannot see video below click here)

GRAHAM: The option that the country has chosen through President Obama is to withdraw 10,000 this year, all surge forces gone by September. Is it fair to say, General Allen, that was not one of the options presented to the president by General Petraeus?

ALLEN: It is a more aggressive option than that which was presented.

GRAHAM: My question is, was that a option?

ALLEN: It was not.

GRAHAM: So I just want the country to understand that this is not the Petraeus strategy any longer. The commander in chief has the perfect right to do what he did. I just hope that it hasn't undercut what I think could be a very successful outcome.

During the 2008 Campaign "peace candidate" Barack Obama described Afghanistan as a good war. His surge announced in December 2009 was just beginning to turn things around.  But this President decided to destroy the momentum gained by the American heroes fighting in Afghanistan.  Barack Obama who has had no military training, decided to ignore the advice of his military leaders by withdrawing faster than they recommended. Sure they now say they back the plan, they are following orders.  Truth be told though, this President has put his reelection ahead of the needs of this country and the safety of our military heroes overseas.

Why Is the US Sending Money To China To Help It Meet Air Pollution Standards ?

What's $100 million between friends?  Over the past decade the Environmental Protection agency has given $100 Million dollars to foreign governments and organizations to help them solve their environmental problems.  While the program began under the Bush administration, like all kinds of spending it has intensified under President Obama $27 of the $100 million was spend during the past year and a half.

As the report (embedded below) describes:

"At a time of record debt and soaring unemployment here in the United States, the committee has discovered that EPA has intensified its foreign grants program," the report said.

The Committee sent EPA head Lisa Jackson a letter which said in part

“We are concerned that, more broadly, EPA’s awarding of foreign grants reflects a surprising detachment from our nation’s foremost priorities, including those in the environmental realm,” the top Republicans on the panel said Monday in a letter to Jackson."

Some of the money given out by the Obama administration-led EPA includes

• $718,000 to help China comply with both the Stockholm and Long Range Transport of Air Pollutants Convention (can't they count this as a partial payback of the money we own them?)

• $700,000 for Thailand to recover methane gas at 12 pig farms

• $1,226,841 for the United Nations to promote clean fuels

• $150,000 for INTERPOL to combat fraud in carbon trading

• $15,000 for Indonesia’s “Breathe Easy, Jakarta” publicity campaign

The GOP lawmakers on the committee requested that EPA provide a series of documents related to the grants.

“We hope you would agree that in these challenging economic times, with unemployment at over 9 percent, federal spending should reflect the priorities of the American people,” the letter says. “This includes investment in the American economy and its greatest assets — the American worker and those who create the jobs they fill.

...Assisting the Chinese mining industry or the Chinese government with methane recovery would probably not occur to most Americans as the most valuable use of these funds- especially as China holds over $1.1 trillion in United States Treasury Securities. We are concerned that, more broadly, EPA’s awarding of foreign grants reflects a surprising detachment from our nation’s foremost priorities, including those in the environmental realm.”

It is incredible that the same progressive Democrats who want to kill more job through increased taxation, are OK with giving money to Thailand so they can collect methane from Pigs.  This same administration that is doing its best to prevent us from attaining energy independence by exploiting our own energy resources is perfectly willing to send money to an unfriendly Brazil so they can exploit theirs.  Isn't it time to stop the madness and handcuff some of these  job killing, money wasting federal government functions before we even consider raising new revenue? A good place to begin maybe the dismantling of both the EPA and the Department of Energy and transferring any necessary functions to other Departments.

062711MajMemorandum

"Big NY Times Scoop”: Israel Claims Media Coverage is Unfair

  by Barry Rubin


Sometimes when one of the better reporters around tries to be fair the result shows up the low quality of Middle East coverage generally. In an article on the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy, and the flotilla of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists, the New York Times informs us:

“Israel’s relationship with the foreign news media has grown strained in recent years; the country increasingly believes that foreign portrayals of its conflict with the Palestinians are harsh and one-sided.”

Since Israelis have been quite aware of media bias since the mid-1980s and provided hundreds (thousands) of examples this should not exactly be a discovery. But American newspaper readers or television watchers are rarely informed of this fact by the very institutions that stand accused of bias, ignorance, and just plain bad reporting.

Note the way the sentence (perhaps revised by editors in New York) is written:

–This is an Israeli perception, not a fact nor necessarily a view held by anyone else in the world.

–It is just happening now (“recent,” “increasingly”)

–And the result is Israeli hostility toward the media (that is, the action involved is Israel becoming more aggressive in its treatment of foreign journalists). In other words the problem is framed as Israel challenging freedom of the media, not the media subverting the existence and well-being of Israel. The action that prompted the writing of that article–Israel’s announcing possible sanctions against journalists going on the Gaza flotilla ships–was quickly rescinded. In other words, even though Israel knows there is rampant media bias it does everything possible to give freedom to the foreign media, in sharp contrast to most of the other countries in the region which get far more favorable coverage.

–No examples are provided which thus undermines the claim. Actually, while space is of course limited, it would have been easy to mention in regard to a specific event cited–Israel banning foreign journalists from Gaza durin the 2008-2009 fighting–that Israel was concerned that it might accidentally kill foreign correspondents during operations and that reporters could tip off Hamas (inadvertently or otherwise) about Israeli actions thus causing casualties.

Thus, the hint is clearly–though it is equally quite deniable–that Israelis are irrationally and suddenly believing that the media is biased against it and this makes it take bad actions that restrict media freedom.

In other words, it’s good that this view is being reported but the framework signals the reader to disbelieve it. Here’s a parallel example:

“Israel says that its Gaza blockade is legal and that it will make sure that no boat violates it, even if that means resorting to force again.”

On the surface, this is perfectly correct. But in fact there has been no serious legal challenge to the blockade and various international authorities have said that it is quite legal. Again, the hint is that this is just what Israel claims, in other words, a partisan assertion without merit.

Especially disturbing is this passage:

“Some of the vessels planning to take part this year are bringing construction equipment and humanitarian aid, including medicine, which have been scarce in Gaza because of a siege imposed by Israel and Egypt for the past four years to isolate Hamas.”

Has medicine been scarce in Gaza because of a “siege” (a correct but loaded word)? That just isn’t true since medicine has never been subject to restrictions. Again, the reader is conditioned, this time by the inhumane nature of those evil Israelis. They won’t even let medicine in for those poor Gazans? What a bunch of barbarians! One should certainly hate such people.

Incidentally, a survey of the first flotilla’s cargo shows that the medicine brought was beyond expiration date and pretty random, not exactly saving people suffering from disease.

As for construction equipment and materials, a key factor here is that Israel has charged these have been used to build military installations. In Lebanon, where Hizballah has full access to construction equipment, a network of bunkers, tunnels and other fortifications have been built in the south. Southern Lebanon, you know, the place where the U.S. government and the UN promised Israel that Hizballah would not be allowed to return.

Or take this sentence:

“Thirteen months ago, Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish vessel whose crew and passengers were seeking to break the blockade and, facing resistance, killed nine people aboard.”

Technically accurate and better than most as it indicates there was “resistance” (which could mean, presumably, sitting in a circle and singing a song from the American civil rights movement) but:

–The “resistance” consisted of people with weapons who attacked the soldiers and took some prisoner.

–The “nine people” were members of radical Turkish Islamist groups that had previously proclaimed they intended to be martyrs and participated in chants about massacring Jews.

Even when the article includes “balancing” material the phrasing is somewhat misleading or, more accurately, leading toward a specific conclusion:

“But the real purpose of the flotilla is less to deliver goods and building supplies, which are increasingly available in Gaza now, than to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders. The American vessel, for example, will not be loaded with any goods.”

Aside from the question of Egypt opening the border with Gaza, this sentence is really a response to one of Israel’s main talking points. How can this flotilla be portrayed as humanitarian if it is bringing virtually no goods? The answer is that it is political, but the phrase used is “to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders” as if there is nothing on the other side but people short of construction materials and medicine.

Here’s the real answer: to help Hamas’s control of Gaza. The main organizers are Islamists allied with Hamas; the other organizers are people who, like Hamas, want to see Israel wiped off the map. They view Hamas–a terrorist group that is openly antisemitic and genocidal, represses women, and expels Christians–as better than Israel.

We thus have three groups:

–Islamists who are allies with Hamas and want to help it.

–Western leftists who think that Israel is evil and shouldn’t exist and who ignore Hamas or even supportive of it.

–Western readers of newspapers and watchers of television who are given news that ignores or systematically challenges Israel’s side of the story. Thus, they are driven toward the conclusion that Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right.

As I said earlier, this is one of the better stories by a journalist who is consciously trying to be fair. For example, it points out that Israel defended itself in 2008 against the firing of thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip. And in another article he points out how well much of the Gaza Strip is economically.

Moreover, this is a short article whose goal is to discuss Israel’s warning to reporters not to go on the flotilla ships. But often it is the shorter pieces, that try to summarize and explain events, which most clearly demonstrate how coverage is skewed. And again, by attempting to be balanced this piece shows how unbalanced is much of the other coverage.

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.

Obama Administration "Rewards" Project Gunrunner Whistle-blower With Termination Notice

Here's another chapter in the "you don't piss off President Obama" guide book. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is trying to fire an agent who helped publicize the agency’s role in "Project Gunrunner"  (A.K.A Fast and Furious) which allowed thousands of guns to cross the U.S. border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

The agent, Vince Cefalu, who has spoken out about the ATF's so-called "Project Gunrunner" scandal, says he was served with termination papers just last week.

"Project Gunrunner"  (A.K.A Fast and Furious)Was a project of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fireworks  In late 2009, the ATF was alerted to suspicious buys at seven gun shops in the Phoenix area. Suspicious because the buyers paid cash, sometimes brought in paper bags. And they purchased classic "weapons of choice" used by Mexican drug traffickers - semi-automatic versions of military type rifles and pistols. According to news reports several gun shops wanted to stop the questionable sales, but Bureau encouraged them to continue.

ATF managers allegedly made a controversial decision: allow most of the weapons on the streets. The idea, they said, was to gather intelligence and see where the guns ended up. Insiders say it's a dangerous tactic called letting the guns, "walk." Yes, that's right, the US government decided--in order to fight the Mexican Drug Cartels, we should arm them and let them keep their weapons once they were used in committing crimes (kind of the same thing we do with the Palestinian terror groups such as Fatah).

The House Oversight committee reported that some of these guns were used in crimes. For example,  two of the approximately 2,000 guns that ATF let criminals walk away with were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

Agent Cefalu was a key figure in letting the public know about this idiotic program.

“Aside from Jay Dobyns, I don't know of anyone that's been more vocal about ATF mismanagement than me,” said Cefalu, a senior special agent based in Dublin, Calif. “That's why this is happening.” Dobyns, an ATF special agent based in Tucson, has appeared several times on Fox News to discuss the scandal.

Cefalu first told FoxNews.com about the ATF’s embattled anti-gun smuggling operation in December, before the first reports on the story appeared in February. “Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border,” Cefalu said at the time.

Cefalu was on Fox News this morning to report that last week, after 24 years of service he
was forced to turn in his gun and badge. He can appeal but will be on “paid administrative leave” during the process.

Cefalu’s dismissal follows a string of allegations that the ATF retaliates against whistleblowers. When the Project Gunrunner scandal broke, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the ATF that an agent who had been giving his staff members information about the scandal had been "allegedly accused... of misconduct" by the agent’s boss for talking with Grassley’s staffers

And two days before Cefalu was served with termination papers, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the ATF warning officials not to retaliate against whistleblowers.

ATF spokesman Drew Wade denied in a statement to FoxNews.com that the bureau is retaliating, but he declined to comment about Cefalu's case. “ATF will not comment on specific, ongoing personnel matters. It is illegal to use disciplinary actions to retaliate against employees, and ATF does not engage in such improper reprisals.”

The ATF's termination letter to Cefalu, obtained by FoxNews.com, makes no mention of Cefalu’s role in the latest scandal.

“You think they would just come out and say that?” Cefalu said.

The letter claimed that Cefalu showed a lack of candor about a 2005 operation that he led. If their claim is true, its funny that there was no disciplinary action for six years, but once he let people know about project Gunrunner, coincidentally he was terminated.

In the 2005 case, local police wanted to wiretap a suspect to gather evidence, but Cefalu objected, saying it would be illegal to use wiretaps until all other options for gathering evidence had been tried.

Cefalu was then removed from the case. But he continued to speak out and file internal complaints about what he viewed as illegal ATF wiretapping. And that’s when his life became difficult.

So it seems that Cefalu is being fired is because he is one of those "do-gooders."  Oh wait, he is an ATF agent...he is supposed to be a "do-gooder."

Another ATF agent, who requested to remain anonymous but who has provided accurate information on the Project Gunrunner case to FoxNews.com in the past, discussed what he knew about Cefalu.

“Common knowledge in the agency is that Cefalu outed an illegal wiretap quite some time ago, and he has been in the crosshairs since,” the agent told FoxNews.com. “My impression of him is that he has probably ruffled lots of feathers and delicate egos in his time. He is very direct and honest.”

But this agent said he'd “prefer that to a ‘go along to get along’ type."

"We don't avoid or learn from mistakes if we just lie to each other about how we never do anything wrong -- which is pretty much standard operating procedure from what I have seen of our HQ people," the agent said.

It sounds to this observer that Vince Cefalu is the type of person we need in government service.  Well..except in the Obama administration the believes silent compliance is the correct way to operate because every decision made by this administration is a perfect one. I am sure that House Oversight  Committee Chair, Darrell Issa will work to correct this wrong.

What You Should Know About the Second Gaza Flotilla

Sometime in the next day or two, ten boats carrying 5-600 anti-Israel activists will be approaching the waters surrounding the Gaza Strip. It is not known whether there will be some sort of confrontation as there was last year when a flotilla run by Turkish terrorists attacked members of the IDF as they attempted to board the ship and turn it around.

What is known is that the mainstream media, which is not a big fan of the Jewish State, will misrepresent the flotilla. Last year Reuters even doctored the pictures to make the terrorists look like innocent victims. So what follows is some of the background on the boat trip that the mainstream media will not tell you:

Purpose: The purpose of the second Gaza flotilla is the same as the first, to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel and turn her into a pariah nation. The terrorists aboard are hoping that there is violence so that violence could be used to further hurt Israel.

During the past year, the Hamas-run Gaza has opened new shopping malls, theme parks and resort hotels. Not shabby for an area supposedly being strangled by an Israeli naval embargo. As for humanitarian aid, Israel transfers 5,000-6,000 tons of humanitarian supplies per day to Gaza.

Who is Behind It? This flotilla has many parents, however the two most significant are progressive Americans and Turkish terrorists.

The Americans have named their boat after their favorite American, President Obama. Called the Audacity of Hope, their hate boat includes progressive activists, long term supporters of the Palestinian cause and 9/11 “truthers” (people who believe 9/11 was an inside job). Some of the passengers include:

Greta Berlin, a member of the Anti-Semitic, International Solidarity Movement (ISM); Linda Durham, Who was part of the Gaza protests in 2009 supported by former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry and led by the wife of Obama ally Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn; Hedy Epstein board member of both the St. Louis Workers Rights Board and the Marxist, Palestine Solidarity Committee which in the past has endorsed PLO terrorist activity; Ridgely Fuller Code Pink activist; Kathy Kelly a long time pacifist who was honored by the Chicago Communist Party; Richard Levy, member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance who sued the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stop them from building a tolerance center in Jerusalem on what he claimed was a Muslim cemetery (it didn’t exist); Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity was one of 100 "prominent Americans" who signed an October 26 2004 statement circulated by 911Truth.org calling on the U.S. Government to investigate 9/11 as a possible "inside job; Robert Naiman peace activist who attended a meeting in Sept 2010 with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and other leaders of the “peace and social justice movements;” Alice Walker who wrote “The Color Purple;” and Medea Benjamin, founder of Code Pink, 9/11 “truther”, progressive activist.

According to Leslie Cagan, former co-chairman of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and coordinator of the American boat, the Audacity of Hope will not be carrying any aid, simply letters.

The group has received support by the Progressive Democrats of America, a group whose leadership includes Democratic politicians including, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich.

On other flotilla boats will be terrorists from the Turkish organization IHH, which was involved in the deadly IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara in last year’s Gaza flotilla, additionally two of the people participating in the flotilla have connections to Hamas. They named the first one as Amin Abu Rashad, one of the Dutch organizers for the Gaza flotilla had served in the past as the head of the Hamas’ Charitable Foundation in Holland which was closed down by Dutch authorities’ because of its involvement in funding terror activities.

Unlike last year’s flotilla when the terrorists had their own boat (which contained shipments of arms to Hamas), this year it is believed that the terrorists will be spread out among the boats with the hope that if there is violence “civilians” will be hurt.

The other Hamas figure is Mohammed Ahmed Hanon who is the head of the ABSPP, which is involved in transferring funds to terrorists.

Just like the one a year ago, this guerilla flotilla is being launched under the false pretext of providing humanitarian assistance. But if humanitarian aid was their goal, they would send any supplies through Egypt a solution which was offered by both the Arab nation last week, the American boat would have supplies instead of letters, and the Hamas and Turkish terrorists would not be allowed to participate. The truth is that this flotilla is being run by radicals within the American Progressive movement and terrorists, designed to serve their extremist political agenda.

Sadly this flotilla holds the potential for dangerous consequences. According to the IDF, some of the flotilla participants have prepared sacks with sulfur, which they plan to pour on the soldiers as they board the vessels.

“This is a chemical weapon, and if poured on a soldier it can paralyze him,” an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post “If the sulfur is then lit on fire, the soldier will light up like a torch.”

The objective of these “Ships of Fools” has nothing to do with helping the people of Gaza, or promoting peace. Its purpose is to delegitimize Israel and kill Jews.

The Benefits of the 'Arab Spring'

 By BARRY RUBIN


There are two types of strategic perspectives in Israel today. They aren’t contradictory, but they have different priorities. These can be called the “northern” and the “southern” views.

The “northern” approach is the more traditional one, focusing on the situation in that direction. The key longer-term concern is over Iran and its drive for nuclear weapons. More closely, there are both concerns and hopes regarding Lebanon and Syria.

Regarding Iran, the new feature is the assumption that Israel will not attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. This means Israel will be constructing a multi-level defensive system that includes long-range attack planes, the ability to subvert Iran’s nuclear force through covert operations, possibly submarine platforms, and several types of anti-missile missiles and defenses.

The goal here is fourfold:

• To delay as long as possible Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and to minimize the size and effectiveness of its arsenal through sanctions, international pressure, sabotage and other means.

• To have the maximum ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear attack and demonstrating the ability to stop its missiles. The aim is to discourage Iran from launching such an attack, given a nearcertainty that it can be stopped and, as a result, it would suffer very heavy damage.

• Of course, ordinary deterrence is not a sufficient safeguard against Iran, given the Islamic regime’s ideological extremism and passionate hatred of Israel, the recklessness of some key elements there, and the rulers’ shortcomings in assessing reality.

Consequently Israel must put a high priority on stopping any Iranian attack from happening or succeeding.

•  To be able, if Israel determines there is a real danger of an Iranian attack, to launch a first strike to inflict maximum damage on Iran’s nuclear strike force. In other words, an Israeli attack would be premised not on Iran getting nuclear weapons, but on Iran being likely to use them.

US deterrence, early-warning, and anti-missile efforts would supplement this system, but this strategy is not premised on any dependence on the US government.

BUT ISRAEL also knows that an equal or even greater danger is the spread of Iranian influence, taking over Arab countries or turning them into proxies. Here, the northern focus is on Syria and Lebanon.

On the surface, the news from these two countries is potentially bad. Lebanon is now controlled by Hezbollah and other Syrian or Syrian-Iranian clients. Hezbollah can thus use Lebanon as a virtual fiefdom for building its military power and attacking Israel. This is much worse than the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, when Lebanon as a government and army had a separate identity.

Syria itself is faced with a serious internal upheaval that seems likely to bring down President Bashar Assad. Here the “glass halfempty” analysis is that Assad might be replaced by a regime even more hostile to Israel.

There is also a “glass half-full” analysis. As long as Syria is in such turmoil, it cannot so effectively threaten Israel. And if Assad is overthrown, a government that is more preoccupied by internal affairs, and less eager to start a conflict, might take power.

Iraq offers a good model here.

Between the interests of the Kurds, the internal conflict, a greater focus on domestic development and other factors, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict with Israel.

Hezbollah also suffers from this turmoil. Since it has sided with the Assad regime, it has gone from being wildly popular to widely hated by the Syrian people. Hamas, which has sided against the Syrian regime and in favor of its Muslim Brotherhood comrades, has thus lost Syrian patronage. Finally, Syria’s aggressive behavior has opened a rift between that country and Turkey’s government, which has been increasingly acting like an ally of the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE this is no ideal situation, Israel can be considered to have benefitted from this aspect of the “Arab spring.” From Israel’s standpoint, the relative stability in Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a plus, since these countries are unlikely to be transformed into radical Islamist states under a government linked to al-Qaida, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. The turmoil in Bahrain, Yemen and Tunisia is of relatively little strategic significance to Israel.

Generally there can be a hope that democracy and domestic development will become a higher priority than fighting Israel, thus easing the pressure on Israel, or at least preoccupying Arabs and Muslims for a while. Clearly, merely calling dissidents Zionist agents and hoping to unite the people around an anti-Israel platform no longer works for incumbent governments.

In time, this strategy might work for replacing Islamist governments, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Moreover, American weakness and the Obama administration’s cooler view toward Israel is worrisome. So is the possibility that things might be moving in a way to strengthen Iran.

IF ONE looks at the southern front, though, it is harder to find a silver lining. Egypt is likely to elect a radical government more hostile than anything Israel has faced there since about 1974. The future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is gloomy.

Peace between Israel and the Arab world’s most populous country cannot be taken for granted.

There is also the problem of the Egypt-Hamas relationship. Egypt is likely to see itself as Hamas’s ally and patron. In a future Hamas-led conflict with Israel, Egypt could take the side of the Palestinian Islamists, and will certainly help them. The long-quiet southern front now has to be treated as a very possible war zone.

This is the basic way things look for Israeli strategists.

One can stress better- or worse-case scenarios and different parts of the challenge, but there is a general consensus on the fundamental challenges – and on whether they will be met successfully.


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 teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.     

OMG! Helen Thomas Wants Back into the White House Press Corps

Sheeee's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack! Or at least she wants to be back.   Helen Thomas made an appearance at the Busboys & Poets bookstore in Washington, D.C.  yesterday, and said she is ready for a comeback. She wants to return to the White House briefing room.

“Nothing can replace being there when you’re a reporter,” Thomas said. “Seeing with your own eyes — no, nothing can replace that. I was very lucky to cover history for so long.”

Thomas forced out of her job last June when a video first seen on this website came to light, where she told the Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland.  

Anas “Andy” Shallal, the owner of Busboys & Poets and moderator for her appearance Sunday, followed up by asking her if she had reapplied for those credentials. According to Thomas, she said she had but hadn’t gotten an official response and assumed she had been denied.

“In a back way,” Thomas said. “I’ve been denied – I think so, I never heard.”

The words made to Rabbi Nesenoff last  June was even the worst of it.  Just a few months later in a speech made to a Muslim Anti-Bias conference Thomas used almost every anti-Semitic stereotype in the book.

"I paid the price for that," said Thomas, a longtime White House correspondent. "But it was worth it, to speak the truth. The Zionists have to understand that's their country, too. Palestinians were there long before any European Zionists."

Thomas claimed that "You can not say anything (critical) about Israel in this country."

That was the nicest thing Thomas said all night. In her speech about about discrimination against Arabs she launched into an anti-Semitic tirade about how those rich Jews control America

In a speech that drew a standing ovation, Thomas talked about "the whole question of money involved in politics."

"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.

It was almost as if Thomas was reading directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, at an anti-Bias conference!!!

During her interview and speech, Thomas often used the term "Zionists" negatively, saying that Dennis Ross, President Obama's adviser to the Middle East, was a Zionist.

"Obama, he puts in charge for the Arab world a Zionist like Dennis Ross…You don't put a Zionist in charge of the Muslim world in the White House."

Below is the video of the Speech.



There are some people who believe that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitism. That belief is as ignorant as Antisemitism itself. There is however, a great deal of crossover between hatred of Israel and hatred of the Jews. To find out what people really mean you need to examine the words they use. Make no mistake about it, Thomas uttered the word "Zionists" but her words showed that she meant the word "Jews."  What Thomas said in December and again in her Playboy interview, that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists, was a repetition of the anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been used for centuries to incite hatred of Jews. Ms. Thomas is nothing but a bigoted hater and that was the reason she was fired, not because she hates Israel (although most of the progressive media is anti-Israel). Thomas was canned because she is a low-life hater, an anti-Semite and she should not be allowed back into the White House press corps, nor should any other bigot.

Big Brother Obama's Plan to Secretly Check Up On Doctors

The Obama Administration is trying to figure out whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates. According to the NY Times rather than simply ask them, they are creating a squad of "mystery shoppers" to secretly check up on doctors. 

“I don’t like the idea of the government snooping,” said Dr. Raymond Scalettar, an internist in Washington. “It’s a pernicious practice — Big Brother tactics, which should be opposed.”

According to government documents obtained from Obama administration officials, the mystery shoppers will call medical practices and ask if doctors are accepting new patients and, if so, how long the wait would be. The government is eager to know whether doctors give different answers to callers depending on whether they have public insurance, like Medicaid, or private insurance, like Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

It is interesting that the information was released by the progressive paper of record the NY Times.  Could it be that the information was released on purpose to intimidate doctors into retaining Medicaid?

Dr. George J. Petruncio, a family doctor in Turnersville, N.J., said: “This is not a way to build trust in government. Why should I trust someone who does not correctly identify himself?”

Dr. Stephen C. Albrecht, a family doctor in Olympia, Wash., said: “If federal officials are worried about access to care, they could help us. They don’t have to spy on us.”

Dr. Robert L. Hogue, a family physician in Brownwood, Tex., asked: “Is this a good use of tax money? Probably not. Everybody with a brain knows we do not have enough doctors.”

A multitude of studies including one done by the Chief Medicare Actuary, have predicted that doctors will drop Medicare as result  of the Obamacare bill.

In response to the drumbeat of criticism, a federal health official said doctors need not worry because the data would be kept confidential. “Reports will present aggregate data, and individuals will not be identified,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the plan before its final approval by the White House.

Christian J. Stenrud, a Health and Human Services spokesman, said: “Access to primary care is a priority for the administration. This study is an effort to better understand the problem and make sure we are doing everything we can to support primary care physicians, especially in communities where the need is greatest.”

The new health care law includes several provisions intended to increase the supply of primary care doctors, and officials want to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of those policies.

Despite the fact that government says the information will be kept confidential, this program reeks of "Big Brotherism," when you consider that the information is being collected in a stealth manner. Should the information get released it would not be the first time that  government was supposed to keep personal information private but it got released to the public.

Access to care has been a concern in Massachusetts, which provides coverage under a state program cited by many in Congress as a model for President Obama’s health care overhaul.

In a recent study, the Massachusetts Medical Society found that 53 percent of family physicians and 51 percent of internal medicine physicians were not accepting new patients. When new patients could get appointments, they faced long waits, averaging 36 days to see family doctors and 48 days for internists.

In the mystery shopper survey, administration officials said, a federal contractor will call the offices of 4,185 doctors — 465 in each of nine states: Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. The doctors will include pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists.

The calls are to begin in a few months, with preliminary results from the survey expected next spring. Each office will be called at least twice — by a person who supposedly has private insurance and by someone who supposedly has public insurance.

Federal officials provided this example of a script for a caller in a managed care plan known as a preferred provider organization, or P.P.O.:

Mystery shopper: “Hi, my name is Alexis Jackson, and I’m calling to schedule the next available appointment with Dr. Michael Krane. I am a new patient with a P.P.O. from Aetna. I just moved to the area and don’t yet have a primary doctor, but I need to be seen as soon as possible.”

Doctor’s office: “What type of problem are you experiencing?”

Mystery shopper: “I’ve had a cough for the last two weeks, and now I’m running a fever. I’ve been coughing up thick greenish mucus that has some blood in it, and I’m a little short of breath.”

In separate interviews, several doctors said that patients with those symptoms should immediately see a doctor because the symptoms could indicate pneumonia, lung cancer or a blood clot in the lungs.

Other mystery shoppers will try to schedule appointments for routine care, like an annual checkup for an adult or a sports physical for a high school athlete.

To make sure they are not detected, secret shoppers will hide their telephone numbers by blocking caller ID information.

Eleven percent of the doctors will be called a third time. The callers will identify themselves as calling “on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” They will ask whether the doctors accept private insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, and whether they take “self-pay patients.” The study will note any discrepancies between those answers and the ones given to mystery shoppers.

The administration has signed a contract with the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to help conduct the survey.

Certainly as we get closer to the full implementation of Obamacare, collecting this kind of information will become more important. However, there is no reason for the government to seek out this information on a stealth basis, unless its true purpose was not collecting information but to intimidate doctors to "keep with the program" and continue to accept new Medicare patients.

My Own Private 1984: Why Is Saying the Muslim Brotherhood is Radical A Controversial Claim?

By Barry Rubin

In 2003, I and the publication I edit, the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, became the world’s biggest story for two or three days. Last week I became a “story” without knowing it until later.

First, the 2003 experience. An Iraqi-American author submitted a good article that explained how Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime’s intelligence agencies worked. As I edited the article I said to myself–this is absolutely true–that this was one of the most uncontroversial articles I’d ever publish because it was so bland, though useful as a database inventory of Iraqi institutions

Without my knowing it, the British prime minister’s office plagiarized the article as part of its campaign to justify launching the attack on Iraq to overthrow Saddam. A MERIA Journal reader who opposed the war noticed this plagiarism and brought it to public attention. The reader in no way criticized the journal but only the British government. I should stress that the article said nothing to support (or oppose) going to war with Iraq. I think it was used mainly to make it appear as if the British prime minister’s office had done some research on Iraq.

The story was front-page news around the world. I walked into a room as a famous television personality was discussing the matter with total inaccuracy on the television. Prestigious newspapers got our journal’s name wrong. Only one reporter ever called to interview me. Left-wing sources speculated that the plagiarism involved some kind of Israeli conspiracy to begin the war, though again nothing in the article suggested attacking Saddam.

I was amazed and disgusted. But that’s nothing compared to what has just happened to me.

Before you read the rest of this note, understand that none of those involved have consulted me nor have they used my name. I heard about this by accident after it happened. Other than those directly involved I’m presumably the only one who knows that this was my article. Here we go.

A well-known television program took an article of mine that appeared on my blog and quoted it on the air. The extract was put up on the screen though the author’s name wasn’t mentioned. It was about the Muslim Brotherhood. The article quoted a Brotherhood leader as talking about his hostility toward Israel, etc. At this point, I was saying to myself: There goes a million dollars in free publicity!

The program’s critics submitted the article to one of these mainstream prestigious “fact-checking” sites. The site called up an “expert” who I’ve never heard of at an American institution and asked him about it. He said that he had never heard of the Egyptian Brotherhood leader. The site then pronounced, on the basis of that one conversation, that the article was inaccurate and criticized the program for using it. Note that my article was sourced and if anyone had asked me I could have shown them the original and many similar statements,as well as proof of the importance of the Brotherhood leader making the statement.

I only know about this because I was listening to the program and they cited the article (without my name) and of course I recognized the quote. Nobody consulted me at any point on this matter.

So to quote a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood based on a reliable (and available) translation as saying that the Brotherhood wants an Islamist state and wants to wipe out Israel is considered to be not credible on the basis of a statement by one American who, to my knowledge, has never done any research on the Brotherhood. Yet there are scores of such Brotherhood statements, including those from both the leader and deputy leader of the Brotherhood as well as many recognized leaders and in Brotherhood publications.

This is the closest thing I’ve ever seen and experienced to a Soviet-style or 1984-type denial of reality. We have reached the point of being able to quote the motto of George Orwel”s totalitarian state in 1984:

WAR IS PEACE [The revolutionary Islamist war on the West doesn't actually exist.]

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY [Free speech is Islamophobic, racist, etc., and thus a form of "hate crime." Censorship makes us freer.]

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH [Mass media editing out of reality makes us stronger by eliminating potential "thought crime" and nudging the masses toward more "correct" behavior.]

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 teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.     

Emperor Obama Has Declared Amnesty For Illegal Aliens by Executive Fiat

A year ago, we reported that Obama was working on a way to grant amnesty for illegal immigrants by executive fiat.  The ICE union has released an internal memo proving that prediction true. The Obama administration is quietly offering a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, an obvious ploy to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters.

 The new rules were announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency (embedded below). The policy outlines a policy which seems to mirror the Dream Act which has been rejected by the congress as recently as last year. The memo calls for “prosecutorial discretion” and says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

"Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what's coming," said Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Council which represents approximately 7,000 ICE agents, officers and employees, "this is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States. Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy."

"ICE and the Administration have excluded our union and our agents from the entire process of developing policies, it was all kept secret from us, we found out from the newspapers. ICE worked hand-in-hand with immigrants rights groups, but excluded its own officers."

Sounds just like our President, who just announced a new Afghanistan policy which went against the recommendation of his top generals. This time however, he didn't even seek the opinion of the people on the "front."  Heck why should he, there is an election to win?

When you read the entire memo embedded below you realize that ICE is also talking about aliens who have been arrested for committing other crimes (so when you add entering the country illegally, we are talking two-time lawbreakers. Most officers who are arresting law breakers are allowed to consider one thing, evidence whether or not they committed the crime. But the ICE “prosecutorial discretion” memo adds much more to be considered, most of which push the agent not to arrest the illegal alien:

This new policy is only half the story as there are additional directives which the "most transparent administration in history" has refused to put in writing.

The union says just as concerning is the way policies are implemented at ICE. Agents claim that under Director John Morton the agency always presents written policies for public consumption, but then makes "secret changes" to the policies which ICE refuses to put in writing. ICE knows the policy changes will create a political outcry, or could place the public or ICE officers at risk. "Our officers are already under orders not to make arrests or even talk to foreign nationals in most cases unless another agency has already arrested them; you won't find that written in any public ICE policy."

With regard to the entire idea of prosecutorial discretion, Agents say they will have none. "Tell any ICE agent he or she will have the final say on making an arrest or holding someone in custody and they'll tell you you're crazy, officers will be ordered not to make arrests and failure to comply will result in the end of the agent or officer's career, that's business as usual at ICE. It's unfortunate but the Administration protects foreign nationals illegally in the U.S. but does nothing for our employees." The Union also alleges that ICE Field Office Directors (FODs) have confided in the Union that when the FODs raised questions about the effectiveness of the new policies ICE Headquarters responded by telling the FODs to turn in their badges and file for retirement.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano claims that this Administration is protecting our borders from illegal entry better than any in history, but according to the Ice Agents involve it is just another Obama lie.

What this memo as well as other ICE revelations, and other DOJ cases such as the New Black Panther case prove is that under the Obama administration there are two types of law enforcement, one for those of whom can help the progressives generate more votes, and one for the rest of Americans.  Kind of makes you wonder what happened to equality under the law.

283 284 Mortons Prosecutorial Discretion Memo