Here and There in the Middle East: Fleeing Christians, “Moderate” Imam, Mad Turkish Leader, Syrian Revolution

By Barry Rubin

1. Fleeing Christians

Christians are fleeing the Middle East and Western Christians are indifferent. More than half of Iraqi Christians, threatened with death and terrorism are out of that country, though many are in neighboring Syria. Virtually all Christians have fled the Islamist Gaza Strip and Syrian Christians generally (though not all) support the regime there, fearing an Islamist takeover.

But Egypt is home to millions of Christians that dwarf these numbers. In fact, the number of Christians in Egypt exceeds the populations of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia.

Copts have emigrated in the past, but they have been so rooted in Egypt as to tend to remain there. Now the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organizations reports that 95,000 Christians have emigrated since March 2011. If Egypt continues to look as if it is going down an Islamist road, or at least if the government and military appear ready to tolerate such assaults, one can easily imagine one million or so Copts heading for the exits in the next few years. How would Europe like to receive these people who—in contrast to many other immigrants—would be legitimate asylum seekers with a genuine fear for their lives?

2. Mad Turkish Prime Minister

It’s rather clear that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist regime hates Israel. What’s less apparent to many people is that Erdogan has gone off the deep end into antisemitic insanity. If you didn’t know who was speaking you’d think Erdogan was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Turkey, like other countries, isn’t perfect, in modern times the Turkish Republic has been a rather sane and development-oriented countries. It’s quite a change to have a Turkish leader literally foaming at the mouth, to the point where the opposition leader asked a few months if Erdogan was planning to go to war against Israel. Now that the regime—with no international opposition or criticism—has crushed the armed forces, there’s nothing to hold Erdogan back.

On a CNN interview, Erdogan ridiculed the idea that Israelis need fear massive rocket and mortar barrages from the Gaza Strip because few Israelis were killed, while in contrast Israel had killed—according to the CNN translation “hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.” The Turkish government responded that he had not said that figure but merely “tens of thousands.”

It’s nice to know that Israel is just being accused of being a mass murder on a smaller scale. Eogan also says that the world is a slave to the UN Security Council (a precise copy of Ahmadinejad’s long-standing theme) and demands sanctions against Israel. He also copies Ahmadinejad in asking why Israel can have nuclear weapons and Iran not have them. (Aside from Iran’s threats of genocide, one reason is that Iran’s program breaks an international agreement signed by that country.) At times, Erdogan has talked about war against Israel, his main complaint being the blockade of the Gaza Strip, which has been ruled legal under international law and, anyway, is made pretty irrelevant by the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border.

Israel cannot be trusted, Erdogan says; it is the villain that has prevented peace. It’s just plain evil. One almost expects Erdogan to break out in German. Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, famously said that his country’s foreign policy was one of “peace at home, peace abroad.” Erdogan sounds more like: Today Gaza, tomorrow the world!

The idea that such a huge and powerful country as Turkey is led by a guy acting like a madman who throws temper tantrums (his performance at the Davos conference is a case in point) has not prevented the Obama Administration from doing nothing and, indeed, increasing hi power. After all, Turkey is now co-chair of the new U.S. counterterrorism organization and the designated mediator for the future of Syria. And the same applies to the escalating repression and crushing of democracy within Turkey.

3. Syria’s New Stage: Civil War

–Can Assad hold on?
The simple answer is that nobody knows. One thing is for certain: looking at other dictator having been hung, put on trial, or fleeing into exile, the family of President Bashar al-Asad and his allies will not go quietly. Only if they are forced out of power at gunpoint will they be displaced.

The wider problem is that the government does have a strong base of support among the Alawite minority, Christians, and some Sunni Muslims. These people are worried about being targeted by a revolution, even with the possibility of massacres against the first two groups, which comprise roughly one-quarter of the population.

In other words, the battle will continue for months, will probably become more violent, and the outcome is not certain.

–What are the prospects for civil war?

I think we are now entering the civil war phase.

–Is there a signifcant danger of Islamists wielding great power like in Egypt?

There is a very real chance of an Islamist takeover but it is lower than in Egypt. The Syrian are more urbanized, more secular, and most important of all far more diverse. Remember that in Egypt 90 percent are Sunni Muslim Arabs while in Syria that figure is about 60 percent. The Syrian Brotherhood has never been as strong as its Egyptian counterpart.

The best assessment, then, is that the danger is less. But what is very worrisome–even insane–is the Obama Administration’s insistence on using Islamist Turkey as mediator, a mediator that favor the Islamists!

–Would a post-Assad Syrian govt likely be friendlier to the US?

There is some real anti-Americanism in the opposition. The Obama Administration has put the Untied States into the position of being regarded by many Syrians as protector of the Asad regime. It’s one thing to have that happen in Egypt–a government that was allied with America–but why in Syria, the most anti-Ameriican of all Arab regimes?

If a non-Islamist regime emerges it would be less hostile to the United States but whether that’s by a small or significant margin is open to question.

4. “Moderate Imam”

In a June 23, 2011 article, Ahmad al-Tayeb, the head of al-Azhar, took a quite moderate line in interpreting Islam and showing openness toward Christianity and Judaism. A MEMRI articledoes a good job of describing what he wrote. For

example, he said:

“A Muslim cannot imagine all of mankind sharing a single creed or turning to a single religion – even if this religion is Islam. As long as this remains the case, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims [must be] one of mutual recognition.

But why did he write it? I suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear that al-Tayeb is not welcome to continue in his job under the new order. It wants to put in one of its own people, both as head of al-Azhar and as Egypt’s qadi (leading Islamic official). The Brotherhood wants to use these positions to revolutionize Islam in Egypt and turn it into a radical Islamist institution.

Remember that even if the Brotherhood doesn’t take over the government or control the presidency it is likely to make deals with other parties: We will support what you want in exchange for your giving us control over religious institutions.

And why, just a little later did he launch a virulent attack against Shia Muslims? Because he is defining his position as being hostile to Iran and Hizballah as Egypt’s enemies. This anti-Shia position is more congenial to the Brotherhood which shares this hotility.

So Tayeb is carving out for himself the position of moderate Muslim who backs Egyptian national interests in order to build a support base against the Islamists. This aligns him not only with reformists but also with nationalists. The political battle in Egypt may be mirrored by a struggle over the control of Islam in that country.

A third plank in the al-Azhar platform was put forward by one of Tayeb’s deputies a few days later in a virulently antisemitic tirade that hints at genocide against the Jews, reminding us that Middle East “moderation,” after all, almost always has its limits.

5. Egypt’s Election: Party Maneuvers

The Wafd Party has ended its electoral alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party because it thinks it can do better on its own. The Wafd wasn’t satisfied with the number of seats the Brotherhood offered in the deal.

Note that this has nothing to do with differences between a liberal democratic add an Islamist party. The problem is merely how much the Brotherhood would pay. As the Wafd spokesman explained:

“We withdrew from the electoral alliance because we had a lot of candidates and the available places in the list weren’t enough,”

There are now three blocs led by the Muslim-Brotherhood and Wafd—with members of their now-defunct alliance choosing sides—and a 14-party group called the Egyptian Bloc, led by the left-leaning liberal Justice party. Note how the “liberal” parties are splitting their vote while the Islamists have united.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include 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 at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Another Survey Shows Obama's Deteriorating Jewish Support (and Its not Just Because Of Israel)

Another opinion poll was released reporting s a deterioration of Barack Obama's support in the Jewish Community.  What makes this set of results surprising is the poll was conducted by the American Jewish Committee, a group who's leanings are so liberal,  it chastises more conservative Jewish organizations that criticize Obama's Israel policy. Another surprise in the survey (at lease for those unfamiliar with Jewish voters) is that Israel is just one of the issues driving Jews away from Obama.

For the first time since his inauguration, the annual  AJC poll shows more Jews disapproving of Obama's performance than approving. Approval of Obama’s performance declined to 45 percent, and disapproval rose to 48 percent. Last year's AJC survey reported 51 percent approved, and 44 percent disapproved.

Key areas of  Jewish voter disapproval are the economy (duh), and immigration. Foreign policy is a wash and most Jews approve of  the President's performance with National Security and Energy.As expected, the President's Israel Policy meets with disapproval.

Note: the only people who believe that Jews approve of his policy are members of the Democratic caucuses in either house of Congress, people who work for the DNC, or Obama reelection campaign or members of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Of course the NJDC wouldn't criticize Obama even if he woke up one day and (God forbid) decided to bomb Tel Aviv.

 It would be hard for those folks to deny the objection to Obama and Israel now as the results aren't even close.Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S. -Israel relations?

Interestingly the Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, not a favorite amongst the liberal Jewish Community in the US has a better approval story than Obama.Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?The poll also asks how they would vote in an Obama election against:

• Romney (Obama 50%, Romney 32%, Neither 16%)

• Perry  (Obama 55%, Perry 25%, Neither 18%)

• Bachmann (Obama 59%, Bachmann 19%, Neither 21%)

A few things to point out, Obama beats each of the above, but in each case his percent of the vote is lower than his 2008 total. Based on the poll Obama's 2012 performance with Jews  depends on who the Republicans put up. It is very early, and actual Jewish support for each of these GOP candidates could be much higher or much lower because Jewish Democrats are not  familiar with the GOP candidates (except for what the mainstream media slanders about them).

In the end this study doesn't show that Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2012, nor should it.  I would be very surprised if  Obama lost the Jewish vote in 2012. What it does show is the GOP has an opportunity to steal enough  Jewish votes to make a difference in some key states.  The large "none of the above" numbers reflect the possibility that Jewish voters may become so frustrated with the choice of candidates that a big segment of them may stay home. This hurts the Democrats.  Based on historic trends 70-80% of those Jews who stay home will be votes lost to the Democratic candidate.And most important IMHO, is that it kills the argument of many  unfamiliar with Jewish voters.  Israel  is not the only issue that shapes their election picks.

Those Who Are Always Wrong About the Middle East Never Lose A Gram of Arrogance or Moment of Sleep Over the Tragedies They Create

By Barry Rubin

On the occasion of your supporting Palestinian unilateral independence despite the dangers this presents for Israel while simultaneously criticizing Israel for not giving massive concessions in exchange for nothing. On the occasion of the world groveling before Mahmoud Abbas, a ruler of a mere one million people who is in partnership with an explicity genocidal terrorist group, is dependent on Western hand-out, refuses to negotiate or compromise, and has cancelled elections at a time when democracy is supposedly the big thing in the Middle East.

On the occasion of your ignoring the fact that Turkey is ruled by an Islamist party engaged in massive repression and the transformation of the country into a dictatorship, holding that regime up as a model for other Muslim-majority states as it arrests dissidents on a massive scale and keeps them under lock and key while threatening war with Israel. The U.S. government chooses this regime as its co-director in the most important new international counter-terrorist initiative and as its manager of the political transition in Syria.

On the occasion of your whitewashing revolutionary Islamism andglorifying anti-Western forces that will yield a harvest of bloodshed and misery in future.

And most of all on the occasion of your ridiculing, censoring, or ignoring far more accurate assessments of the situation.

Here’s the record

1970s

• You were wrong about Iran’s revolution.

• You were wrong about Saddam not invading Iran.

1980s

• You were wrong about Saddam becoming moderate and wrong about him invading Kuwait.

1990s

• You were wrong about the 1990s peace process (me, too, but I learned real fast in 2000).

• You were wrong about the unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

• You were wrong about the promise that you’d support Israel if it took risks for peace and then things got bad.

Early 2000s

• You were wrong about the rise of a stealth Islamist regime in Turkey.

• You were wrong about Islamist terrorists attacking America (ridiculing the idea before September 11)

• You were wrong about Iran’s nuclear program (during the initial years, you said it wasn’t happening when Israel was warning about it).

You were wrong about letting Hamas participate in the Palestinian election even though it didn’t qualify.

• You were wrong in thinking Fatah would win the Palestinian election.

• You were wrong in not supporting moderate force in Lebanon and strenuously opposing the power of the Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance there.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against Israel.

• You were wrong in encouraging or even participating in a massive campaign of slander against the United States.

Obama Era

• You were wrong about the Egyptian revolution.

• You were wrong about Turkey (being Islamist).

• You were wrong about Iran again (engagement).

• You were wrong about Syria (being winnable from Iran).

• You were wrong about Lebanon (not being taken over by Iran, Syria, Hizballah).

• You were wrong about Obama (sorry, I only get 800 words total here).

• You were wrong about Israel, (a country you never understand).

• You were wrong about Islamism (understanding what it’s all about—revolution, not hurt feelings).

• You were wrong about Pakistan (helping in a war against terrorism when it sponsors terrorism).

• You were wrong about Obama’s policy in the Middle East making America popular there.

• You were wrong about flattering Islamists into becoming moderate.

• You were wrong about the whole settlement freeze mess (including the wrong claim that it would win moderate gestures from the Arab world).

• You were wrong about throwing a tantrum regarding east Jerusalem construction which you’d already agreed was okay to continue.

• You were wrong in not throwing a tantrum about the Turkish regime’s sponsoring terrorists on the Gaza flotilla, sabotaging sanctions on Iran, an creating a virtual state of war with Israel.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Taliban in Afghan politics.

• You were wrong in opening the door to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian politics (saying the United States had no objection to its being in government without anyone even askin).

• You were wrong about moving away from Israel making Arabs and Muslims more moderate and pro-American.

• You were wrong to waste almost a year by not dealing with the Palestinian unilateral declaration of independence strategy.

• You were wrong in sabotaging any possibility of America becoming more energy independence.

• You were wrong in not pressuring the Palestinian Authority to negotiate seriously with Israel.

• You were wrong in not giving Israel strong support when it has faced broken agreements, a massive terrorist onslaught, and the rejection of peace in response to its concessions.

That’s just a partial list.

And now you want Israel to risk its future existence on the basis of your advice, leaving aside also the fact that you’ve never confessed error, rethought the basis of these mistakes, and then formed an alternative policy and worldview?

You dare to suggest that you know better the interests of Israel and how it will survive than its people, voters, and leaders? And yet you are ignorant about Israel itself, its experiences in the last two decades, and the situation it faces!

Then your smug media, your arrogant false experts, call us dummies and ridicule our arguments—acts and arguments you don’t dare to confront directly in serious debate? We’re supposed to be impressed? Persuaded? Ashamed? Americans in general and Jews in particular are supposed to ignore the people who have actually lived the experience, know the facts, fought the wars, and taken the risks?

And besides, what about the people of Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran who are horrified by their current governments yet who can expect no real help or understanding from you. How about Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whose strategic plight you ignore. How about the people of Egypt and very possibly Libya and Tunisia who may be facing a tidal wave of repression, economic disaster, and shattered hopes partly due to your mistakes?

The answer is, “No, thanks.”

All I can add is, Take it away, Bob Dylan:

“I just want you to know
I can see through your masks….
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy….
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher….”

–Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include 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 at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

Maxine Waters Leaks More Verbal Stupidity-The GOP is Using Obama For His Food

In Maxine Waters' warped mind there is nothing wrong with this country except for the fact that the GOP and the Tea Party movement exist. She believes that everybody has the right to HER opinion. After saying the Tea Party should go to hell, Obama's programs help white people too much today she said that the President wasn't doing enough to bash his opponents.  Especially since they have been stealing his food and they are trying to kill him.

“He’s been very nice about it,” Waters said of Obama’s budget negotiations with Republicans. “He’s been on the other side of the aisle talking with people. He’s invited them up to the White House to have beer. He’s invited them to come and watch the Super Bowl games.

“He’s done all of that, and when they eat his food and drink his beer and leave, then they go and try to kill him [on Capitol Hill],” she told an audience gathered for the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Foundation’s annual legislative conference in Washington.

Gee, what ever happened to the new tone? No one has said they want to kill the POTUS. On top of that the President serves a mean bean dip.

“You’ve gotta fight — you will not win this battle without fighting,” she added.

Waters and her fellow Democratic party members of the CBC are very upset they are not winning the class war.

Many House liberals have been disenchanted with Obama going back to December, when the president accepted GOP demands that the Bush-era tax rates be extended to even the wealthiest Americans — a provision strongly opposed by most Democrats.

The president drew similar liberal criticism this summer for backing enormous cuts in both a 2011 spending bill and legislation to raise the debt ceiling. More recently, some CBC members wondered aloud why Obama didn’t visit any urban areas on his August jobs tour through the Midwest.

....“We love the president. We want him to be successful,” Waters said. “But does he feel our pain? Does he understand what’s going on out here?”

Then she went after her favorite target

“We have got to show up. The Tea Party shows up. The Tea Party intimidates everybody,” she said. “We have to show people that we have no fear. Don’t mistake the silence for intimidation.”

Waters and her fellow progressives don't "get it." When they demonize the tea party, they demonize the American people. Because the polls show that American people support the tea party positions even when they don't support the tea party itself.

Allow me to suggest that Ms Waters may one day regret her attacks on grass roots America.

The American Jewish Committee's Motto "Shhh Don't Upset the Goyim"

The American Jewish Committee should have a mission statement saying that whenever and where ever Jews are in trouble, they will act by putting its head in the sand and pray that the non-Jews don't hurt them. They did it during the Holocaust, they did it during the first twenty years of Israel's existence and they did it again yesterday with this press release:

AJC criticized a full-page ad, headlined "Tell President Obama: Enough. It's time to stand with Israel," in today's New York Times. The ad was sponsored by a group called Emergency Committee for Israel.

"Let me be absolutely clear, AJC is a strictly non-partisan advocacy organization," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "But we cannot be silent. This ad is highly objectionable, indeed counter-productive, to its stated aim of supporting Israel. As the UN session begins and high diplomatic drama is expected, to choose this moment to assail the Obama administration, when it laudably has announced its intention, come what may, to block Palestinian ambitions in the Security Council and work against a Palestinian-initiated resolution in the General Assembly, makes us wonder what are the true goals of the sponsoring group."

 The Ad in question criticizes President Obama's one-sided anti-Israel policies (read the text here)

It is interesting that the AJC chose to interject itself into a "conversation that it wasn't invited into."

Their contention was that they are non political and every Jewish organization should be. It reads like the warning Jews used to make in times of Antisemitism, "Shhhh! Don't upset the Goyim (non-Jews).

In fact that is a phrase the AJC has lived by.

When Jews were dying at the hands of the Nazi' the AJC discouraged open talk of the Holocaust, afraid that if Jews spoke out it would create a backlash lead to heightened anti-Semitism in the U.S. (Cohen, Naomi Wiener. Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966 (1972), a standard history).

From 1949 to the Six-Day-War in 1967, the AJC described theme selves as "non-Zionist" afraid that support of the Jewish State would create charges of dual loyalty in the United States.

The AJC has never been non-political, they prefer to be non-verbal with their heads in the sand.  Where was the AJC three years ago when, in a blatant political move leaders of major Jewish organizations dis-invited Sarah Palin from a rally. Where was the AJC when President Obama took it upon himself to decide who represented the Jewish people by inviting George Soros' anti Israel group J-street to Presidential meetings while dis-inviting the more conservative Zionist Organization of America.

Israel is at a crucial point in her history, she is surrounded by terrorists who are appeased by most of the world, and her historic friendship with Israel is being thrown into question by a President who because of incompetence or intention is throwing the Jewish state to the woods, and where was the AJC?

I will tell you where they were. The AJC was where it always is when it is time to stick its neck out for the Jewish people, they were in the back whispering "Shhh Don't Upset the Goyim."

Gallup's Analysis of Obama Approval Rating in Jewish Community is Dishonest

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle yesterday when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communication equipment. Due to the clouds and haze the pilot could not determine his position or course to steer to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign and held it in the helicopter's window. The sign said "WHERE AM I ?" in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign said, "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map and determine the course to steer to SEATAC (Seattle/Tacoma) airport and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded, "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer."

That story was written about Microsoft, but could have been written about Gallup's recent report on Obama's approval rating in the Jewish community. They provided information that was technically accurate, but totally useless.

The Headline of their story was:

Jewish Support for Obama Down, but Not Disproportionately Current 13-point gap between Jewish and national support is about average

That headline is absolutely true, but its the wrong comparison.

Assuming  the overall Jewish American approval numbers are correct, Jews gave President Barack Obama a 54% job approval rating in September, down from 68% in May,  and drastically below the 83% at the beginning of 2009, but its the comparison to the general population that is disingenuous.

There is little sign that President Obama is suffering disproportionately in support among Jews; 54% approved of his job performance from Aug. 1-Sept. 15, 13 percentage points higher than his overall 41% approval rating during that time, and similar to the average 14-point gap seen throughout Obama's term.

There's the problem, Jews can't be compared with total US Voters, because they don't vote that way.  Jews are far more liberal-Democratic than the average voter.  According to Gallup US Party affiliation as of May 2011 44% of American voters are Democrats.

The latest Gallup figure I could find for Jewish party affiliation (Sept 2009) shows that American Jews are almost 50% more likely to be Democrats than the average American.

Why is this important? Because Obama's approval rating has not fallen off with Democrats as fast it has for Republicans.  Using numbers from May 2011 and August 2011 Gallup reports the Democrat approval fall off is less the total US figures. Total US fell by 20% while total Democrats fell by fell by 12%

A more reasonable national baseline to compare the Jewish vote to would be 
to create a weighted average figure based on the general population approvals but weighted by the party affiliation of Jewish voters(66% Dem, 27% GOP and 7% independents)

That weighted average comes to 63.7% approval in May and 54.9% in August a drop of  almost 9% or a -13% difference in President Obama's approval rating

At the same time Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters dropped from 68% to 54% a drop of 14 percentage points or -16% difference.

Based on this more realistic comparison President Obama's job approval is falling faster than the national average.  While the president enjoyed a higher approval rating this May in the Jewish community than the national average (based on Jewish party affiliation), his approval today is slightly lower than the national average.

That's where Gallup gets it wrong. By comparing the drop in Obama's approval in the Jewish community to that of the overall voter, it does a disservice to it readership and creates a dishonest story.

The old proverb says there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Friday's Gallup look at Obama Approval Rating amongst Jewish voters has  proven that proverb to be very true.

Obama's National Jewish Support Continues to Erode

Fresh off the big Democratic party loss in NY-9, Gallup has shared its latest national polling data on Jews with Poltico which shows Obama's support in the Jewish community continues to erode.


Obama’s approval rating among Jewish Americans is down to 55 percent - a five point drop from June and a 13 point drop from May which is when he made the demand that Israel use the 1949 Armistice lines as the starting point for negotiations instead of as the goal of negotiations. 

Four out of 10 Jewish Americans currently disapprove of Obama, according to polling data provided to POLITICO by Gallup, which has yet to post the numbers on its website.

This 40 percent disapproval rating is 8 percent higher than the 32 percent disapproval rating among Jewish Americans that was last reported by Gallup in June.

Together, the rise in disapproval and dip in approval ratings are a net negative 11 point downturn for Obama among Jews.

When the June numbers were released, most pundits felt it was meaningless that Jews would never abandon the Democratic Party not even to the extent they did with Jimmy Carter (who got 45% of the Jewish Vote in 1980).  Last week as attention turned to the Turner-Weprin race the scuttlebutt changed. It seemed as if pundits were now predicting that Jewish voters were going to abandon Obama in droves and the only Jewish votes Obama will get are David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.
.
Truth be told the pundits were wrong in June and are wrong today. Here are the facts:

• It is true that Jewish voters are angry with Obama's anti-Israel policies, but it is not true that Jews base their votes on that one issue.  If that was the case, George Bush would have gotten much more that 24% of the vote when he ran against the weak-on-terror John Kerry in 2004. Bush was probably the most pro-Israel President in US history. 

•  Even when Jewish voters rejected Jimmy Carter, it was not solely because of his stance on Israel. The economy was in the crapper big-time inflation and unemployment were both high.

• A close look at the NY-9 race shows that Israel wasn't the only reason for the switch of the Jewish vote.  It took at least one additional issue on top of Israel for the voters to switch.

When push comes to shove the fate of the Jewish vote in 2012 depends on three things, the economy, Israel and who the GOP offers.  Two of the three (the economy and Obama's anti-Israel policies) will not  improve before election day. The third is left to be seen. A candidate seen as moderate such as a Romney or a Gingrich would probably be the most attractive to the Jewish Vote.

A big segment of the Jewish Vote is ripe for the picking, that doesn't mean they are going anywhere.  Depending on who the Republicans pick, I would suspect that the GOP garners between 35% (what Nixon got in 1972) and 40% of the Jews (what Reagan got in 1980).  Which is a huge gain but not the total abandonment predicted in some circles.

Frankly, the bigger danger for the Democratic Party is the shift to the GOP is accompanied by disillusionment, the Jews stay home.  In that case it not only causes the President to lose votes, but also the candidates down the ticket.

Even if a major segment of liberal Jews stay home ord vote GOP,  the entire Jewish population represents only 2.2% of the U.S. population what kind of impact could they have? (NY-9 is 40% Jewish).  In a close election, a shift of Jewish votes could lose key battleground states for Obama.  States where there is a relatively larger Jewish population such as

Other states with a big Jewish populations New York, Massachusetts and California wouldn't shift from Obama even if he was caught in bed with the proverbial "dead woman or live sheep."  And as a favorite son of Illinois  he can count on that state's electoral votes.  But a  shift of 73 electoral votes, 20% of his 2008 total of 365 will make it much more difficult for President Obama to be reelected.

In summary, 2012 will see a shift in Jewish voting patterns, but not a total abandonment (and not only because of Israel). While a small percentage of total voters, a change in a few key battle ground states  may lead to some blue states moving into the red column and the presidency shifting party's. But to suggest a total shift or an effect in more than a few states (and only if those states are close) is being irresponsible.

What Jews should know about Christians

By Barry Rubin


Most Jews today (or should I merely say many?), even the most secular among them, have a tremendous fear of Christians—especially fervent believers of the type represented today by Evangelicals--and conservatives. There is a material basis for this fear based on past Jewish experience. But it is the year 2011; things have changed; and it is time to reconsider these assumptions and see if they still make sense.

Let me begin by mentioning two specific situations I have witnessed that show the foolishness of this blindness:

• In a particular city a group of Jews organized a march for Israel. Several Christian groups wanted to participate. Since some elements among the Jews disagreed with the Christians on other political issues, they cancelled the march rather than participate alongside pro-Israel Christians.

• In a particular other city, an Israeli speaker was invited to speak by the main pro-Israel Jewish group. He was also invited to speak by a respectable pro-Israel Christian group. The potential speaker was informed that if he spoke for the Christian group the pro-Israel Jewish group would refuse to have him as a speaker .

This kind of behavior is simultaneously shameful and stupid. We are not speaking here of political sophistication but about a mode of thinking equivalent to a fear of catching cooties.

True, in general, for almost 2000 years many Christians and their institutions have often persecuted Jews, either materially or at least had very negative views toward Jews. In this short space I will not attempt to review that history or get beyond generalizations. Readers are able to do that for themselves.

For 200 years, modern conservative and nationalist thought in the West has also often persecuted Jews, in words, attitudes, and actions. A good starting point for that phase is the triumph of German nationalists over Napoleon and the reversal of the French revolution’s grant of rights to Jews in those lands. And of course the culmination was in the Nazi death camps.

It is understandable, then, that Jews supported parties of the liberal and left type where they were welcomed, where modernity was extolled, and where Jews believed they could integrate with the masses and thus defuse grassroots’ antisemitism. That strategy made perfect sense.

With Communism’s betrayal of the Jews, the contemporary tendency for the far left to take over traditional social democratic and liberal institutions, and the left’s romance with Third World (and particularly Palestinian, Arab, and Islamist radicalism), the world has change. The left has largely abandoned Israel as a cause, often become antagonistic, and even evinces antisemitism.

There is still hope for reviving the social democratic and liberal tradition of being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, but that won’t happen until the infiltration and seizure of intellectual hegemony of the far left is defeated.

Meanwhile, there has also been a change among many Christians (especially those called Evangelicals) and conservatives toward a greater friendship regarding Jews and Israel. A key reason for this shift—and proof of its authenticity—are a set of transformations in the thinking of these groups.

Before discussing the details, though, let me make it clear that Jews do not have to become conservatives or even agree with them—or with Evangelical Christians—on a wide range of issues. What is worthwhile, however, is to accept the offer of friendship on certain specific issues, respectfully disagree on others, and not demonize such people.

As noted above, many conservatives and pious Protestants have changed their view of Jews. Factors that once made for antisemitism have now been reversed. Here is a brief summary:

• Formerly, Jews were seen as subverting Christianity. Now, in an increasingly secular world, Jews (even only slightly religious ones) are seen as fellow believers, allies in preserving religiosity in the face of huge challenges.

• A key element in antisemitism were Christian doctrines defining Jews as the “suffering servant” whose humiliation proved Christianity to be correct and “replacement theology” which says that Jews are no longer a “chosen people” but their role has been replaced by Christians. These ideas have been widely abandoned by Evangelicals. There is a new interest—and gratitude—at the Jewish roots of Christianity and a view of Jews as fellows in a Judeo-Christian religious community.

They are very much aware of Biblical verses that, for example, say that the creator of the universe will not bless those who attack or hate the Jewish people. There is also a real understanding of the history of the Holocaust and past antisemitism along with a desire to make amends. While there are those seeking converts, of course, and some who believe that supporting Jews will bring Armageddon, these are largely outdated concepts

• Conservatives tended to view Jews as cosmopolitan anti-nationalists, leftists, and pacifists. Today, however, the existence of Israel has given a different perspective on this. Jews, in the eyes of most conservatives, have created a model nation-state, a country that is willing and able to fight in its self-defense, where religion is respected as an important element in Jewish peoplehood

• An especially important question has been how conservatives deal with the fact that there are so many Jews on the left, that is, among their political opponents and those who fight against religion in various ways. In the twentieth century especially, this was a huge source of antisemitism and a central element in Nazi doctrine.

Contemporary conservatives have, however, developed a new way of viewing this issue. First, of course, they have observed the left’s growing antagonism against Israel and even against Jews. Most importantly, they view leftist and anti-religious Jews as enemies of their own people. This neatly dispenses with a traditional core issue of antisemitism.

Someone like, say, Noam Chomsky is not seen as part of the Jewish conspiracy against America but as a person who has so broken with his Jewish roots and the interests of his people to be as much against the Jews as he is against his country or conservative values. In a sense, this concept parallels what most Jews—especially the religious and the pro-Israel majority—also think of such people.

In France and Italy, Holland and Spain, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, conservative parties are more pro-Israel than their counterparts on the left[Jeff note: In the US also] . This has less to do with Israeli or Jewish behavior—whatever claims are made to the contrary—than it does the philosophical and political evolution of politics within those countries.

Let me make this absolutely clear: to cooperate with liberals on supporting Israel one need not be a liberal; to cooperate with conservatives on supporting Israel one need not be a conservative. To cooperate with Christians on supporting Israel one need not be a Christian.

Of course, a distinction must be made between much larger conservative forces and smaller neo-fascist ones. The Le Pen party in France, the British National Party, and other forces continue the historic antisemitism of the right-wing. In the United States, right-wingers like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul also still hold traditional antisemitic concepts.

Yet the Jewish people have always survived by a willingness to understand the world as it is and to act as necessary without sacrificing core principles. While working to maintain and rebuild relations with real liberal and moderate social democratic forces where possible, Israel and Jews should also shake the extended hand of conservatives and Christians which is so often sincerely offered.

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 Middle East editor and 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). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>   

Maxine Waters-Obama is Only Supposed to Help African Americans

In Maxine Waters'  warped mind President Obama hasn't screwed up the economy, he has only screwed it up for Black people. And when he announces his jobs plan tonight he better direct it to the Urban areas where African-Americans live.

Waters complained today that the first half-African American President hasn't really shown the love to the black side of his DNA.

“There are roughly 3 million African Americans out of work today, a number nearly equal to the entire population of Iowa. I would suggest that if the entire population of Iowa, a key state on the electoral map and a place that served as a stop on the president’s jobs bus tour were unemployed, they would be mentioned in the president’s speech and be the beneficiary of targeted public policy,” Waters said in a statement to POLITICO on Thursday.

“So, one question to be answered this evening is, are the unemployed in the African-American community, including almost 45 percent of its youth, as important as the people of Iowa?” Waters asked.

According to the labor department, unemployment in the African American community is much higher than the 9.1% average (16.7 percent). Heck in my house the adult unemployment rate is 66.7%. Its not that she wants to target African Americans instead of adults who live in my house. Its not even that she wants the jobs effort to target people of her race ignoring the almost two-thirds of the people in her own district. Where liberal racists like Maxine Waters go wrong is that a jobs plan shouldn't target any people.  It should target the businesses that create jobs. The way you get people back to work is not come up with stimulus jobs, or a Roosevelt-type CCC for urban areas.  Programs like that didn't work for Roosevelt, they didn't work for Obama in 2009 and they won't work today. 


The only way that Waters will get what she wants, lower unemployment in the African-American community is to cut regulations, cut corporate taxes and take away the uncertainly most business are facing today. Only then will company's begin to hire in a big way, and jobs will flow back into the US from other countries. 


Sadly that is not the objective of Ms Waters, she just wants to hurt the country and African Americans by burdening them with more debt that will never be offset by a greater number of taxpayers in good jobs, paying taxes.That is the best way to create revenue and to bring America off the progressive-caused abyss.

Labor Secretary Solis-Obama Hasn't Been Ignoring Jobs (He's Just Incompetent)

Sometimes when administration hacks defend their boss they don't quite understand what they are saying. For example, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumpka criticized the President's effort on fixing the job market.  He said said Obama has not offered bold enough solutions to fix the economy and has been distracted by Republican demands to bring down the national deficit.

Today Labor Secretary Solis rejected Trumka's criticism and said the president has been focused on jobs.

Solis said Obama has “absolutely not” been nibbling around the edges in trying to fix the economy and instead had offered bold solutions to create jobs as the economy struggles. She highlighted Obama’s efforts to help the U.S. auto industry.

"Absolutely not,” Solis told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Monitor. “I can say that because the last two and a half years I have spent a tremendous amount of time ramping, reforming and reinventing some of our job-creating programs to strengthen them, to better coordinate them with our partners in the field.”

Maybe Solis should have let well enough alone.  Think about it for a moment.  Trumka was claiming Obama wasn't doing enough in the job market.  He may be right, after all the unemployment is over 9% (and he promised it wouldn't go over 8%).  But according to Solis the administration has been working hard on jobs, which means their programs haven't been working. Instead of jobs not being a priority the Secretary of Labor is saying something much worse, the Obama administration is simply not up to the task.

Barack Obama Vs. The American People (Obama's 2012 Strategy)

This weekend President Obama and his campaign team went on television and made it clear he will not be running against Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican Candidates, no those candidates are too formidable in his mind. The president will also refuse to run on his record and to be honest who can blame him.  No based on what he said in his weekly address and supported by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the Sunday News shows, the enemy in this upcoming 2012 presidential campaign will be the Republicans in Congress and the American people.

Its an interesting yet disingenuous message that we have heard many times before. Grass-roots Americans in the form of the tea party  are forcing members of the Congressional Tea party caucus to take stands and stick to them which they do solely for political reasons. Even worse according to the presidential team, those positions are bad for the American people, and are the reason nothing gets done in Washington DC.



What positions are they talking about? Specifically the President is talking about some of those evil Tea Party positions such as, obey the constitution, do not add any more taxes until you can bring spending in line, and of course cut spending and reform entitlements lest the country go bankrupt. I would suggest that by taking those stands and sticking to them, despite all of the pressure to give in the tea party caucus is putting country in front of party and in front of their political careers.

The claim that it is the Tea Party caucus that has been holding up progress on legislation is also troubling.  The President has been running the country since January 2009. From inauguration day till January of this year when the GOP took over the house, Obama was working with two houses of Congress from his party. For most of that time, there were 60 Democrats in the  Senate making it filibuster proof! Isn't it reasonable to ask why was nothing done the first 75% of his term so far?

The answer to that question is the President and his party were pushing through programs that had nothing to do with Jobs, but had everything to do with putting political agenda in front of country, a trillion dollar stimulus program which included every type of pork possible, targeted to reelect Democrats.  Instead of having the stimulus dollars hit ASAP which would be most helpful to the economy, a large chunk of the money hit in early 2010, so it could be used as re-election pork. Instead of using the construction programs in the stimulus bill to help everybody, he directed the funds via executive toward his political supporters the unions, only 14% of construction shops are union. Costs for construction jobs were estimated at 20% higher because the president was helping is ideological base.

After the ill-fated stimulus was passed, in stead of working on jobs the President again put party needs in front of the country as the Democrats pushed first for cap and trade and then  for Obamacare. When cap and trade didn't pass, the EPA took up the baton and is trying to implement job-killing regulation on its own.

The job killing Obamacare program and the Chris Dodd/Barney Frank financial regulation bill followed.  Both of these efforts were passed to sate the progressive ideological base. Both of these efforts hurt rather than helped the economy.  So who exactly is putting party in front of Country?

Lets talk a bit about the War Effort.  Again in response to demands by his political base, President Obama executed a surge in Afghanistan which was smaller than his Generals recommended.  A year later, he announced a pull out from Afghanistan that was larger and faster than his Generals recommended. Once again this President is put his progressive politics in before the needs of the American people.

Twice before Congress rejected the Dream Act based on the will of the people. The reason for the rejection  is that the people believe that the first step must be to secure our borders. That would be the best thing for the country.  But because the President's support in the Latin community is softening, his Homeland Security Dept., is executing the amnesty program anyway.

In his two and a half years as President of the United States, Barack Obama constantly chose an agenda which placed the ideology of his progressive base in front of country.  He helped to push through major legislation which not only went against the will of the people, but the needs of the country, an improved economy and the SHMOTUS, VP Biden's favorite three letter word J-O-B-S. When he couldn't even get the support of a congress controlled by his own party, programs were implemented by executive fiat. It seems to me that it is the President and his progressive followers who are putting party and ideology in front of country. His latest political strategy, casting a grass roots effort of the American people as evil is just one more example of the progressive cynicism, they are dividing the country just to support their political agenda.

Why Glenn Beck Is Correct on the Middle East

By Barry Rubin

Having studied the Middle East professionally for 35 years and with a PhD in Middle East history, let me make it perfectly clear: Glenn Beck, who is holding several rallies in Israel this week, has a better grasp of Middle East politics than most Western experts, not to mention Western leaders.

Certainly, Beck makes silly mistakes on factual matters and details. Yet what’s important is that he comprehends the big picture. I don’t say this based on a superficial view or on his support for Israel. As part of the GLORIA Center’s project on understanding current American politics and debates I have monitored virtually every television and radio show Beck has done over the last two years. When people voice absurd and slanderous stereotypes about Beck, it turns out they haven’t actually listened to what he’s been saying.

Why has Beck gotten things right that so many others have missed or distorted? There are five key reasons: Common sense; courage; knowing the difference between right and wrong, willingness to learn, and readiness to admit when one has been wrong. These are virtues often lacking among those with more elegant reputations and impressive diplomas.

What has he gotten right?

1. The main threat in the Middle East is revolutionary Islamism and the United States must combat it.

Revolutionary Islamism includes on its side: Iran, Syria, Hizballah (largely controlling Lebanon), Hamas (governing the Gaza Strip), and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as al-Qaida and, more subtly, the regime governing Turkey. It is an ideology innately hostile to the West, the United States, and Israel. It cannot be bought off or moderated. Revolutionary Islamists will either take over the Middle East or be defeated.

2. The problem is not Islam as a religion but revolutionary Islamism as a political ideology that draws on normative Islam to produce its own plausible interpretation.

While falsely accused of “Islamophobia,” Beck has correctly drawn the distinction between Islam and revolutionary Islamism. Those claiming Islam is “a religion of peace” miss the radicalism easily drawn from its texts as well as the large and growing Islamist forces. Those claiming Islam is inherently extremist miss most of its actual history and the tremendous battle going on among Muslims,

3. The revolutionary Islamist side is winning.

In the last year, revolutionary Islamism has advanced in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Turkey, and potentially Syria, Libya, and Tunisia

4. The “Arab Spring” contains many dangers.

The unqualified Western enthusiasm for the “Arab Spring” ignored the threat of growing Islamist power. Those of us who warned beginning in January about the Muslim Brotherhood’ radicalism and power were ridiculed, despite the fact that every statement it has made for decades has proven this point. Even now, many are in denial about the Brotherhood becoming Egypt’s strongest single party in parliament and in writing the country’s new constitution. The regime that emerges might not be Islamist but will be radical, anti-American, and dangerously hostile toward Israel.

5. Israel just happens to be largely right and deserves support

Israel has been in a “Twilight Zone” situation. Eighteen years ago, Israel took a tremendous risk for peace by signing an agreement with the PLO, agreeing to establish an armed Palestinian Authority, and negotiating toward the creation of a Palestinian state, Not to mention later offering the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace, withdrawing from south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and much of the West Bank.

Yet the more risks for peace Israel took, the more concessions made, the more restraint shown, the more it was slandered and said not to want peace. The more Israel sought a two-state solution, the more people in the West advocated a “no-Israel-state” solution. Beck has cut through this nonsense to point out a simple fact: Israel wants a negotiated compromise and stable peace based on a two-state solution; the Palestinian Authority—not to mention Hamas—doesn’t.

6. One Man’s Terrorist…Is Still a Terrorist

There is no romanticism in the deliberate murder of civilians, systematic incitement of hatred, and goal of establishing a totalitarian society. Bad ends hardly justify bad means.

7. The Obama Administration has messed up the Middle East to a phenomenal extent.

For details you can read what I’ve written about this since January 2009.

8. One should be fearless in facing intimidation and politically motivated ridicule.

Yes, it gets tiring to be slandered and misquoted but a lot is at stake here. Popularity among current Western elites and career advancement cannot be the main priority at present. We live at a time when governments and intellectuals surrender at the merest hint of being called names or faced with threats of violence.

9. We must reevaluate friends and enemies in this new era of revolutionary Islamism and post-Marxist leftism

In the past, Jews often saw conservatives and religious Christians as threats for good reasons. But we’re no longer in the nineteenth or even twentieth centuries. Conservatives and Christians aren’t drooling to convert, kill, or use Jews to bring on the apocalypse. That’s out-dated. While doing everything possible to work with liberals and social democrats, we must understand—whatever our personal political views—that Israel and the Jewish people have a new set of allies.

Why have these groups changed their views on Jews? With religion imperiled in the West, they see Jews as fellow believers rather than—as in past antisemitism—corrosive atheists and Jesus-killers. They see Israel as an embodiment of the nation-state and admire its ability to defend itself, rather than considering Jews to be cosmopolitan subversives and cowardly pacifists. Rather than view Jews as imperiling Western civilization, they view Israel as facing the same enemies they believe to be doing so today.

An important issue—in fact, the key test—was how conservatives would deal with the presence of so many Jews among their opponents. Historically, that situation was a prime factor in an antisemitic narrative on the right. The solution has been to perceive leftist Jews as traitors to their own Jewish people rather than to consider Jews as a whole to be the villain. Whether or not you agree with that assessment isn’t important in this context. What’s important is that this solves the political and religious right’s past inclination toward antisemitism.

10. Whatever mistakes the United States has made it is a good country and is the hope of the world.

Many countries and people everywhere yearn for America to revive itself, change the current administration’s policies, properly define friends and enemies, and take leadership internationally once again.

Any criticism one can make of Beck regarding Middle East issues rather pales in comparison to all of the above points on which he is quite correct. But then, as Jews, and Israelis most of all, should know, to be falsely reviled and have one’s image smeared is not proof of being wrong or evil.

B arry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor 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 articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

Ron Paul Bigot, Liar or Incompetent Fool ?

Since placing second in the Iowa straw poll, Congressman Paul's supporters have been complaining vigorously because their leader (Officially known as Rep Paul from the Planet Ronulin) and his second place finish has been virtually absent from the press.  As a regular critic of the media, I for one have never been happier that the MSM was biased. Whenever the Congressman is mentioned in the press, I am overcome by a compulsion to dig a hole in the ground and hide. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, my fear is that some of the Ron Paul nuttiness will sully my positions and those of other conservatives.  Perhaps that's why comedians such as Jon Stewart are chiding the press for not speaking about Paul's second place win in Iowa, they want mainstream Conservatives and Libertarians to be grouped together with Paul.



Whenever I post something negative about Ron Paul (which is every time I post about him), I get the nastiest comments and emails. There aren't many "ronulins" in the world, but those who support him treat him almost like a cult leader.  Which wouldn't be bad except for the fact that  Ron Paul is "drooling crazy" type.  Additionally Dr. Paul has a history that makes one thing he fell out of the  bigot tree and hit every branch on the way down.Sometimes that bigotry is displayed by his followers. When Donald Rumsfeld was speaking at CPAC 2010, the large contingent of ronulins began to chant Sheckels, Sheckels in recognition of their anti-Semitic charge that American Jews forced the US into the war in Iraq to protect Israel. Sadly if they followed the facts they would have realized that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon urged President Bush not to invade Iraq predicting a quagmire.

For those of you that can remember life before the internet, you might also remember that people used to publish Newsletters on all topics. Forty years ago, Paul entered the Conservative Newsletter business. The Newsletters contained racist and homophobic writing, written in Paul's name. 

The Congressman defended the writing when they became an issue during the 1996 congressional campaign but  the newsletters when they became an issue in 2008, but he defended them in 1996When the newsletters were republished by Kirchick,  Congressman Paul strongly denied authorship, but as you will see he didn't deny them when they first became controversial in the mid-1990 (more on that later).What was written in those newsletters was nothing short of disgusting. Here are  some examples:

• On Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

In December of 1990 his newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and a “flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate.”A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

In an article entitled “The Coming Race War,” The Ron Paul Political Report refers to the “pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King” and refers to his “non-violent approach” as “(i.e., state violence).” The newsletter advises that, “if there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jesse Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed, left-wing blacks.

That proves Paul is crazy, it wasn't over for Dukakis until that silly tank picture.

• On Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine “certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: “Bring Back the Closet!”

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet.

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

• On Conspiracies

This 1978 newsletter says the Trilateral Commission is “no longer known only by those who are knowledgeable about international conspiracies, but is routinely mentioned in the daily news.”A 1986 newsletter names Jeane Kirkpatrick and George Will as “two of our enemies” and notes their membership in the Trilateral Commission. In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul

Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

• On The Middle East

The March 1987 issue of The Ron Paul Investment Letter calls Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state.”

In the April 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report, the author--writing in the first person--states, “Whether [the 1993 World Trade Center bombing] was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” The newsletters also warns readers to “do your very best to keep your family away from inner cities. If you can’t, have a haven remote from the metropolitan areas.”

Was Ron Paul Lying when he said he didn't write the newsletters, or was he lying when he said he did?Whenever I discuss these newsletters with Ron Paul fans, they make the same claim, their fearless leader said he didn't write them no did he know who wrote them. Indeed that's what the he told CNN in 2008

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

It is certainly possible that for Paul to be telling the truth, but to do that you have to believe that he never looked at the publications  published under his name by a company that he owned. The evidence suggests otherwise,When they were published in the New Republic, James Kerchick said,

Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.

The New Republic also provided this evidence:

• The masthead of March 1987 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists “the Hon. Ron Paul” as “Editor and Publisher” and “Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.” as one of several contributing editors.

• The April 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letter lists Paul as Editor

Perhaps the most damning evidence about Paul's denial of authorship is the fact that when the newsletters first became an issue during his congressional race in 1996 Paul did not deny he had knowledge of them, he defended them as his writing and said the quotes were taken out of context:

• May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News reported "Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal." He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, todat defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context."It's typical political demagoguery" [...] Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

• May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...] Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."  A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

• May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: "Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

• May 26, 1996 Washington Post: Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

So the question remains, is Ron Paul a racist who is lying about not writing or even reading the newsletters he defended just a few years earlier? Or was he lying when he defended them even though he never read them?Understand if Ron Paul never read the newsletter it means that he was so incompetent in running his little newsletter company that he never even bothered to read what was printed in his name.  And when he was first confronted about them, he defended the newsletters he never read, which would make him very foolish and reminds me of a certain president who sat in a racist church for 20 year and never once heard the sermon of his bigoted preacher.

In the end it doesn't matter whether Ron Paul is a bigot and liar, or a liar and incompetent fool, either way you go,  this man should never be considered a realistic candidate for President of the United States.

The Double Dip Recession Has Begun But Obama's Still Fiddling

Two months ago Peter Yastrow who according to CNBC is the “world’s largest LIBOR trader,” (equities, currencies, and interest rates) made a startling prediction

Yastrow,  said he is seeing ‘near panic’ with investors unwilling to punt on unpredictable commodities.

‘Interest rates are amazingly low,’ he told CNBC. ‘We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The (Federal Reserve) knows it.’

One fund manager said 'almost every bit of data about the health of the U.S. economy has disappointed expectations recently.

While it is still unclear whether Yastrow's prediction is correct, it is clear that we have already sunk into, or at least at the brink of the second  downturn of a double-dip recession. Just take a look at the latest evidence:

• Jobs: last month unemployment rose from 9.1 to 9.2% and there is every indication that the July number released on Friday will show another rise. A Rasmussen survey of managers released today predicts layoffs are about to rise and hiring, fall.

• Consumer Income/Spending: The Dept. of commerce released the news today that consumer spending dropped 0.2 percent in June,  first decline since September 2009.Incomes rose 0.1 percent, the smallest gain since September 2010. People who are working are pocketing more of their paychecks. The personal savings rate rose to 5.4 percent of after-tax incomes, the highest level since August 2010.

• Durable Goods:Consumer spending on durable goods, a good cyclical indicator, has been falling since the end of first quarter. The main reason is the slowing pace of income increases and high level of job insecurity. 

• Manufacturing: The Institute for Supply Management, a purchasing managers group, said Monday its manufacturing index fell to 50.9 in July, down 4.4 points from June. It marked the sector's slowest growth since July 2009. Economists immediately called it "shockingly weak," "disappointing" and "not encouraging." 

• Confidence:Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis is now 64.3, just half a point above the lowest levels of the past two years and down ten points from three months ago.  The Investor Index, which measures the economic confidence of investors on a daily basis sits at 68.9, down 17 points from three months ago.

All this is on top of the surprising news announced at the end of last week, the Gross domestic product, the best indicator of the country's  overall economic health rose at a paltry annual rate of 1.3% in the second quarter according to the  Commerce Department said, that number is likely to be revised downward. At the same time the first quarter results were downgraded from 1.9% to an almost nonexistent 0.4%. All of this indicates that the "recovery" we began to see at the end of 2010 has run out of steam.

Put it all together it seems as if our economy is in dire straights.

Today as he announced the passage of the debt ceiling compromise the President spoke about his plans for turning the economy around, an impotent mix of patent reform, maintaining tax rates for what he defines as the "middle class" and loans for construction work that will cost up to 20% more than necessary because of Obama's executive order about only using union shops or shops that give union benefits.

Once again the President is fiddling while the economy burns. Its time for Obama to cast aside his partisan political agenda and do what is necessary to help the economy.  Firstly he has to open up America's vast oil resources for drilling. This will not only put hundreds of thousands of American's to work, but it will lower energy costs freeing up both consumer and industrial money for investment.  Secondly its time to lower America's corporate tax rate, the second highest in the world. Lowing rates will encourage more businesses to remain in and invest in the United States also resulting in job growth.

Sadly that is not likely to happen under the Progressive leadership of Barack Obama.  The only possible good news coming out of the latest economic reports is the "class warfare" approach is likely to end soon.  Not because of any change of heart by the President, but because the ruined economy will leave everyone in the same, poor class.