YID With LID

Max Baucus Denies Being Blotto on Senate Floor. Take Poll and Tell Us What You Think

2009-12-28T19:15:00.003-05:00

Yesterday we posted the video below, of Senator Max Baucus is making a weird rant on the Senate Floor. The Montana Senator is slurring his words and it seems as if he delivered this impassioned speech on the Senate floor a bit "Pickled."

If you you can't see the video click here

Today, Tyler Matsdorf, spokesman for the Baucus, released the following denial:

"When his friend of 30 years Ted Kennedy, with whom he had fought so hard to provide health care to children, was being used as a cheap foil to oppose health care reform, Senator Baucus gave a passionate defense. Unfortunately, those who want to kill any meaningful reform, turned it into an unfounded, untrue personal smear internet rumor. This is beyond the pale and this type of gutter politics has no place in the public sphere. It is this type of slander that makes Montanans, and Americans, disgusted with the politics as usual in Washington. And what is even more sad is that such a personal attack would be given any validity at all, let alone being elevated to the status of "news".

On Sunday, former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) wrote "breathalyser for members of congress"on his Facebook wall, along with a video clip of the Baucus speech from YouTube entitled "Senator Max Baucus Drunk / Intoxicated on Senate Floor - Shouts Down Wicker."

After his initial posting about Baucus, Foley updated his wall with: "This is the senator that hired his staffer and then took her on trips . . . and divorced his wife . . . and they had me run out of town". On Monday, Foley added: "My facebook page just hit the top of Drudge (Report)."

"DRUNK WITH POWER? TOP DEM SLURS ON SENATE FLOOR ..." reads the Drudge Report headline.

Newsbusters.org wrote"How can one explain this incredibly bizarre performance by Max Baucus on the Senate floor? Was Baucus so intoxicated by the sound of his own voice that he went off the deep end? Or perhaps he was so drunk with power over shaping the Senate health care bill that it explains his strange rant."

Was Baucus drunk? I wasn't there to smell his breath. Some are defending the Senator saying he usually slurs his words. But that doesn't cover the fact that is oratory is sometimes rambling and incoherent. The SF Chronicle Blogger Zennie Abraham vehemently says, the fact is that Max Baucus was not drunk and correct in his attack against Republicans who did not break ranks to join Democrats in backing Health Care Reform.

Senator Max Baucus (D - Montana) had launched a spirited debate against Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker on Heath Care Reform. In the process, his tired, angry, articulate tirade was such that online Conservatives activists elected to make a charge that Max Baucus was drunk.

If I had to bet money, I would hope that the Senator had a designated driver take him home that day, he sure looks drunk. But what do you think? On the left hand column is a poll, check the box you prefer, was Max Baucus Drunk on the Senate Floor?

Planners of Attempted Northwest Air Christmas Bombing Were RELEASED FROM GITMO

2009-12-28T17:48:00.022-05:00

Finally something that Barak Obama can legitimately blame on George Bush. ABC is reporting that two of the four leaders who planned the attempted bombing of Northwest flight 253 over Detroit were former residents of the Guantanamo Bay prison. They were released in November of 2007, into the hands of Saudi Arabia who claimed the terrorists could be cured via art therapy (I swear I am not making this up). The Video at the end of this post is a 60 Minutes report on the Saudi rehabilitation program which includes "Art Therapy:"

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.

Gee Art therapy, I wonder if Osama bin Laden posts their finger paints on the fridge like any proud parent. The 60 minutes report says the art therapy gives the terrorists a chance to get in touch with their feelings.

And then there's art therapy - a surprisingly modern concept introduced by Dr. Awad al Yami into a very conservative society. Dr. Awad says art gives his students a chance to express feelings they're not ready to talk about.

The feelings these guys should be feeling is a hangman's noose around their necks.

Both Saudi nationals have since emerged in leadership roles in Yemen, according to U.S. officials and the men's own statements on al Qaeda propaganda tapes.

Both of the former Guantanamo detainees are described as military commanders and appear on a January, 2009 video along with the man described as the top leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Abu Basir Naser al-Wahishi, formerly Osama bin Laden's personal secretary.

In its Monday statement claiming responsibility for the Northwest bombing, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a "hero" and a "martyr" and lauded him for beating U.S. intelligence.

The two-page written claim included a photo of Abdulmutallab and boasted of Al Qaeda's success in designing "advanced explosive packages" that can pass through airport screening undetected.

True they are undetected but they can be real ball-busters.

The statement also asks for attacks upon Americans in the Arabian peninsula, and promises further attacks on the American people.

The suspected bomber, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told FBI agents he was trained for his Christmas Day mission in Yemen by top leaders of al Qaeda who provided him with the explosive materials.

"The so-called rehabilitation programs are a joke," a U.S. diplomat said in describing the Saudi efforts with released Guantanamo detainees.

Saudi officials concede its program has had its "failures" but insist that, overall, the effort has helped return potential terrorists to a meaningful life.

One program gives the former detainees paints and crayons as part of the rehabilitation regimen.

A similar rehabilitation program in Yemen was stopped because so many of the detainees quickly joined with al Qaeda or its affiliates, the official said.

Truth is the revelation that these guys came from Guantanamo bay should serve as a warning to the Obama administration which is release some of the Gitmo prison before he moves the rest onto the American mainland.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

American Thinker:Jimmy Carter's Fake Apology

2009-12-28T17:24:00.000-05:00

Once the Camp David accords fell into Jimmy Carter's lap (Begin and Sadat brought Carter into the negotiations), the Peanut President turned against the Jews and the Jewish State.

"During the difficult negotiations between Egypt and Israel, Carter and his advisers tried to get Sadat to engage in a collusive scheme: They would encourage Sadat to make "deliberately exaggerated" demands. The White House would then intervene to "compel" Cairo to scale back its demands in exchange for Israeli concessions. Then-national security advisor Brzezinski explained that Washington would "apply maximum leverage on Israel to accommodate, by keeping the West Bank's political future on the table for future negotiations. That Carter risked possible Israeli-Egyptian peace in an effort to extract greater concessions from Begin underscores the tension in their relationship." Source

Carter has spent his post-Camp David life demonizing Israel and bashing the Jewish people and excusing Palestinian terrorism, the worst of which was seen in his 21st book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In this book Carter allows his anti-Israel ideology get in the way of facts. It contains serious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his goals, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions. He describes Israelis as racists and war-mongering aggressors; Hamas as moderates forced to commits acts of terror, and American Jews as manipulators of American Foreign Policy.

Please Go To American Thinker and Read the Rest

Nicolas Sarkozy Sees President Obama as An Indecisive Weakling

2009-12-28T14:30:00.001-05:00

Remember all those polls during the Presidential Campaign, how Europe desperately wanted Barack Obama to win. How the European leadership fawned fought for the attention of then Senator Obama when he made his summer tour tour around the world? President Obama promised that was that he was going to "repair" our relationship with Europe (as if they needed to be repaired) after years of that "cowboy" George "W" Bush.

Ever since he was inaugurated, President Obama has done his best to diss our allies in Europe. There was that famous "non joint press conference" when Gordon Brown came to visit, refusing Nicolas Sarkozy offer to share a meal when Obama was a guest in the country and his economic battles with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Last week the German magazine Der Spiegel wrote an article wondering if Merkel and Obama were frienemies.

Almost one year into the Obama Presidency, our "relationship repairer-in-chief" has done more to increase the divide between Europe and the US than to bring us together. For the first time in decades France has a Pro-US President, but our relationship with France has regressed because their President sees Barack Obama as weak and indecisive:

Sarkozy cool on relationship with ObamaBy Ben Hall in Paris

Published: December 27 2009 18:02 | Last updated: December 27 2009 18:02

Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American president of France for half a century, has gone cold on Barack Obama, the most popular American leader in France in generations.

A year ago Mr Sarkozy was engaged in a tussle among European leaders anxious to be the first to secure a meeting with the freshly elected Mr Obama. Mr Sarkozy described Mr Obama as “my friend” after meeting him just once as a senator.

But the French president has since clashed with his US counterpart on a series of issues, raising the question of whether Mr Sarkozy is reverting to the more Gaullist, anti-American posture of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.

“He has now shifted from a pro-Bush position to an anti-Obama position,” said Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, international affairs spokesman for the opposition Socialists. “Neither France nor the western world have anything to gain from Barack Obama’s failure. It seems as if the president is betting on this failure, which isolates France in Europe.”

The French government has refused a US request to send more fighting troops to Afghanistan, while several other European allies are planning to do so.

Mr Sarkozy has expressed his frustration at the White House’s perceived equivocation over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the priority that Mr Obama attaches to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Mr Sarkozy’s frustration boiled over in September in a remarkably barbed speech to the UN General Assembly.

“We are right to talk about the future but before the future there is the present, and the present is two major nuclear crises,” Mr Sarkozy said, alluding to Iran and North Korea. “We are living in a real world, not a virtual world,” he added, in a clear dig at Mr Obama’s disarmament ambitions.

Policy differences have been compounded by friction over choreography and symbolism. The Elysée still smarts at Mr Obama’s visit to France in June for the commemoration of the D-Day landings, when he declined an additional bilateral event with Mr Sarkozy.

The French press often publishes Mr Sarkozy’s unflattering comments about Mr Obama’s lack of prior government experience, his alleged difficulty in reaching decisions or his domestic electoral setbacks.

Personality differences also count. Mr Sarkozy is intuitive, impulsive and direct while French officials consider Mr Obama “reserved”.

The main acts of France’s rapprochement with Washington – a tougher line on Iran and a promise to rejoin Nato’s military command structure – came before Mr Obama. But Elysée officials warn against observing the relationship through the prism of personalities.

“Many of the comments that we read here and there reflect differences of temperament rather than fundamental differences,” said a senior official. “On the fundamentals we are much closer to President Obama than we were to President Bush.”

On financial regulation, climate change, global governance, or even Iran, the positions of Paris and Washington have converged, the official said.

Like his predecessor, Mr Sarkozy plays up differences with the US for domestic purposes. But there is a crucial difference. Whereas Mr Chirac’s stance towards the US was determined by suspicion of US power, current French frustration is aimed at Washington’s hesitancy or even weakness.

“The paradox of the situation is that in terms of the relationship with the US, he can do a Chirac in that he can criticise the Americans but he can do it from a position that is 180 degrees different from Chirac,” said François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research, a Paris-based think tank.

“He can play to a habitual anti-American standpoint but not from a position that is fundamentally anti-American.”

Fear and Loathing In the OTHER Jewish Ancestral Homeland

2009-12-28T12:54:00.003-05:00

In New York State when a Jew reaches the ripe old age age of 65 they must move to Florida--it’s the LAW!! OK maybe its not the law, its only a tradition, but the fact is that many east coast Jews move to Florida when they retire, I am not old enough to understand why, for me an old-age move to southern Florida is like going to God's waiting room. But you cant escape the fact that many Jewish seniors feel very comfortable picking everything up and moving to the Other Jewish Ancestral Homeland

That feeling of Jews being comfortable in south Florida might change if more people act like Condos begin to act like Town Council member Susan Starkey of the Town of Davie (outside of Ft. Lauderdale).

According to Jeff Rubinoff, the President of the Davie/Cooper City Republican Club (and member of Americans Against Hate), at a holiday party for the group, had a heated discussion with Town of Davie Councilmember Susan Starkey over a Davie street sign that had been given to the American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR was named as an unidicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorist funding case, and has been identified many times over as being involved with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Rubinoff, [before the holiday party] Starkey told him that, until the federal government and the FBI stop working with CAIR, the group would be able to keep its sign. She said that she would only distance herself from CAIR and help to remove the sign, if she saw proof that the FBI had stopped working with CAIR.

So Rubinoff took her bait, he sent her the proof she was asking for, which included numerous reports regarding the FBI’s severing of its ties to CAIR and information showing how leaders in the U.S. Congress have spoken out against CAIR.

As recent as the end of last year, CAIR was named by the U.S. Justice Department a co-conspirator in a federal trial dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas. At the end of the trial, all of the defendants were found guilty on all charges.Starkey, according to Rubinoff, has not responded to the information.

Starkey’s support of the Hamas-associated CAIR may be due to her apparent disdain for the Jewish community. According to Rubinoff, during Starkey’s talk with him, the conversation quickly deteriorated into an anti-Semitic rant, where Starkey charged that “Jews are trying to convert everyone.”

Besides being an attempted slur it is not true. Jews not only don't proselytize but we try to discourage conversion.

Americans Against Hate (AAH) Chairman Joe Kaufman stated, “Councilwoman Starkey’s feelings are obviously blinding her judgment with regard to the security of the citizens whom she was voted into office to protect. She should apologize to the Jewish community for her hurtful statement, and she should apologize to the entire community for allowing a group connected to terrorism to have a street sign in its name.”

Maybe Ms Starkey should spend a few months in Sderot, so she can understand the good work of CAIR and its parent organization Hamas, before she rushes to use hateful statements to protect CAIR's aims.

Must See Video: Senator Baucus Healthcare Rant Either Piss-Drunk or Channeling Ted Kennedy

2009-12-27T20:38:00.002-05:00

To appear on the stage drunk, to have them leave there and remember me making drunken mistakes, that was death--Sammy Davis, Jr.

In the video below, Senator Max Baucus is making a weird rant on the Senate Floor. The Montana Senator is slurring his words and it seems as if he his having problems standing up strait. Lets face it the guy is either "sh*t-faced," honoring the late Senator Ted Kennedy with an Imitation of being drunk, or maybe looking for an excuse for when he faces the voters of Montana and they ask why he voted for such an awful bill. "I don't know, I was really drunk at the time."

If you you can't see the video click here

I can't tell you if this was a one-time occurrence for Max Baucus or something that happens very often. I can tell you that it will be a miracle if you ever see it in the main stream media. It does explain how anyone could seriously vote for Obamacare.

Allahpundit has more at Hot Air

Video h/t Long Island Examiner

Dems to POTUS: PLEASE-No Cap and Trade Till After Mid-Term Elections

2009-12-27T19:30:00.001-05:00

One of Europe's solutions to the perceived global warming threat is trying to regulate carbon emissions through Carbon Credits The way it works is the government sets a or cap on the total amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of credits. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

President Obama wants to bring Cap and Trade to the United States. The Democratic Party dominated Congressional Budget Office took a look what Cap and Trade would do for this country, and they reported it hurt the poor and middle Class in America. Senator Inhofe says it will be the largest Tax Increase in American History.

You top that tax info with the fact that there continues to be a rush of information disputing the globalwarming claims. All of this cap and trade nonsense going through congress seems as if it has no environmental purpose.

President Obama's progressive lap dogs, are starting to get worried about going through a cap and trade battle next year forcing them to ignore the public on another issue, right after the healthcare battle and right before the 2010 Election:

Democrats pose threat to President Obama’s cap-and-trade climate Bill
Giles Whittell in Washington

Less than ten days after claiming a breakthrough on climate change in Copenhagen President Obama is facing a mutiny from senior Democrats who are imploring him to postpone or even abandon his cap-and-trade Bill.

Democratic Senators, fearful of a drubbing in the mid-term elections next year, are lining up to argue for alternatives to the scheme that is the centrepiece of the carbon reduction proposals that Mr Obama hopes to sign into law. With the Congressional battles over Mr Obama’s healthcare reforms fresh in their memory senior Democrats are asking the Administration to postpone the next big climate change push until at least 2011.

Senators from Louisiana, Indiana, Nebraska and North Dakota, some with powerful energy companies among their constituents, are falling out of love with the idea of a large-scale cap-and-trade scheme — which seeks to allocate tradeable permits to major polluters — in favour of less ambitious proposals that put jobs and the economy first.

Each of their Senate votes is vital for any climate change Bill to have a chance of being passed, and a firm American commitment to cap and trade is essential for similar carbon reduction mechanisms to be effective on a global scale.

Asked if she has urged the White House to abandon cap and trade — at least until after the mid-terms — Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana told the Politico website yesterday: “I am communicating that in every way I know how.”

At least five other high-ranking Democrats have lobbied the Administration in similar terms. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said that winning passage of climate change legislation in an election year had “very poor prospects”, and Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska said that he would “just as soon see [climate change] set aside until we work through the economy”.

Even more significant — as indicators of the majority party’s resolve to pass climate change legislation in the face of almost unanimous Republican opposition — were remarks from Dick Durbin, the Senate Majority Whip, and John Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator who is in the process of drafting a climate change Bill favoured by the White House.

“At this point, I’d like to see a complete Bill but we have to be realistic,” Senator Durbin said. Senator Kerry, speaking at the Copenhagen climate conference this month, said: “I can’t tell you the method or the means by which we might price carbon. We haven’t resolved that issue yet.”

Proponents of cap and trade argue that allowing polluters to trade carbon permits gives them a powerful incentive to emit less than the maximum imposed by the cap — and ensures that these emission reductions are achieved by the most cost-effective means available, whether by investing in new, clean technology at home, or in offsetting schemes in developing economies where greater reductions can be achieved per dollar spent.

Critics of the system point to teething problems in the European pilot scheme, begun under the auspices of the Kyoto Protocol, when the price of carbon collapsed because of excessive free allocations of carbon permits to big, politically connected polluters such as the power generation industry.

Mr Obama has been a personal convert to cap and trade since witnessing the success of a scheme limited to the control of sulphur dioxide emissions in the 1990s. The creation of a market in tradeable sulphur dioxide permits cut emissions of the gas so swiftly that the acid rain it produces has disappeared from the Midwest as a serious environmental issue.

Congress will return from its winter break with healthcare reform unfinished, Democrats wary of any new proposals that can be presented as a further burden on the economy and Republicans eager to depict cap and trade as just such a burden.

The official position of the White House remains that “a cap-and-trade mechanism is the best way to achieve the most cost-effective reductions” — but it is not yet embedded firmly in the Senate Bill being drafted by Senators Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman.

That Bill is one of nine competing proposals before the Senate and while most Democrats can be relied on to support it, a half-dozen defectors would leave the party short of the 60-vote majority that they need to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Senator Graham, a Republican, has said that he believes others from his party can be won over. If so, they have gone to ground.

Senator John McCain, once a vocal supporter of cap and trade, now wants huge federal backing for the nuclear industry in return for his vote. Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska has called the scheme “a death sentence” for farming.

Mr Obama put his political prestige on the line in Copenhagen to reach agreement on a pact to curb carbon emissions while trying to shore up his domestic flank amid rising scepticism about a new climate Bill in the US.

He declined to offer new sweeteners to get a deal, rebuked China’s reluctance to allow outside scrutiny of action on greenhouse-gas emissions and warned developing states that they could forget aid that had no strings attached.

Lobbyists count the cost of power

Senator Mary Landrieu (Dem — Louisiana)

Louisiana is a large oil and gas state and Ms Landrieu has fought hard for energy interests during her 12 years in the Senate. She was listed as one of a “Dirty Dozen” legislators by the League of Conservation Voters and was described in a local newspaper as “the most fervent pro-drilling Democrat in the Senate”.

About 14 per cent of crude oil that is imported by the US comes through the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, a deepwater facility off the state’s coast

Senator Kent Conrad (Dem — N Dakota)

North Dakota is a leading coal state, with coal-fired power stations providing about 93 per cent of its energy production. Large oil reserves were discovered in the state in the 1950s. Much of the state’s economy is also based on agricultural production — a sector that would be hit particularly hard by an increase in the price of fossil fuels. Mr Conrad has poor environmental credentials. He voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act and called for an increase in oil and gas drilling

Senator Ben Nelson (Dem — Nebraska)

Nebraska has more than 47,000 farms, and is an important agriculture state. Mr Nelson sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee and has in the past vigorously defended the interests of farmers, arguing that climate change legislation would drive up the cost of electricity and damage the agriculture sector.

He said: “Every farm-state senator is aware of what the cap-and-trade proposals could do to their agriculture base.”

Sources: Grist; US Department of Agriculture

The Ball-Burning Bomb in Boxers and Stupid Homeland Security Tricks

2009-12-27T16:55:00.001-05:00

Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano either doesn't get it, or is dumber than toast. Today President Obama's choice to protect us from terrorism appeared on CNN and proved that she does not belong in her position.

Napolitano, said it was too early to speculate on the claims of Al Qaeda connections made by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian held in connection with the incident. After his arrest in Detroit, Abdulmutallab said he had obtained a specialized explosive chemical compound and a syringe sewn into his underwear from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with the terror network, according to authorities. Napolitano said that "right now we have no indication that it is part of anything larger." All this seems pretty reasonable, but then she started going off the deep end.

Napolitano said the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was on a broad security watch list that contains "half a million" names and is shared with airlines and foreign security agencies. However, a lack of specific evidence prevented him from being classified as a greater security risk that would bar him from travel to the United States, she said."You need information that is specific and credible if you're going to bar people from air travel," Napolitano said.

You mean something specific and credible, like the terrorists father showing up at the US Embassy to warn that his son is a terrorist and up to no good? Something like that?

But Napolitano save the best for last. The DHS Secretary said that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up the Amsterdam-Detroit flight this week demonstrated that “the system worked.” HUH? The only thing that saved that flight from lighting up the Detroit Sky is the terrorist's fuse didn't work.

But as for the "System"? The guy remained on the watch list but wasn't put on the no fly list even though the guy's father tried to turn him in. Even though he was on a watch list he was given a visa to come into the country.

Maybe its time that the Secretary of Homeland Security and her boss to get serious about our fight against Islamist terror.

Congressman Peter King, who but for a few blocs would be my Rep instead of the Progressive lap dog Steve Israel appeared on Meet the Press and disagreed with the Napolitano:

“The fact is the system did not work, and we have to find a bipartisan way to fix it. He made it on the plane with explosives and detonated the explosive," King said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "If that had been successful, the plane would have come down and we would have had a Christmas Day massacre with almost 300 people murdered."

King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, also said that the Obama administration hasn’t done enough in raising awareness of the risks of Islamic terrorism – a point echoed by his House Republican colleague, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“It’s important for the president or the secretary to be more out there and reminding people just how real this threat was and how deadly it is," Kind said. "For the first three months of this administration, they refused to use the word terrorism."

“This is a teaching moment," he went on. " believe he or the secretary or the vice president or the attorney general should be out there reminding the American people that this shows how deadly this enemy is, this shows how real this threat is, and how we have to do whatever we can to protect the American people.”

Maybe the first teaching moment should be for the Secretary Of Homeland Security to lose her job before more Americans lose their heads.

Haveil Havalim #249--the Israeli Blogger's/Welcome 2010 edition

2009-12-27T15:50:00.000-05:00

The latest in the Jewish Blogisphere can be found here

http://illcallbaila.blogspot.com/2009/12/haveil-havalim-249-israeli.html

Christmas Day Northwest Air's Boxer Bomber's Weapon Was Nothing More Than a Ball Buster

2009-12-27T01:05:00.033-05:00

If anybody needed more proof that Islamist terrorists are too far gone for free nations to even attempt to reach out to, the unsuccessful Christmas attack on the Northwest Air flight to Detroit should provide all the proof they need. Lets face it, blowing up an Airplane is a sick depraved act, wearing boxers filled with the explosive components brings that sickness to a entirely new level. But that's what Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab did yesterday, he strapped that bomb on top of his privates and if he did a better job with the detonator, that plane would have exploded. While Abdulmutallab is a failure, it could have been much worse, had the fused worked properly many people would have died. But thankfully, the boxer bomber's weapon turned out to be nothing but a ball buster.

Chaos erupted as alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, 23, tried to set off a sophisticated explosive device strapped to his body, on the Christmas Day Northwest flight to Detroit

"Suddenly, we hear a bang. It sounded like a firecracker went off," said Jasper Schuringa, a film director who was traveling to the US to visit friends.

"When [it] went off, everybody panicked ... Then someone screamed, ‘Fire! Fire!’"

Schuringa, sitting in seat 20J, in the right-most section of the Airbus 330, looked to his left. "I saw smoke rising from a seat ... I didn’t hesitate. I just jumped," he said.

Schuringa dove over four passengers to reach Abdul Mutallab’s seat. The suspect had a blanket on his lap. "It was smoking and there were flames coming from beneath his legs."

"I searched on his body parts and he had his pants open. He had something strapped to his legs."

The unassuming hero ripped the flaming, molten object — which resembled a small, white shampoo bottle — off Abdul Mutallab’s left leg, near his crotch. He said he put out the fire with his bare hands.

Schuringa yelled for water, and members of the flight crew soon appeared with fire extinguishers. Then, he said, he hauled the suspect out of the seat.

"I took him in a choke to the first class and all the people were like, ‘What’s going on?!"

Nigerian attacker had syringe sewn into his underwear: NYT December 27th, 2009 - 11:56 am ICT by IANS

Washington, Dec 27 (IANS) A 23-year-old Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day claims he obtained explosive chemicals and a syringe that were sewn into his underwear from a bomb expert in Yemen associated with Al Qaeda.

Federal authorities have not independently corroborated the Yemen connection claimed by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was burned in his failed attempt to bring down the airliner, the New York Times reported Saturday.But the influential US daily cited a law enforcement official briefed on the investigation as saying that the suspect’s account was “plausible. I see no reason to discount it.”

US District Judge Paul Borman read the suspect, who comes from a prominent Nigerian family, his charges in a room at the University of Michigan Medical Centre in Ann Arbor, where he is being treated for burns. Abdulmutallab was asked if he understood the charges against him, and he answered in English that he did. Witnesses cited by media reports said he was in a wheelchair with a blanket over his lap.

In an affidavit filed in support of the criminal charges, the authorities said that the Abdulmutallab, had tried to ignite the device, which was attached to his body, resulting “in a fire and what appears to have been an explosion.”

The affidavit said the device contained PETN, also known as pentaerythritol, a highly explosive substance that was used in 2001 by Richard C. Reid, the so-called shoe bomber whose attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight was also thwarted.

Officials cited by the Times said analysis of the remnants of Abdulmutallab’ s device was being carried out by the FBI laboratory, but it was possible that had the chemical mixture detonated, it might have brought down the aircraft.

Abdulmutallab told FBI agents he was connected to the Al Qaeda affiliate, which operates largely in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, by a radical Yemeni cleric whom he contacted via the Web.

In Memory of Yitzhak Aharonowitz-The Story of His 1947 Ship "The Exodus"

2009-12-26T22:41:00.002-05:00

This week Yitzhak Aharonowitz Captain of the Exodus passed away. As a tribute to this hero, below is real story of the the Famous Voyage (which is much different from the movie).

With the White Paper of 1939 the British caved into Arab pressure (that would never happen now--would it?) and severely limited the number of Jews that could enter what was then called Palestine.

During WW II it meant that they were causing the death of hundreds of thousands of Jews who could have escaped the Holocaust, had they a place that would take them in. After the Holocaust, many of Hitler's victims were trying to get in to the Holy Land. The British in their infinite wisdom threw these refugees back into camps this time on Cyprus.

Boris Agulnik was one of those refugees, he ended up on a ship called, The Exodus.

Boris Agulnik says that in 1947, after months of travel by train, foot and cart, his family made its way from the Russia-China border to Poking Pine City, the second largest German DP camp after Belsen. Their plan was to reach Palestine. "There, my sister Yudit was born and… I finally had my brit mila, at age three. There was no anesthetic and they said I screamed in Russian, 'Mommy, mommy it's painful.' Afterwards, I'm told, I used to proudly go around and boast, 'Now I am a Jew and I am going to Israel.'"

Few immigrants to Israel can claim that the story of how they arrived entailed a lengthy sea journey that was chronicled in daily newspapers around the world. How many have kept the El Al tickets from their aliya flight? But Agulnik proudly shows Metro his Exodus boarding pass.

While still in the camp, Agulnik senior was approached by the Hagana. Having been a battle-hardened colonel in the Soviet army, he was needed in Palestine. The family boarded a truck that was part of a convoy bound for Sete, a port near Marseilles. From there, they would be joined by other Holocaust survivors and displaced persons and would board the President Warfield, bound for Palestine.

"At the German-French border we were told to get out of the trucks and cross by foot. Scared that they would not allow us through with a three-month-old baby, my mother hid little Yudit in a box and left her on the truck. At the other side, after [the] nerve-wracking process at passport control, my anguished mother rummaged through the boxes until she found my sister, who was crying from hunger and fear," Agulnik recalls. "One of the French soldiers noticed the commotion, but when he saw [my mother] breastfeeding Yudit, he tactfully looked away."

"Looking away," however, was something the British refused to do. After setting sail on July 11, the President Warfield soon had company. The British Royal Navy began tailing the vessel, despite its Columbian flag. Soon, there was little point in pretense. The destination was Palestine, and the ship - under the command of young American Yitzhak Aharonowitz and his mainly American crew of Jewish ex-servicemen - was ready to convey a message to the world.

One can imagine the outcry after the ship's real name was revealed in bold lettering: EXODUS. If any on board the British ship failed to understand the reference, they would have understood the unfolding drama when the Columbian flag was lowered and the Israeli one raised. The course of not only a ship, but a whole nation, was at stake.

"What was different about the Exodus," explains Agulnik, "was the massive number of passengers on board. Generally, the ships that had been bringing in illegal immigrants before were relatively small, carrying at the most a few hundred passengers. With over 4,500 on our vessel, the Hagana had upped the ante. The stakes were high!"

The British government, which wanted this evolving drama to reach a finale of its own choosing, ordered its Navy to hijack the ship.

"One of the destroyers came alongside and called over the loudspeaker to our captain, ordering him to sail for Haifa," relates Agulnik's father, Boris, a resident of Haifa. "As time passed, they could see that the Exodus was not changing course. The instructions from the Hagana were to sail directly to Tel Aviv, as far [as possible] from the British naval base at Haifa. Then the British made their move."

Some 40 kilometers offshore and outside the jurisdiction of Palestine, the British destroyers surrounded the Exodus - one even ramming into it. They forced their way on board the Jewish vessel, caring little for the 655 children on board, many of whom were war orphans. Challenged by the Exodus's passengers and crew, a fight broke out in which three shipmates, including first mate William Bernstein - a US sailor from San Francisco - were killed.

"The British had truncheons and were bludgeoning left, right and center. What did we have to fight with?" sighs Boris, "Our bare fists - and some hopelessly fought with tin cans. Yitzhak, our captain, lost his finger."

In the end, the British took control of the ship and towed their battered- and-bruised prize into Haifa port. Little did the Mandate Authority realize that they were creating the images that would swing the world's sympathy toward the Jewish people.

Ruth Gruber, an American journalist, was waiting on the wharf as the Exodus limped into harbor. In a dispatch, she described her first impressions: "In the torn, square hole, as big as an open, blitzed barn, we could see a muddle of bedding, possessions, plumbing, broken pipes, overflowing toilets, half-naked men, women looking for children. Cabins were bashed in; railings were ripped off and lifesaving rafts were dangling at crazy angles."

The rafts must have been hanging very precariously, because one of them dislodged and drifted over to another ship, the Drom Afrika, which had left Cape Town three months earlier carrying seven young Jewish men trying to reach Palestine. Metro spoke to Issy (Greenberg) Granot, a retired architect, who was on board that day and helped lift the Exodus's errant life raft onto the deck of the Drom Afrika - a former mine-sweeping vessel that had been converted into a fishing trawler in an attempt to fool the British.

"As we sailed into Haifa, we saw the Exodus being towed into port. We watched as the Holocaust survivors on board were transferred onto three British ships. That night, Haifa Port was alive with activity," Granot recalls. He describes how police patrolled the harbor, dropping depth charges to scare off the Jewish frogmen who were working to sabotage the British ships.

But the British had no intention of sending the Exodus passengers to Cyprus. "They wanted to make an example and humiliate us. What better way than by sending us back to Europe?" Agulnik asks. Exhausted from the sea journey as well as the battle on board, all 4,515 passengers were transferred to three freighters converted into prison ships - The Empire Rival, The Ocean Vigor and The Runnymede Park.

Not only reporters, but also some members of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) witnessed the events in Haifa Port. They later said that what they saw influenced them to press for an immediate solution to Jewish immigration and the question of Palestine.

The next day, the three ships left. The Agulnik family was crammed into the belly of The Empire Rival. Boris describes the conditions on board. "We lay crammed together in the bare hold of the freighter and the food was inedible. Nevertheless, under the command of the Hagana, we began to build an organization. It was decided that all passengers were to remain on board and not disembark when we arrived in France. We were repeatedly encouraged to resist [the British]. Even little Eli went all out to make a nuisance of himself. He used to climb all over the place, particularly on top of the makeshift toilets on the deck, and scream, 'Englander, I'm here. Now come pull me down.'"

But the Hagana members who had slipped on board disguised as refugees were plotting other acts of resistance - some more serious than others. "No sooner were we out at sea, when one of them climbed the mast and removed the Union Jack, replacing it with the Star of David. If they could, they would have lynched the fellow. In the end, they released him, never suspecting that he was a Hagana plant."

"What we later found out was that the three Hagana chaps had brought a bomb on board. Unfortunately, they had no timer, so they drew lots as to who would sacrifice himself should they decide to use [it]," Boris adds.

When the ships arrived at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles on August 2, the emigrants refused to disembark. The French refused to cooperate with the British attempts to force them off the ship. "So the British Consul came on board and tried 'friendly' persuasion. If we voluntarily left, they'd arrange French papers for us, find work and so on. People were booing and screaming. Someone shouted, 'We know all about British promises,'" Boris relates. He says the scene reached a head when a passenger showed the consul a plate of that day's food. "You call this food. Look at it. Can you tell the worms apart from the spaghetti?" he asked the official, who left in a huff.

Following a hunger strike by the passengers, the ships were ordered to proceed to the British-controlled sector of Germany. Boris reveals that he had been told that the Hagana managed to smuggle a clock on board to use as a timer for their bomb. The plan dictated that if the Jews were ever forced to leave the ship, the Hagana would detonate it once all were safely off. The plan was executed when the ship reached Hamburg and all the refugees were finally forced off the ship into DP camps.

"The British suspected something and conducted a search of The Empire Rival. We heard afterwards that they found the bomb in the engine room, removed it, and placed it on a small dingy with the aim of dropping it somewhere safe in the sea. Reports filtered back that the bomb exploded, killing all the British personnel," Boris relates.

One day, David Ben-Gurion visited the camp. "After he addressed the people, I introduced myself and we spoke in Russian," says Boris, who at that time knew no Hebrew. "BG spoke with such vigor. He assured me, 'Don't worry. There will very soon be a Jewish State, and you, the passengers of the Exodus will become its honorary citizens.'"

Eventually, in 1948, the Agulnik family returned - but not to Palestine, rather to Israel. The captain of their ship was Yitzhak Aharonowitz, Former Captain of the Exodus.

Yitzhak Aharonowitz's Second Mate was Jack Johnson. In 2007 Johnson and Aharonowitz had a reunion in Israel (In the picture on the left Johnson is on the left and Aharonowitz is on right. Below is an interview with Johnson that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News Published onApril 2, 2007 (available in the paper's Paid archives) where he talks about the voyage of the Exodus and his reunion with Yitzhak Aharonovitch

Alaska sailor lauded by Israelis for 1947 Exodus mission BRANDON LOOMIS ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A young Alaskan named Jack Johnson sailed into history and an Israeli hero's stature in 1947, but never really realized it until he returned to the Mediterranean this winter at age 80.

Johnson, a Seward resident who in December retired from piloting ships around Alaska, had a dizzying youth during World War II and then found himself at the right bar in southern France to help Jews press their case for a homeland. While he was ashore in Marseille after ditching one sailing gig and pursuing a young lady, he said, the Zionist group trying to slip Jewish refugees past a British blockade into Palestine asked him to join their crew.

The Orthodox Russian Christian originally from Kodiak had witnessed the horrors of a Nazi concentration camp, he said last week, and he wanted to help Jews any way he could. He signed on to crew aboard the Exodus, a ship that attempted to move some 4,500 refugees and in so doing is widely credited with evoking the world's sympathy toward formation of Israel.

But the British, who governed Palestine at the time and responded to Arab fears about immigration, turned the refugees back while killing one crew member and two passengers. For all these years Johnson thought his mission was incomplete.

"I figured we failed," Johnson said after returning from a February tour of Israel that he bought at a fundraising auction to help establish a Jewish museum in Anchorage. "We didn't get them in there. I was there and the next thing I knew I was back in Marseilles looking for another ship."...Johnson had been a young sailor involved in shipping arms to the Soviet Union during World War II when his ship was sunk and he was stuck in Archangel, Russia. While waiting to be repatriated, he said, he was inspired to join the Soviet army, in which he served during the liberation of Polish concentration camps. After the war he went back to crewing on freighters, which is how he found himself at Marseilles.

Home in Alaska in 1953, Johnson scarcely thought about the "Exodus" events for decades, though he remained a supporter of Israel.

"Sailors are funny," he said. "You get off one ship and say, 'Maybe we'll see each other again,' but you never do."

Except, 60 years later, he chanced to see the captain with whom he had served for those 12 pivotal days. At the museum fundraiser he bid $18,500 for a guided trip with Anchorage Rabbi Yosef Greenberg, and once they reached Israel they discovered the captain of the Exodus, now 84, still lived outside Haifa. What followed was a joyous reunion covered by the Israeli media, and a hearty round of thank-yous from Israeli parliamentarians and dignitaries including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I couldn't understand it at first," Johnson said. Then those who praised him told him they considered the Exodus ship a crucial point in securing United Nations support for Israel. The Holocaust survivors trying to reach Israel didn't make it immediately, but their plight reached the world.

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot reported the tearful meeting between Johnson and Exodus captain Yitzhak Aharonovitch, though it said Aharonovitch at first didn't recognize his short-time second mate.

"The two sat together for hours," according to the Yediot Acharonot report. "Yitzhak brought out his 'Exodus' album, and they recalled the difficult battle, how they were surprised by the British who attacked them suddenly in the open sea, how they threw potatoes and canned goods at the British and how they tossed the brazen British overboard.

"Yitzhak chain-smoked. He looked excited, and his eyes were twinkling. Johnson's tears flowed."

Johnson said Thursday that he always had wanted to go back to Israel, and that his wife had never been there. His first request to Greenberg was to find the grave of his dead crewmate, beaten by the British boarding party during the riot. To his surprise, a tour guide said he knew Aharonovitch's daughter, and that the 84-year-old captain still lived.

Johnson's treatment in Israel has given him renewed appreciation for the events, he said.

"I'm still kind of amazed, looking back and realizing I was a part of it," Johnson said. "It gives you kind of a strange feeling and strange emotions."

For Rabbi Greenberg, Johnson turned into more than a museum donor. He'll be the subject of an exhibit in the museum, for which organizers hope to break ground next spring. Photos from Johnson's return and information about the 1947 sailing will go into the exhibit.

"We thought it would be a wonderful trip to Israel," Greenberg said. "But what it turned into — the whole Exodus story — was just unbelievable. Something that was to support the museum becomes part of the museum."

Rest in Peace Yitzhak, you are a real Hero

Obama's Big Earmark Lie

2009-12-26T21:26:00.000-05:00

During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who would point out the earmark's requested by other candidates. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama made a brilliant political move when he co-opted John McCain's Earmark Issue. He said he stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.

Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform . And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

But like most of the President's Promises this one comes with an expiration date, within his first few months a president, the President Obama signed a $780+ billion stimulus bill so loaded with earmarks and pork barrel spending that it was affectionately renamed porkulus. He quickly followed up by signing a $410 billion Omnibus bill for 2009 which had upwards of 9,000 earmarks included.

And that was just start. On both sides of the aisle members of Congress are complaining about the President ignoring his earmark pledge:

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said Obama made earmark reform "a very big part of [his] campaign" but still signed this month two massive spending measures that both included approximately $4 billion in earmarks.

Feingold, who broke with his party to oppose both the $447 billion 2010 omnibus spending bill and the $636 billion 2010 Pentagon spending bill, said the president could have used his veto pen to reject the measures and force lawmakers to cut earmark funding.

"We've got to have a fresh start next year, and I've signaled that if they want my vote, they've got to stop just signing onto huge numbers of earmarks," Feingold said.

....Obama also called for cutting earmarks down to their levels in 1994, when they took up less than $8 billion of the federal discretionary budget....

"It's important that we get this done to ensure that the budget process works better, that taxpayers are protected, and that we save billions of dollars that we so desperately need to right our economy and address our fiscal crisis," Obama said in announcing his earmark reform plans in March.

Just wait to see what happens to earmarks if Obamacare gets passed, that's a 2+ trillion dollar earmark opportunity.

So far, only his pledge to increase disclosure of earmarks has been fully honored by Congress.

Both senators and House members listed their earmark requests on their web sites this year. But even that decision was made without much of Obama's input. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said in January they would require that earmark requests be posted online.

Even with the online postings, the requests aren't easily accessed or sorted, and the earmarks actually awarded are still tucked into the text of legislation that usually isn't released until hours before congressional markups on the bills. That makes it makes it difficult for the public to track earmarks and for lawmakers to hold hearings scrutinizing them, which Obama hoped would happen, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"It's almost impossible to have hearings on them because you don't see the bill until they're voting on it," Ellis said.

When he outlined his earmark reforms in March, Obama said, "Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer."

Obama's pledge to subject earmarks for private companies to the competitive bidding process has been adopted by the House but not the Senate. Congress also didn't comply with Obama's request for an "orderly" appropriations process, clearing the bulk of the appropriations measures in its final days before the Christmas break, long after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2010.

Lawmakers who see the earmark process as a waste of taxpayer dollars and the root of potential corruption said Obama and Congress have not instituted real reforms.

The Obamacare debate brought attention to a different kind of earmark, also known as bribery.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said the White House and Democratic leaders use earmarks to "buy off" key votes to pass major legislation. DeMint and other earmark hawks have blasted deals by Senate leaders to give $300 million for disaster aid to Louisiana and $100 million in Medicaid funding to Nebraska in order to win the support of Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on the landmark healthcare reform bill. Though those may not fit Congress's technical definition of earmarks, critics said they accomplish the same sordid goal. "The overt vote-buying using earmarks is now out of control," DeMint said.

Inouye's spokesman, John Bray, noted that earmarks are now subject to "an unprecedented level of transparency." Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, earmark requests have been posted online and earmark awards have been listed in the text of [most] spending bills made available to the public at the same time the legislation is considered in public appropriation subcommittee hearings.

Not that they get stopped, its just now we know about things such as John Murtha's airport project that gets 3 flights per day, or the money going to Charlie Rangel' Center for Public Service, Or Harry Reid's Disney World to Las Vegas train, and Nancy Pelosi's money to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

Obama To Pick Anti-Israel J-Streeter as Envoy to Combat Global Anti-Semitism

2009-12-25T21:54:00.000-05:00

This little Ditty appeared on Laura Rozen's Politico Column Today:

UPDATE: A top candidate seems to be Hannah Rosenthal, former head of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs and former executive director of the Chicago Foundation for Women. She has a track record of involvement in countering anti-Semitism in the international context. Rosenthal, currently community outreach director at a Wisconsin firm, was traveling and could not be immediately reached to comment.

UPDATE II: An administration official said this sounds right, regarding Rosenthal

This is the ultimate cynical move by Obama. Even as the executive director of JPAC, found herself in positions to put down the Israeli government. Maybe this has been exasperated by her feelings that while at JPAC she was avoided by the heads of other Jewish Organizations.

Hannah finally found a place to fit in, Rosenthal is now a member of the advisory council of the sham Pro-Israel organization J-street, formed by George Soros and mentored by President Obama in order to give his administration a false appearance of being pro-Israel.

Rosenthal has accused the Major American Jewish Organizations of not supporting the two state solution, a libelous statement. For example if you search the AIPAC site you can find documents of support of the two-state solution going as far back as their archive allows (2004), but Rosenthal said:

“For too long the ‘pro-Israel’ politics of the Jewish organizational world have lagged far behind the consensus of the people they claim to represent, the majority of whom believe that a negotiated two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest, ”said advisory council member, Hannah Rosenthal, the former executive director of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs. “J Street represents a concrete opportunity for us to bridge that gap; it is a vehicle for expressing the belief shared by the majority of American Jews and Americans alike that to be pro-Israel is to advocate for vigorous American leadership role in bringing peace and real security to the Middle East.

To celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Israel and the birth of J-street Ms Rosenthal wrote an article accusing the American Jewish Community and Israel of not wanting peace, and non progressives as anti-Israel:

Six years ago this week, JCPA was one of many organizations that helped bring thousands of Jews, and hundreds of our friends and allies, to Washington to support Israel at a National Israel Solidarity Rally. It was an historic occasion, and I recall much of that day with fondness and pride. I also recall the many rally attendees who pulled me aside to ask why the word “peace” was so absent from the proceedings. How could we talk security without talking peace? Where were the voices representing the will of the broader American Jewish community? Why were there no speakers giving voice to a pro-Israel vision of a secure Israel living side-by-side in peace with its neighbors?

Throughout this day of speeches and rallying cries, I began to ask myself the same questions: Where was the pro-Israel, pro-peace message? Why was the voice of so many American Jews absent from this rally?

How did we arrive at a place where pro-Israel events had come to be dominated by narrow, ultra-conservative views of what it means to be pro-Israel?

.....As American Jews, we pride ourselves on our liberal values — and rightfully so. For decades, we have heeded the call of tikkun olam — repairing the world — and been leaders on a range of social justice issues, from civil rights to poverty; from the Deep South to Darfur. Recently, we have traveled in the thousands (thanks in great part to the leadership of the JCPA) to the Gulf Coast to help rebuild areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Yet when it comes to Israel, the voices that are heard are so often at odds with these same values.

The progressive voice in our community has been far too quiet on Israel for far too long.

Perhaps out of fear, perhaps out of timidity, we have failed to stand up to those who favor military solutions to political problems or oppose peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts in the name of promoting Israel’s best interests.

Six years after I stood with thousands of other American Jews in Washington in support of Israel, Israel remains mired in conflicts with its neighbors. There is no security. There is no peace. And there is no real political leadership here in the United States that is prepared to change this reality and engage in meaningful and consistent diplomacy.

....To me, this is an ideal moment for a new political movement to emerge, rooted among American Jews who love Israel, to express loudly and forcefully that it is pro-Israel to press for more active American leadership role in bringing peace to the Middle East. That it is in the best interests of Israel for us as American Jews to stand up and say what we believe and reclaim the pro-Israel mantle from those who purport to be pro-Israel, but whose policies and politics are far from it.

Fellow liberal progressive, ADL Chairman Abe Foxman ripped Rosenthal in this op-ed:

An Open Letter To Hannah Rosenthal
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
This article originally appeared in The New York Jewish Week on May 1, 2008

Dear Hannah Rosenthal,

In "Reclaiming The Pro-Israel Mantle" (Opinion, April 25) you reflect on your experience at a National Israel Solidarity Rally in Washington six years ago during your tenure as executive director of the JCPA. You recall a day of speeches in which you heard only the constant drumbeat of "narrow, ultra-conservative views of what it means to be pro-Israel..." You found yourself asking, "Where was the pro-Israel, pro-peace message? Why was the voice of so many American Jews absent from this rally?"

I was also there with you and tens of thousands of other proud American Jews on that uncommonly hot April day in 2002, less than three weeks after the horrific suicide murder of 30 Israelis celebrating Passover at the Park Hotel in Netanya.

My memory of what happened at the event that day is quite different from yours.

I remember many of the speakers delivering "pro-peace" messages. There was Rep. Richard Gephardt ("We must not waver in our commitment to those — Israelis and Arabs alike — who have chosen the path of peace"), as well as Sen. Harry Reid ("I call on all who share our vision and hopes to continue to spread a message of peace: shalom, salaam, peace"). There was also Paul Wolfowitz, representing the Bush administration ("Peace in the Middle East is the only way to end the suffering of Palestinians and Israelis, of Arabs and Jews"), as well as Natan Sharansky ("Real peace, dear friends, depends on us"). And there was Mayor Rudy Giuliani ("All of us, all of you good people who have come here today, all of us wish for peace. We pray for it."). I remember you introducing Hugh Price, then president of the National Urban League, and I remember Mr. Price closing his remarks with a call to world leaders "to give lasting peace a chance in the Middle East."

So I ask: Why are our perceptions of that historic outpouring of support for Israel so jarringly dissimilar? Of course, there were also speakers who focused only on Israel's right to defend herself against violent murderous terrorist attacks; those who spoke in anger or in pain. And there were those who had a particular political point of view that did not reflect the politics of some in the Jewish community. Why did I hear a variety of views expressed at the rally six years ago while for you, the event triggered a six-year-long period during which you questioned why you did not hear the pro-peace voices in our community?

In the American Jewish community — today as well as yesterday — there have always been diverse opinions on a whole range of social, economic, political and religious issues. Throughout my experience as a leader in the Jewish community I have appreciated and welcomed the broad range of views and the variety of forums in which members of our community can participate to express themselves. Our community has never been lacking in public self-examination, robust debate and vocal advocacy of the many ideas, beliefs and opinions we all have, including about Israel and Israeli government policies. One of the great strengths of the Jewish people is our willingness to question and reassess and re-evaluate those ideas, beliefs and opinions.

Israel's 60th anniversary offers a focal point for deepening our understanding of the role and relationship of American Jewry to the future of Israel. But it also offers us, as American Jews, the opportunity to deepen our understanding of one another, whatever side of the pro-Israel fence we find ourselves on. I am confident that all of the voices in our community will continue to have an outlet and hopefully will continue to be heard, just as I heard them in April 2002 at that historic gathering in Washington in support of the most significant common element of our heritage, the modern State of Israel.

The appointment of Hannah Rosenthal is more proof of how our President is trying to push ahead an anti-Israel agenda. This move is just a little more cynical than his normal Israel-trashing move.

Obama's Anti-Israel J-Street Controlled Czarina of Anti-Semitism is Attacking The JEWS

2009-12-25T21:39:00.001-05:00

J-street claims to be pro-Israel, but the next time it takes a stance that matches that of the majority of Israelis it will be the first time. openly campaign against Israel on the grounds that it possesses a superior understanding of what is best for Israelis. Seeded with dollars by self-proclaimed Nazi collaborator George Soros, and given "legitimacy" by President Obama because he agrees with their anti-Israel position, J-Street works to lobby the US Government to pressure Israelis, contrary to their will, to take steps that could have life and death implications.

That's why it seemed like such a cynical move when President chose J-Street Board Member and anti-Israel activist Hannah Rosenthal, as his head of the U.S. administration's Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

Ms Rosenthal chose as her first public act to take on Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States. His Crime, not supporting J-Street.

In an interview with Haaretz in Jerusalem, where Rosenthal was the administration's envoy to the Foreign Ministry's Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, Rosenthal, who once served on J street's board of directors, said she opposes blurring the lines between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel.

"It is not 1939," she said. "We have the state of Israel. We have laws in countries that are holding people accountable."

When Ambassador Michael Oren turned down J Street's request to be keynote speaker at its first annual conference, and chose not to attend, debate over the group, already intense in the American Jewish community, reached as far as Jerusalem.

Under the motto is "pro-Israel, pro-peace," J Street began to promote issues like being easy on Iran and negotiating with Hamas. Obama has worked very hard to legitimize J-street as a Jewish too to push his Anti-Israel, pro-terrorism agenda. Has has even gotten Democrats such as Steve Israel, to abandon Israel and help push his J-Street agenda.

Rightfully so, the Israeli government has turned a cold shoulder to the group. Obama's national security adviser, General James Jones, gave the keynote speech at the conference, while Israel sent a low-level official, because J Street works against Israel's interests.

Rosenthal, who also served on the board of directors of left-wing group Americans for Peace Now, said she believed Oren "would have learned a lot" if he had participated in J Street's conference.

"I came away realizing what a generational divide there is and I don't know how it is in Israel. Young people want to be part of the discussion, they feel they have fresh ideas and they feel that we have to end the stalemate," she said.

Ms Rosenthal was roundly criticized by pro-Israel Jewish organizations. Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said:

Ambassador Oren has been working tirelessly and effectively since his appointment to build upon and enhance the strong relationship between the United States and Israel. All members of the Obama Administration with whom I have discussed his work have been deeply appreciative of his efforts. As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions Ambassador Oren has taken as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community. Such statements have nothing to do with her responsibilities and, based upon comments I am already receiving, could threaten to limit her effectiveness in the area for which she is actually responsible.

Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, the largest Israel advocacy group in Washington, agreed with Solow

"AIPAC totally agrees with the sentiment expressed by Alan Solow and the Conference of Presidents, and those views are widely held by members of the Conference."

A senior Jewish official in Washington who asked to remain anonymous called the Rosenthal interview, published in Haaretz on Thursday, "a very troubling occurrence. I can't recall a circumstance in which an American diplomat criticized an ambassador of any country in such a significant way."

In the Weekly Standard Michael Goldfarb asked:

Are there not enough anti-Semites to keep Rosenthal busy even for a month before she starts attacking the Jews? It's as if Melanne Verveer had attacked Ayaan Hirsi Ali during her first month on the job, or if Carol Browner had gone after the head of Greenpeace. Still, I'm less interested in whether Rosenthal was acting in an official capacity when she attacked the Israeli Ambassador, but whether she was carrying out her official duties to combat and monitor anti-Semitism while she attended the J Street conference -- and when can we expect her report.

The Bottom line is Hanna Rosenthal is living up to expectations, she is becoming Barack Obama's in house Jewish Attack machine. For the President, its so much cleaner to have a Jew do his anti-Israel attacks for him.

Why Is Obama's State Department Trying to Run Over Israeli Border Guards?

2009-12-25T18:03:00.001-05:00

The administration of Mr. Transparent, President Barack Obama continues to show its
Disregard for Israel and her safety. The latest is a series of un-diplomatic moves directed toward Israel's security staff by US diplomatic staff. The latest incident occurred on November 13 when the lead car of a 5-car convoy from the US Consulate in Jerusalem tried to run over an Israeli security guard at a checkpoint in Samaria.

According to an official description of the incident obtained by The Jerusalem Post, the convoy arrived at the Gilboa Crossing and refused to open any windows or provide identification which is required under the agreed-upon procedure. Israeli security officials said the convoy purposely blocked the entire crossing and one of the vehicles lunged at an Israeli guard. And it was all caught by security Cameras.

The incident led to an angry meeting five days later, when U.S. and Israeli officials met in Jerusalem to discuss the case and at least one other involving a Palestinian woman who was found in a U.S. diplomatic car without appropriate documentation.

Following the incident, the head of the police's Security Department, Lt.-Cmdr. Meir Ben-Yishai, convened a meeting on November 18 at police headquarters in Jerusalem with the regional security officer at the consulate, Tim Laas. Also present were officials from the Defense Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, and the regional security officer at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Dan Power.

According to a protocol of the meeting, obtained by the Post, Ben-Yishai said he assumed the drivers of the consulate vehicles had received permission to act the way they had. He said that in the future, if a diplomatic car did not stop and identify its passengers "immediately," it would not be allowed to pass the checkpoint.

Ben-Yishai described additional violations by consulate workers, and referred to at least one case in which a female Palestinian without appropriate documentation was found in a diplomatic car. Defense officials told the Post that there had been other similar cases in the past.

"We view this as an attempt to illegally transfer someone," Ben-Yishai said, according to the official police protocol.

Ben-Yishai also said the drivers of the cars, from east Jerusalem, hid their Israeli identity cards and put stickers over their names on their consulate-issued identity cards, since, as they claimed, "they are in a diplomatic vehicle and cannot be touched."

He added that police had filed a complaint with the Foreign Ministry and were conducting their own investigation to identify the driver who had tried running over the Israeli security guard.

While Power apologized for the incident and tried
smoothing things over, Laas angered Ben-Yishai, according to the protocol, when he said it was unacceptable for "simple guards" to inspect senior diplomats.

Laas said the communication needed to be between the guard and the driver, since "we can't know who the guard is."

This was understood by those present as indicating his lack of trust in Israeli guards.

"This situation is being misused, and as proof in the latest incident, they refused to identify themselves and even tried smuggling a Palestinian without permission," Ben-Yishai said, according to the protocol. "The security guards at the crossings are licensed and are authorized by me, and that is how they should be treated. They are not 'simple guards‚' as Tim Laas called them."

Laas claimed that the Palestinian woman who had been in the car served as a translator for Dayton and the consul and that she had been returning with the team to Israel. He said it was possible that there had been a mishap with her papers.

Concluding the meeting, Ben-Yishai set new procedures under which consulate cars would need to undergo complete inspections if only a driver were present. If diplomats are inside the vehicle, they must open the door and present their identification papers.

A spokesperson from the consulate said that consulate policy was not to comment on internal meetings with Israeli officials.

"In regards to the checkpoints, we enter and exit from the West Bank many times a day through checkpoints controlled by the government of Israel without incident, and consulate officials and drivers always carefully follow the procedures that have been established and agreed to by US and Israeli governments for entering and exiting the West Bank," the spokesperson said. "Any problems that have occurred with checkpoints have been a result of misunderstanding and miscommunication, and we are in regular contact with the government of Israel regarding those procedures to avoid miscommunications in the future."

In response to the claim that the consulate cars had illegally transported Palestinians, the spokesperson said, "Any allegations that we are illegally transferring people are completely untrue, and as stated earlier, it is in our best interest that we follow the rules so that people who participate in US-funded programs can participate, and it would not be in our best interest to illegally transfer people."

Ever since his inauguration, President Obama has been trying to "throw Israel under the bus." Was this an accident, a diplomatic slip-up, or just an attempt to implement literally, the President "throw Israel under the bus" policy?

al Qaeda Man from Nigeria (on No Fly List) Tries to Blow Up Northwest Airlines Flight

2009-12-25T17:25:00.001-05:00

A guy who was not supposed to be on an airplane tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight today on its way to Detroit. A 23-year-old Nigerian man tried to light a powdery substance aboard a Northwest Airlines flight before landing in Detroit on Friday. According to ABC News sources, the man claimed he was directed by al Qaeda to set off an explosion on the plane. Two people noticed the attempt ignite the device and a third person jumped on the man and subdued him. The man is being treated at the burn unit of the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, officials said.

The TSA issued a statement reading, in part: “All passengers have deplaned and out of an abundance of caution, the plane was moved to a remote area where the plane and all baggage are currently being rescreened. A passenger is in custody, and passengers are being interviewed.”

Video and More below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Man Attempts to Set Off Explosives on Plane Two Injured in Northwest Airlines Flight From Amsterdam to Detroit
By RICHARD ESPOSITO and SCOTT MAYEROWITZ

Federal officials and police are interviewing a Nigerian man, who allegedly tried to "explode" a powdery substance aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, injuring himself and two other passengers, law enforcement officials said.

The man said he was directed by al Qaeda to explode a small device in flight, over U.S. soil, ABC News has learned. Authorities have no corroboration of that information, and the credibility of the suspect's statements are being questioned, officials said.

The man was apparently already on the government's no-fly list of suspected terrorists, according to a senior intelligence official.

"The subject is claiming to have extremist affiliation and that the device was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used," a federal situational awareness bulletin stated.

Northwest Airlines flight 253 landed safely in Detroit at 11:53 a.m. The man, flew from Nigeria to Amsterdam and then Detroit, was taken into custody at the Detroit airport and was interviewed by authorities there. He was then taken to an area hospital to be treated for burns.

Delta spokeswoman Susan Chana Elliott said that "as the plane was getting ready to land" in Detroit "a passenger caused a disturbance" by trying to ignite what was reported to be firecrackers.

The man was "subdued immediately," Elliott said. Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta.

An in-flight emergency was declared when a fire indicator light when on in the cockpit, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The pilot asked for airport rescue and firefighting services, and for law enforcement to meet the flight at gate, the TSA said.

It is unclear how powerful the explosive could have been and what the man's intentions were. Initial reports were that fireworks or firecrackers had gone off on the plane.

The man suffered second-degree burns, which is consistent with a small fireworks device, police sources said.

One of the passengers is being treated at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, according to hospital spokeswoman Tracy Justice, who was not sure if it was the suspect or one of the other passengers.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Sandra R. Berchtold from the Detroit office confirmed that the FBI was at the airport, but she would not comment further.

"All passengers have deplaned and out of an abundance of caution, the plane was moved to a remote area where the plane and all baggage are currently being rescreened," the Transportation Security Administration, which handles aircraft and airplane safety, said in a statement. "A passenger is in custody and passengers are being interviewed."

The aircraft was an Airbus A330-200, twin-engine jet carrying 278 passengers.

Canadian Physicist Blames Fluorocarbons for Global Warming Predicts 50 Years of COOLING

2009-12-24T23:33:00.001-05:00

A peer-reviewed study by a respected Canadian physicist doesn't blame global warming on man and CO2, he blames it on a combination of cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons. You remember those fluorocarbons, every aerosol can used to be loaded with the stuff until we found out they were putting a hole in the ozone layer. The fluorocarbons were removed and since 2002 the ozone layer has been closing and the earth stopped warming. Qing Bin-Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy at Canada's University of Waterloo took a look at the interaction between cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons and predicts that global warming has disappeared, maybe for the next 50 years

This peer-reviewed paper was published in the prestigious online journal Physics Reports, Lu, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle, reports that CFCs, the compounds once widely used as refrigerants, and cosmic rays, which are energy particles originating in outer space, are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Lu says the world has been cooling since 2002

"the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

..Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases ... decreased around 2000.Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

But wait, does that mean those fine people at the CRU were wrong? Those emails show that they were really believed in that man-made CO2 theory. That's why they repressed any evidence that would prove it wrong. Please don't tell Phil Jones or Michael Mann about the study below, it may upset them:

Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.

The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

Democratic Power Player Warns Party Better Moderate FAST

2009-12-24T19:34:00.000-05:00

William M. Daley is the prototypical Democratic Power the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1997 to 2000 is a lawyer and business executive.He was a chairman of the Al Gores failed presidential campaign in 2000. During the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primaries, Daley was a prominent supporter of Barack Obama, and eventually and adviser to the Obama-Biden Transition team.

Today, in The Washington Post, Daily warns his fellow Democrats that they better moderate or face a major loss in 2010. Daley argues that “the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.”

Interestingly today, he is making the same argument to Obama's progressives that people make about the Conservative wing of the Republican Party, you better keep the tent big:

The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party -- my lifelong political home -- has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.

Rep. Griffith's decision makes him the fifth centrist Democrat to either switch parties or announce plans to retire rather than stand for reelection in 2010. These announcements are a sharp reversal from the progress the Democratic Party made starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, when it reestablished itself as the nation's majority party for the first time in more than a decade. That success happened for one major reason: Democrats made inroads in geographies and constituencies that had trended Republican since the 1960s. In these two elections, a majority of independents and a sizable number of moderate Republicans joined the traditional Democratic base to sweep Democrats to commanding majorities in Congress and to bring Barack Obama to the White House.

These independents and Republicans supported Democrats based on a message indicating that the party would be a true Big Tent -- that we would welcome a diversity of views even on tough issues such as abortion, gun rights and the role of government in the economy.

This call was answered not just by voters but by a surge of smart, talented candidates who came forward to run and win under the Democratic banner in districts dominated by Republicans for a generation. These centrists swelled the party's ranks in Congress and contributed to Obama's victories in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and other Republican bastions.

But now they face a grim political fate. On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, "true" Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year's off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents -- many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.

Witness the drumbeat of ominous poll results. Obama's approval rating has fallen below 49 percent overall and is even lower -- 41 percent -- among independents. On the question of which party is best suited to manage the economy, there has been a 30-point swing toward Republicans since November 2008, according to Ipsos. Gallup's generic congressional ballot shows Republicans leading Democrats. There is not a hint of silver lining in these numbers. They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away.

And, of course, witness the loss of Rep. Griffith and his fellow moderate Democrats who will retire. They are perhaps the truest canaries in the coal mine.

Despite this raft of bad news, Democrats are not doomed to return to the wilderness. The question is whether the party is prepared to listen carefully to what the American public is saying. Voters are not re-embracing conservative ideology, nor are they falling back in love with the Republican brand. If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.

All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals -- and, indeed, all of us -- should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

The party's moment of choosing is drawing close. While it may be too late to avoid some losses in 2010, it is not too late to avoid the kind of rout that redraws the political map. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to move back toward the center -- and in doing so, set the stage for the many years' worth of leadership necessary to produce the sort of pragmatic change the American people actually want.

The writer was secretary of commerce in the Clinton administration and chairman of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

Daily offers really good advice, but it may be too late to change, especially with the Senate Obamacare vote today which may have launched the Democratic party down the abyss, at least in the minds of voters. On the other hand this might end up being an issue that the Republicans can grab on to and push it all the way to congressional power in 2010.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN XMAS AND CHANUKAH

2009-12-24T17:47:00.000-05:00

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN XMAS AND CHANUKAH

Now, if anyone asks you what the difference is between Christmas and Chanukah you will know what and how to answer!

1 Christmas is one day, same day every year, December 25. Jews also love December 25th. It's another paid day off work. We go to movies and out for Chinese food and Israeli dancing. Chanukah is 8 days. It starts the evening of the 24th of Kislev, whenever that falls. No one is ever sure. Jews never know until a non-Jewish friend asks when Chanukah starts*, forcing us to consult a calendar so we don't look like idiots. We all have the same calendar, provided free with a donation from the World Jewish Congress, the kosher butcher, or the local Sinai Memorial Chapel (especially in Florida ) or other Jewish funeral home.

2. Christmas is a major holiday. Chanukah is a minor holiday with the same theme as most Jewish holidays. They tried to kill us, we survived, let's eat.

3. Christians get wonderful presents such as jewelry, perfume, stereos... Jews get practical presents such as underwear, socks, or the collected works of the Rambam, which looks impressive on the bookshelf.

4. There is only one way to spell Christmas. No one can decide how to spell Chanukah, Chanukkah, Chanukka, Channukah, Hanukah, Hannukah, etc.

5. Christmas is a time of great pressure for husbands and boyfriends. Their partners expect special gifts. Jewish men are relieved of that burden. No one expects a diamond ring on Chanukah.

6. Christmas brings enormous electric bills. Candles are used for Chanukah. Not only are we spared enormous electric bills, but we get to feel good about not contributing to the energy crisis.

7. Christmas carols are beautiful...Silent Night, Come All Ye Faithful.... Chanukah songs are about dreidels made from clay or having a party and dancing the hora. Of course, we are secretly pleased that many of the beautiful carols were composed and written by our tribal brethren. And don't Barbara Streisand and Neil Diamond sing them beautifully?

8. A home preparing for Christmas smells wonderful. The sweet smell of cookies and cakes baking. Happy people are gathered around in festive moods. A home preparing for Chanukah smells of oil, potatoes, and onions. The home, as always, is full of loud people all talking at once.

9. Christian women have fun baking Christmas cookies. Jewish women burn their eyes and cut their hands grating potatoes and onions for latkas on Chanukah. Another reminder of our suffering through the ages.

10. Parents deliver to their children during Christmas. Jewish parents have no qualms about withholding a gift on any of the eight nights.

11. The players in the Christmas story have easy to pronounce names such as Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. The players in the Chanukah story are Antiochus , Judah Maccabee, and Matta whatever. No one can spell it or pronounce it. On the plus side, we can tell our friends anything and they believe we are wonderfully versed in our history.

12. Many Christians believe in the virgin birth. Jews think, "Yossela, Bubela, snap out of it. Your woman is pregnant, you didn't sleep with her, and now you want to blame G-d? Here's the number of my shrink".

13. In recent years, Christmas has become more and more commercialized. The same holds true for Chanukah, even though it is a minor holiday. It makes sense. How could we market a major holiday such as Yom Kippur? Forget about celebrating. Think observing. Come to synagogue, starve yourself for 27 hours, become one with your dehydrated soul, beat your chest, confess your sins, a guaranteed good time for you and your family. Tickets a mere $200 per person. Better stick with Chanukah!

HAPPY CHANUKAH - MERRY CHRISTMAS!! And a Joyous New Year

And Now a Christmas Message from the Great Kinky Friedman

Maybe Moses Didn't Make Wrong Turn After All, Oil Discovered in Israel

2009-12-24T16:03:00.000-05:00

There is that old complaint that says if Moses had only made a right turn after he led the Israelites across the Reed Sea, the Jews would have the Oil, the Arabs would have the desert and the world would be much better off.

Well that might be changing a bit. Last January a major supply of natural gas was found off the coast of Haifa, Israel's major port city. Yesterday A significant quantity of oil was discovered near Rosh HaAyin, a city located east of Tel Aviv on the western edge of Samaria.

The Givat Olam (Hebrew for “Hill of the World”) Exploration Limited Partnership informed the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange of the discovery, but added, “At this stage it is not possible to estimate the significance of these findings." The company’s stock more than doubled on the stock market, according to Globes.

The firm said the oil was found late Wednesday night and that “more than 60 percent gas was measured in the drill mud.” The commercial potential of the oil field will not be known until tests and calculations on production and processing can be completed.

The “Meged” well in the Rosh HaAyin area is one of the few that have been drilled outside of the Negev and Dead Sea area. Several studies by independent consultants have confirmed the potential for oil in the area, and previous drillings have encouraged the prospects of discovering enough oil and gas for commercial production.

Earlier this year, a huge gas field was discovered off the Mediterranean Coast. The gas is expected to be on line in three years and is anticipated to help Israel become self-sufficient in gas. It also is providing hundreds of high-paying jobs for developing the field and bringing the gas from the sea, off Hadera and Haifa, to the coastline.

If the Meged well proves commercially viable, it will further Israel’s longtime hope of being energy independent and is likely to strengthen the shekel against world currencies.

Thank Goodness that Israel is lead by Bibi Netanyahu, as opposed to Obama. Unlike the American Potus, Bibi allows his country to tap its own energy reserves.

To All My Liberal Friends On The (you know) Day

2009-12-24T12:00:00.000-05:00

To All My Liberal Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To All My Conservative Christian Friends:
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Source

Fort Hood Terrorist E-mailed Cleric To Ask If He Could Kill Fellow Soldiers

2009-12-24T11:10:00.002-05:00

Anwar Al-'Awlaki, al Qaeda linked Muslim Cleric on his contact with the Fort Hood Terrorist Major Hasan:

"Naturally, as I told you, the first message was asking for an edict regarding the [possibility] of a Muslim soldier killing his colleagues who serve with him in the American army. In other messages, Nidal was clarifying his position regarding the killing of Israeli civilians. He was in support of this, and in his messages he mentioned the religious justifications for targeting the Jews with missiles. Then there were some messages in which he asked for a way through which he could transfer some funds to us [and by this] participate in charitable activities."

When it was first reported that Fort Hood Terrorist was corresponding with al Qaeda Cleric Anwar Al-'Awlaki, investigators said it all seemed like part his psychological research duties. Last night Arab Network Aljazeera.net posted an interview with the cleric that seemed to dispute that assumption (Aljazeera only posted the interview on its Arabic site so we only have parts of the interview). Anwar Al-'Awlaki faulted American foreign policy for creating the conditions which ignited the rampage in which 13 were killed, Coincidentally it was reported this morning that Anwar Al-'Awlaki was killed in an air strike in Yemen, but now that report is disputed. According to CBS

However, a CBS News source in Yemen, who has been in contact with Awlaki on numerous occasions, said Thursday the report of his death was "not true."

"Until yesterday, Anwar was alive," the source told CBS, adding that Thursday morning's strikes were, "far from his house and he had nothing to do with those killed."

Other sources in Yemen also said Awlaki was not living in the area targeted on Thursday morning, and that it was therefore highly unlikely he was killed in the strikes.

CBS News' Khaled Wassef says it is possible there was confusion over the name Awlaki. A regional al Qaeda leader, identified as Mohammed Saleh al-Awlaki, appeared in video Wednesday at a rare and brazen public gathering of militants in Yemen's Abyan province.

There have been various source who have published bits of the Al-'Awlaki interview, the segments below have been compiled from MEMRI, FOX, and CBS:

Following are excerpts from the Aljazeera.net interview with Al-'Awlaqi:

Question: "What is your connection with Nidal Hasan, and when did it begin?"

Answer: "Nidal Hasan prayed at my mosque when I was imam at the Dar Al-Hijra mosque."

Q: "When was your first meeting?"

A: "About nine years ago, when I was imam of the Dar Al-Hijra mosque in the capital Washington, a mosque which is one of the biggest Islamic centers in America."

Q: "[There are] reports that there was more than that."

A: "Brother Nidal used to contact me via email last year, until the middle of this year."

Q: "When did the correspondence with Nidal begin?"

A: "I got the first message from Nidal on December 17, 2008."

Q: "Who initiated the correspondence, you or him?"

A: "He initiated the correspondence with me."

Q: "What did the correspondence contain?"

A: "He was asking about killing American soldiers and officers. [He asked] whether this is a religiously legitimate act or not."

Q: "So he asked you that question about a year before the operation was carried out?"

A: "Yes. And I wondered how the American security agencies, who claim to be able to read car license plate numbers from space, everywhere in the world, I wondered how [they did not reveal this]."

Q: "What did Nidal want from you in his messages?"

A: "Naturally, as I told you, the first message was asking for an edict regarding the [possibility] of a Muslim soldier killing his colleagues who serve with him in the American army. In other messages, Nidal was clarifying his position regarding the killing of Israeli civilians. He was in support of this, and in his messages he mentioned the religious justifications for targeting the Jews with missiles. Then there were some messages in which he asked for a way through which he could transfer some funds to us [and by this] participate in charitable activities."

Q: "There are other indications to your connections with Nidal, one of which is that you blessed what he did three days after he did it."

A: "My support to the operation was because the operation that brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one, and I endeavored to explain my position regarding what happened because many Islamic organizations and preachers in the West condemned the operation. So it was necessary for me [to raise] a voice that is [myself] connected to the Muslims in America and the West, while at the same time is independent and explains the truth regarding what Nidal did, especially since the media tried to connect him to me from the very beginning."

Q: "Why did you bless Nidal Hasan's act?"

A: "Because Nidal's target was a military target inside America, and there is no question about this. Then, also, those members of the military [i.e. the victims] were not regular soldiers; rather they were prepared and preparing themselves to go to battle and to kill downtrodden Muslims and to commit crimes in Afghanistan."....

"I did not recruit Nidal Hasan to this operation; the one who recruited him was America, with its crimes and injustice, and this is what America refuses to admit," Al-'Awlaki said.

"America does not want to admit that what Nidal did, and what thousands of other Muslims do against America, is because of its unjust policies against the Islamic world. Nidal Hasan is a Muslim before he is an American, and he is also from Palestine, and he sees the oppression of the Jewish oppression of his people under American cover and support. True, I may have a role in his intellectual direction, but nothing beyond that, and I am not trying to absolve myself of what he did because I do not support it. No, but because I wish I had had the honor of having a bigger role in what happened than the role I really had."

Al-'Awlaki supplied AlJazeera.net with copies of his email exchanges with Hasan. After reading the documentation, the reporter, Abd Al-Ilah Heidar Shane', pressed further on the nature of their relationship. Reading the emails, he said, "I found that he trusts you and respects you, and now you are telling me that [you have] no direct or strong relationship with him?"

"I told you about the correspondence, and I explained it, and I even gave you [those original copies], so that you can publish it, because the American administration forbade its publication," Al-'Awlaki said. "Why don't they want this correspondence out? What is the reason? [By banning it from publication,] do they want to cover up their security failure, or is it because they do not want to admit that Nidal Hasan is a man of principles, and that he did what he did in the service of Islam? They want [the operation] to be viewed as individual, unexpected behavior, that has no connection to the conduct of the criminal American army."

Two months after Major Hasan shot and killed 14 people at Fort Hood our government is still figuring out what to call it? Of course it is terrorism Hasan did not snap and have a mental breakdown, his horrific act was in planning for at least a year, Al-'Awlaki confirmed that to Al Jazeera. The investigators who saw the emails ignored the threat at it resulted in 14 deaths. What is disturbing is that our government is still ignoring the threat. That's why it is so important to call Hasan's action what it is...an act of terror, home grown terror. If our criminal authorities don't start recognizing the domestic threat there will be many more Major Hasan's threatening our lives.

Democratic Pollster Predicts: Promised Post Health Care Democratic Bump Will NOT Happen

2009-12-23T23:02:00.000-05:00

Many Democrats, including people in the administration, blame poor marketing for their difficulties in passing health reform. They say they haven't gotten the message out. And the lousy polls reflect that poor communication. They believe that once the bill is passed and people see Obamacare in all of its splendor, American Voters will come running back to the President and the Democratic Congress.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

..."The reality, I think, will trump poll numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on," White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

"We're governing through difficult times," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think we're going to be in a better place" when the midterm elections arrive.

There was of course a major difference in the mood of the country at the time of the the NAFTA debate and today. Polls not only reflect America's disenchantment with the Obamacare proposals but they feel that Democratic leadership is spending too much time on health care, as the meat and potato priorities, such as the economy and unemployment are being left to struggle. Mark Mellman, a prominent Democratic pollster, says those meat and potato issues will prevent any sort of bump when/if Obamacare is passed.

When Bill Clinton addressed a crowd of mildly despondent progressives at the Netroots Nation conference this past August, he made a prediction. If health care reform were to pass, the former president said, it would result in a massive uptick in Obama's popularity.

"Within a year, when all those bad things they say will happen don't happen, and all the good things happen, approval will explode," Clinton declared.

A polling bump has served as an alluring carrot to win over Democrats skeptical of health care reform. But not everyone is convinced that the sheer fact that legislation passed will do wonders for Democrats in the world of public opinion.

"Bill Clinton has always been a better strategist than I have been," Mark Mellman, a prominent Democratic pollster, told the Huffington Post. "But, you know, I would not be surprised if we don't see that... I wouldn't be surprised if [Obama's] ratings stay fairly close to where they are. And for two reasons: first of all, the real weight that is holding down the president's approval rating is the economy. There is just no question about that is the real impediment to his approval ratings improving. To pass health care reform on Christmas Eve is not going to improve the economy the day after Christmas. Secondly, at this point this is still a pretty controversial bill. When people know the content they are for it, and when they don't know the content they are pretty divided. So I'm not sure there are going to be a lot of people jumping for joy [when it passes]."

"I think [Obama] is going to get some credit for being effective here and I think that would help him," Mellman added. "But I would be surprised if we saw a big jump in approval ratings. We may see them for a day or two, but I don't think it is going to last very long."

Public opinion prognostication is inherently chancy. But if any pollster has a good grasp of the health care debate, it is Mellman. A highly respected Democratic adviser, he has been consulting Senate Democrats about how to properly sell the reform package they are poised to pass. His advice to those who have spent months engaged in the process is a bit dour: The debate's not over. As Mellman sees it, public opinion on the legislation should remain malleable months, if not years, after passage. Placed in a news vacuum -- as it was during the August recess -- the bill can be painted in the most nefarious of lights. And so, even though Democrats may gain momentary relief by getting the legislation done, they shouldn't rest on their laurels.

"There is going to be a prolonged process here, even after the bill passes, of selling the bill," Mellman said. "The naturally tendency of the legislative process is to move on. You pass legislation, breathe a sigh of relief, and move on to another bill and stop talking about that which is already done. That can't happen here."

Mellman noted that some of the legislative perks from health care reform won't kick in for years down the road; the bill's supporters will be championing abstract achievements. Nevertheless, he said there are immediate benefits to which Democrats should and can point -- namely the prohibition on abusive insurance industry practices.

As for internal party divisions, Mellman said he expects progressive critics of the bill to eventually come back into the fold.

"There is no question that there are a meaningful chunk of voters out there who think this bill did not go far enough in reforming health care," he said. "I think at the end of the day, the people who think this bill didn't go far enough will come to recognize the political realities: which is there aren't the votes to go further. And the only way to get something more than this is to add even more progressive Democrats in the Senate. So their electoral enthusiasm should be increased, not decreased."

In the end it could be the "parlor tricks" used by the congress to sell the bill (taxes starting right away/benefits starting 4 years down the road), that may prevent any sort of post health care bump.

STONEWALLING: Obama Blocks Investigation of Firing of AmeriCorps IG Walpin

2009-12-23T19:05:00.000-05:00

Remember how Barack Obama Started his Presidency?

...The "Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act" instructs the attorney general to issue new guidelines to the government implementing those same principles of openness and transparency in the FOIA context, also within 120 days. "I will also hold myself, as president, to a new standard of openness," he said, by signing the Executive Order on Presidential Records.

Going forward, he said, "any time the American people want to know something that I or a former president wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the attorney general and the White House counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be ... withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution."

Since Obama made that speech on January 21, it has been clear that President must have had his fingers crossed underneath the podium, because openness has been missing from this administration.

The latest example of Presidential cover-up has do do with the firing of Gerald Walpin. Until a few months Walpin was the Inspector General for AmeriCorps. He claims he was fired because he made the mistake of Investigation a friend of Michelle Obama (FOO) Kevin Johnson, former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California, for the misuse of AmeriCorps funds.

Pressed for a reasoning for the dismissal the Administration trashed Walpin hinting that he was in the early stages of dementia. They said the IG seemed "disoriented" at one meeting. Walpin's version of the story was confirmed by a AmeriCorps board member who confirmed that he was fired to protect the Democrats from a political scandal.

A GOP report contends that the Obama White House was politically motivated when it fired inspector general Gerald Walpin after his 2008 investigation of Kevin Johnson, now Sacramento's mayor and friend of the First Lady. The report by Rep Issa and Senator Grassley criticizes the White House ethics counsel, for not examining what Walpin had been investigating at the time of his dismissal, including the allegations of sexual misconduct by Johnson and hush-money payoffs by his now-fiancee Michelle Rhee.

New Evidence released earlier this month is that the First Lady's former Chief of Staff Jackie Norris, met with Alan Solomont of Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps in an attempt to keep the scandal away from Michelle Obama.

The Senate is investigating the charges and wanted Ms Norris to testify, but our President Mr. Transparency is refusing to allow her to talk to congress.

Republican efforts to interview a former top aide to Michelle Obama in the controversial case of a fired inspector general have been stymied by the White House, the top Republican looking into the case said Tuesday.

The White House counsel's office has blocked Republican investigators from interviewing Jackie Norris, former chief of staff for the first lady, about President Obama's dismissal of former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.

Republican investigators from the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform have wanted to question Norris -- who is now senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps -- since they discovered earlier this month that she met with Alan Solomont, chairman of CNCS on June 9, the day before Walpin was fired.

Solomont was heavily involved in the Walpin firing, according to the Washington Examiner, which first reported the response by the first lady's office.

The White House move was revealed in a letter sent Monday to Norris by Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the oversight panel.

"Our request to meet with you was denied by (Corporation for National and Community Service) general counsel Frank Trinity," Issa wrote to Norris. "Mr. Trinity told my staff that the White House counsel's office has advised him that they were not permitting the corporation to make you available for an interview.

"The White House has averred that you had no role whatsoever in the president's decision to prevent your testimony. If the information provided by White House officials is true, it follows that no colorable claim of executive privilege should impede your cooperation with the committee," he continued.

Issa said in a statement Tuesday that he does not see a difference between this case and Democrats' pressing the political nature of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys under President George W. Bush.

"The removal of an IG who was conducting an investigation of one of the president's staunchest allies is no different than when President Bush fired a number of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, igniting a chorus of criticism and concern. The question is -- where is the outrage now that President Obama is doing the same thing?" he asked.

Actually Issa is wrong, the US Attorney appointments were political in nature and thus served at the discretion of the President. BY Law IG's and all government agency watchdogs are supposed to be independent. Even the Democratic senator (Missouri’s Claire McCaskill) who authored the law safeguarding watchdog independence, blasted the POTUS for removing an inspector general who exposed widespread waste in taxpayer-financed community service groups. Obama “failed to follow the proper procedure” in notifying Congress about the removal and for failing to give a valid reason for the termination.

Senator JERK: Al Franken Does Not "Play Nicely" With Others

2009-12-23T14:34:00.001-05:00

Much has been said about last weeks exchange between Senators Al Franken and Joe Lieberman. Franken's refusal to give Lieberman a few moments to finish his thought was a breach of Senate etiquette, where being polite on the chamber's floor is more important than party differences.

Throughout his Senate Campaign, Franken was portrayed as a bit of a jerk, short tempered, scathing tongue and someone who went around looking for an argument. After some good behavior during his first few months, Franken is proving that his reputation of being a real a**hole is entirely accurate.

....Franken has surprised some of his colleagues behind the scenes by getting into heated tangles with GOP staffers.

One such exchange took place in Franken’s office during a recent meeting with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and his aides.

Franken invited Corker to his office to discuss an op-ed that Corker penned in a Tennessee newspaper opposing an amendment Franken offered to a defense bill. The measure gave the employees of defense contractors who suffer rape or sexual assault at the workplace the right to sue in court.

The meeting quickly deteriorated when Franken began berating one of Corker’s aides, according to GOP aides familiar with the incident. Franken’s sally was so harsh that Corker told Franken to lay off his aide and direct the comments at him instead.

Franken’s tough approach came as a surprise because Corker scheduled the meeting to mend fences after Franken confronted him about the op-ed during an angry exchange on the Senate floor.

Franken finds inappropriate times to pick a fight:

Another GOP staffer, an aide to a Senate Republican leader, found herself at the sharp end of Franken’s wit at a recent reception in the Senate’s Mansfield Room. The tongue-lashing took place at an event to celebrate the swearing-in of GOP Sen. George LeMieux (Fla.).

After the conversation began ordinarily, Franken started to grill the aide about what he sees as the failings of the GOP. Franken demanded to know why it had become the "Party of No" and had exaggerated facts in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, according to another GOP leadership aide.

....The incidents with GOP staff have reminded some Senate observers of a mocking interaction Franken had with a conservative student, Peter Fritz, at Carleton College during his Senate campaign. After learning of Fritz’s political orientation, Franken pressed him to defend Reaganomics and mimicked his speech patterns, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Aden-Wansbury vigorously denied that Franken made fun of Fritz and claimed that element of the report was inaccurate.

“There is a war within Al Franken,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. “The Al Franken head tells him to steer away from the limelight and build his reputation. Then there is his heart, which is quite fiery."

Jacobs said Franken must be careful not to engage in too many political brawls, or it could “reinforce for independent voters what they feared about him, that he’s a hot-headed partisan.”

Franken has not just confronted GOP aides at private meetings; he has also mixed it up with Republican colleagues in public on the Senate floor.

In addition to chewing out Corker over the op-ed, earlier this month Franken clashed loudly with Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) on the Senate floor. The dust-up was spurred by Thune’s claim that Democratic healthcare legislation would impose new taxes immediately but fail to implement benefits for several years.

Franken derided Thune’s floor presentation and implied that he had fabricated some of his facts, a more personal confrontation than usual in the clubby Senate. An irate Thune walked off the Senate floor after Franken revealed a private conversation they had on the topic.

“I asked if he mentioned any of the benefits that do kick in [immediately] and he said, ‘Uh no,’ ” Franken said in front of C-SPAN television cameras.

“We are entitled to our own opinions; we’re not entitled to our own facts,” Franken said, raising his voice. “Benefits kick in right away, and if you’re going to hold up a chart that says when taxes kick in and when benefits kick in … you better include the benefits that do kick in right away.”

Franken later apologized to Thune.

These incidents have pulled Franken away from his stated goal of modeling his early career in the Senate on former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who made a point of proving herself as a “workhorse,” in Senate parlance, and who teamed up often with Republicans.

Well he is close, not a work horse, but a horses arse. Sorry Minnesota, but elections have their consequences. Your consequence is that your Senator, no matter how hard he works, is nothing but a bully and a Jerk.