Mexico And The U.S. Would Be A Great Deal Better Off If Mexico’s Government Minded Its Business Rather Than Ours

By

Ken Eliasberg

My respect for Arizona, already at a very high point, grows by the day. And not because of its new law on illegal immigration; that was a no-brainer. Indeed, all that it did was memorialize federal law on the subject, with the hope that it might encourage enforcement, since it was obvious that the federal law was not going to be enforced — at least not by the federal government. Arizona’s approach to English as the preferred language and its proposal re “anchor” babies demonstrate just how “American” the state is; at a time when any sort of patriotic expression is construed by the left as a display of jingoism, Arizona reminds us that there is still hope to return to our humble beginnings.

The most recent event which places the State once again at the center of controversy is the shooting — the very justifiable shooting, I might add — of a Mexican youth engage in throwing rocks at a member of our border patrol. Now these were not pebbles; these were stones that could seriously injure or even kill the recipient of such a blow. As a result of the death, the Mexican government got into high dudgeon, demanding punishment of the shooter. Indeed, it went further; it demanded extradition so that Mexico could administer the appropriate punishment. Now, even if we were to assume that the shooter acted inappropriately — which, again, in my opinion, he did not — where the hell does Mexico find the authority to carry out a favorable response to such a demand. Indeed, where the hell does the Mexican find the gall to make such a request. With any other president but Obama, it is doubtful that any foreign president would summon up the chutzpah to make such a demand. But since Obama fashions himself as president of the world, I suppose any member country could see itself as being justified in making such a preposterous request.

But my problem with this “leader” is that he, more than anyone, is the very source of the problem which gave rise to this situation. He presides over what may well be the most corrupt government in the Western Hemisphere — to the extent that the Mexican government governs at all. That is, at any given moment, it is questionable whether Mexico’s government presides over its country. And it is clear, that there are moments when large areas of the country are under the control of narco gangsters, and the federales — at least those not on the payroll of the narco gangsters — would be fearful of even entering those areas, let alone enforcing the law.

Moreover, if the Mexican government were doing any kind of job to create an environment conducive to prosperity, its citizens might not be so anxious to risk life and limb in entering America illegally. That is, if I can make a decent living in my native country, why would I want to leave, let alone risk my life in doing so?? And an even more revealing and telling comment on the complete falsity of the Mexican President’s outrage would be — where the hell are the federales protecting Mexico’s borders (against those illegallyl leaving as well as those who might be illegally entering? And, of course, they are not there. Why not, you ask? Because the Mexican government actually encourages their citizens to emigrate, and provides guidance as to how they may do so illegally (with America as the obvious destination). And they are not only illegally guiding them across the border, but, once there, they are (as I noted some years back when I dealt with this topic, i.e. what part of “illegal” don’t you understand) providing documentation to assure that their stay might be more secure, matricular cards, see, e.g. Mexico opens California office to provide ID for illegals by Sara A. Carter at the Washington Examiner online on June 3, 2010.

As noted previously noted, Mexico takes a much dimmer view of those entering illegally than they do of those leaving illegally for points north. They have no respect for our sovereignty, yet they take their own very seriously by providing draconian responses to those who violate the sanctity of their borders.

Now this situation is very disturbing — indeed, unacceptable and intolerable. But really smarts is that not only does our president do nothing about it (in this bit of dereliction he is joined by previous presidents of both parties), but he stands with this foreign president in attacking one of his states. And maybe that’s Obama’s real problem, Arizona is not one of “his” states, Mexico is. After all Obama is not merely the president of these United States, he is, in his global eyes, Emperor of the World.

And, finally, one thing that I do not understand and find difficult to accept is the reaction of the majority of the Mexican residents who are here legally, i.e. Mexican-Americans. Rather than encourage the conversion of their native land to something more compatible with the conditions that exist in America — i.e. to Californiaize Mexico — they seem to want to Mexican California by creating the very conditions that caused them to leave Mexico in the first place. Wait a minute, I take that back; I do understand the problem — it is all about the terrible consequences of multiculturism (which I shall look at in greater depth down the road) which holds that all cultures are alike, none better or worse than another. And which our current president, never missing an opportunity to downgrade American exceptionalism (indeed, always pointing out just how unexceptional we are in his many apologies — to every tin horn despot in the world who is doing much worse today to his own people than America has ever done to its — not to mention the great lengths that America, unlike almost all other countries, has gone to to atone for those sins)

Multiculturism is the antithesis of the traditional melting pot notion of America; you know, from epluribus unum — from many one. The Multiculits favor the opposite approach — from one many. It is a divisive approach, leading to the hypenation of Americans rather than their assimilation, i.e Mexican-American, African-American, Asian-American, etc. Even Aruthur Schlesing, the uber liberal (and Academic cover for a coupld of Dem presidents, starting with JFK), recognized the danger of such approach to the strength of American sovereignty, see The Disuniting of America — Reflections on a Multicultural Society, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (W.W. Norton & Company, 1992).

A Tale Of Two Presidents: One An Audacious Hypocrite; The Other A Shameless Sellout — In Short, A Pair Of Real Phonies

By

Ken Eliasberg

While I have no wish to belabor the recent offerings of Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, I find them so outrageous as to be worthy of additional discussion. First of all, since when do presidents of other countries — any other countries — come into our country and be given an open forum to attack a U.S. policy, even if it be a policy by default, i.e. a States’s legislative effort, the result of the federal government’s refusal to act. And, since when does a president of the U.S. take the foreign president’s side against one of his own states. Since when? Since Barack Obama assumed the presidency of these United States, a circumstance that we shall regret for decades to come (as we lapse into banana Republic status).

While Calderon’s conduct was a breach of protocol that is so far beyond the pale of geopolitical diplomacy as to be almost incomprehensible, it is all the more amazing for coming from this particular president and his particular country. Why? Let us count the ways.

First of all, Calderon presides (in a fashion) over one of the most, if not the most, corrupt countries in the world.

Second, Mexico is well beyond the routine corruption typically associated with a kleptocracy; it is a narco state. That is, at any given moment, it is questionable whether the government or the narco gangsters actually preside over the country. With the passage of time, it is beginning to look more and more like Columbia during the period when the drug cartels were warring over who actually controlled the country.

Third, the reason we have an illegal alien problem is that Mexico, a country possessed of rich natural resources, has never been stable long enough to create a stable, let alone a vibrant, economy — one that might encourage its citizens to stay home and eke out a living in their country of birth. That is, quite simply, they come across the Rio Grande to make a living because they are unable to do so in the land of their birth.

Fourth, not only do the conditions in Mexico argue for abandoning the country of their birth, but, in addition, they are encouraged to leave and supported when they choose to do so.

Fifth, and an absurdly clear indication of Calderon’s hypocrisy, is the fact that Mexico’s immigration laws are far more draconian than anything done by Arizona. Indeed, I would be quite content if America took the same approach to illegal immigration as that pursued by Mexico. Of course, not only has Obama nor Napolitano read Mexico’s laws on the subject, as oft noted, they lacked the judgment, let alone the courtesy, to read Arizona’s law before criticizing it.

In short, Calderon’s own country has created the conditions which fuel our illegal alien problem, has supported those of its citizens who chose to leave, and then has the unmitigated gall to come into our country and complain of one of our state’s efforts to protect itself from the cost and abuse engendered by his country’s failings. It is much worse than just unmitigated gall; it is unspeakable, and the appropriate thing to do would be to treat Calderon as we should treat illegal aliens — don’t let him in, and if he gets in, throw him out!!! As you may have gathered, I find Calderon’s behavior more than just a breach of geopolitical protocol, I find it reprehensible in the extreme.

However, as despicable as I find Calderon’s behavior, there is something I find even more reprehensible. What might that be? Two things: First, Obama’s providing him with the opportunity to engage in that behavior — twice, first in a statement from the White House and thereafter in a statement to our Congress — and second, in the reaction of Obama and the Congressional Democrats to his presentation. Obama, rather than defend the actions of one of the States over which he is supposed to preside, agreed with Calderon. Can you image any other head of State allowing his country to be so slighted? And, of course, the Congressional Dems gave this ineffectual low life a standing ovation. How low has America fallen!!!

It is bad enough that when our President goes abroad he never misses an opportunity to either apologize for his country, suck up to an enemy while alienating a friend, or jeopardize our national security in some other fashion, but now he has sunk so low as to invite foreigners in to join in his effort to further demonstrate just how unexceptional America really is — and, believe me, a few more years of Obama, and we really will be unexceptional.

By the way, do you know of any other country that has done more good for the world than the U.S.? Do you know of any other president, prime minister, or head of state that has gone around the world apologizing for his country’s misdeeds? Let me help you out here — the answer is no! Actually it’s worse than that. For example, Germany, which provoked 3 major conflagrations over a period of 75 years has not prostrated itself on the alter of public opinion apologizing for those massacres. Japan, which ran through Asia, raping, pillaging, and murdering not only does not apologize for its transgressions, it either denies that anything happened, or that WWII was our fault — i.e. we refused to sell them any more scrap metal so long as they continued on their rampage.And that is their version of history, according to one of the most recent efforts by one of their academics. So what is this apology nonsense all about? As Victor Davis Hanson noted in a recent column at National Review online (5/2710)entitled Our Chief Confessor — Right Now there are quite enough foreign felonies in the world without dwelling on American misdemeanors:

“Obama, however, in response to Calderon, mentioned the growing

of borders themselves. He cited his own worry about the propriety

of an Arizona law that currently receives a 70 percent approval rating among Americans. Even if Obama in the past has remarked that he thinks America is not necessarily an exceptional nation, the president still should side with that want to enforce federal laws rather than foreign nations that seek to circumvent them.”

But I guess that would be asking too much of a president who finds his own country so unexceptional.

A Good Law Gets A Bum Rap: Arizona Comes To Its Own Defense And Is Excoriated For Doing So

By

Ken Eliasberg

Arizona, abandoned (one might go so far as to say, betrayed) by a derelict federal government and under siege by escapees from a narco state, took matters into its own hands — a seemingly understandable act of self defense, if you will. And the law is reasonable, appropriate, and, in my opinion, constitutional. However, you would never get that impression from listening to the howls of the chattering classes, i.e. some ignorant loudmouths on the left, supported by an equally ignorant mainstream media that long ago gave up even the pretext of journalistic integrity.

Have any of these guys taken the trouble to read the law before condemning the people in Arizona who have been victimized by illegal marauders, crossing their borders with relative impunity and wreaking havoc on its citizenry? Well there are some, and those who have find the law measured, reasonable, appropriate, and constitutional (I am among their number). Of course, the constitutionality of the measure remains to be decided, and, as long you have left-wing judicial activist judges, no law is safe from their far-reaching Judicial sweep. That said, I urge you to read the law, as well as a subsequent measure designed to make it perfectly clear that this is neither vigilante justice nor racial profiling. Before you launch an unhinged attack on people trying to defend themselves — and taking measured steps to do so — at least have the courtesy of reading the damn law (a courtesy which our esteemed, but intellectually challenged, Attorney General, Eric Holder, did not extend before challenging the legality of Arizona’s law — what a buffoon). But I forget, these are lefties — they don’t require authority for launching a critique; all that they have to have is just their opinion (although, in all fairness, they are not entirely alone in their criticism; unfortunately, some equally irresponsible commentary is coming from some on the right — demonstrating that the left, while typically uninformed, doesn’t have a monopoly on ignorance). Once having undertaken such a seemingly reasonable effort, you will find that the law does none of the objectionable things that its mindless critics have suggested that it does. Or, at the very least, you will have demonstrated that some thought, no matter how inadequate, went into your critique

As noted, it does not profile; all that it does is allow an officer of the law, who has detained a person suspected of a completely independent violation of the law, to ask the detainee for his papers. It does not allow any type of fishing expedition based solely on the officer’s suspicion that someone who is not guilty of an independent infraction may be an illegal alien. That said, I am both amazed and appalled by the reaction on the part of people who should really know better, or at least should act like they know better, for example those who preside over the City of Los Angeles, i.e. L.A.’s Mayor and the City Council, both of whom immediately jumped on the idea of boycotting Arizona. And, if anyone should be an authority on the law — this law or any other — it should be the mayor of Los Angeles; after all, Villaraigosa flunked the California Bar Exam 4 times, before finally giving up, thereby establishing his legal credentials.

Pushing chutzpah to almost unnatural extremes on this issue is the outrageous behavior of Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, protesting Arizona’s simple act of self defense. Here you have a leader, whose country is the unique source of the problem, protesting the problem’s victim in its effort to protect itself. Mexico, an impoverished narco state which is virtually run by its narco terrorists who have taken their violence to, and across, our borders, is now upset over one of our State’s efforts to respond to the problem which his country has created (with plenty of help from our country, to be sure). Perhaps Calderon would be well advised to mind his own business and tend to the chaotic state that exists in his own country, reducing it to a gangster state. Possibly, since he seems incapable of addressing his own country’s serious problems which he should control, he is more comfortable addressing Arizona’s serious problem which his governmental impotence has greatly compounded.

This reminds me of the good ‘ol Bush era when Bush’s alleged buddy, Vicente Fox, then president of Mexico, was not only not offering any help with respect to our illegal alien problem, but was actually subverting any effort to do so by providing written guides on how to illegally penetrate our borders - and thereafter offering matricula consulares as a way of staying here. Maybe one of our presidents ought to talk to one of these guys and tell them that we are not happy with their effort to palm their problems off on us — we have become Mexico’s welfare system.

Finally, it is worth noting that national polling shows that 70% of the people polled agree with the law. Perhaps more to the point, polling indicates that Arizonians — you know, those guys being killed, kidnapped, and otherwise victimized — support the law. And more revealing still, polling reveals that almost 60% of Arizona’s latino population supports the measure.

Perhaps the rest of us should mind our own business and let Arizona deal with Arizona’s almost existential problem — particularly since the only help offered by the federal government comes in the form of amnesty.

Arizona’s New Immigration Law: An Exercise In Consummate Reasonableness — An Introduction

By

Ken Eliasberg

As is frequently my want, I love to introducea topic’s discussion by framing it with some humorous — but telling — emails that I have received from friends and colleagues. So, to set the stage for a discussion of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration legislation — a measure that has engendered considerable heat and very little light — I offer the following gems:

“Mexico is upset about Arizona’s immigration laws (and Democratic

Liberals, Hollywood Icons, and the so-called mediaelite.)

Mexicans here and in Mexico are rather upset by the recent

enactment of stricter anti-illegal alien laws by Arizona’s governor.

In light of the following, that position demonstrates the typical

double standard used by race-hustlers and assorted something-

for-nothings. Read on, and read it to the end.

__ ____

There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.

All ballots will be in this nation’s language.

All government business will be conducted in our language.

Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter

how long they are here.

Non-citizens will NEVERbe able to hold political office.

Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare,

no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance

programs. Any burden will be deported.

Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount

at least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

If foreigners come here and buy land- - options will be restricted.

Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for

citizens naturally born into this country.

Foreigners may have not protests; no demonstrations, no waving

of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our

president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.

10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively hunted

and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be

arranged. All assets will be taken from you.

Too Strict?The above laws are the current immigration

Laws of MEXICO!!!.

These sound fine to me, NOW, how can we get these laws

To be America’s immigration laws??

WAKE UP, AMERICA — we are about to lose our

country

Israel & The Palestinians — An Interesting Argument & An Anomaly

By

Ken Eliasberg

If the reader thinks that my last columns presented an unduly pessimistic portrayal of the situation in the Middle East, and, more specifically, my appraisal of the prospect for either peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors or Israel’s future, then I refer him (or her) to a recent column by Dennis Prager at nationalreview.com on June 8th entitled

If Israel Is Not Evil, the World Is in Big Trouble — Nearly everyone in the world is against Israel; let’s hope they’re right. The column is incredibly insightful in its analysis and terrifying in its assessment of the situation. In essence, what Prager does is expand on my suggestion that we may be gearing up for another holocaust (actually, he takes it a giant step beyond my focus on Israel). He does so by presenting a litany of arguments and attacks launched by various of the forces aligned against Israel, concluding after each with the statement — Let’s hope (e.g.) the world is right.

At the conclusion of his piece — after 4 pages of enumerating the world’s complaints about, criticisms, and attacks of Israel — Prager makes the following observation as to why he closed out each attack on Israel with the expression of Let’s hope that so and so or such and such argument is right:

“The reason mankind has to hope that the world, its leaders, its newspapers, its so-

called human-rights organizations, and the United Nations are right about Israel is

quite simple: If Israel is the decent party in its war with the Palestinian Authority

and Hamas, and nearly all the world’s countries, nearly all the world’s media, and

the United Nations are morally wrong, what hope is there for humanity? If the

world’s moral compass is that broken, are we not sailing into a dark age?”

And Prager is absolutely right. In a previous column I concluded that the world’s animus toward Israel might be leading to another holocaust — the extermination of Israel with the concomitant annihilation of her people. Prager takes it further — a very logical step further — connecting the dots to what’s happening to Israel with what would (will?) happen to all of Western Civilization if Israel were to meet with such a fate. That is, Israel is, as I have always argued, America’s (Civilization’s) canary in the coal mine. If her light were to be extinguished, it would not just be the end of illumination in the Middle East; it would be a precursor to the lights of Western Civilization going out all over the world.

Meanwhile, in the day-to-day happenings in the witch’s brew that is Middle Eastern politics, I would like to point out a curious event that demonstrates how awkward and delicate is the balance in that region of the world. I received an email from a friend, a friend who is very engaged with respect to matters pertaining to Israel. In the email she included an article from The Jerusalem Post by Khaled Abu Toameh in which the author observed that Fatah, the group that presides over the Palestinian portion of the West Bank, was somewhat distressed overTurkey’s actions on behalf of Gaza, and, as a necessary consequence, of Hamas (the Palestinian group (of terrorists) that governs Gaza). My friend seemed somewhat surprised by this turn of events, i.e. that a Palestinian group might actually favor Israel, albeit in this somewhat indirect fashion. Actually, Fatah was not favoring Israel, it was just expressing its concern over the possibility that the world, or at least significant portions of it, were according favorable recognition to Hamas, thus possibly weakening Fatah’s leadership position within the Palestinian community. I emailed her back that Fatah’s position was not at all surprising. Abbas, Fatah’s leader, is understandably threatened by any improvement in Hamas’s position in the world. Why? Because it might carry with it an authority that would strengthen Hamas’s claim to leadership over the Palestinian people. You may recall the savagery that Hamas visited upon Fatah leading up to expelling its supporters from Gaza.

An interesting corollary to this proposition is that all that really keeps Abbas from being overthrown by Hamas is the Israel Defense Force (IDF). I feel very certain that were the IDF not in the area, Hamas would do to Fatah on the West Bank exactly what it did to them in Gaza. Why the IDF support of Abbas? Because Fatah is the designated Palestinian driver of the alleged peace process with Israel, Hamas being an unwilling and an unworthy candidate for the job.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that, notwithstanding Fatah’s favored position in the “peace process” negotiations, she is equally vociferous in denying Israel’s right to exist. And, frankly, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that there will be no peace in that area. Indeed, there can’t be. Abbas has almost no choice but to deny Israel’s right to exist (to his people in Arabic); a Palestinian leader who would recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of an agreement according Palestinians the rights they claim, would undoubtedly end up in the same position as Anwar Sadat (who signed the peace treaty with Israel in which Egypt recognized Israel’s right to exist (and, in exchange, the Sinai, an area rich in resources, was restored to her)). This is both the anomaly with respect to conditions in that region of the world and a very dark cloud that hangs over any effort the parties may make toward peace. Indeed, even after Arafat was brought back to the territory as the result of the Oslo Accord, he continued to broadcast — in Arabic — to his people that they should not be dismayed by his entering into the agreement with Israel; it was just a ploy — his desire to destroy Israel was still in place, now strengthened by his being better geographically positioned to do so.

Jews were aware that Arafat was speaking out of both sides of his mouth — those on the right were concerned; those on the left, desperate for any concrete effort to secure peace, wrote it off as just the necessary cost of doing business, i.e. Arafat had no choice but to take that position with his people if he were to be allowed to remain in a position of leadership. The left’s position, in this regard, was reminiscent of LBJ’s view of geopolitical reality with respect to any foreign despotic leader that we did business with, i.e. he may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B. This has been the favored geopolitical position of our foreign policy leadership types, i.e. the “stability” doctrine; we don’t choose the leaders of other countries, we just have to live with, and, where necessary, do business with, those who are chosen. Let me assure you that Abbas is much more afraid of his own people than he is of any Israeli; he is Netanyahu’s designated “peace partner,” and there is no way the Israelis will do anything but keep him alive. If they never raised their hand against Arafat — a despicable monster — there is no chance that Abbas will meet with harm at the hands of the Israelis.

A Middle East Reality: Peace Between Israel And Its Neighbors? Forget About It — The Arabs Will Never Let It Happen

By

Ken Eliasberg

It is possible that no century produced more geopolitical conflict than did the 20th century. From the Russo/Japanese conflict of 1904 to the current conflagration in Afghanistan, there was almost no surcease. At any given time, war was raging somewhere, punctuated by several of global significance, e.g. two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. That said, no arena has produced more enduring difficulties than those arising out of the Middle East, i.e. the more than 6-decade Arab-Israeli conflict. By the same token, no conflict has given rise to more dialogue and discussion than that particular dispute. It has produced hundreds of books, thousands of articles and columns, endless discussion — all to no avail. Why not? Because all of this attention is predicated on the assumption that peace is possible — if only those recalcitrant Jews would accede to the demands of their peace-loving Muslim neighbors. And therein lies the reason for all of this rather meaningless outpouring of speech and literature. The Arabs don’t want peace with the Jews; they just don’t want Jews — PERIOD!! At long last, some astute observer has produced a column, brilliant in its simplicity, and blinding in its illumination of the fundamental truth of the Arab/Israeli reality. The author, a self declared conservative Christian, is one Jerry Philipson, and his refreshingly insightful piece appears at the website of the American Thinker (an excellent website); it was published on May 2nd and reads as follows:

“The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States and Egypt are discussing an agreement which would see the Middle East, including Israel and Iran, become a nuclear free zone. The Daily Telegraph newspaper in England reports that President Obama is threatening to turn the peace process over to the international community if it remains deadlocked until the fall. In the meantime there may or may not be a resumption of talks on Monday, depending on who you’re listening to.

All of this ignores the most salient factor of all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not possible because Islam won’t permit it and militates against it. (emphasis supplied)

Islam is a religion of intolerance toward unbelievers, with perhaps the most hatred reserved for Jews because of their ancient refusal to recognize Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and Allah as the supreme being.

This hatred of Jews translates into a hatred of Israel, which in turn translates into an obligation to obliterate and remove it from the face of the earth. When Palestinians and other Muslims demonize, vilify, attack and kill Israelis, Jews, they are really doing so in the name of Islam and because Islam commands them to. Israelis, Jews, are infidels and are seen as occupiers and interlopers at best with no right to the land they live on, historical or otherwise. Their presence is viewed as an affront and an insult.

Nothing will change until these misguided beliefs do. Since they go back 1400 years, are rooted in the Koran and are basic to Islamic thought and action peace is not going to come soon, if it ever does. The best we can hope for is some sort of grudging ceasefire, enforced by a third party that isn’t the United Nations. Islam itself is the cause of the conflict in the Middle East and there is no possibility of peace until Islamic countries recognize and accept Israel’s legitimate right to exist and stop trying to annihilate it. That is a contradiction of terms so don’t hold your breath.

Israel ignores or glosses over this at her peril and so does the U.S. Israel is the Little Satan but America is the Great Satan and also in the line of fire.

Peace? Forget it in this day and age. Maybe in another 1400 years though

The Flotilla Fiasco In Perspective — What’s The Endgame Here? Another Holocaust In The Making

By

Ken Eliasberg

Continuing with our discussion of the fall out from Israel’s recent encounter with the Turkey Trot, i.e. Turkey’s “innocent” effort to provide “humanitarian” aid to the oppressed occupants of the beleaguered territory of Gaza. What’s all the fuss about? One country malevolently set about to run a legitimate blockade of another sovereign nation, gets caught in the act — an act resulting in 9 deaths and several serious injuries — and who gets blamed? Not the country that violated the blockade (a legitimate effort at self defense), but the country whose blockade was violated (by the way, the blockade of Gaza was a joint effort of Israel and Egypt). The irony of this situation, which, but for the existential threat that it poses, would, under other circumstances, be almost humorous. Indeed, a talk show host opened the discussion of the reaction to the Turkey Trot with this bit of dark humor: There are 4 prisoners in a jail cell, 1 is there for murdering 3 people, another for raping 5 women, a third for orchestrating a billion dollar ponzi scheme, and the fourth for having run a red light. The 4th person (the one who ran the red light) gets the death penalty. Query? Who is the 4th person? Israel!! The obvious point is that in a world of monstrous and murderous transgressors, Israel gets dumped on for an allegedly inappropriate act of self defense. There is only one thing wrong with the aforementioned joke — Israel didn’t do anything wrong; it didn’t run a red light — on the contrary, it was hit by a national vehicle that itself had run a red light. Of course facts don’t matter when it comes to Israel; Israel is to be condemned whatever the circumstances. Why is this the case, and why is it getting much worse — and, as a consequence, much more dangerous??

Let’s take a look at what happened, why it happened, the reaction to what happened, and then let’s try to figure out what’s really going on here. At the outset it may be useful to remind the reader of who’s being blockaded and why. Gaza is under blockade because it is run by an admittedly terrorist organization, Hamas, who is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. And Gaza, since Israel’s removing itself from the territory, has been the source of nothing but terror. And, once Hamas took over, there was never even a possibility of peacefully resolving the Gaza situation — ergo an understandable effort to contain the territory and, as a consequence, reduce the danger posed by a more heavily armed Hamas. In this regard, bear in mind that Hamas is Iran’s surrogate in the area (as is Hezbollah in Lebanon on Israel’s northern border), and that Iran has oft expressed its desire (and intent) to destroy Israel. Is Israel not entitled to act in its own defense? And, for present purposes, let’s not argue about whether they could have acted in a different manner — one that might meet with more universal acceptance. Let’s just concede that every sovereign nation — or any individual or group of individuals — has the unconditional right to defend itself. So, for purposes of this column, let’s not split hairs over whether Israel could have gone about enforcing the blockade in a less confrontational manner, e.g. disable the ship’s rudder and tow it to port (by the way, I think that the passengers really wanted this confrontation — why? martyrdom for the dead, and lots of grief for Israel). Why do I say this? Two reasons: (1) The most telling reason being that the flotilla spokeswoman, Greta Berlin, announced to the Agence France Press a week before the sailing that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege,” and (2) many of the passengers were either in the service of, or linked to. an organization with a direct connection to, Al-Qaeda and were armed with weapons with which they greeted the Israeli commandos, hardly the reaction of passengers on a peaceful mission.

In addition, the commander of the ship made no effort to comply with the commandos request to yield to inspection, making it perfectly clear that it was the flotilla’s intention to run the blockade. Thus, we have a sovereign nation’s legitimate blockade being intentionally violated by another sovereign nation. Who is at fault? Can there be any question — Turkey!! But I assure you that that is not the way the mainstream media, the U.N., and Jew-haters around the world will view Turkey’s transgression. Israel will once again be treated as a pariah. And, in siding with Israel in this instance, I am not for a moment arguing that either Israel is perfect, nor am I suggesting that every attack on Israel is rooted in anti-semitism (although I strongly believe that most are). I am saying that whatever be the merits of Israel’s position in other areas and on other subjects, in this instance she did no wrong. Again, acting in your own defense cannot, under virtually any set of circumstances, be viewed as wrong. Let’s see, North Korea just sank a South Korean vessel (killing some 40 sailors), Iran is hurtling toward nuclear weapons, Sudanese Muslims, under the aegis of their government, have murdered hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Sudanese Christians, and the world sort of goes tsk, tsk. Israel takes a modest step in its own defense, and the world is up in arms. Why? Serious violations of human rights are occurring all over the world, committed by some of the world’s most powerful countries, and the commission of such is dealt with in a rather tame manner by the community of nations; compare this with any act of Israel, no matter how reasonable in manner and modest in nature, and the result of such a comparison is telling. Toward what end you might ask?

Why the need to constantly criticize, demonize, marginalize, and isolate Israel from the community of nations. The goal of all of this is to delegitimize Israel, leading eventually to Israel’s extinction. What’s really involved here in this intensifying effort to demonize Israel? All these efforts to delegitimize Israel are made with a view to setting the stage for another Holocaust. I suspect that many, including some who may even be among Israel’s friends, may feel that I am taking a much too apocalyptic view of the situation in the Middle East. But, in my opinion, such a dim view of my assessment is to be expected from Israel’s enemies. Also, it may come as too much of a shock for those of Israel’s friends inclined to view world affairs in a more pollyanish manner (these would be the same people who saw Hitler as more silly than dangerous). Besides, I have always felt that to view any potentially dangerous situation with a significant degree of caution is advisable. And when someone says that they want to not just kill you, but to destroy your entire country, it is better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of excessive caution. In this case I would prefer to b a “chicken little” than a pollyana.

The situation was succinctly and compellingly put in perspective by Charles Krauthammer in his June 4th Washington Post column, entitled Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews (also appearing simultaneously in The Seattle Times, under the title Israel refuses to commit suicide) when, in conclusion, he observed:

“The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again - -

hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For

which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from

defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists - - Iranian

in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.”

Well and truly put, Charles! What will happen here in the end? In the not too distant future - I strongly suspect that Israel will take an incredible amount of heat, ending in the blockade either being terminated or put in the hands of some ineffectual international body like the U.N. (does it get any more ineffectual than that?). In the distant future — Israel is in mortal danger; it has never been more of an international outcast, with the potentially fatal blow being struck by Obama’s currently diminishing, and, in the future, possibly totally withdrawing U.S. support. U.S.-Israel relations have never been more strained; no U.S. president has ever been less supportive of Israel than Obama (in an apparent effort to curry favor with Islam — an effort that has thus far borne little fruit, if any).

The Turkish Flotilla Fiasco: Israel “Guilty Until Proven Guilty”

By

Ken Eliasberg

The recent Israeli effort to prevent a Turkish vessel from running the blockade of Gaza has, as is now well known, ended in tragedy — a tragedy that will end, as do all Middle Eastern tragedies - with Israel being blamed for intemperate conduct. In this regard, it seems that any act of self defense on Israel’s part is intemperate. While it was alleged that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, its refusal to lend itself to inspection, plus the obvious character and behavior of the political activists that greeted the Israeli commandos, make it abundantly clear that the purpose of this Turkish voyage was something quite over and beyond the desire to deliver humanitarian aid.

Perhaps a brief introductory reminder of the circumstances that prevail in Gaza is in order. Gaza is run by Hamas, a conceded terrorist organization, that assumed control over the territory after savagely brutalizing the other (not yet labeled terrorist) Palestinian organization contending for power, i.e. Fatah. Gaza has been an ongoing threat to Israeli security, lobbing thousands of rockets into Israel - aimed at civilian targets — before Israel’s effort to put a stop to it, i.e. Operation Cast Lead. Consequently, Israel wants to prevent Hamas from securing additional weaponry with which to continue its harassment of Israel’s citizens — ergo the blockade.

1. What’s a blockade? A permissible method of isolating or quarantining a territory in an effort to minimize the danger posed by that territory. We and our allies used it extensively during WWII. Kennedy used it effectively during the Cuban missile crisis. In short, blockades can be appropriate and are quite legal.

2. This particular blockade. Israel acted in accordance with the terms of the blockade. That is, it advised the flotilla that it would be in violation of the blockade if it proceeded; that it was to dock and submit to inspection. When the Turkish ships involved refused to honor the request to dock, one of their number was boarded by Israeli commandos.

3. What happened? The commandos were met by a group of what were clearly political activists who were violently aggressive in their response to the Israeli incursion. The Israeli commando’s weapons of first choice were guns firing paint balls. When this failed to secure the desired response, and the violence on the part of the passengers escalated, the commandos were armed with, and used, weapons of a more lethal nature. As a consequence of the confrontation, 4 commandos were wounded (by spears, bars, and a gun taken from a disarmed commando) and 9 of the belligerent passengers were killed. In short, the peaceful passengers (some of whom, it was subsequently determined, were agents of an organization with links to Al-Qaeda) initiated the violence that ended in 9 of them being killed (martyrs to the cause of delegitimizing Israel). The boat was then taken to port, searched, and was found to be weapon free.

Query? If the boats had nothing to hide, then why did they refuse to submit to a search? Clearly, for no other reason than to run the blockade, put Israel in a defensive position, giving Israel but 2 choices; (1) honor its blockade and do exactly what it did, or (2) dishonor its blockade and face the very real possibility that, if they allowed the blockade to be dishonored, future blockade running ships would most assuredly be carrying something a bit more lethal. Indeed, this was clearly a test case intended to either (1) break the blockade, or (2) better yet, to set the stage for demonizing Israel for its forceful action (action that the response of the passengers made absolutely necessary). And, of course, such demonizing reactions followed quickly on the heels of this event (I would be very surprised if such did not issue from the left-wing columnist of this publication).

As a consequence of the “flotilla fiasco,” as it is being called in some circles, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cancelled a scheduled meeting with Obama (an effort to allegedly treat Netanyahu somewhat more respectfully than he was treated on his last visit —when he was ushered in through a back door, treated rather brusquely (that is, in a manner not at all in keeping with that customarily accorded heads of state). Why? Because Obama was concerned that he might be losing some support in the Jewish community, a community that is only slightly less reliable in its support for the Democrat Party than the black community — 78% of the Jewish voters in 2008 cast their vote for Obama).

Netanyahu returned to Israel where he addressed the problem in a statement to the public in which he indicated that Israel’s conduct was appropriate and he stood behind it, notwithstanding the demands for an act of contrition on Israel’s part, issuing from the usual anti-Israeli suspects. In his statement, he pointed out that this was not a “love boat”; on the contrary, it was a hate boat, which, indeed, it was. He addressed all of the circumstances, gave the appropriate explanations, and concluded with this observation: Israel is guilty until it is proven guilty.” The observation is, unfortunately, correct, and it is an observation that applies to no other country in the world, no matter how inappropriate the actions of that country might be. Take for example, the outrageous conduct of the Sudanese government which, to this day, goes unaddressed. Israel, on the other hand, is always deemed to be in the wrong no matter what action it might take in its own defense. Query? What do you think the U.S. would do if Mexico was lobbing rockets in to San Diego?

The bottom line here is quite simple: The blockade is legal, appropriate, and necessary; that Turkey intentionally — with malevolent purpose — chose to run the blockade; and, as a consequence, blame should be heaped upon Turkey and not on Israel. But I assure you that that’s not the way it’s going to go down.

Why Turkey, one might ask? Good question. Ralph Peters, a solid authority, who I respect, opined that Turkey was trying to move itself into a position of greater authority in the Islamist hierarchy, the goal of which is a world-wide caliphate. And Turkey, who is currently being taken over by its Islamist factions, would like to see itself at the center of this caliphate, as it was during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. There may be some truth to this charge, but I cannot provide assurances on the subject. What it is safe to say is that this endeavor was an effort to put Israel in an embarrassing position and thus lay the groundwork for further isolating Israel in the arena of world opinion.

All Three Navy Seals Acquitted: Sanity Prevails — At Least For The Moment

By

Ken Eliasberg

I’m sure many of you have been following with some interest (and a substantial measure of disbelief) the court-martial progress of 3 Navy Seals who had the audacity to violate the integrity of an Islamic barbarian terrorist who orchestrated the killing of 4 Blackwater agents serving in Iraq (thereafter showing their essential good will by desecrating their victims dead bodies — we are really facing an insane enemy. Lodged in the 7th century and not only wanting very much to remain there, but to take us back to that dark age as well).One of these poor chaps, unable to contain himself, punched this bastard (oops, I mean prisoner) in the mouth, bloodying his lip - can you imagine the nerve of this guy. The other 2 just stood by and did not come to the aid of this murderous monster — where were their priorities?

I am, of course, speaking tongue in cheek — only because I am so outraged to see my country sink to this point — where heroes are court martialled and Islamist scumbags are coddled. What the has gone wrong with America? It’s bad enough that we refuse to take the enemy seriously — heck, if you mention Jihad or Islamofascist, (or, until recently, terrorist) you might expect a visit from the speech police or be accused by some left-wing nut case of being a bigot. But we have gone well beyond that; we now side with the enemy. We pursue members of the CIA or attorneys in the Justice Department for making earnest efforts to further the cause of national security by gathering much needed intelligence, but demonstrate some absurd sensitivity to the integrity of these miserable terrorist creeps.

In any event, I reported on this case (these cases) when it (they) first broke in December, expressing at the time my complete disbelief that a situation like this could even arise — that we had gone so far down the left-wing path of self destruction that we were now eating our own. Now, I realize that some member of the left-wing elite (effete) — some dim bulb, residing in academia no doubt — will crawl out from under the academic rock in which he has maintained a substantial (and undeserved) sinecure and argue that we are not really attacking our own; we are merely asserting our fundamental moral goodness so that the rest of the world can see how wonderful we are. Puuullleease!!! These blood sucking parasites on the left who hold our young folks hostage while they pump them full of Marxist nonsense are killing this country!

I have followed the disgusting path of their progress with interest and contempt — interest to try an understand the phenomenon of how allegedly intelligent people turn on their own country and contempt for their having done so. Now, of course, they argue that they are really patriots, defending their country by pointing out the error of its ways. No, they are America-hating useful idiots who are sucking the vitality out of their country. Am I suggesting that America makes no mistakes? Of course not! What I am suggesting is that, in the course, of cleaning out the bath water, you try not to throw out the baby.

I have been aware of the America-hating left for a number of decades — hell, much to my chagrin I was confronted with it here in this very newspaper when I first started writing for it. A professor, later to become a columnist, wrote a letter to the editor in which he made the case, in essence, that 9/11 was perfectly understandable since, in war, there are no “innocent civilians.” I was a bit taken aback since I was unaware that the country at large considered itself at war; hell, the Clintons (and previous administrations) had gone to great length to treat previous assaults on our integrity as merely criminal acts, to be prosecute accordingly.

Moreover, the good professor (God how it galls me that imbeciles like this our indoctrinating our young people) seemed to be suggesting that, regardless of the technicality of being at war, American foreign policy was really behind the displeasure that we have incurred abroad. By the way, I might note in passing that that displeasure is both selective and evanescent, lasting only as long as they don’t need us; thereafter, we are once more restored to their good graces. Therein lies the problem of trying to determine policy based on popularity and consensus.We have been hated — until needed - for well over a century; I remember my confusion when serving abroad in our Armed Forces a decade after our liberating Europe over the degree of anti-Americanism. I shall deal with anti-Americanism in a later series; for present purposes let me just observe that anti-Americanism abroad is fairly meaningless; leadership is about principles, not popularity. And, if you do the right thing, you can be sure that half the country or half the world, as the case may be, is not going to love you. Don’t worry about it; just do the right thing!

The anti-Americanism that bothers me, and for which I find neither explanation nor excuse, is the domestic kind that emanates from our left-wing in this country — this is despicable; I cannot abide it, and I intend to address it at some length down the road

Back to the Navy Seals — Justice did indeed prevail; the shame is that it ever had to be tasked to do so.

South Park, Fatwas And Freedom Of Speech III

By

Ken Eliasberg

This brings us back to our point of beginning — the South Park fatwa, which read as follows:

“An episode of ‘South Park’ that continued a story line involving the

Prophet Mohammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central

with audio bleeps and image blocks reading ‘CENSORED’ after a

Muslim group warned the show’s creators that they could face

violence for depicting the holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim,

a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the ‘South

Park’ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker ‘will probably wind up

like Theo Van Gogh.”

Nothing subtle here; this is a direct threat on the lives of the creators of this episode of South Park. I don’t know about you, but I find this not just unacceptable, but despicable. In simpler times, we might have sought out the authors of this threat and saw to it that what goes around comes around. Today, we are much too civilized to even contemplate, let alone do, anything quite so violent. Indeed, we are much too soft to do anything but roll over and hope — nay, pray — that Obama’s pearls sooth these savage beasts into a calmer state.

Once again, a good number of media panjandrums have chosen to cut and run, hiding behind obeisance to Muslim sensitivities as an excuse for their cowardly behavior. However, among a good number of our other journalists, this threat seems to have constituted a bridge too far — they see the danger to free speech if we keep yielding to these religious fanatics (a small number of Muslims, say 150 to 200 million or so, according to Daniel Pipes, whose website I wholeheartedly recommend). And I’m not trying to be either cute, facetious, or disrespectful here; we are not dealing with 20 or 30 thousand nut jobs— according to Pipes, who is an authority on matters of this nature, we are dealing with 10 to 15% of the Muslim world. Since the Muslim world contains about 1.4 billion people, you do the math. And, please spare me any nonsense that I am attacking the religion of peace — even if the bad guys number 200 million, that still leaves 1.2 billion good guys to reign them in and take back their religion. Unfortunately, the good guys, notwithstanding numerous declarations as to their displeasure with their violent cohorts, seem to be either unable or unwilling to do much about reigning the bad guys in. Which means that we shall have to or perish in failing to do so. Those our the stakes; they want to establish a world-wide Caliphate of which we are to be apart. No thanks! But that is exactly what will happen in time if we do not step on them, and step on them hard now.

We cannot afford to be passive, let alone cowardly, on a matter of this nature; the 2 most important freedoms conferred on us by our founding fathers are those of speech and religion. To sit back while violence is being done to these freedoms is to surrender everything worthwhile that our forefathers have given us with their blood, sweat and tears. I recommend a brilliant piece on this matter by one Daniel Greenfield in the Canada Free press website on April 28th entitled They Don’t Have to Silence Us, If We Silence Ourselves First. In it, Greenfield makes these observations:

“Recently we rediscovered the simple fact that even on Cable television, on a network where anything goes, one thing does not go.

Depicting Mohammad. Even in a bear suit. That same iron law has

been unofficially passed in country after country, where operas,

newspapers, books, television programs have been censored in order to avoid offending the people who might kill them if they were not

censored. Speech and image have been blocked, cut out, snipped and silenced. Not because anyone has actually been killed, but because

attempts have been made to kill some people. Which is enough to make free speech go the way of the Dodo.

And that is exactly the point. They don’t have to silence us, if we silence ourselves first. They don’t have to oppress us, if we oppress

ourselves first. They don’t have to demand our surrender and submission,if we surrender and submit first. Islam, we love it. Sharia law, we’ll gladly adopt it. Free speech, it has to have its limits. Women’s rights, we’ll have to walk a fine line. Freedom. Ha, what freedom. We’ve already traded that away for nice set of multicultural

Bongos, a few curry shops, a glass of arack and a leatherbound copy of the Koran.”

Extreme? Not at all! This is the path we are walking down if we give in to these murderous religious fanatics.

More recently, Muslim activists have demanded that the evangelist FranklinGraham be censored and disinvited from another forum, the National Day of Prayer, an event scheduled with members of Congress (you may recall they were successful in having him disinvited from a prayer service at the Pentagon for his unfavorable observations re Islam. For further discussion, see Muslims want Franklin Graham censored again — ‘Our nation’s founders wouldn’t have tolerated it, and neither should we’ by Bob Unruh at worldnetdaily on April 27th.

By the way killing you is typically one of their more extreme efforts to silence you. First, Islamists try to embarrass by accusing you of being an Islamaphobe — a bigot. And, if that doesn’t work, suing you into submission. Typically, they don’t hope to win, just bankrupt you in a lawsuit since they have the funds to do it. These types and organizations are well funded, with resources being made generously available by Mideast countries, usually Saudi Arabia through many of its numerous potentates., see e.g. Funding Evil — How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It by Rachel Ehrenfeld, Bonus Books (2003)We must stand up to these bullies, terrorists, killers, and nut cases.

And please spare me any crap about Islamophobia. This country does not have an “Islamophobia” problem; we have an Islamic intimidation problem. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. It seems clear to me that not to be afraid of something or someone or a group of someones who want to kill you (and, as noted, have succeeded in certain cases, e.g. Theo Van Gogh) is quite rational. Indeed, not to take such threats seriously would be irrational. Moreover, while we are constantly being advised of a Muslim backlash (recall the general who, after the Fort Hood disaster, was more concerned with apossible effect on diversity than the safety of his soldiers), but there hasn’t been any, despite various honor killings, threats and other nonsense. Frankly, I am a lot more concerned with an actual Muslim

“frontlash” (such as what happened at Fort Hood, or what could have happened with that screwball on the plane to Detroit who set his underpants on fire (thus presenting him with some problems with those 72 virgins unless Allah restores his genitals in the course of his passage)) than I am with any potential or possible “backlash.” If we don’t respond to these depredations then we don’t deserve our liberties.

What to do? Stop worrying about a Muslim backlash — really peaceful Muslims should (and, hopefully, will) applaud efforts to drum the bad guys out of the corps and restore the good name (and peaceful image) of Islam. In the South Park case, arrest the owners of the website that made the death threat, find out everything about them and their funding sources, try them for inciting murder, jail them, and then deport them.