DAVID ISAAC: Getting Greens Wrong A Review: “A Climate of Crisis: America in the Age of Environmentalism” by Patrick Allitt


Patrick Allitt has written a book no one will like. Neither environmentalists nor those he calls counterenvironmentalists. He’ll be tempted to flatter himself with the tattered response of those criticized from both sides: “I must be doing something right.” He’ll be wrong.

The purpose of the book, in Allitt’s words, is “to explain the history of American environmental controversies since World War II and to encourage an optimistic attitude toward the environmental future.” But it reads more like an environmental “he said, she said.” On issue after issue, Allitt presents one side, then the other, making for a seesaw of a read.

Allitt misses the central role of ideology in these controversies. He treats the sales pitch of an environmental organization as if it were its main object. But “safety” issues are the gloss green groups apply to mask deeper agendas.

Take, for example, Allitt’s treatment of Amory Lovins, to whom he devotes a respectful section. Allitt describes Lovins as “a brilliant and hardheaded polymath” who is “fully aware, as we all should be, that successful handling of energy and the environment depends more on weighing many issues together than by clinging to single causes and solutions. Among these issues are cost, cleanliness, conservation, public trust, and democratic responsiveness.”

These anodyne comments are amazing if one knows something about Amory Lovins, who rose to prominence as an opponent of large-energy power sources, including coal and nuclear, even complex solar. These “hard path” technologies, Lovins argued, meant dependence on “alien, remote, and perhaps humiliatingly uncontrollable technology run by a faraway, bureaucratized, technical elite who have probably never heard of you.” How many people actually feel humiliated when they flip on a light-switch because they don’t have a personal relationship with their power station?


Tom Friedman’s anti-Adelson diatribe shows how intellectually corrupted the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian issue has become.

Truth be told, Tom Friedman can be a pretty astute and articulate journalist – except when he writes about Israel.

Then his work degenerates from the astute to the inane and from the articulate to the incoherent.

But even by his usual misleading sub-standards, his recent piece, “Sheldon: Iran’s Best Friend” (The New York Times, April 5), was a doozy.

Full Disclosure

In it he makes a puerile attempt to draw a parallel between the danger that the rabid anti-Israel mullah Ali Khamenei and the avid pro-Israel magnate Sheldon Adelson pose for the Jewish state.

Full disclosure: In the past I have applied to Adelson’s Foundation for financial support for my own nonprofit entity – The Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. But sadly, to date, not only I have not received a bent penny, I have not had any acknowledgment of my request being received.

So I have very little allegiance to Adelson that might induce me to write in his defense against Friedman’s frivolous attack, although malicious souls will doubtless imply that I do. Quite the opposite is true. If anything I should feel a little resentful at having been so ignobly ignored.

I have a completely different rationale for penning this week’s column. My reason for doing so is to use Friedman’s article to show how intellectually corrupted the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian issue has become, and how self-contradictory and disingenuous the increasingly desperate arguments of two-state proponents have become.

These elements are all starkly illustrated in Friedman’s anti-Sheldon rant and vividly underscore just how bankrupt the two-staters’ case has become.

‘Toxic tycoons’?

Accordingly, I do not want to dwell too long on Friedman’s childish chagrin that Adelson is using his self-amassed fortune to advance causes he believes in, and to support politicians he feels would be likely to promote them.

But some brief reference is unavoidable.

Friedman alleges: “Adelson personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend each system to their will.”

But after even the most cursory perusal of his anti-Sheldon diatribe, any fair-minded reader might be excused for concluding that what really bothers Friedman is not the toxicity of the democratic system in the US or Israel, nor the power plutocrats per se have in affecting the outcomes it produces.

Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that if Adelson were funding the same political causes and/or organizations as, say, George Soros, he would not have come in for censure.

The Wages of Being America’s Ally in the Age of Obama Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy


Outside of the specter of U.S. pressure on Israel to release additional scores of terrorists, I confess to having had little interest in the latest futile American quest to resuscitate the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” Like most transnational progressive enterprises, this decades-old theater is all process and no peace—about what you’d expect from a venture in which the United States believes it must be an impartial “honest broker” between America’s friends and America’s enemies.

To make a long, long, long story short, there can be no acceptable peace between Israel and the Palestinians absent four non-negotiable conditions: (a) there must be a single authority capable of negotiating for the Palestinian side; (b) the Palestinians must unconditionally accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state; (c) the Palestinians must convincingly renounce terrorism; and (d) the Palestinians must abandon the absurd “right of return” demand. Islamic supremacists whine that this is a one-sided set of requirements, but it’s not. It is basic in any negotiation that each side acknowledge the other’s right to exist and basic sovereign prerogatives. Besides, we all know that there is almost no concession Israel would refrain from making for the sake of peace if these elementary understandings were in place. So my general attitude about the “peace process” is: Wake me up when the Palestinians agree to those conditions and, in the meantime, try not to do too much harm.

The Roots of CAIR’s Intimidation Campaign : Andrew McCarthy

Brandeis sides with a spawn of Hamas over a champion of women’s rights.

Author’s Note: This week, capitulating to Islamic-supremacist agitation led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Brandeis University reneged on its announced plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the heroic human-rights activist. In my 2010 book, The Grand Jihad, I devoted a chapter to the origins and purposes of CAIR, its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and its aim to silence critics of Islamic supremacism. In light of the continuing success of this campaign — despite a federal terrorism-financing prosecution that exposed CAIR’s unsavory background — it is worth revisiting that history. What follows is an adapted excerpt from that chapter.

In January 1993, a new, left-leaning U.S. administration, inclined to be more sympathetic to the Islamist clause, came to power. But before he could bat an eye, President Bill Clinton was confronted by the murder and depraved mutilation of American soldiers in Somalia. A few weeks later, on February 26, jihadists bombed the World Trade Center. The public was angry and appeasing Islamists would have to wait.

Yasser Arafat, however, sensed opportunity. The terrorist intifada launched at the end of 1987 had been a successful gambit for the Palestine Liberation Organization chief. Within a year, even as the body count mounted, the weak-kneed “international community” was granting the PLO the right to participate (though not to vote) in U.N. General Assembly sessions. And when Arafat made the usual show of “renouncing” terrorism — even as he was orchestrating terrorist attacks in conjunction with Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other Islamist factions — the United States recognized him as the Palestinians’ legitimate leader, just as the Europeans had done. Arafat blundered in 1991, throwing in his lot with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and that seemed to bury him with the Bush 41 administration. But Clinton’s election was a new lease on life.



On Monday evening on the 14th day of April Jews will gather with friends and family to celebrate Passover. We will recount the hardships of slavery in Egypt and the harsh oppression by the Pharaoh. We will rejoice in the rescue by Moses who demanded freedom for our people. We will recite the ten plagues that were unleashed on the Egyptians when the Pharaohs refused to free the Jews .The Pharaoh finally relented but when the Jews were leaving he sent an army to capture them and return them to enslavement. We will cheer when we retell how the waters of the Red Sea miraculously parted giving the Jews an escape, and the waters returned drowning the pursuing army.

Then, we will have a moment of silent prayer in memory of the martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto who courageously rebelled on Passover in April of 1943 and held off the well-armed Nazis for over a month.

Finally, we will recount another miracle- the return of the Jews to Israel in 1948 when the seas again parted- this time for the steel hulls of vessels bringing besieged and beleaguered and traumatized survivors of the Genocide of World War 2 to safety and succor in the Jewish state of Israel.

Then we will eat, drink and be merry.

But, the story of Passover continues with great consequences:

The book of Exodus says that after crossing the Red Sea, Moses led the Jews into the Sinai, where they spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness. After travelling through the desert for nearly three months, they camped before Mount Sinai and it was there that God made a covenant with Moses and revealed the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets that codified the mandate to create a just and humane society and govern the lives of Jews and all decent people and nations. There are actually 613 commandments which cover every aspect of life-even hygiene and diet, but the Decalogue- the Ten Commandments are the most famous.

Think about that. At a time and place of local mores that sanctioned and celebrated murder and pillage and tyranny, these laws set forth principles of morality which have lasted for millennia.

Until 2005 The Ten Commandments were prominently displayed in courts, schools, churches and public grounds. In 2005 rulings on the presentation of religious symbols and sacred text on Texas public property, the US Supreme Court justified displays like the Ten Commandments but with the caveat that such displays must be clearly secular and not cross the line into proselytizing.

However, in a ruling on the display of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that public officials were not motivated by a secular purpose in ordering the courthouse display but sought to advance religion in violation of the separation of church and state.

The debate continues with the ACLU pitted against all public displays of the Ten Commandments and determined citizens of all religions who fight to uphold their rights to display them. There are prominent jurists and scholars who continue to argue on that subject. In spite of these controversies, The Ten Commandments continue to inspire all the world’s religions and all decent societies- religious as well as secular.

Here, in this great nation we live in freedom from intimidation, oppression and harassment because those founding fathers who sought to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” were religious Christians who were informed and guided by the Bible and the Ten Commandments which were revealed more than 3,000 years ago to Moses and the Jewish people on their way to their homeland in Israel.

All of us at Family Security Matters wish all our readers and supporters a sweet and happy Passover and a joyous and peaceful Easter.


Socialist Muslim Politician: “Women who are Raped should be Hanged”
Mulayam Singh Yadav defended rapists saying sometimes boys make mistakes.
In a bid to woo the Muslim voters, Mulayam said: “It is not that I am with the Third Front for some post in the government. In fact, I am with them for the Muslims. If the Third Front comes to power, I would expect from them to solve the problems of the Muslims within a year.”

While Google Chrome has been struggling with market share, Firefox has been in a steady decline down to 17% market share in March from 20% in May of last year.

Firefox fell below 18% this year so that it no longer even claimed a fifth of internet users.

Mozilla Firefox Falls to 3rd Place, Hits Lowest User Level Ever


The Noah drop is worse than Russell Crowe’s previously unpopular Robin Hood which only fell 48% on its second weekend. At the rate that Noah is falling, it will likely not make back its production budget domestically, let alone its promotional budget.

Cinemascore still rates Noah at C indicating that audiences hate it more than any other movie in current release.

Noah Falls 61.1% in Second Weekend

With all the publicity that Letterman’s retirement is getting, you would think that anyone was still watching the Late Show with David Letterman.

And you would be wrong.

By 2011, Nightline was beating both Letterman and Leno among young viewers.

America to Not Watch Colbert, Just Like It’s Not Watching Letterman

In one of his essays, Oz wrote, “Israel could have become an exemplary state… a small scale laboratory for democratic socialism.”

“Why didn’t Israel develop as the most egalitarian and creative social democratic society in the world? I would say that one of the major factors was the mass immigration of Holocaust survivors, Middle Eastern Jews and non-socialist and even anti-socialist Zionists.”

“Then there were the masses of Orthodox Jews… to whom socialism meant blasphemy and atheism.”

Brandeis Gives Honorary Degree to Critic of Judaism, Refuses to Give One to Critic of Islam



WASHINGTON – Lawmakers with strong ties to the Tea Party movement have gained a toehold in the U.S. Senate but it appears they might have difficulty expanding their numbers this year.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are among those associated with the conservative, grassroots drive that has proved influential within Republican Party politics in a relatively short period of time. But a review of upcoming Senate contests reveals that more establishmentarian Senate candidates maintain an edge – at least to this point – heading into the primary season.

Conservative disaffection for the manner in which mainstream Republicans are confronting President Obama and his policies, coupled with ongoing spending issues, have resulted in a higher than usual number of challenges to GOP incumbents.

Yet, in the first showdown of the primary season, establishment Republicans won hands down, with Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn, of Texas, blasting Rep. Steven Stockman (R-Texas) by more than 40 points. Cornyn is overwhelmingly favored to win a third term in the fall.

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who faces his own Tea Party challenge this year from Louisville businessman Matt Bevin. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”



“Hamas, Hamas… Jews to the gas. [1]”

I am starting this piece with that incindiary chant, intoned all too frequently at European demonstrations recently (not to mention soccer matches!), to remind readers just how far things have gone and who is behind them.

The folks at Brandeis University, their administration, may not be aware of it. I hope they’re not, though I suspect they are – aware that CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) has been linked closely and legally [2] with the religious fanatic terrorist organization Hamas whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and many other things not associated with Mother Teresa.

CAIR calls itself a “Muslim NAACP.” The NAACP may have lost some (or a lot) of its original mojo, but to compare CAIR to the NAACP is like comparing Josef Mengele to Ben Carson. Say it ain’t so.

But it is so to the administration of Brandeis University, which has descended into a dhimmitude [3] (a term extrapolated from dhimmis — non-Muslim citizens of Islamic states — by the brilliant Bat Ye’or [4]) worse than the last Jews in Damascus or Baghdad by rescinding, at the behest of CAIR and the Muslim Students Association, their invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at this year’s Brandeis commencement.

Hirsi Ali, whom I have had the honor of meeting while CEO of PJ Media, is one of the most impressive and courageous human beings on this planet. President Lawrence of Brandeis would be honored to kiss her feet. Now he has banned her — shredding the Bill of Rights, one of the greatest documents in human history, in the process, including, of course, freedom of speech.

Obamacare in pictures Thomas Lifson

Obamacare in pictures
Thomas Lifson

The Heritage Foundation has published a series of 15 charts that it aptly titles, “The Charts Obama Doesn’t Want You to See,” telling the story of Obamacare in at-a-glance style. Here are two samples.

How the U.S. Went Wrong and Why By Shoshana Bryen


It is tempting to simply list all the ways the Obama administration — particularly Secretaries Kerry and Hagel — has been wrong on foreign and defense policy. After all, Russia/Ukraine, Syria, Iran, China, and Israel/Palestinians are nothing to sneeze at. But finding a common thread among the mistakes might be the beginning of a corrective policy — if not by this administration, then perhaps by Congress or the next administration.

The common thread is hubris, the supreme confidence that what you think is what everyone thinks — they’re just waiting for you to show up. Hubris is the natural state of affairs in the faculty lounges of major universities and, most likely, in the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body,” in which the president, Hagel, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry all served. A subdivision of hubris is the conceit that words equal action; that what is said is what is done. It is a subdivision because if you think there is no political or economic or social disagreement, then everyone must just be waiting for you to perorate.

Secretary of State Kerry called Vladimir Putin’s restoration of Crimea to the status of Russian territory, “19th Century thinking in the 21st century,” while Putin pocketed Crimea and considers cutting off the gas flow through Ukraine to Europe. He is, apparently, unoffended by a reference to the Tsars he considers Russian patriots.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried empathy, authorizing release of the details of U.S. cyber warfare doctrine to China in a bid to win similar cooperation from Beijing. So far, China has not reciprocated. Bill Gertz wrote in the Washington Times, “Instead of pressing the Chinese to curb cyberattacks, the defense secretary said the Pentagon has sought to ‘be more open about our cyber capabilities, including our approach of restraint’…for the first time ever, the Pentagon provided Chinese officials with a briefing on U.S. doctrine on cyber capabilities. Lt. Col. Damien Pickart said, ‘The purpose of this briefing was to increase transparency of one another’s military cyber activities and intentions.’”

Transparency appears to have been the policy of only one side.

Empathy didn’t work with Iran, either.