Travelling in America last week, I found American Jews shaking their heads in amazement at what they considered to be the supine attitude of the British Jewish leadership towards Israel demonisation and the inroads made by Islamic radicalism.I was particularly struck by one conversation. Why had Britain not experienced the American “culture wars” that have been raging in the US for more than four decades?

These battles in the US over issues such as family, morality and group rights have been fought between those who see themselves as defending bedrock western values and those who want to usher in a brave new secular world where subjective interests rule.

The reason there has been a war is largely due to the group known as the neo-conservatives, whose principal arena was western cultural change. Their founding fathers, such as former Trotskyites Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, saw this as a battleground.

They had come to realise that the left was an enemy of civilisation, that it dominated intellectual life and that this destructive monopoly power had to be challenged.

The result was the creation of neo-con publications, think-tanks and broadcasting outlets, which created a robust political discourse that attacked the shibboleths of the left and put rocket-fuel behind conservative positions.

VICTOR SHARPE: WAR CRIMES WHICH GO UNANSWERED The increasing number of missiles deliberately fired from Gaza at southern Israel’s farms, villages and towns is a clear indictment of the Hamas terror machine that rules and occupies the Gaza Strip. It represents a catalog of Arab and Muslim war crimes. There has been a 30% increase from the same period last year […]


New Blockbuster Glazov Gang on Disaster in Egypt, Islamic Torture and Slavery — and how the Muslim Brotherhood has Brainwashed America.





Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places. Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice has said:
“Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the “Mandate for Palestine”] … As far as the City of Jerusalem itself is concerned, the question is one of stablishing an effective administration of the City which can protect the rights of the various elements of its permanent population-Christian, Arab and Jewish-and ensure the governmental stability and physical security which are essential requirements for the city of the Holy Places.”
The notion of internationalizing Jerusalem was never part of the “Mandate”:
“Nothing was said in the Mandate about the internationalization of Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem as such is not mentioned-though the Holy Places are. And this in itself is a fact of relevance now. For it shows that in 1922 there was no inclination to identify the question of the Holy Places with that of the internationalization of Jerusalem.”
Jerusalem the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation-the one belonging to the Jewish people. Jerusalem, a city in Palestine, was and is an undisputed part of the Jewish National Home.

DANIEL GREENFIELD: THE WEEK THAT WAS THE OBAMA WAY OF GOVERNMENT There are four stages to the Obama way of government. Stage 1: Ignore the problem – “We’re in a recovery.” Stage 2: Deny the problem – “The public sector is just fine” Stage 3: Blame Bush – “I inherited a bad economy.” Stage 4: Cry Racism – “It’s because […]



Gillibrand’s ChallengersBy Harry Graver

“The primary race is seen as a contest between Turner and Long, with Maragos trailing a distant third. While both recognize the tremendous challenge posed by Gillibrand, both also claim to know how to pull off a win.

Bob Turner first gained national attention with his surprising capture of Anthony Weiner’s vacated congressional seat in 2011. Turner, who spent over 40 years in the television industry, does not brand himself as a politician. Instead, the 71-year-old lifetime New Yorker sees himself as someone “who got off his couch and said, ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.’”

There is a simple little litmus test for me, namely Grover Norquist who endorses Wendy Long…..Norquist is a major apologist for radical Islam and a nasty man.

Read this:

Frank Gaffney Claims Grover Norquist Is Helping The Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate The Conservative Movement

And, Turner is a no nonsense practical man who has had experience in the private sector as well as in Congress.


Courtesy of David Maraniss’s new book, we now know that yet another key prop of Barack Obama’s identity is false: His Kenyan grandfather was not brutally tortured or even non-brutally detained by his British colonial masters. The composite gram’pa joins an ever-swelling cast of characters from Barack’s “memoir” who, to put it discreetly, differ somewhat in reality from their bit parts in the grand Obama narrative. The best friend at school portrayed in Obama’s autobiography as “a symbol of young blackness” was, in fact, half Japanese, and not a close friend. The white girlfriend he took to an off-Broadway play that prompted an angry post-show exchange about race never saw the play, dated Obama in an entirely different time zone, and had no such world-historically significant conversation with him. His Indonesian step-grandfather supposedly killed by Dutch soldiers during his people’s valiant struggle against colonialism met his actual demise when he “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes.”

David Maraniss is no right-winger, and can’t understand why boorish non-literary types have seized on his book as evidence that the president of the United States is a Grade A phony. “It is a legitimate question about where the line is in memoir,” he told Soledad O’Brien on CNN. My Oxford dictionary defines “memoir” as “an historical account or biography written from personal knowledge.” And if Obama doesn’t have “personal knowledge” of his tortured grandfather, war-hero step-grandfather, and racially obsessed theater-buff girlfriend, who does? But in recent years, the Left has turned the fake memoir into one of the most prestigious literary genres: Oprah’s Book Club recommended James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces, hailed by Bret Easton Ellis as a “heartbreaking memoir” of “poetic honesty,” but subsequently revealed to be heavy on the “poetic” and rather light on the “honesty.” The “heartbreaking memoir” of a drug-addled street punk who got tossed in the slammer after brawling with cops while high on crack with his narco-hooker girlfriend proved to be the work of some suburban Pat Boone type with a couple of parking tickets. (I exaggerate, but not as much as he did.)

Oprah was also smitten by The Education of Little Tree, the heartwarmingly honest memoir of a Cherokee childhood which turned out to be concocted by a former Klansman whose only previous notable literary work was George Wallace’s “Segregation Forever” speech. Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood is a heartbreakingly honest, poetically searing, searingly painful, painfully honest, etc. account of Binjamin Wilkomirski’s unimaginably horrific boyhood in the Jewish ghetto of Riga and the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz. After his memoir won America’s respected National Jewish Book Award, Mr. Wilkomirski was inevitably discovered to have been born in Switzerland and spent the war in a prosperous neighborhood of Zurich being raised by a nice middle-class couple. He certainly had a deprived childhood, at least from the point of view of a literary agent pitching a memoir to a major publisher. But the “unimaginable” horror of his book turned out to be all too easily imagined. Fake memoirs have won the Nobel Peace Prize and are taught at Ivy League schools to the scions of middle-class families who take on six figure debts for the privilege (I, Rigoberta Menchú). They’re handed out by the Pentagon to senior officers embarking on a tour of Afghanistan (Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea) on the entirely reasonable grounds that a complete fantasy could hardly be less credible than current NATO strategy.


Andrew Revkin, longtime environmental reporter for the New York Times who now writes its Dot.Earth blog, has delivered the unkindest cut of all to the Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based think-tank known for its skepticism of global warming catastrophe scenarios.

In a variant of the claim that an individual is libel-proof because his reputation is already so damaged it cannot be hurt further, Revkin argues that the Heartland Institute is so ineffectual that it could not be harmed by the underhanded actions taken against it by global warming advocate Peter Gleick. Gleick (who headed the Task Force on Scientific Ethics and Integrity of the American Geophysical Union!) had masqueraded as a member of Heartland’s board so as to obtain internal documents. Along with a bogus document — absurd on its face — in which Heartland allegedly said it was aiming “at dissuading teachers from teaching science,” he disseminated them to sympathetic journalists and websites, which had a field day with the material. Greenpeace used the list of donors to lobby each of them to withdraw their financial support.

Despite the obvious harm these actions caused Heartland, Revkin writes: “Any impact on Heartland from his [Gleick’s] actions has to be gauged in comparison to any substantive impact you think Heartland had on climate discourse or decisions at levels that matter. Can you list for me the group’s real-world accomplishments and then say Peter’s actions did anything except hurt himself?” Does this contemptuous dismissal constitute a fair assessment of Heartland’s impact, or is it wildly off the mark?

It can be assumed that Revkin did not mean to say Heartland was inactive. The Economist, no friend to critics of global warming, describes Heartland as “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting scepticism about man-made climate change.” And given Heartland’s modest budget of $7 million (compare that to the annual budgets of such climate change advocacy outfits as Greenpeace, $270 million, and the World Wildlife Fund, $487 million), Revkin would have to acknowledge that Heartland’s output is impressive, especially so because climate change is only one of a number of areas in which Heartland is active (others include health care, education, fiscal, and legal reform).

On what basis then can Revkin dismiss Heartland as so ineffective and insignificant that Peter Gleick can be guilty not of harming it, but only of foolishly shooting himself in the foot? Revkin defies anyone to come up with an example of a “substantive impact on climate discourse or decisions at levels that matter.” There’s the key to his contempt: an impact “at levels that matter.” And here Revkin has an argument. Among those he sees as significant actors — the scientists who serve as lead authors in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, the premiere scientific journals like Science and Nature, the journalistic elite in opinion-setting media, business leaders, leadership of the environmental organizations, the politicians who seek to carry out the prescriptions of the alarmists — Revkin finds Heartland dismissed with scorn as the heartland of the flat-earthers.

And Revkin is right that Heartland has had no effect in stopping “actions” — i.e., the global warming movement’s forward march on the ground. The renewable mandates (in this country) and feed-in tariffs (more common in Europe) continue. Cap and trade did not make it through Congress, but states have established their own regional cap-and-trade programs, and in Europe it remains the centerpiece of the war against fossil fuels. The EPA has succeeded in making CO2 — a chemical compound absolutely vital to life on this planet — a pollutant, giving it the potential ability to regulate emissions in everything from lawnmowers to hospitals. Despite the collapse of Solyndra, the huge “investments” in solar and wind go forward. The flood of government billions into research designed to shore up global warming claims continues. The huge U.N. meetings seeking agreements to ever more costly restrictions on greenhouse gases (and hundreds of billions in compensatory funds to less developed countries for the alleged damage done them by the industrialized West) go on.

Is Revkin on target, then? Despite its dogged efforts, is Heartland nothing more than a futile voice crying in the wilderness? In fact, Revkin’s assessment could not be more mistaken. In Heaven on Earth: Varieties of the Millennial Experience, historian Richard Landes describes the course followed by every apocalyptic movement. Global warming, with its prophecy of planetary doom if we do not sacrifice the fossil fuels that underpin our economies, is clearly such a movement. First comes the “waxing wave,” when the movement breaks into public awareness; then the “breaking wave,” when it dominates public life; followed by the “churning wave,” when it loses part of its credibility; and finally the “receding wave,” when skeptics regain the ascendancy. All such movements go through these phases; what is not predetermined is when they occur or the damage that has been done before they are fully carried out to sea on the receding wave.

The collapse is a process, not something that happens overnight. In this case, while from a political point of view global warming is still in the breaking wave stage, unremarked by Revkin, the intellectual ground is dissolving beneath its feet. In terms of the power of the idea, global warming is in the churning wave stage, with the receding wave in plain sight. And in this Heartland has clearly played a major role. To be sure, part of the movement’s intellectual downfall is its own doing. Climategate undermined public faith as hacked e-mails between some of the top scientific researchers revealed the chicanery that went into the supposedly unimpeachable reports of the IPCC. But Heartland provided the alternative framework for understanding climate change so that Climategate did not become a few-day scandal to be quickly covered up by a supportive media.

Here Heartland’s international conferences — there have been seven of them since 2008, bringing together overall thousands of scientists and supportive laymen — have played a major role. As Steven Hayward noted in The Weekly Standard, these conferences are “a morale booster for skeptics, who tend to be isolated and relentlessly assailed in their scattered outposts,” and by assembling a critical mass of serious dissenting opinion, they dispel “the favorite climate campaign talking point that there’s virtually no one of repute, and no arguments of merit, outside the so-called climate consensus of imminent climate catastrophe.” (Maintaining the fiction of scientific unanimity is crucial to maintaining public faith in the apocalypse, which is one reason why the mainstream media, which has served as echo chamber for global warming advocates, has maintained a virtual blackout on the conferences — at the last one, Canadian media finally broke the silence.)


Obama: Forgo wedding gifts, give to me instead
Obama asks supporters who are gettin…
Read more…

Read more:

Krauthammer: Obama’s naked lawlessness
Federal immigration laws remain on t…
Read more…
Illinois beats California with whopping $43.8b deficit
llinois’ financial condition continu…
Read more…
Obama campaign blew $33k at Hollywood nightclub
The Daily Caller
Thursday, June 21, 2012
News outlets are making hay out of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign spending $385.24 at a popular Arizona nightclub that includes a “specialty champagne bar in the co-ed bathroom.” But last year, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign spent much more money at a trendy Hollywood club known for throwing parties like its annual Playmates Of Hollywood Lingerie Fashion Show. Read more…
Pelosi urges Obama to eliminate debt ceiling by fiat
The Washington Examiner
Friday, June 22, 2012
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., thinks that President Obama should unilaterally eliminate the debt ceiling rather than negotiate with Congress to spend more money when the United States hits the debt ceiling later this year. Read more…

Read more:

State Department Fakes Tough Talk at UN Human Rights Council : Anne Bayefsky

A version of this article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on PJ The Obama administration has fallen into an unfortunate habit in its desperation to burnish strong foreign policy credentials – claiming its representatives have made robust statements to an international audience that they haven’t. On Monday this week it happened again. The State […]