Few other places turn out dystopian fantasies quite like the United Kingdom and if the United States has never quite become the chrome skyscraper and flying car utopian wonderland of its utopian fantasies, with its ubiquitous cameras and DNA banks, the United Kingdom seems well on the way to its dystopian destination.

1984, The Prisoner and V for Vendetta are all a train ride away nowadays. Say the wrong thing and you can expect to be wearing a prison suit and nominated for a national run on Two Minute Hate.

Towards the end of last month, the UK launched a nationwide manhunt or womanhunt, in coordination with online activists, Labour politicians and the police to bring the most feared criminal in the islands to justice. The lady, whose last name is appropriately enough West, will be spending Christmas in prison away from her three children. Her crime was to engage in some abrasive taunts with the denizens of the New Britain complete with obscenities and be videotaped doing it.



In much of my recent work — books and articles — I have addressed the issue of antisemitism in the contemporary world. That the beast is once again slouching, not only towards Bethlehem as in the Yeats poem [1], but toward Oslo, Paris, London, Stockholm, Malmo, Copenhagen, Vienna, Berlin, Warsaw, Washington, Toronto, Sydney, Caracas, Brussels, Amsterdam, and many other cities and regions around the globe, should come as no surprise. From biblical times to the present moment, in their own homeland or “scattered among the peoples,” [2] Jews have never been safe. This is precisely what distinguishes the Jewish people from the rest of humanity, the specific nature of their “chosenness.” Wherever they may find themselves they are always at risk, whether actively or potentially, targeted for slander, exclusion, or extinction.

In developing this argument in such books as The Big Lie [3] (2007) and Hear, O Israel! [4] (2009), I have been condemned by a number of my critics, who accuse me of exaggeration, self-pity, or a sort of obsolescence, as if my gaze were fixed on the past at the expense of a more amenable or complex present. The fact that many of these detractors are themselves Jewish is only to be expected, for Jews have a long history of wilfully ignoring the signs and rejecting the self-evident. It is not only the JINOs (Jews in Name Only), the “non-Jewish Jews” flagged by Isaac Deutscher, or the apikorsim (“wicked sons” of Jewish public life) enamored of their enemies who are blind to the historical fatwa against them. It is also those whom I refer to as the “good Jews” and whom author and Sun Media columnist Ezra Levant calls the “official Jews” [5] — that is, a significant number of Jewish communicants, as well as their secular counterparts — who refuse to read the writing on the wall even when it is in their own language, inscribed in block letters, and blazoned on every street corner.

These Jewish critics — I have in mind people like Richard Just, editor of The New Republic, éminence grise Clifford Orwin of the Hoover Institution, and Canadian poet Harold Heft, among others who share their inveterate myopia — assailed my analysis as, variously, hyper-inflated, unfair to Islam, scare-mongering, one-dimensional, and so on, as if I refused to align my perspective with the mores of the enlightened and democratic West.

But the enlightened and democratic West is no longer what it very intermittently was — or rather, it is certainly not what it presents itself as being. The legacy media, academia, the political class, and an alarming proportion of the public have made common cause with the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish campaign of the growing Islamic hegemony in the realms of ideology and practice. This is especially true of Europe whose Jewish population is increasingly under threat. As French philosopher Guy Milliere observes in his new manuscript Dissident: Why Europe Is Dead and What It Means for America and the World (not yet published), “Almost everywhere in Europe, it is now dangerous for a practicing Jew to wear a yarmulke,” a development that he regards as a visible and repellant symptom “of a wider and more disquieting decay.” There is no doubt, he continues, “that there is something rotten in today’s Europe.”


Impeach Holder and DOJ Officials for DOJ Lies

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2011/12/10/impeach-holder-and-doj-officials-for-doj-lies/

This week in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder doubled down, then tripled down, on Fast and Furious. He dug in, fought back, and pretended nothing is systemically wrong inside his Justice Department. Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) even accused him of potential contempt of Congress, a crime (2 U.S.C. 192).

Holder’s testimony was not merely shameful, it was a maturing manifestation of a lawlessness which I first warned about in July of 2010 when I testified about the New Black Panther dismissal. Small acts of lawlessness have given way to larger ones.

In the radio and television interviews I do, I am often asked, “What can be done about Holder and the DOJ?” Until now, I have responded that becoming educated about the DOJ and urging your congressman to action is best. But circumstances have changed, and you as an American can do something about it.

Holder’s brazen display before the House Judiciary Committee signals that the Justice Department is in deep trouble. It is time for Eric Holder to go. It is time for his Chief of Staff Gary Grindler to go. It is time for Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer to go.




“Turning to foreign policy, George Stephanopolous asked Ron Paul if Newt Gingrich was right or wise to describe the Palestinians as an “invented people,” as he did today. No, said Ron Paul. Gingrich stood by it and detailed the eliminationist rhetoric of Hamas and Fatah. Romney said Gingrich was mostly right but should not have called the Palestinians “invented.” Gingrich refused to back down, noting that the term “Palestinian” was not in common usage until 1977. Romney called Gingrich a “bomb thrower.” Gingrich capped the exchange by noting that Reagan went around his foreign policy establishment to tell the truth about the USSR, and Newt would do the same regarding the Middle East. The exchange drew out a real difference between Romney and Gingrich. Romney would seek “consensus” while Gingrich would lead on truth and from the gut. Perry said the “invented” controversy itself was essentially invented, and went on to hammer President Obama’s weak foreign policy. “This president is the problem,” noted Perry, “not something Newt Gingrich said.” Deserved applause ensued.”



Sometimes things come in threes. Last week for Israel that was the case.

First there was the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium lecturing a Jewish audience in Brussels on two kinds of antisemitism as he understands them. One is ‘traditional’ and the other a result of Israel’s actions in the Middle East.

Then there was Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s rant to the Saban Center’s meeting in Washington that centered on his and his administration’s obsession that all that’s needed for peace in the Middle East is more Israeli concessions to the Arabs. “Just get to the damned table” he sneered not once but twice, as if Israel has been the recalcitrant in these non-negotiations.

And then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, unperturbed by the momentous events going on all across the Middle East chooses to focus on two items on Israel’s legislative agenda. One deals with where women sit on a bus in some small part of the country as advocated by a tiny portion of the population, and the other with outside funds coming in to pervert the Israeli democratic process. As a vibrant democracy, Israel is capable of dealing with these matters on its own. Certainly they are not of the same gravity as the stoning of a woman in Iran or the killing of Copts in Egypt, let alone the regime change for the worse in so many capitals in the region.

None of this would be said if those speaking didn’t feel that it was within the boundaries of acceptable speech approved by this administration. The Obama disdain for Israel, from the Obama-Sarkozy exchange of a few weeks ago, to the outbursts of last week, is certainly evident to anyone who cares to listen.

The State Department’s inept leadership in things Middle East is not new. Anyone familiar with the demise of the Shah of Iran’s regime recognizes the clumsy policy initiatives of yesterday’s State Department — that helped drive the Shah from office — as being of a piece with what we are seeing in the area today — on a much broader scale — from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Jimmy Carter was amenable to the State Department predisposition against the Shah and facilitated his fall.

Today, Barack Obama is playing the same Carteresque role in several other countries in the Middle East, with the assured effect being destabilization on a wider stage. It’s almost as if the only constant in our policy is the State Department’s avowed bias against America’s interests, with Israel being a subset of those policies. That bias surfaces often, but truly has free reign under Democrat Presidents of similar mind.

If Carter gave us an Iran that was destined to continually cause mischief throughout the region, Obama has given us turmoil that will continue to roil the rest of the world. Today, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and soon possibly Syria are being given the same opportunity to harm the West as Iran was given in the late 1970’s.

Complicit in all of this is a media that can’t discern the difference between reality and hopefulness. After all, it was National Security’s James Clapper who told us that the Sharia-dedicated Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is secular and benign. The media has run with that ever since.

Much of our foreign policy is encapsulated in Richard Heffner’s 1975 quote. Said Heffner: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” This is precisely the Obama operating mode in both foreign and domestic policy — and we are making mistakes almost daily because of it.



Remember the Gerald Walpin affair? Republican Sen. Charles Grassley does.

Walpin was the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the organization that runs the AmeriCorps service program. In June 2009, Walpin received a call from Norman Eisen, who was then the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. Eisen told Walpin he had an hour to either resign or be fired.

Eisen’s call appeared to violate the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which is designed to protect inspectors general from political interference. The Act requires the president to give Congress 30 days’ notice, plus an explanation of cause, before firing an inspector general. In Walpin’s case, the White House did neither.

Walpin had made some CNCS political appointees unhappy by tenaciously investigating misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. When Grassley and other lawmakers found out that Walpin had been summarily fired, and that a political motive might be involved, they demanded an explanation.

There was no doubt the White House had failed to give Walpin 30 days’ notice, but on the substance of the matter, Eisen told congressional investigators the White House had done a full investigation of complaints about Walpin’s performance and the CNCS board had unanimously supported Walpin’s removal.

Neither statement was true.

Republican investigators released a report on the matter that was strongly critical of White House actions, and particularly Eisen’s actions, in the Walpin firing. As it turned out, even though interest in Walpin faded, Eisen’s statements would come back to haunt him, because in June 2010 President Obama decided to nominate Eisen to be U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic.


A President With Illusions Costs Lives http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/18754-A-President-With-Illusions-Costs-Lives.html In World War II, the United States did not have clear postwar goals for Eastern Europe. The brunt of this meant Eastern Europe suffered as Soviet satellites for almost half a century. The illusion of President Roosevelt about Stalin bears substantial responsibility. The US held a moral stance […]


(212) 726-1124
National Conference on Jewish Affairs calls on
US Administration to Remove Dangerously Clueless Amb. Gutman from his Post

Contact: Lori Lowenthal Marcus 610.664.1184
For Immediate Release

New York, December 9, 2011 — The NCJA, a coalition of Jewish leaders and heads of Jewish, pro-Israel organizations, is appalled by the current US Ambassador to Belgian, Howard Gutman, trading on his ancestory and the tragedy of his familial suffering in the Holocaust to sanitize his double-headed affront regarding anti-Semitism. At a time when there are well-documented increases in European anti-Semitism, including arson and other attacks on synagogues, defacements of Jewish cemeteries, physical violence against those wearing outwardly Jewish symbols, and anti-Semitic aspects to public protests on unrelated topics, Gutman’s claim that there isn’t any increase in anti-Semitism simply attests to his Ostrich qualities. Even worse, his pronouncement that Israel itself is at fault for a different kind of anti-Semitism, because of its “failure” to achieve peace with the Arab Palestinians is staggering.

“It is time for Jews to stop using their ancestry as an imprimatur of validity for their own anti-Israel views, and to their dangerous minimization of the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world,” said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, Z STREET president and chair of the NCJA executive committee. “When the ‘partner’ with whom Israel is supposed to make peace refuses to recognize the Jewish nation’s existence and continues naming public squares and soccer teams for murderers of Jews, it is grotesque for Gutman to blame anti-Semitism on Israel’s ‘recalcitrance’,” said Marcus.

Beth Gilinsky, executive director of NCJA, asked “How can it be that the official representative of the United States is telling the world that, despite all palpable evidence to the contrary, anti-Semitism is not on the rise?” Gilinsky, a long-time advocate for Jewish causes, said, “Gutman is a disgrace for having made those statements both because he officially represents the views of the United States and because he is a Jew.” Dr. Herbert London, president emeritus of the Hudson Institute and member of the NCJA executive committee added, “Gutman has demonstrated in his misguided commentary that he is gutless, yet another pol who myopically blames Israel for the violent behavior of Hamas and Hizbollah.”

The National Conference on Jewish Affairs is an umbrella organization of American Jewish leaders and groups which work to uphold the American Constitution and liberty, promote a strong and safe Israel and Jewish rights in the Land of Israel, initiate positive relations with our non-Jewish friends, protect our Jewish young people in educational institutions, and assert the rights and security of Jewish People across the globe. NCJA is adamantly opposed to making concessions to terrorists in the Middle East, or anywhere else across the globe. The NCJA calls on this US Administration to recall Amb. Gutman from his post.



re: Hillary Clinton and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) http://www.oic-oci.org/home.asp
upcoming meeting in D.C.:
This may be an important development — in the wrong direction. The following information is from Clare Lopez. http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers/ClareLopez.php
Beth Gilinsky
The OIC’s full-court press to impose Islamic slander laws on the USA and world in general is really kicking into high gear. Sure you are aware of the OIC Ten-Yr. Agenda on this topic:


The OIC meeting that laid the groundwork for US and DoS to take the lead in implementing the next step — the December12-15 2011 meeting in WDC – was laid in July 2011 at a meeting in Istanbul. Despite there being no actual requirement or need whatsoever for the US to take an active role in this despicable assault on free speech, Sec State Clinton stepped forward (on behalf of the Obama admin) to issue a special invitation to OIC SecGen Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu for him and a working team of experts to come to WDC in Dec 11 to discuss how the U.S. can come into compliance with the OIC objectives to apply Islamic law on slander to the U.S. legal system.

This is a direct assault on the First Amendment, not to mention a violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.


And here are some more links about the upcoming WDC session:




Israel cannot afford the same miscalculations made in the peace treaty with Egypt on its fronts with the Palestinians and the Syrians.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions – Aphorism attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)

We cannot conclude from the good intentions of a statesman that his foreign policies will be either morally praiseworthy or politically successful….How often have statesmen been motivated by the desire to improve the world, and ended by making it worse? And how often have they sought one goal, and ended by achieving something they neither expected nor desired? – Hans Morgenthau (1904-1960), on political realism

The sweeping victory of the Islamist parties in the election in Egypt is – somewhat belatedly – beginning to concentrate minds. Israel is being forced to confront the stark possibility that in the foreseeable future, it may be left with no peace, no Sinai… and eventually, no demilitarization.

Inevitably, this unpalatable prospect will force a national reassessment of the process – and the personalities – that brought this ominous situation about, of the prudence of the decisions taken at the time and of the beforethe- fact predictability of its potentially perilous outcome.

Inevitably, too, this will focus attention on Menachem Begin and his role in precipitating Israel’s evacuation of the strategic expanses of the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt, then Israel’s principle adversary.

A brief history
The deal, brokered by US president Jimmy Carter, was concluded in 1979 after two years of intense negotiation following Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s historic 1977 address to the Knesset. It was greeted with great international acclaim – except in the Arab world where it was long regarded as an act of treachery – and the award of Nobel peace prizes to the Egyptian and Israeli leaders.

The intended strategic substance of pact was mutual recognition of each state by the other, and the cessation of the state of war that had existed since the 1948 War of Independence.

Israel undertook a complete withdrawal from Sinai, held by it since the 1967 Six Day War, while Egypt agreed to the demilitarization of the peninsula. The agreement also provided for the free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal, recognition of the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba as international waterways, and massive US economic and military to Egypt, whose military has since received almost $40 billion from Washington, allowing it to to modernize and revamp its aging Soviet equipment.

Stark asymmetry
Whichever way you slice it, the treaty was afflicted by a stark structural asymmetry in the undertakings of the contracting parties: On the one hand, Israel was called on to relinquish vast physical assets of great strategic and economic value, which could only be retrieved – if at all – by a massive outlay of blood and treasure.

In return for the receipt of these assets – plus generous US financial support – all that was demanded of Egypt was paper promises, which could be violated whenever it deemed it expedient or the profit worth the pain.

This asymmetry was perhaps most aptly articulated by Sadat himself, when in a 1980 interview with The New York Times, he remarked bluntly, “Poor Menachem… I got back… the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper.”

From the outset then, the durability of the peace agreement hinged not only on Cairo’s continuing willingness to honor its commitments, but also its continuing ability to do – despite domestic opposition. This clearly applies – and applied then – not only to the Sadat regime, but to any successors who might accede to power – be it by the bullet or by the ballot.

Predictable perils
There is – and was – no need for the benefit of hindsight to grasp this pivotal feature of the agreement. It was distinctly discernible as an inherent element of the treaty from the get-go. It was always a precarious arrangement — its abrogation, whether sudden or in stages, always a plausible possibility.

Indeed, it would seem that Sadat himself was keenly conscious of the fragility of the treaty and how future Egyptian regimes may well feel unbound by its terms. In a 1975 interview he openly stated: “The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders.

Afterward the next generation will carry the responsibility.”

Yet within the Israeli public discourse, any suggestion that the potential long-term strategic dangers might outweigh the undeniable short/intermediate-term benefits, were dismissed as the demented raving of extremist warmongers. Anyone who dared caution that the situation now emerging in Egypt and along our southern border, might in fact emerge, was scorned either as a deranged scaremonger or a uniformed ignoramus.

Consequently, there was no serious public discussion of how to respond to an intentional violation of the agreement, or an unintentional collapse of Cairo’s ability to uphold it. And in the absence of a clear and credible comprehension of what penalties such violations would incur, only a giant leap of faith in Arab altruism could induce the belief that these scenarios were implausible.

However, beyond the mindless malice and myopia of political debate in Israel, questions must be raised as to the judgment and foresight of the Israeli leadership that consented to forgo the tangible fruits of military victory for the ephemeral promise of political peace.

As Begin was the overwhelmingly dominant figure involved in Israel’s acquiescence to the treaty terms, it is likely such a reevaluation would, as an unintended side effect, damage his standing in the national pantheon.

‘The road to hell…’
The objective would be to enhance awareness of the non-static nature of Israel’s political environment, and to develop deeper understanding of how the nation should manage long-term risk in the dynamic instabilities of the Middle East. But more specifically – and more important – it is imperative to avoid creating similar situations of strategic danger through similar strategic misunderstandings of the dynamics in play on Israel’s other fronts with the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Jordanians.

There can, of course, be no doubt as to the totality of Begin’s commitment to Israel and to its security, or as to fever of his devotion to Zionism and its ideals. Indeed for many, he was the epitome of the leader whose absolute dedication to his country and his people was never subordinated to, or sidetracked by, the pursuit of partisan interest, private gain or personal prestige.

However, pure motives and noble intentions are no guarantee of effective statesmanship or strategic acumen.

Indeed, as Hans Morgenthau, one of the most influential figures in the study of modern international politics, remarked: “Chamberlain’s politics of appeasement were, as far as we can judge, inspired by good motives; he was probably less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many other British prime ministers, and he sought to preserve peace and to assure the happiness of all concerned. Yet his policies helped to make the Second World War inevitable, and to bring untold miseries to millions.”

While any comparison between the two men is wildly inappropriate, the bloodcurdling frenzy of the lynch mob that stormed the Israeli Embassy in Cairo in September may prove that Begin’s declaration of “No more war, no more bloodshed, peace forever” was no less premature and naïve than Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time.”