Wizblog

David Horowitz is featuring a six-year old column by Caroline Glick on his blog. And six years later, it's still true that no peace can be even contemplated as long as the goal of the Palestinians is genocide.

In a seminal article in Commentary magazine this past February on the recent rise of anti-Semitism, Hillel Halkin argued, counterintuitively, that the Holocaust is the main reason why it is so difficult for Jews today to accept the fact of anti-Semitism. In his words, "The Holocaust has made some Jews less, rather than more, able to see anti-Semitism around them. This is because if the Nazis demonized the Jew, they also demonized the anti-Semite." In short, if an anti-Semite is not a Nazi, then it is hard for Jews to perceive him as a threat. Just so.

Even as generations of Jews adopted "Never Again" as their rallying cry, the Holocaust made it difficult for us to notice when genocide is adopted as a policy against the Jewish people, without gas chambers present. The fact that the Palestinians currently lack the means used by the Germans to perpetrate their genocidal policy against the Jews blinds us from the fact that their desire to do so is the same as that of the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s.

The absence of the trappings of the Nazi Holocaust also prevents us from properly identifying repeated massacres of Israelis by Palestinians. Contrary to what we tell ourselves, these attacks are not expressions of rage or reactions to specific actions by the IDF. They are acts of genocide perpetrated against Jews as Jews because the Palestinians have descended to the level of depravity where they do not view the Jews as human beings whose murder is an inherently immoral act. The fact that the Palestinians don ski masks and keffiyehs rather than brown shirts and swastikas also makes us undervalue the fact that, like the Nazis, the Palestinians are utilizing all their technological know-how and military resources to kill Jews and are making their best efforts to constantly improve and enhance these resources to increase their kill rate.

Posted by dan at 12:10 AM | Permalink

Obama's Long March to the center has begun. Charles Krauthammer

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

---

Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

Posted by dan at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)

Columbus journalist Patrick Poole at FPM notices the deafening silence of CAIR on the matter of the guilty pleas on terrorism charges by Christopher Paul and his Ohio al Qaeda associates. Poole calls the Columbus cell "the largest known Al-Qaeda operation in the US since 9/11." Wonderful.

Posted by dan at 11:41 PM | Permalink

Bill Kristol weighs in on the MoveOn.org anti-McCain ad....you know, the one that's a fear-mongering incoherence, based on a lie, and made on behalf of the candidate who represents a new kind of politician. That one.

Echoing Kristol's theme, Libby Sternberg dubs the ad "a call to selfishness."

UPDATE 6/26: At the Standard blog, a soldier responds:

...if baby Alex will not join the military someday, then someone else will protect his Mommy for him

...and another rebuttal...

Posted by dan at 12:04 AM | Permalink

Michelle Malkin on Obama and ACORN. As has now been widely publicized, the group specializes in vote fraud to benefit Democrats. Such is "community organization."

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."

The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney's office.

The worst thing about this well-organized election fraud operation (outside of one of our Presidential candidate's close association with it) is the fact that it is funded with taxpayer money.

If you haven't seen it, by all means read Stanley Kurtz' piece on ACORN from a few weeks ago.

Posted by dan at 11:18 PM | Permalink

A new edition of "Buckeye Leaves" is up at TCF.

Posted by dan at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

High school baseball players conspire to send the umpire a message. Rick Reilly's column shows "bad sportsmanship taken to a whole new level." But first watch the video:

Posted by dan at 4:28 PM | Permalink

Of the many things I know precious little about, poetry is definitely one. Fortunately for me, the crack young staff of The Hatemonger's Quarterly are practiced at the discrimination of garden variety poetry from really, really bad poetry. Hence their staging of "The Fifth Annual Horrible College-Student Poetry Competition" .

And boy, did they have some winners. Have at it.

(miss those kids at THQ)

Posted by dan at 7:09 PM | Permalink

Fathers Day cards for less fortunate dads than I. (via Ace)

Posted by dan at 11:20 PM | Permalink

Hitchens reviews Pat Buchanan at Newsweek.

Then Victor Davis Hanson rebuts Buchanan's response to Hanson's review. Got that?

To be fair, I haven't read the Buchanan book (pretty far down my list) but I'm left feeling he shouldn't debate history with Hitchens or Hanson.

Posted by dan at 10:19 PM | Permalink

Thanking Big Oil - Todd Keister at American Thinker asks where we'd be without them. Probably cold, wet and hungry for starters.

Posted by dan at 11:35 PM | Permalink

The movement to "Drill Here, Drill Now" seems to be gaining momentum nationally. The petition at americansolutions.com has gained some 30,000 signatures in just the last several hours (Friday evening), and as of this writing stands at 729,000 plus.

The anger and frustration at both parties in the do-nothing Congress is growing, as polls show fewer Americans believe the high cost of gasoline is caused primarily by oil company greed.

But the Pelosi-led Democrats apparently think Americans will feel better about pumping $4 gas into their tanks if they know the Congress is punishing the oil companies with windfall profits taxes, even if it doesn't exert any downward pressure on the price of gasoline at the pump.

And Barack Obama implies he doesn't have a problem with $4 gasoline per se, it's just that we got there in such a hurry. "I would have preferred a gradual adjustment", said the candidate. He says we need to take steps to help people with the high costs... "first of all, by putting more money in their pockets." Huh? Care to elaborate on just how the Obama administration might do that, sir?

Maybe from those thousands of high-paying, new "green jobs", which in addition to materializing out of congressional pork thin air, will also presumably come without the nasty necessity of commuting.

At least some Republicans are convinced that the growing sentiment about the need to increase domestic supply can be a winning issue for McCain and the GOP in November, and I'd even suggest that many Americans might just forgive McCain for a "flip-flop" if he came out for drilling in ANWR in light of today's changing realities, including the very real pain low income citizens especially are feeling at the pump.

It brings to mind the famous John Maynard Keynes quote when he was criticized for a change of mind, and responded "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?"

Maybe some of those low-income Americans would be surprised to see just how lopsided the votes in Congress have been over the years, in terms of which party has supported policies to increase domestic energy supplies, and which party has opposed them.

Posted by dan at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (87)

Ireland votes a convincing "No" on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Start at EU Referendum.

Posted by dan at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Krauthammer

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq War the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.

But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success.

The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory.

It is amazing that Iraq could be a positive campaign issue for Republicans, but such is the remarkable progress of political reconciliation and restoration of order in that country that we can even consider it. RTWT.

Posted by dan at 11:25 PM | Permalink

How wrong was Joe Biden on Iraq? Peter Wehner answers.

Posted by dan at 1:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, on Sen. Rockefeller's Senate Select Intelligence Committee Report. Despite prohibiting input from Republicans on the committee, the Democrats still had some trouble pinning down that infamous "lie".

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Neither did a lot of other people, Senator. But some of them stood by the judgments they made at the time. And others realized that people are listening when they speak, and that the Internet means forever, and that a person can sound like a blithering idiot when he contradicts himself so blatantly.

Bush and Rockefeller were briefed with the same intelligence data. The difference is that one of them had the responsibility to make a decision from a list of all bad options, and then be held accountable for it. The other is a Senator.

(via Hot Air)

UPDATE 6/11: More on this topic from The New York Sun, and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, (both via Ace)

Posted by dan at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (51)

News and notes on the Ohio State Buckeyes in my latest column for The Cleveland Fan.

Posted by dan at 4:09 PM | Permalink

Free lance writer Paul Jackson looks back at one of the more bizarre games in baseball history, 34 years ago this week. On June 4, 1974, Billy Martin's Texas Rangers, eventually assisted by the Indians, took the field with baseball bats to square off with hundreds of drunk fans in Cleveland. You'll want to read it all, but here's a taste...

Remembering 10-Cent Beer Night

In the ninth, the Indians mounted a rally, scoring two runs to tie the game at 5. The winning run stood on second base when a young man jumped from the outfield seats and (perhaps searching for a memento to mark the occasion) flipped the cap off Rangers outfielder Jeff Burroughs' head. The outfielder turned to confront the fan and tripped over his own feet in the process. For the first time that evening, the chaos enveloped a player.

The slope of the diamond made it impossible for Martin to see below the level of an outfielder's knees from his station in the dugout. The legendary manager, in a moment that does not get large enough print on his long and colorful résumé, did not hesitate after Burroughs fell from view.

"Let's go get 'em, boys," he said, arming himself with a fungo bat and sprinting toward right-center field. The Rangers, understandably inspired, followed him.

Martin and his team stormed the diamond, infielders filling out their ranks. When they reached the outfield, the Rangers found Burroughs flustered but unharmed. More worrisome was the effect of their charge on the assembly: The jovial, frolicking nudists had disappeared. The mob that replaced them kept its clothes on and brandished an arsenal that made Martin's Louisville Slugger look like a child's toy. The Rangers manager spotted people wielding chains, knives and clubs fashioned from pieces of stadium seats. The 25 Texas players quickly found themselves surrounded by 200 angry drunks, and more were tumbling over the wall onto the field. The Texas Rangers had been ambushed.

Then the riot began. Indians manager Ken Aspromonte, his own defining moment upon him, realized that the Texas franchise might be on the verge of decimation. He too ordered his players onto the field. The bat racks in the home dugout emptied as the Indians mounted their own rescue.

(hat tip to Jack H.)

Posted by dan at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)