Note from the Author

If you like what you see on Kauffmans Commentary, tell your friends and family to visit this site.
For all other requests, feedback, and suggestions, email Kauffman at

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

To Groin or not to Groin?

You want to fly this Thanksgiving to get grandma's turkey?  Well, if you do, you better be ready to get some of your stuffing checked by a groping TSA official.

Alas, we have reached the point in U.S. history where it is legal for another person of the same-sex to touch you in an area where only you or your spouse have exclusive rights. This open nothing off-limits touching policy only applies if you opt out of or refuse to have an x-ray picture taken of your naked body as if that is even a viable alternative.

Do we deserve to be subjected to such a sexual assault in the name of national security? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Some will say absolutely not. Others have said if "I have to be touched in a private area in order to fly safely, then I am all for it."

To Groin or Not to Groin is finally upon us.

I fall in a gray area. While I am not at all enamored with the idea of a minimum wage TSA employee putting his hands on a No Touching Zone, I also understand that in an age of  terrorism we have to loose some of our rights to ensure our safety. However, I would only accept such a blatant and gross  infringement of privacy if it actually protected us from terrorism.

In this case, the x-ray images and invasive pat downs which we are now accustomed to in U.S. airports are not protecting us from terrorism or airplane hijackings at all. In fact, they are being implemented in such a way that terrorists could easily walk right through security without being targeted for pat downs or even x-ray images.

As far as I am aware, you only need to choose between an x-ray image of your naked body or a rather intrusive touch-up of your intimate areas if you are specifically asked to be targeted for the body scanner. Otherwise, you walk through the security checkpoint like its always been done before.

This is not proper or efficient security.  Moreover, it will not protect us from another attack as people are randomly being subjected to the intrusive treatment whether they resemble terrorists or not. Children as young as three have been patted down in an intrusive manner as has 80 something year old grandmothers in walkers. Whereas, Middle Eastern women with Burkas or Middle Eastern men with one-way tickets to a far away island somewhere routinely stroll by security with little fanfare even though they are more likely to fit the profile of a suspected terrorist.

It is because the body scanners and the pat downs are useless in the fight against terrorism that I am adamantly opposed to them.  No one should be subjected to having their groin examined let alone by a High School dropout TSA official. However, if  we have no choice but to subject ourselves to such a treatment, then let it be worth something. Unfortunately, our children and elderly among the rest of  ourselves are forced to be publicly humiliated in the name of government incompetence rather than national security simply because we have opted to cash in on our freedom to fly.

At the end of the day, pat downs and naked body scanners should only be permitted if there is a reasonable suspicion that the traveler is a threat to national security. If there is no viable threat, the  citizenry 's privacy should be the government's paramount interest.

The problem is of course TSA officials are not competent enough to decipher whether a Middle Eastern looking man from Saudi Arabia is more of a threat to national security than a three year old American boy from Kansas.

If you really want this invasive policy to change, I suggest that you contact President Obama at the White House and demand that he preserve the privacy of the American people since he is the one who authorized the TSA to carry out these pat downs in the first place.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Obama calls Republicans 'enemies'

Remember when Obama was above the fray...........

Not anymore. President Obama has become just like the Washington that he vowed to change when running for President in 2008.

On a  Hispanic radio station, Obama urged Latinos to vote Democrat in order to prevail over our 'enemies' meaning to prevail over 'Republican enemies.' He later admitted that calling Republicans enemies was a poor choice of words.

If you thought calling Republicans enemies was over the top, Obama gave a speech recently at a political event and told the crowd that Republicans can join Democrats if they like but they have to "get in the back seat."

Could you imagine if a Republican during the 2008 campaign told Obama to "get in the back seat?" There would be massive protests and total mayhem.

Not so with Obama. He gets a free pass. At least though we can now say that Obama is not above the political rhetoric that has plagued Washington for years. He is now part of the problem.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Sarah Palin On The Offensive

With just a few days before voting begins on November 2nd that could potentially bolster Republicans to power once again in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, a new and fresh controversy is brewing in Alaska which involves none other than Sarah Palin.

The Republican Senatorial candidate Joe Miller is in a tight race with the  current Republican turned Independent Senator Lisa Murkowski. (Murkowsi lost to Joel Miller in the Republican Primaries and became an Independent to run in the General Election).

Miller has leveled a charge against the CBS affiliate in the Anchorage Alaska area  KTVA asserting that the CBS affiliate was attempting to concoct a falsified story in order to bring down the Miller campaign only days before the midterm November elections.

Apparently, a CBS staffer called Miller's spokesman to schedule an interview. Miller's spokesman did not answer and the call went to voicemail.  Instead of ending the call,  the CBS staffer was accidentally overheard talking to another staffer about possible stories that could derail the Miller campaign. The spokesman's voicemail recorded the conversation. In the recorded conversation, one staffer  is heard clearly telling the other staffer to get a list of Miller's campaign volunteers to see which one is a child molester.

KTVA is denying that there ever was an attempt to create a nonexistent story which could cause Miller to loose the election on November 2nd. The News Director of KTVA claimed that the staffers were merely discussing possible stories about the Miller campaign.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is not buying KTVA's explanation and neither is Joe Miller.

Palin added some more flames to the controversy going on  Fox News today with Chris Wallace blasting the media calling them "corrupt bastards" as she sees a double standard in the media in its bias towards Republican candidates.

What do you think about this story?  Is Sarah Palin right in calling the media "corrupt bastards?" Does this story indicate a double standard in the media in being biased toward Republican candidates?

Sound off on Kauffmans Commentary.

Note From The Editor

Hi Fans of Kauffmans Commentary:

You may be wondering why I haven't posted in a long time. The truth is that I have been very busy lately. But, the even larger truth is that I discovered that not many people have been visiting my site. Because only a handful of people per day logged onto Kauffmans Commentary, I decided to discontinue the blog.

However, I have decided to resume writing for the blog on a temporary and limited basis to ascertain whether there is new interest in Kauffmans Commentary.

If you gain insight into Kauffmans Commentary and appreciate the views expressed in this blog, then it is imperative that you spread the word about Kauffmans Commentary and encourage your friends and family to visit the site.

Thank you to everyone for your understanding.

Editor of Kauffmans Commentary

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Paramedic Is Called to the Scene of His Murdered Wife

One day before the Obama Administration succeeded in resuming peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Israel was rocked by another terrorist attack.

The West blamed the attack on "militants" who were looking for an opportunity to sabotage the resumption of peace talks. For Israelis, the attack was another indication that peace with the Palestinians is an impossible reality.

In the latest terrorist attack,  a car with four people inside came under fire in the West Bank by Palestinian snipers from Hamas. When it was all over, all four people were massacred with gun shot wounds spearing their internal organs. The four occupants in the vehicle were Yitzhak Ames, 47, and his wife Tali Ames, 45, Kochava Ben- Haim, 37, and Avishai Schindler, 24.  The husband and wife had picked up two hitchhikers. While en route to their destination, the Palestinian terrorists fired on the vehicle from afar and then approached the occupants and fired on them at close range.

When paramedics arrived on the scene, all of the victims bodies were strewn on the street.

In an anguishing turn of  events, completely unaware of what he was about to discover,  Momy Ben-Haim one of the paramedics who was called to the scene of the terrorist attack was shocked to observe  his wife Kochava's body strewn on the ground. Kochava happened to be one of the doomed hitchhikers who was picked up for a ride by Mr. and Mrs. Ames.

When observing his dead wife lying motionless on the ground, Ben-Haim screamed and shouted "That’s my wife! That’s my wife!" He was taken away from the scene immediately to his home. 

Terrorist attacks in Israel are not just attacks on the victims. They are an attack on the entire nation.

If the Palestinians ever have any shot of convincing Israelis that they are committed to peace, they will have to rein in on the terror that killed these four occupants and wrecked the life of an innocent paramedic who had no way of knowing that his life would be changed forever in a matter of minutes as he embarked on the scene of unfortunately a routine terrorist attack.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Pro-Mosque Supporters are Hidden Anti-Semites


Sunday, August 15, 2010

Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

Its official.

Obama has weighed in on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.  

Can anyone guess where the President stands on this issue?

No surprise. Obama supports the building of the Mosque next to Ground Zero.

He told reporters during a trip in Florida "Muslims have the right to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero."

Obama later clarified his remarks by stating that he did not intend to comment on the wisdom of the project.

Either way, Obama is in tank with a Mosque which is funded by radical Islamicists.

And the fallout is just beginning.  GOP Senator John Cornyn predicts that Obama's support for the Mosque could hurt him politically in the Fall elections.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Never Give Up on Life


Zakaria Snubs the ADL

CNN's Fareed Zakaria, Host of Fareed Zakaria GPS, made his own headline  this week when he sent shock waves across the media world announcing that he was returning an award that he received from the ADL in 2005.

The Anti-Defamation League, headed by Abraham Foxman, is one of the premier civil rights organizations in the United States whose mission is to  fight all forms of racism in particular Antisemitism.

The ADL awarded its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize to Zakaria five years ago.

Zakaria was disturbed that the ADL opposed the building of the Ground Zero Mosque which prompted him to return the award, including a $10,000.00 stipend, to the ADL. Zakaria claimed that he could not in good conscience keep the award in light of the ADL's opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.

Abraham Foxman responded by asserting that he was "stunned, saddened and speechless" by Zakaria's decision to return the award.

Unfortunately, Zakaria has taken his liberal agenda too far.

While it is true that the ADL does have an illustrious record in promoting and encouraging religious freedom, it can not be expected to support an institution which is funded by the very radical elements which perpetuated 9/11.

The ADL and others have made the decision to oppose the building the Ground Zero Mosque for a very legitimate reason since it correctly believes that constructing such an institution in close proximity to the ruins of the World Trade Center would be an affront to the memories of the victims of 9/1.

The founder of the Ground Zero Mosque claims that he funded the building of the Islamic center to foster interfaith dialogue. However, Faisal Abdul Rauf is notorious for spewing anti-American rhetoric.

Madeline Brooks of the American Thinker overheard Rauf   in one of his sermons denying that Muslims perpetuated 9/11. This illogical delusional mindset is consistent with an interview Rauf gave on CNN after 9/11. In the interview, Rauf blamed the U.S. for 9/11 asserting "U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We [the U.S.] have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA." 

Rauf has also blabbered in the past "terrorism will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims."

Does Zakaria really believe in good faith that the ADL would support a Mosque  spearheaded by a terrorist-supporting Imam?

Rauf is also known to be connected to the radical Islamic terrorist sympathizer group CAIR.  His organization, Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, which raised the $4.85 million in cash dollars for the Ground Zero Mosque, is associated with Saudi Arabian leaders. 

How could anyone support the building of Mosque so close to Ground Zero funded by the very country which raised the 9/11 hijackers?

Moreover, if anyone believes that this Mosque is not going to be a conduit for the radical Islamization of America, think again.

In addition to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, Rauf started the Cordoba Initiative. The Cordoba Initiative endorses Sharia law and monitors how each country, including America, follows Sharia law. Sharia law is a rigid system which requires that governance be based on the Koran without any democratic intervention.

Rauf is now bringing his Cordoba Initiative Saudi -backed Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow partnership to the very heart of America.

Shame on Zakaria for publicly deriding the premier Jewish civil rights organization simply because they refused to support an Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Freedom of religion does have its limits which Zakaria fails to understand.

In retrospect, it is a good thing that Zakaria returned the award to the ADL. He does not deserve to have such a distinguished award after all.



Friday, August 6, 2010

War Hero Dog


Sunday, July 25, 2010

PLO Gets Upgrade in Washington

The Obama Administration  has upgraded Mahmoud Abbas's diplomatic status in Washington. His offices in DC will now be allowed to fly the PLO flag.  The flag raising privilege is granted to an entity with delegation status or embassy status. The PLO now have delegation status which means that PLO diplomats in Washington will also have diplomatic immunity although the PLO still does not have embassy status.

Unfortunately, the PLO continues to be granted these diplomatic niceties on an almost automatic basis despite the fact that Abbas has showed no commitment to making peace with Israel and has made no effort to cease anti-Israel incitement on PA TV.

On the other hand, Israel has to give away the  highway for Bibi Netanyahu to be permitted to stay at the Blair House for his meeting with President Obama. Go figure.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Air Canada Security Breach


Thursday, July 15, 2010

Memo To The United Nations


If you want to take a break in criticizing Israel and branding the Jewish State as a pariah country and a human rights violator even when you have no evidence to support your anti-Israel viewpoints, I found the perfect place where you can turn your human rights supporting energies while you rest up before returning your attention to Israel.

Where is that perfect place?

The USA? Nope think again.

England? Nope think again.

Australia? Nope think again.

Can't think of another place that has human rights violations other than Israel and the United States?

Well let me give you a little help.


 A Tehran court has ruled that a 25 year old woman convicted of adultery (who knows whether in fact this woman even committed adultery)  will be put to death by stoning. The Judge  shockingly decided to stone  Maryam Ghorbanzadeh despite the fact that she is pregnant.  Her attorney claims that Maryam will not be put to death until after she delivers. Whether or not Iran will have mercy on a pregnant woman remains to be seen. Since the ruling, Iran has made it clear that it will not stone Ghorbanzadeh but she could still be killed by other means.

Chances are not good that Ghorbanzadeh will escape death before she delivers if an Iranian Judge was sadistic enough to sentence a pregnant woman to stoning for supposedly committing adultery. Even if she escapes death until after delivery, a baby boy or  girl will most likely grow up without a mother because of a cruel and inhumane Iranian judicial system.

Ghorbanzadeh is one of many Iranian women  who have been sentenced to death or lashes for committing the crime of adultery. Iran's judicial system is so heavily  slanted in favor of  the husbands of these women that it purposefully ignores any evidence which debunks fallacious claims of adultery.  The courts in Iran accept the accusations of Iranian men that their wives have had extramarital affairs with alacrity which means that if an Iranian man wants his wife dead; all he has to do is accuse her of adultery.

Iranian women are not on the same power chain to accuse their husbands of adultery and have any expectation of being heard in Court as it is acceptable for Iranian men to have more wives and not for Iranian women to have relations with other men.

For example, 19 year old Azhar Bakri was sentenced to death because her husband accused her of having an extramarital affair. Bakri married her husband when she was only 14.  Unfortunately, Bakri has suffered unbearable abuse by the guards while in prison as she awaits her death by stoning.

Iran is a country that is replete with egregious human rights violations of the worst kind on a daily basis. The leadership has no qualms about forcing their people to accept its radical Jihadist ideology through violence.  It is a totalitarian brutal dictatorship stuck  in an incomprehensible mindset that follows rigid constricted Islamic rules that have no place in the 21st century.

To stone a pregnant woman or any woman for that matter for committing adultery (most of the time there is no evidence of adultery) in a modern day era is an outrageous miscarriage of justice and a gross encroachment of international law and human rights.

 It would therefore behoove the United Nations and its purported human rights partners to focus its wrath on the real source of human rights violations and horrific acts of violence against women in Iran.

Somehow my hunch tells me that the United Nations will continue to fall asleep at the wheel.

However, at least I gave the United Nations with an opportunity to shift gears if it gets tired in condemning Israel for building homes in East Jerusalem.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Convicted Felons Elected Al Franken


Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Doubting Obama's Sincerity

After two meetings with President Obama which ended with a cold shoulder, Israeli Prime-Minister Netanyahu has finally received his long awaited and much anticipated White House photograph with the U.S. President.   (Mahmoud Abbas had no trouble getting his photograph taken with the President)

Not only did Netanyahu have an opportunity to smile for the cameras, he also was allowed to stay at the coveted Blair House right across the street from the White  House instead of  opting for a standard Washington DC hotel.

Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, joked ahead of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting "There are going to be more photographers there than at the Academy Awards.”

There is no question that the change in the White House treatment of  Netanyahu is in response to an attempt by Obama to lure Jewish voters to the Democrats' side just in time for the November 2010 elections.

Will Jewish voters take the bait?  I would imagine some will unfortunately.

But, the real question is how long will Obama's rosy treatment of  Netanyahu last?

Obama asserted today at his July 6th meeting with the Israeli Prime-Minister that he and Netanyahu are 'friends.'  "The press in Israel and the U.S. like to make a story," Obama retorted.

But, the press did not concoct  a story when President Obama denied Netanyahu photo-op opportunities and left the Israeli entourage stranded in the White House last March. Friends do not treat friends the way Obama has snubbed Netanyahu during his two previous meetings at the White House.

The press was simply doing its job in reporting the news for a change.

While Netanyahu was treated better this time around, his grand entrance to the White House on July 6th did not come without high costs.

If you remember, Netanyahu was scheduled to meet Obama last month at the White House. Obama canceled that meeting following the Flotilla incident telling Netanyahu to "go home." [Netanyahu was in Canada when Obama abruptly canceled the meeting]

In order for Netanyahu to have his July 6th meeting with Obama under cordial terms, Israel had to significantly ease its naval blockade of Gaza which it did to Obama's approval.

Before the next meeting, Obama also expects Israel to extend its settlement freeze in the West Bank which expires in September.

By some chance Israel decides to not extend the settlement freeze; will Obama return to his cold stance and ban photo ops at future meetings between the two leaders?

Will Obama turn on Netanyahu if he builds another bathroom in East Jerusalem?

If so, Netanyahu might want to book his hotel room at the nearby Motel 6 for his next visit to Washington.

Doubting Obama's sincerity is  a logical reaction to the White House's royal treatment of Netanyahu.   Obama played Netanyahu like a fiddle this time securing far reaching compromises from the Israeli leader that were prerequisites for the red carpet treatment at the White House on July 6th.

Even Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority did not have to satisfy prerequisites for his recent meeting with Obama. All Abbas had to say was that the Palestinian Authority is not inciting its people to kill Jews which is an obvious lie and Obama was easily persuaded.

Clearly, Obama does not schedule his meetings with Abbas based on his perception of the Palestinian leader at the time of the meeting.

However, recent history has shown that Obama's treatment of Netanyahu depends on the political climate at the time of the meeting.

Jewish voters should be duly advised not to get their hopes up that Obama is a changed man. His mood swings will dictate how Netanyahu is treated the next time he visits Washington.

Obama could easily turn on Netanyahu at a moment's whim.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Obama Doctrine: Talk to Hamas

We were all accustomed to the Bush Doctrine.  The Bush Doctrine pursued the elimination of  terrorism wherever it can be found. Unfortunately, the Bush Doctrine has been replaced with the Obama Doctrine which espouses the complete opposite. Direct engagement with the very terrorists that President Bush vowed to destroy.

Obama Administration officials have praised Hezbollah calling them 'moderate.'  The President has gone out of his way to reach out to Russia  and the European Union who are notorious for powwowing with Arab terrorist-supporting regimes like Syria and Iran.  It is well settled that no love is lost between Obama and Netanyahu Israel's Prime Minister. While Obama has done everything possible to distance himself from Netanyahu, he has done everything possible to cozy up to the Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the Saudi King.  It is thus quite clear that Obama has reversed the Bush Doctrine completely. Instead of distancing the U.S. from its enemies and embracing its friends which is what Bush believed, Obama distances the U.S. from its friends and embraces its enemies.

One may assert that it is too strong of a statement to state that Obama is embracing enemies of the United States. Well, the previous statement may not be far off if a report from Worldnetdaily is true.  The report states that Hamas officials claim that members from the Obama Administration have already met with Hamas in Europe in secret meetings and that more meeting are planned for the future.

In the meetings, the U.S. officials asked Hamas to accept a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.  The U.S. officials would even  be willing to make their meetings with Hamas public if they became more moderate.

Apparently, a U.S. official is scheduled to arrive in an undisclosed Arab country in the near future to deliver a telegram to Hamas from the Obama Administration.

The Obama Doctrine of reaching out to enemies of the United States originates from a perspective that the Bush Doctrine harmed U.S. interests at home and abroad by alienating the Arab world.  In retrospect, the Obama Doctrine is  the philosophy that is more harmful to U.S. interests at home and abroad.

By attempting to understand the enemy which the Obama Doctrine stands for,  President Obama only intensifies the enemy's  resolve to attack the United States.  The enemy is not deterred by  tolerance and understanding.  Rather, the American drive to reconcile with terrorist organizations is a huge motivator for Hamas and others who share their thinking.

In actuality, these groups have no desire to come to any consensus with America. Hamas's perceived cooperation in meeting with U.S. officials is in fact their stepping stone for more ruthless attacks against the west.  Hamas will ultimately use its connections with the U.S. as a ruse to enter the United States and push forward with its terrorist agenda.

While many were disenchanted with the Bush Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is certainly a much scarier proposition. People may not have liked the fact that Bush  supposedly meddled in other countries affairs by pursuing endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the crux of the Bush Doctrine centered around protecting America at home and abroad.

The Obama Doctrine may be opposed to pursuing wars as Bush did, but it surely has no proven strategy to keep America safe if it strives to understand the modus operandi of terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Legitimizing a terrorist organization that is responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, is a recipe for disaster that will backfire on the Obama Administration.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Newest Farrakhan Rant: Jews Control Black Entertainers


All Smiles as Obama Meets with Saudi King



CAPTION: Obama is so cozy  with the Saudi King, he forgot to tell the King to "Go Home" to Saudi Arabia and get his facts straight as to why Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights crises in the world.  Oh and on another note, Obama canceled his lunch plans with his wife to meet with the Saudi King. After all, the Saudi King has more value to the President than a Jewish Prime-Minister.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Kagan Not Qualified for the Supreme Court

Elena Kagan has had many notable stops along the way in her legal career. Namely, she was a University of Chicago Law School Professor, Dean of Harvard University Law School, Associate White House Counsel, and most recently Solicitor General of the United States.

However, no where in her impressive career  will you find Elena Kagan in a Judicial position. Other than Judicial clerkships, Elena Kagan has never been a Judge.  Not only has she never been a Judge, she has never tried a jury trial in her whole career.  In fact, she only gained experience in federal appellate practice litigation when she was appointed the Solicitor General in January of 2009 by President Obama. 

How can we be assured that Elena Kagan will be a competent Supreme Court Justice when she has never been a Judge and only has limited actual litigation experience? Will her academic career be enough to provide her with the foresight to effectively serve on the Supreme Court?

These are the questions that Elena Kagan will have to answer in her confirmation hearings which began on Monday. She will have to respond effectively to questions from Republican Senators who want to know where she stands on the most pressing judicial issues of the day.

At the end of the day, Kagan will likely be confirmed because the Democrats have the Majority in the U.S. Senate.

But, this should not be a partisan issue.  Prior Judicial experience should be a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court. You could argue about President Bush's nominees Justice Samuel Alito and and Chief Justice John Roberts'  judicial philosophies. You could also argue about President Obama's first nominee Justice Sonia Sotamayor's judicial philosophy.  

But no one could ignore the fact that both Alito, Roberts  and Sotamayor all had several years of prior judicial experience which seems to me should be a requirement to even be considered for the Supreme Court. 

Now, the Senators and the rest of the legal profession will only be in the position to surmise the kind of Judge Elena Kagan will become rather than have a past record to base its decision on whether Kagan has the credentials to be on the Supreme Court.
This flimsy evaluation that the Senators now have to rely upon because of the choice that President Obama has made in picking Kagan does the American people a disservice because it potentially could put someone on the Supreme Court who does not have the background to adequately assess the most important issues of the day. 

The Supreme Court is the deciding factor on issues raging from civil rights, political controversies, criminal rights, abortion, marriage, among other hot topics. 

For all we know which is scarce at this point, Kagan could rely on her liberal philosophy rather than any judicial framework when serving as Supreme Court Justice which is a frightening proposition. 

We therefore should at the very least expect that the President of the United States will select a nominee who knows how to be a Judge to avoid any attempt by the nominee to wholly push his or her political philosophy on the American people. That should be the very minimum requirement.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court will become another Congress rather than the distinguished judicial institution that it is now.

Unfortunately, Obama chose again to put his own liberal agenda ahead of the desires of the American people.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Pre-1967 Israel in Color


Sunday, June 27, 2010

Biden Disparages a Wisconsin Business Manager

Vice-President Biden may have only been kidding when he called a Wisconsin custard shop manager a "smart ass" after the manager told Biden that he could have the ice cream without charge if he lowered his taxes.

The business manager took no offense to Biden's response.

However, is this how  the Obama Administration should be treating small business owners/managers calling them smart asses when they make a reasonable request that the government lower our taxes?

You decide. Let me know what you think of  Biden's exchange with the business manager.


Friday, June 25, 2010

87 Senators Sign Letter to Obama

On June 21, 2010, eighty seven Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for the State of Israel and in particular Israel's right to defend herself. Unfortunately, Israel's right to defend herself has been questioned  and disregarded  by the international community as a result of  the fallout following the Flotilla incident.

The letter, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, contained the following language:

"We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations. The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so."

The entire letter can be read in full here.

A similar letter was signed by seventy six Senators in April urging President Obama to stand with Israel after the President snubbed Prime-Minister Netanyahu during his last visit to the White House.

This latest letter  had a more conciliatory tone which could explain why more Senators signed the letter this time.

Nevertheless, thirteen Senators did not sign the June 21st letter.

Here are the list of the Senators who did not sign the letter:

 1) Jim Webb (D- VA)
 2) Robert Byrd (D-WV)
 3) John Kerry (D-MA)
 4) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
 5) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
 6) Tom Udall (D-NM)
 7) Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
 8) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
 9) Christoper Dodd (D-CT)
10) Tom Harkin (D-IA)
11) Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
12) Jim Bunning  (R-KY)
13) Judd Gregg (R-NH)

Notice more D's in the non-signers category that R's.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Turkey's PM behind the Flotilla

Kauffmans Commentary reported on December 7, 2009 of Turkey's close ties with the Iranian regime and its opposition to procuring sanctions against Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's Iran.

The Turkish organization IHH's involvement in funding the Mavi Marmara's attempt to sabotage the Israeli blockade of Gaza is more evidence that Turkey is more and more becoming one of the bastions of radical Islamic terror in the Middle East which is a drastic significant shift from its longstanding moderate stance.

We now know that Turkey's own Prime Minister had ties to the Mavi Marmara ship that was headed for Gaza. This revelation certainly clinches the widespread perception in the Middle East that Turkey is no longer a moderate nation which Israel could count on for bilateral ties.

The New York-based publication Hamodia reported in its June 16, 2010 edition that documents seized on the ship demonstrate a connection between Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish officials and IHH.

A letter was found on the ship that was dated 10 days prior to  Mavi Marmara's departure from the Turkish port. In the letter, an IHH representative requested the assistance of  Turkish President Abdullah Gul  to free an IHH member held in Israel. This letter reveals a cozy relationship between IHH and high-level Turkish officials suggesting that the Turkish government was well aware of IHH's hidden agenda in sending the Mavi Marmara to Gaza.

Passengers on board the Mavi Marma were more revealing in their testimonies with Israeli officials. 

Some of the passengers stated that Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally knew of the Flotilla's intentions and did nothing to stop it. Those passengers stated that "the Flotilla sailed to Gaza with Erdogan's knowledge and blessings."  According to these passengers, the Turkish Prime-Minister showed a personal interest in the Flotilla hoping that it would improve his status in the Arab world which he could exploit by using a confrontation with Israel to his advantage. Apparently, documents that were found on board the Mavi Marmara tend to support the contention of these passengers.

The documents found on board the ship also link the purchase of the Mavi Marmara to Erdogan. According to the discovered documents, the Mavi Marmara had been purchased by the IHH from a Turkish firm called IDO which was funded by the Istanbul Municipality.  At the time the IDO was first formed, the Mayor of Istanbul was  none other than Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Despite the evidence which reveals the Turkish Prime Minister's support of the Flotilla, others have told Israeli officials that Erdogan knew what the Flotilla was up to and tried to stop them unsuccessfully.

Either way, a picture is emerging which once again debunks any claim that this ship could have carried peaceful activists.

In reality, it is seemingly apparent that the Flotilla on the Mavi Marmara was in fact a state-sponsored Turkish operation backed by Turkey's very own Prime Minister. 

Friday, June 18, 2010

Millions of Martyrs to Gaza

                                           BREAKING NEWS
New Footage has been released (seen below) which debunks all claims that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful humanitarian activists."

For the most up to date information on the Flotilla of terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara, you can also check out

Elton John Performs in Israel

The renown musician Elton John kept his promise and performed in Tel Aviv Thursday night to a rousing crowd of 45,000 people.

John's appearance in Israel is particularly significant because many musicians have cancelled their scheduled concerts in Israel due to pressure from the Palestinian Authority and other organizations who sympathize with the Palestinians.  Elton John refused to succumb to such pressure.

John, always an individual who beats to his own drum, told the enthusiastic crowd in Tel Aviv "Shalom, we are so happy to be back here! Ain't nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby. Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That's what we do. We don't cherry-pick our conscience."

Good for you Elton.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Pundits on the left blast Obama's Speech

President Obama has not had it easy lately with his co-politicos on the left much less with the right. 

Prior to Obama's speech from the oval office, pressure had been mounting on Obama from his own party to show some leadership in responding to one of the worst environmental crises on American soil.  James Carville, the former outspoken Clintonite, has been out there in recent weeks blasting Obama  for not coming down to the Gulf sooner. He notoriously quipped in an interview  on ABC "People are dying out here and the President looks like he is not involved in this [referring to the oil spill]."

Carville's unusual spat with a Democrat President could come from the fact that Obama went on vacation at the height of the oil spill which enraged the native Louisianan.

The onslaught of criticism from the left convinced Obama that he needed to return to the Gulf which he did over the weekend and assert the Administration's position on how to respond to the oil crisis in a prime time speech from the Oval Office.

Surprisingly, liberal pundits have been some of the most vociferous critics of the President's speech.

Chris Matthews, who went ga ga over Obama during the campaign, now says "I do not sense any executive command."

Huffington Post asks "what was the point of that terrible speech?"

Obama supporter Keith Olbermann opined "“It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

These sharp critiques from the left is not good news for the Obama Administration who hoped that a Presidential speech could mollify the criticism.

Obama could easily brush aside attacks from the right as partisan politics. He can not ignore similar attacks from his own party.  When the left is critical of a Democrat President,  there has to be validity to the claim that President Obama has not shown himself to be capable of responding forcefully and quickly to the oil crisis which is a blow to the message presented during the campaign that Obama is fit to respond to any crisis of any magnitude.

Whether or not it is true that Obama has failed miserably in responding to the oil crisis, that is the perception of an overwhelming amount of the American people which is all that matters in an election year.

But you should always be the judge.

Here is President Obama's speech to the American people. Do you think Obama lacks executive command?

Let me know what you think.


Thursday, June 10, 2010

Surprise: No Humanitarian Supplies on the Mavi Marmara

For those of you out there who bashed Israel for intercepting a "humanitarian ship," the truth is now out of the bag so to speak.

No humanitarian supplies were found on the Mavi Marama. 

What transpired here were terrorists who used the canard of a "humanitarian" mission to frame Israel as the aggressor. It has now been proven that their story which they told to the world over was a complete and utter lie as the intent of the ship passengers could not have been to deliver humanitarian supplies when no such items were found on board.

As Prime-Minister Netanyahu stated quite eloquently, the Mavi Marmara was no love boat but rather it was a hate boat committed to aiding and abetting Hamas terrorists in their desire to smuggle weapons. 

Read more about this unbelievable story here.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Two Meetings a Worlds Apart

President Obama Meets with Palestinian Authority Leader Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on June 9, 2010. The President's Meeting with Abbas is one of the photos of the day on the White House's website.

President Obama meets with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on March 23, 2010. The following was the March 23rd photo of the day on the White House website following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.
(This picture appeared originally on


Rabbi who filmed Thomas Receives Death Threats

Rabbi David Nessenoff of, now famous for filming Helen Thomas's anti-Semitic rant which abruptly ended her career, is reporting that he has received death threats and hate mail from people who blame him for Thomas's demise.

This is the classic modus operandi from the anti-Semites. They blame the Jews for everything under the sun rather than blaming themselves for their own inequities.

Even though Thomas brought upon her own demise for stating that the "Jews should go back to Europe," her supporters instead resort to attacking the Rabbi who could not have predicted that Thomas was going to make such an outlandish statement when he innocently asked her what she thought about Jews on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day.

One person who emailed Nessenoff stated "We're going to kill the Jews; watch your back.'"

Others have called for another Holocaust and threatened the Rabbi's family.

While most people in the U.S. have roundly condemned Helen Thomas's comments, those who have stood by her only highlight the fact that anti-Semitism is alive and well in the United States as it is in Europe.

We therefore can not become complacent in thinking that Thomas is the only renown person in Washington who would  assert such despicable views if given the opportunity. It would not even be a stretch to state that Thomas's views are consistent with the perspective of a considerable amount of Americans.

In fact, this latest comment from Thomas is not the first time she has spewed anti-Semitic remarks. In 2002,  she thanked Gd for Hezbollah and she also claimed that Israel is responsible for "99 percent of terrorism." (Hezbollah has issued a statement praising Helen Thomas for being "bold and courageous" in calling for the Jews to go back to Europe)

Rabbi Nessenoff did us a service by eliciting the removal of one of the most vicious anti-Semites working in the press corps. He should be applauded not condemned. We need more people like Rabbi Nessenoff.

The truth is that Helen Thomas should have been removed a long time ago.

Better late than never.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Where have all the parents gone?

Two poignant examples in the news lately highlights the danger in allowing kids unrestricted freedom to engage in all types of behaviors  

While it it is not recommended for parents to be overindulging or controlling of their children which only presents problems down the road, setting no rules or restrictions is arguably one of the main reasons why children have behavioral problems. 

Needless to say, proper parenting is imperative for your child's maturity.

Here are the two examples which begs the question:

Where have all the parents gone?

Toddler at the Phillies game is seen drinking beer

And a disturbing video of a 2 year old Indonesian boy addicted to nicotine


Obama's Unprofessionalism

Throughout U.S. history, Presidents from both parties have used profanity often accidentally over an open mic.

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush leaned over to Dick Cheney in what he thought was a private moment. Instead, he called a reporter an A Hole which was caught on TV and broadcasted on the news. Additionally, during a trip to London, President Bush was caught on tape using the word Sh*t to Tony Blair.

The current President has not been very subtle in using profanity. Recently, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, he made a joke about Joe Biden and used the F word.  It had to beeped out by the networks. You know things have gone down hill when CSPAN has to bleep out the President.

Now, the latest profanity moment involving the President occurred with Matt Lauer  of NBC's The Today Show  interviewing Obama about his response to the oil spill crisis.  Incredulously, Obama told Lauer that he has been consulting with experts to find out "whose ass to kick" for causing the oil spill.

We are not talking about a gaffe  here on an open mic or even a camera that catches the President using profanity or a news report that attributes a profanity laced quote to the President. Rather, Obama has sit down with a respected reporter for an interview on a major network and he chooses to use shady unprofessional language to describe his current administration policy on how to deal with the crisis.

Is this how the President of the United States should be acting?  For an individual educated in Ivy league schools, did he not learn more proper language with which to describe his frustrations?

Obama is now sending the message through his unprofessional discourse that it is perfectly acceptable to use profanity in the workplace. How unfortunate!

Monday, June 7, 2010

Update: Thomas Retires

Helen Thomas's career has officially ended in disgrace.
After years of bashing Israel at the White House, Helen Thomas is forced to retire after she made incendiary comments about Jews a few weeks ago. She told on May 27th that the "Jews should go back to Europe" and that they should  "get the hell out of Palestine."

In an email to Kauffmans Commentary, Ward Bushee of Hearst Newspapers wrote "Helen Thomas apologized and resigned her post today with Hearst" which is effective immediately.

Now, Helen Thomas can spend her retirement years in Lebanon far away from the White House.

IDF Saved Arab Left for Dead by Hamas


Sunday, June 6, 2010

A Letter to the Management of Hearst Newspapers

Dear Messieurs Bushee and Bronstein,

On behalf of all of my readers who share my position, I am writing to express my outrage at the anti-Semitic comments that your correspondent Helen Thomas made to on May 27th. 

Helen Thomas has long been a virulent anti-Semite who harbors anti-Israel sentiments. She routinely asks questions of White House Press Secretaries which challenges them to criticize Israel. She certainly is not a fair-minded reporter. Her bias against the State of Israel and the Jewish people reflects poorly on her employer Hearst Newspapers. Unfortunately, Hearst Newspapers  is represented in the White House by a correspondent who has such such an animus for one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

However, Thomas has exceeded all boundaries by asserting in rather a vindictive matter that the "Jews should go back to Europe" among other bigoted diatribes.  Thomas may have apologized for her comments but they are not sincere given her history in expressing such views.

You know very well that if Thomas made those same comments about African-American people telling them to go back to Africa, there would be calls from every corner in the globe for you to immediately fire Helen Thomas.  And, you would have no other alternative but to dismiss Helen Thomas from her duties as White House Correspondent.

Why should the comments that she made against Jews be treated any differently? Why are diatribes against Jews treated with kid gloves rather than an ironclad fist?

If Helen Thomas remains in her position as White House Correspondent, it will demonstrate that Hearst Newspapers tolerates antisemitism which will be an unfortunate proposition.

I urge you to take prompt action and fire Helen Thomas  if only to demonstrate unequivocally that Hearst Newspapers is wholeheartedly opposed to the  expressed anti-Semitic statements.

The readership of Kauffmans Commentary which spans throughout the United States, Israel, and Europe, is awaiting your response on this matter.

Thank you for your time.


Ed. of Kauffmans Commentary

Friday, June 4, 2010

Remove Helen Thomas from the White House Press Corps

Helen Thomas, the legendary White House Press Correspondent, has been interviewing Presidents since the Eisenhower Administration. She is known in Washington for her liberal leanings. Thomas was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war and routinely clashed President Bush's White House press secretaries over that issue. But many people do not know is that Helen Thomas is a virulent anti-Semite and a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Authority.  Her Lebanese descent may explain why she is so anti-Israel.

But Thomas recently stepped over the line when she told a reporter outside of the White House on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day this past May 27th that the Jews should go back to Europe and "get the hell out of Palestine."

Here is the shocking video

Could you imagine if a White House Correspondent told Black people to go back to Africa or Hispanic people to go back to Mexico or Asian people to go back to China? There would be moral outrage and rightfully so.

Hardly anyone is criticizing Thomas for her viciously anti-Semitic remarks.

Thomas, who is the correspondent for Hearst Newspapers which owns the Houston and San Francisco Chronicles among other newspapers, should be immediately removed from the White House Press Corps and Hearst Newspapers should immediately terminate her services.

Call the White House comments line at 202- 456-1111 and tell the White House operator that the President and his press secretary Robert Gibbs should no longer permit Helen Thomas to attend any press conferences at the White House.

You know Al Sharpton would be calling for Helen Thomas's dismissal if she the same incendiary remarks about Blacks.  Lets cause a similar uproar.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

The Flotilla Song

Ed. Note: Unfortunately, YouTube pulled the Flotilla song off their website allegedly because of a copyright infringement. But, my hunch is other forces are at play here prompting YouTube to succumb to political pressure. However, the Jewish Task Force still has a version of the song that appears on You Tube which is seen above.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

IDF Releases New Video of Mavi Marmara


Terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara

Below is a video of an Israeli Navy Seal describing the violence that he encountered when boarding the ship.

We now know that the so-called activists on board the ship were not peaceful humanitarian activists. But, they were in fact connected to Al Qaeda and were armed with weaponry to be delivered to Hamas in Gaza. Worldnetdaily reported that the passengers wanted to be martyrs and chanted Jihadist slogans.


Tuesday, June 1, 2010

More Videos of the Mavi Marmara

The following is a video of the IDF asking the Mavi Marmara to dock in Ashdod

Here is a video of IDF soldiers yelling to each other that they are under fire by passengers on board the Mavi Marmara

And finally for anyone who believes that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful", tell them to watch this video


Question and Answer of the Day

Question: If the NYPD or the LAPD or any police officer in America had his gun stolen by a criminal only to be fired upon by the gun that was once in the police officer's position, would that police officer hesitate to kill the criminal if he could in self-defense?

Answer: Of course he would  not hesitate and there would be no U.N. condemnation nor would there be any outcry from the European Union  nor would the President of the U.S. ask the police force to get their facts straight. There would be no discussion. The police officer would have the absolute right to defend himself  if he had his gun stolen or if he was beaten with metal rods or if he was thrown to the ground and assaulted.

Next Question: Why should the IDF be treated any differently when their soldiers are attacked by terrorists masked as humanitarian activists?

Answer:  Because Jews are not allowed to defend themselves in the eyes of the international community. Instead, Jewish police officers/soldiers  must permit the criminal/terrorist  to beat them to death with metal rods, thrown them overboard in the water, and steal their guns without a reprisal attack.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Israel Self Defense on the Mavi Marmara

In a de ja vu moment which is so typical for the Middle East, Israel has been provoked once again by Palestinian activists to use force to defend themselves in order to spur an international  public relations incident.

This is what usually occurs. The Palestinians resort to violence. When Israel responds to defend the lives of its soldiers and citizenry, Israel is blamed improperly and unfairly  by the international community for causing the violence that was precipitated the Palestinians themselves.

Israel is now under fire for boarding a ship called the Mavi Marmara carrying Palestinian activists heading for the Gaza strip and killing at least ten people on board. The U.N. plans on holding a special session to condemn Israel. Ambassadors have been recalled to their home countries. Neighboring Turkey has issued a strong rebuke of the Israeli government.

Prime-Minister Netanyahu has canceled his visit to the White House to return to Israel to deal with the latest diplomatic upheaval plaguing Israel.

Unfortunately, as is typically the case, the criticism of Israel is unwarranted and misplaced.

Israel repeatedly asked the ship to dock in Ashdod where Israel would inspect the ship to determine if there was any security risks. If there were none, Israel would allow the materials on board to be transferred to the Gaza trip.

The so-called activists on the ship flatly refused Israel's offer and instead intended to transgress the blockade set up by the IDF to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza.

Israel was left no choice but to board the ship. After all, there was no way of knowing whether this ship was backed by Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. The highest level of scrutiny is absolutely necessary especially since the ship did not heed Israel's offer to dock in Ashdod.

When Israel boarded the ship, the activists  responded with violence beating the Israeli soldiers with sticks. One Israeli soldier was stabbed in the stomach. Some The activists even stole  IDF guns and opened fire on the soldiers.

Israel simply had no other alternative but to respond and defend themselves which is exactly what they did.

The ship had  no business being in a  restricted zone in the first place.  They are squarely to blame for not cooperating with the Israeli navy and they are wholly responsible for precipitating the violence on board which led to the ten deaths.

Yet, it does not matter that the activists are fully responsible for the incident.  The activists know that they can cause violence and get away with it because the international community will always blame Israel and turn a blind eye to Palestinian violence.

We definitely live in an upside down world.

Below you can see more footage of the ship commandos attacking Israeli soldiers on board.


The Feinstein Disappointment

As President Obama prepares to welcome Israeli Prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Tuesday in an another attempt to repair strained relations with the Israeli leader, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is urging Obama to pressure Israel to stop so-called settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

Feinstein, who was not one of  the seventy six Senators who signed a letter urging President Obama to ease tensions with Israel in April, is now formulating a letter calling on the Obama Administration to ante up the pressure on the Israeli government.

It remains unclear whether Feinstein will be able to obtain co-signatories in an election year where Jewish support for the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party is at an all time low. Feinstein's letter would only add fuel to the fire.

In a letter to her constituents last month, Feinstein wrote "I have grave concerns about the expansion of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I believe that this issue is a major stumbling block to a peace agreement. In my view, settlement activity should be halted until an agreement is reached.”

The  indisputable fact remains that the Arabs vowed to destroy the State of  Israel and the Jewish people long before the 1967 war when Israel captured Jerusalem. There were homicide bombings which killed innocent Israelis long before Israel controlled Judea and Samaria.  The Arabs were even eager to kill Jews before Israel became a state.

Feinstein is unwilling to accept the reality that even if Israel stopped all so-called settlement activity tomorrow, the Palestinian Authority will never give up on their desire to rid the Middle East of the Jewish people.

Despite the fact the Prime-Minister Netanyahu instituted  a 10 month moratorium on so-called settlement activity in the West Bank  at Obama's urging which is due to expire soon, the Palestinian Authority has been very reluctant to pursue peace and never misses an opportunity to blame the stalemate on Israel without making any concessions of their own.

While the Palestinian Authority remains indifferent to the notion of peace, it should also be duly noted that they openly glorify terrorists, brainwash  their children to kill Jews, and form alliances with Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza region. 

Feinstein's views on Middle East peace are clearly not logical. She is either delusional or has succumbed to her radical leftist ideology which is hostile to the Jewish state.

Indeed, it is mind boggling that Feinstein has no qualms with the Palestinian Authority naming a square after a terrorist who murdered a dozen Israelis. Yet, she has a conniption when Israel builds bathrooms in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

The senior Senator from California  is a big disappointment.

Friday, May 28, 2010

Obama Administration calls Jihad a legitimate struggle

Brennan who called Hezbollah "moderate" now says that Jihad is  legitimate tenet of Islam


Ed Koch on the offensive again

 [Ed. note: The following is an editorial written by the former Mayor of New York City Ed Koch]

Koch: Obama Speaks Softly And Carries No Stick At All

We are at war with radical Islam, and that war will go on for many years.

For me, the question is this: Will the secular Western civilization shared by America and Europe, which allows us to enjoy life and its creature comforts, still be standing at the end of that war? Or will radical Islam, with an aggressive culture that treasures martyrdom and death over life, prevail?

The vast majority of Muslims, of course, are peace-loving. The fanaticism found among the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia is not found in many of the countries where a billion, 400 million Muslims live. Nevertheless, we know that radical Islamists want to convert us to their faith, either voluntarily or, if necessary, by force. Among the Islamist radicals there is a special hatred of Jews and Hindus and, to a lesser extent, of Christians. The hatred of Jews is such that some of the leaders of radical groups have called for the killing of Jewish civilians all over the world. For some, the Muslim rule is to permit Jews and Christians - as monotheists - to practice their religions, provided that they accept the supremacy of Islam and pay a poll tax - so described by Bernard Lewis, America's foremost scholar on Islam.

Mr. Lewis states: "This tolerance is limited to monotheists and recipients of what Islam recognizes as a revelation. It does not apply in any circumstance to those who are seen as polytheists and idolaters. For them the rule was indeed conversion or death, though the latter was rarely enforced and in the past was often commuted to enslavement. The Wahhabi demand, as far as I know, is not that Christians and Jews convert to Islam, but that they accept the supremacy of Islam and the rule of the Muslim state. On that condition, they may continue in the practice of their religion."

All this is by way of preface to a current controversy here in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center site where near 3,000 people lost their lives in acts of terror perpetrated by 19 Muslim hijackers, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, who deliberately flew two planes into the twin towers.

There are those who, understandably but nevertheless in error, object to the construction of this mosque, believing its presence would insult the memory of the victims of the terror. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others, including the local community planning board and the local elected political leaders, it would sully the good name of the United States and New York City were the members of the mosque, which is permissible under existing zoning laws, prohibited from constructing it. While no one can be sure what activities will take place there, that is true of any religious institution. It also follows that none may violate the law with impunity.

What distinguishes the United States is our pluralism and tolerance for minority groups, religions of every persuasion and acceptance of the rights of those with policies and philosophies different than the prevailing views of the majority, provided they are non-violent and observe the law.

Having said that, and believing in our tolerance for others, I also believe we must be willing to defend our people and country against all attacks that are violent - tantamount to war - as well as those attacks that are unfair and intended to humble and denigrate our nation. It is infuriating to see Turkey, an actual NATO ally, and Brazil, a neighbor and trade partner here in the Western hemisphere, collude with Iran, which has said through its president that it wants the US to disappear and makes clear every day its enmity and threats directed at us and our ally, Israel. It is infuriating that North Korea threatens the world with its nuclear and missile arsenal and sinks a South Korean destroyer with a torpedo that an examining commission found to have North Korean markings, and no immediate military retaliatory action is taken, out of fear of consequences.

If Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the US Congress had failed to assist in the defense of Great Britain in its war with Germany, and Great Britain had gone down to defeat because early on we refused to become Great Britain's supplier of ships and other war materials out of fear of the consequences, we here in the US might be speaking German today instead of English. We would certainly no longer be the great and sovereign nation we are.

Have we lost the will to stand up to the bullies of the world? The administration points with pride to the fact that it is proceeding with sanctions against Iran at the Security Council and that it succeeded in bringing Russia and China to the point where they too have agreed to vote for sanctions. To accomplish this, however, the US had to agree to Russia's delivering arms to Iran, e.g., an anti-aircraft system that would be used to shoot down US and Israeli planes that might in the future seek to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities. With respect to China and getting its consent to vote with us, we dropped sanction measures that would have crippled Iran's banking and financial institutions and prohibited the sale of gasoline to Iran, which has no conversion facilities, which would have devastated its economy.

Some will say that pointing out these failures of will is jingoistic. I believe these failures to stand up for allies and most importantly to stand up for ourselves is why we are taken less seriously by nations throughout the world than should be the case. When others fully respected us, we were able to keep the world at peace. We are losing that ability with each passing day, as we demonstrate our unwillingness to teach the bullies of the world the lessons they deserve.

Speak softly and carry a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt said. President Obama speaks apologetically and carries no stick at all. No wonder North Korea torpedoed that South Korean warship, something they would not have done in all probability if China had not quietly approved. No wonder Brazil and Turkey thumb their noses at us. We have become a laughingstock.


Sunday, May 23, 2010

Video of the day



Thursday, May 20, 2010

U.S. Adviser: Hezbollah is a Very Interesting Organization

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan, recently told a Washington conference that Hezbollah is a "very interesting organization." He made these remarks after returning from Lebanon where he met with Lebanese officials.

While at this conference, Brennan "praised" the so-called evolution of the terrorist organization when he stated that Hezbollah evolved from a "purely a terrorist organization to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet."

Brennan intends to work with the supposed moderate elements within Hezbollah not its extremist members.

We certainly have a serious problem on our hands when the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism refers to a vicious terrorist organization as "very interesting" and also has adopted the canard perpetuated by Hezbollah that they are primarily a political organization.

Contrary to Brennan's glorified expectation of a 'moderate' Hezbollah,  the terrorist organization  is refilling its stockpile of weapons in blatant  violation of UN resolution 1701 in order to  position itself to launch new rocket attacks on Israel.

When Brennan travels to Lebanon to meet with the 'moderate' elements of Hezbollah, the other members of the organization will be getting the "last laugh" as they will be underground surreptitiously preparing their next attack.

Statements made by people like Brennan  have the certain power  to cause  a change in one's worldview.

What is the greatest threat to world security?

Are the terrorist organizations themselves the biggest threat or could the threat be a U.S. government that because of political correctness  is falling asleep at the wheel by refusing to recognize that terrorism is not synonymous with moderation. 

Mr. Brennan, Hezballah and its vast network spearheaded by the teachings of radical Islam, has only one goal and that is the destruction of both America and Israel. Moderation plays no part in that goal.

By referring to Hezbollah as 'moderate,' Brennan and others who share this viewpoint give these organizations legitimacy which is another weapon that they use in their war against America and Israel.

Finally Mr. Brennan, if you are not aware of  Hezbollah's true motives of destruction,  below is a short video of Hezbollah in action for your perusal.


Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Back off of Arizona

Ever since the Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer signed the state's Immigration Bill into law, Arizona has been under attack.

Neighboring states and cities have called for an outright boycott of Arizona.The Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution 13-1 which will prevent the city from doing any business with Arizona. There even was   pressure on the LA Lakers to refuse to play the Phoenix Suns in the NBA playoff series. 

San Francisco is also considering boycotting Arizona and signing a similar resolution as the Los Angeles City Council. In fact, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger  weighed in against Arizona's Immigration law when he quipped at a commencement ceremony "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."

Other cities, including Milwaukee, Austin, West Hollywood, Boston, Oakland, St. Paul, Washington, D.C., Boulder, and New York City are currently deciding whether to follow Los Angeles's lead and boycott Arizona as well. Bob Menendez, a Senator from New Jersey, is even calling on Major League Baseball to remove the 2011 All star game from Phoenix where it is now scheduled to take place.

Incredulously, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese and Los Angeles city councilman Paul Koretz compared the Arizona law to the Nazi oppression during the Holocaust. Jewish groups are on record fiercely contesting such a comparison.

The  criticism leveled against Arizona is unwarranted.

Jan Brewer, like all Governors,  has a responsibility to protect her citizens from harmful actions by other individuals which is why she signed into law a Bill which is designed to address a growing problem of crime in Arizona committed by illegal aliens. In explaining her reasoning for signing the Bill, Brewer told Fox News "we've been inundated with criminal activity. It's just -- it's been outrageous."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice's National Drug Threat Assessment, there were 267 kidnappings committed by illegal aliens in Arizona in 2009 and 299 in 2008.  These are astounding numbers which do not take into account the number of murders and burglaries that are also committed by illegal aliens.

The boycott of Arizona could cost the city of Phoenix an estimated 90 million dollars in lost revenue over the next five years.

Los Angeles and other cities who are boycotting Arizona are overstepping their boundaries by penalizing a neighboring state for taking action to address a serious issue affecting its citizens.

Furthermore, American drivers of all national origins are already required to present their driver's license to a police officer making a traffic stop. Why should  an individual that is stopped legitimately by a police officer be exempt from showing documentation of  legal status like a driver's license or green card as all Americans are required to do so when summoned by a police officer?

This law does not sanction racial profiling nor does it encourage police officers to harass individuals because of their Hispanic heritage. Police officers are only permitted to ask individuals for their papers once they are already suspected of committing a crime non related to their suspected status of being an illegal alien. Only then can they be deported if 'reasonable suspicion' exists. The law was simply created for the nonracial purpose of eradicating a growing problem of crime committed by illegal aliens.

If the LAPD and the San Francisco Police Department  want to send their kidnapping units over to Arizona to help the Phoenix police crack down  on crime commited by illegal aliens, I am sure that Governor Brewer would support repealing the Immigration Bill.

Until then, everyone should back off of Arizona.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Republican Group: GOP will take over the House

In an exclusive interview with Kauffmans Commentary, the  Senior Administrator of the Young Republican Network Ira Geiger stated that the GOP will likely take over the House in the 2010 elections.

         YRN's Ira Geiger pictured with New Jersey's Lt. Governor

Geiger is less certain about the Republicans' chances of  gaining control of the U.S. Senate. At the current moment, Geiger believes that the Republican party has a 50% chance of regaining the Senate.

According to Geiger, the prospect of the GOP gaining control of the Senate all depends on whether the Republican Party can win Senate seats in New York, Connecticut,  California, and  possibly Wisconsin and Washington. Republican Senate candidates in Delaware, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado are all expected to win in November which means that the Republicans will pick up eight seats and would only need to win  at least three more seats to win back the U.S. Senate assuming that the Republicans can retain Florida and Ohio.

Ira Geiger also told Kauffmans Commentary that he believes young Republicans between the ages of 18 to 40 will have a greater influence in this year's election than in previous elections. "People have woken up. They took 2008 for granted," explained Geiger.  He also reported that he has received emails from Democrats who are now supporting Republican candidates which is a new phenomena.

Geiger has been active in Republican politics for many years and has worked on the former Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich's gubernatorial campaign in 2006 and most recently on Chris Christie's successful gubernatorial campaign in New Jersey.

The Young Republican Network was originally  founded after the 2008 election. It currently serves as a grassroots website which reaches out to young professionals, students, entrepreneurs, and young business leaders informing them of the different Republican campaigns in the 2010 election cycle.

An estimated 25,000 people a day log onto the Young Republican Network's website to learn about the Republican candidates who are running in this year's election.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Holder can not say the word 'radical Islam'


Thursday, May 13, 2010

San Diego Muslim Student Wants a Second Holocaust

 Watch the Shocking Video