I'm at it again: Die Judenfrage and religious identity

Most Jews must be heartily sick of being forever singled out for discussion and scrutiny but it seems that it was ever so and ever will be. And in my utter folly, I am once again going to voice a few thoughts on one of the most hotly contested topics among Jews: Who is a Jew?

My present thoughts arise from the "wise" British judges who recently decided that Jews are a race. Since there are Jews of all races -- including black ones -- that is arrant nonsense. Yet it is also partly true -- in that various genetic studies have shown that many Jews do still have in them some Middle Eastern genes. So for Jews as a whole it is true that Israel is their ancestral home as well as their religious home.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that Jews are a religion, not a race. And the test of that, it seems to me, is that Jews do accept converts. Try converting yourself into another race: It can't be done.

But many Jews are atheists or something close to it, so how can Jewry be a religion? The easy answer to that from an Orthodox viewpoint (with which I am broadly sympathetic) is that being Jewish is not a matter of belief but of practice. A Jew is someone who follows Jewish law (halacha). What you believe is very secondary. Deeds speak louder than words. Christianity is belief based but Judaism is practice based.

But there is also a much simpler answer: MOST religion is hereditary. And those who inherit it are often not zealous practitioners of it. My late father, for instance, always put his religion down on official forms as "C of E" ("Church of England") and had no hesitation in doing so. He in fact seemed rather proud of it. Yet in all the time I knew him, he never once set foot inside an Anglican church.

So why cannot Jews be the same? Even if you are not religious, you can still have a religious identity.

Because I am an atheist, I never bothered with getting my son Christened but I considered that a knowledge of Christianity was an important element of his cultural heritage so I sent him to a Catholic school -- in the view that Catholics still had enough cultural self-confidence to teach the Christian basics. And they did. And my son greatly enjoyed his religion lessons -- as I hoped he would.

When he was aged 9 however, he said that he wanted to become a Catholic, which of course I was delighted to arrange. So he was baptised and subsequently had his confirmation lessons and was confirmed. These days many years later his beliefs seem to be as skeptical as mine -- which I also expected -- so what motivated his desire to become a Catholic? He wanted to have a religious identity. There was no pressure on him but he was greatly impressed by some very faith-filled people in the church and he wanted to identify with that. And I imagine that he still puts himself down on forms as "Catholic".

So a religious identity can be quite a significant thing for many people, not only Jews. It is a part of belonging -- and that is a very basic human need. Jews in a way are lucky there. No matter what their beliefs are, they still know that there is always one place where they belong, if they ever want to acknowledge it.

Once or twice a year I still attend my local Presbyterian church (at Easter etc.) and I certainly feel that I belong there. I feel at home with all aspects of it. My mother was a Presbyterian of sorts so that was where I was sent as a kid for Sunday School -- and that has stayed with me even though I no longer believe. So, again, one can have and value a religious identity even if one's beliefs have very little to do with it.

And the lady in my life -- Anne -- is only very vaguely religious but her background religion is Presbyterian and there are many habits of mind she has which I know well from my own family, and with which I am therefore very much at ease. Sometimes when she speaks, I hear my mother and my aunties speaking too. She has a Presbyterian mind, or a Presbyterian way of thinking -- perhaps Presbyterian assumptions. I think that in a similar way, most Jews probably have a Jewish mind too. Attitudes and habits of thought may in fact be the most important parts of a religious heritage.

I am sure that everything I have said above will be mumbo jumbo to most Leftists but, if so, that is their loss.

*******************

Iran's Basij militia are the new Sturm Abteilung (Even if their shirts aren't brown)

Picture of some original brownshirts below



They have become the face of repression since Iran's disputed June 12 elections, but the auxiliary security force known as the Basij once played a heroic role. During the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, volunteers as young as 13 in the Basij-e Mostazafan, or "Mobilization of the Oppressed," walked through minefields to defend their country against the invading forces of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

In the years that followed, however, the Basij have become the enforcers of the Islamic republic, charged with putting down protests and policing behavior and dress. Since anti-government demonstrations erupted after allegations of massive fraud in Iranian presidential elections, "the Basij are everywhere. In the streets, in the newspapers, on television," said Mohsen Javani, a high school student in Tehran.

Protests have dwindled in the past few days since the deaths of more than 200 demonstrators and the arrests of several hundred opposition figures, said spokesmen for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. Eyewitness reports and videos sent by Iranians through social network sites have shown Basij members on motorcycles beating protesters....

Many Iranians suspect that a member of the Basij fatally shot Neda Agha-Soltan, a young Iranian woman whose death on the street in Tehran on June 20 has become the iconic image of Iran's pro-democracy movement. Arash Hejazi, an Iranian doctor who said he tried to save Miss Agha-Soltan, told the British Broadcasting Corp. last week that he was at the scene and protesters saw a member of the Basij on a motorcycle nearby who was shouting, "I didn't want to kill her." ...

Mr. Mohammadi said "Western propaganda" was trying to defame the Basij to "undermine such a strong defensive force." During the Iran-Iraq war, "they defended Iran just as the Kamikaze defended Japan," he said.

For many Iranians, however, the Basij have evolved since that war into Iran's unofficial morality police, responsible for enforcing Islamic dress codes, questioning couples about their marital status and raiding mixed-gender parties.

They also have been used in the past to clamp down on protesters, including students and women's rights advocates.

"They are very devout, with strong conviction that what they are defending is so important that they are willing to die and kill their own brothers, sisters and neighbors," said an Iranian-American protester in Tehran who asked to be identified only by his first name, Ahmad. To some of the lower-class youths who join the organization, "it's like [being] a glorified Boy Scout," he said.

There is another reason young Iranians become members of the Basij: money. "We are getting paid 200,000 toman [about $200] a day by the government," a member of the group said in an e-mail made available to The Times. "We are being instructed to go into the streets and hit people, everyone and anyone who is out, until they can no longer get up. We are being fed lunch and dinner and given rooms to sleep in at night in undisclosed locations."

More HERE

***********************

Obama could learn from the Gipper

President Obama finally found his voice on Iran this week, saying the world was "appalled and outraged" by the regime's suppression of peaceful protests. Mr. Obama also hinted that he was prepared to reconsider direct negotiations with the regime. "We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community," he said. "What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path." So where do we go from here, particularly now that demonstrations are abating in the face of increased repression?

One place to begin is by studying the example of U.S. policy toward Solidarity, the Polish trade union that challenged the Communist regime in the early 1980s. As with the "Green Revolution" in Iran, Solidarity did not begin as a frontal assault on the regime itself, but rather as a peaceful shipyard strike. But it quickly grew into a broad social movement, encompassing shipyard and factory workers, intellectuals, priests and nearly everyone who didn't have a direct stake in the regime's survival.

The U.S. initially adopted a cautious approach toward Solidarity. The Carter Administration rewarded the Polish government with foreign loans and credits for not cracking down on the movement. Then-Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan also took a restrained view, saying he "didn't believe it was our place to intervene in a purely domestic affair." But Solidarity gained greater traction with the American public and particularly with Lane Kirkland's AFL-CIO, which began collecting donations for Solidarity while refusing to off-load cargo from Polish ships.

Not surprisingly -- and as with Iran today -- these expressions of public sympathy gave the regimes in Warsaw and Moscow the opportunity to blame the West for "meddling," even as the U.S. gave Poland financial and food aid. But that ended in December 1981 after Warsaw imposed martial law, to which Reagan responded by suspending Poland's most-favored-nation trading status and imposing sanctions.

Reagan also offered Solidarity crucial political support, even when the movement seemed crushed. "There are those who will argue that the Polish Government's action marks the death of Solidarity," he said in an October 1982 radio address. "I don't believe this for a moment. Those who know Poland well understand that as long as the flame of freedom burns as brightly and intensely in the hearts of Polish men and women as it does today, the spirit of Solidarity will remain a vital force in Poland."

That support did not go unnoticed inside Poland, despite the arrest of Solidarity's leaders and thousands of others. The U.S. government also coordinated with the AFL-CIO, which smuggled money, printing presses and other equipment necessary to keep Solidarity an active, underground force.

Also crucial was Pope John Paul II, with whom Reagan coordinated a clandestine aid program. It was an angle Reagan understood intuitively: "I have a feeling," he wrote a friend in July 1981, "particularly in view of the Pope's visit to Poland, that religion might very well turn out to be the Soviets' Achilles' heel."

The Church's involvement made a martyr of Jerzy Popieluszko, the charismatic priest whose sermons were broadcast on Radio Free Europe until his murder, by the secret police, in 1984. The confrontation served to underscore that the regime was morally bankrupt and could only be sustained by force. Ultimately, it was brought down by the combination of internal rebellion, economic pressure, Western support for Solidarity and a Soviet patron no longer prepared to send in tanks. When parliamentary elections were finally held in 1989 -- before the fall of the Berlin Wall -- Solidarity took every seat but one.

Today's Iran is different in many respects from 1980s Poland. The Iranian economy is a shambles, but the regime can sustain itself through oil and gas exports. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can claim his own religious authority. And opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi appears to be a man more in the mold of an Alexander Dubcek than Lech Walesa.

Then again, the Iranian regime is now openly detested by a huge segment of the population, which has produced its own roster of martyrs. The repression has united the opposition and inspired global support, including some prominent former apologists for the mullahs. A large and restive trade union movement could become a locus of opposition, as could a growing number of prominent Shiite theologians who reject the idea of theocratic rule. The country is profoundly vulnerable to a gasoline embargo, for which there is pending legislation in Congress. Digital links to the outside world make it nearly impossible for the regime to arrest or murder dissidents without the world noticing.

All of which means that there are opportunities for the Obama Administration to exploit, provided it envisions a democratic and peaceful Iran as a strategic American aim. That doesn't mean military confrontation with the mullahs. But it does require taking every opportunity to apply consistent pressure on Iran while exploiting its internal tensions and contradictions.

"I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity," Mr. Walesa wrote in these pages after Reagan died in 2004. "Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for."

The circumstances aren't so different. With similar vision and leadership, the endgame could be the same.

SOURCE

********************

Silence Has Consequences for Iran

The less we protest, the more people will die

By JOSÉ MARIA AZNAR (Mr. Aznar is the former prime minister of Spain: 1996-2004)

If there hadn't been dissidents in the Soviet Union, the Communist regime never would have crumbled. And if the West hadn't been concerned about their fate, Soviet leaders would have ruthlessly done away with them. They didn't because the Kremlin feared the response of the Free World.

Just like the Soviet dissidents who resisted communism, those who dare to march through the streets of Tehran and stand up against the Islamic regime founded by the Ayatollah Khomeini 30 years ago represent the greatest hope for change in a country built on the repression of its people. At stake is nothing less than the legitimacy of a system incompatible with respect for individual rights. Also at stake is the survival of a theocratic regime that seeks to be the dominant power in the region, the indisputable spiritual leader of the Muslim world, and the enemy of the West.

The Islamic Republic that the ayatollahs have created is not just any power. To defend a strict interpretation of the Quran, Khomeini created the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard, which today is a true army. To expand its ideology and influence Iran has not hesitated to create, sustain and use proxy terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. And to impose its fundamentalist vision beyond its borders, Iran is working frantically to obtain nuclear weapons.

Those who protest against the blatant electoral fraud that handed victory to the fanatical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are in reality demanding a change of regime. Thus, the regime has resorted to beating and shooting its citizens in a desperate attempt to squash the pro-democracy movement.

This is no time for hesitation on the part of the West. If, as part of an attempt to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, the leaders of democratic nations turn their backs on the dissidents they will be making a terrible mistake.

President Obama has said he refuses to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs, but this is a poor excuse for passivity. If the international community is not able to stop, or at least set limits on, the repressive violence of the Islamic regime, the protesters will end up as so many have in the past -- in exile, in prison, or in the cemetery. And with them, all hope for change will be gone.

To be clear: Nobody in the circles of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or Ahmadinejad is going to reward us for silence or inaction. On the contrary, failing to support the regime's critics will leave us with an emboldened Ahmadinejad, an atomic Iran, and dissidents that are disenchanted and critical of us. We cannot talk about freedom and democracy if we abandon our own principles.

Some do not want to recognize the spread of freedom in the Middle East. But it is clear that after decades of repression -- religious and secular -- the region is changing.

The recent elections in Lebanon are a clear example. The progressive normalization of Iraq is another. It would be a shame, particularly in the face of such regional progress, if our passivity gave carte blanche to a tyrannical regime to finish off the dissidents and persist with its revolutionary plans.

Delayed public displays of indignation may be good for internal political consumption. But the consequences of Western inaction have already materialized. Watching videos of innocent Iranians being brutalized, it's hard to defend silence.

SOURCE

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

The BBC top dogs live like Wall St. bankers

The fact that the money is extorted from millions of ordinary Britons via a compulsory "licence" fee does not inhibit their spending at all

Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, insisted that all of the expenses claims made by staff were 'reasonable and justified'. Mr Thompson insisted that all of the expenses claims made by staff – including nights at five-star hotels, bottles of champagne and flights in private planes – were "reasonable and justified". He claimed BBC managers earn far less than they would in the private sector, and said it was right that the multi-million pound salaries of star presenters remained secret, otherwise there would be a "talent drain" to other channels.

Mr Thompson made his comments on the two of the state broadcaster's own shows – BBC1's Breakfast and Radio 4's Today programme – following the publication for the first time on Thursday of detailed breakdowns of his staff's expenses and salaries. The figures showed that the BBC's 50 highest-paid executives earned as much as £13.6million last year, with 27 paid more than the Prime Minister.

In addition, they spent tens of thousands of pounds' worth of public money on entertaining each other, staying at top hotels around the world and showering gifts on actors and other employees. One executive sent a £100 bouquet of flowers to Jonathan Ross, while another spent £1,137.55 on a dinner to mark Sir Terry Wogan's knighthood.

But Mr Thompson, whose basic salary is £647,000, said: "Every one of these expenses in my view was reasonable and was justified. "This is an organisation with a turnover over £4.5billion and this is a few hundred thousand pounds of expenses. "They've been pored over by the papers, The Daily Telegraph asked us 150 questions in the course of yesterday afternoon, and I don't believe that I've yet seen any evidence that a single one of these line-by-line expenses has been in any way unjustified."

He also defended the earnings of BBC executives, saying: "We all accept that we should get paid much less than our equivalents do in the private sector." Mr Thompson claimed the BBC had censored far less information than MPs had done when publishing their expenses in detail for the first time last week. But he said the salaries of its top performers must not be disclosed in order to stop them leaving for rival broadcasters. "We worry that, if it turns out you work for the BBC, you get your pay disclosed, if you work for ITV you don't, there will be a talent drain," Mr Thompson claimed.

SOURCE

********************

Where's The U.N. On Iran?

A thundering silence from the would-be defender of human rights

People are being killed in Iran. Where is the U.N.? What institution could be better positioned to relieve President Obama of his worries about America standing up unilaterally for freedom in Iran? The U.N. is the self-styled overlord of the international community, committed in its charter to promote peace, freedom and "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights."

Iran's regime is already in gross violation of a series of U.N. sanctions over a nuclear program the U.N. Security Council deems a threat to international peace. The same regime has now loosed its security apparatus of trained thugs and snipers on Iranians who have been, in huge numbers, demanding their basic rights. Surely top U.N. officials such as Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon should be leading the charge for liberty and justice, with the strongest possible criticism and measures against the Iranian regime.

But that's not happening. While Iranian protesters have been risking their necks to try to rid their country of a malignant despotism, the U.N. has hardly even qualified as voting "present."

During the upheaval following the disputed results of Iran's June 12 presidential election, Ban confined himself to a grand total of three public utterances on the matter. In the first, on June 15, with pictures of bloodied Iranian protesters already flooding the Internet, Ban told reporters in New York that he was "closely following the situation." In words so ritually obtuse that they could have been scripted for him by Iran's supreme tyrant, Ali Khamenei, Ban added that he had "taken note of the instruction by the religious leaders that there should be an investigation into this issue."

The next day, June 16, when asked again about Iran, Ban came up with pretty much the same anodyne answer: "taken note ... very closely following ... just seeing how the situation will develop." Other than that, for the next six days, Ban had lots to say--but not about Iran. He sent a message to a meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was attending as an observer, having briefly decamped from the upheaval that his own Ayatollah-blessed, irregularity-fraught "re-election" had sparked in Iran.

To this gathering in Russia, where Ahmadinejad posed for the cameras among a lineup of heads of state, Ban dispatched a message full of buzzwords about poverty, climate change and "combined commitment to a peaceful and prosperous common future." He made no mention of the "situation" in Iran.

SOURCE

**********************

The 'democracy president' -- not

by Jeff Jacoby

THE CHOICE PRESENTED by the democracy protests in Iran could hardly have been clearer. On one side: a brutal theocratic regime that jails and tortures its critics at home and is a deadly sponsor of terrorism abroad; that loudly proclaims its enmity for the United States and has murdered many Americans to prove it; that barely conceals its drive to amass a nuclear arsenal; that lusts openly for the annihilation of Israel; that for 30 years has pursued a far-flung Islamist jihad. On the other side: throngs of Iranians calling for an end to their government's abuses.

With whom should America stand -- the bloody tyranny or the people opposing it? For most Americans the question surely answers itself, which is why both houses of Congress voted all but unanimously last week to condemn the Iranian government and support the protesters' embrace of human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

So why was President Obama's response initially so muted and ambivalent? Why was he more interested in preserving "dialogue" with Iran's dictatorial rulers than in providing moral support for their freedom-seeking subjects? Why did it take him until yesterday to declare that Americans are "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent crackdown and to "strongly condemn" the vicious attacks on peaceful dissenters?

A disconcerting answer to those questions appears in the new issue of Commentary, where Johns Hopkins University scholar Joshua Muravchik isolates the most striking feature of the young Obama administration's foreign policy: "its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy."

In an essay titled "The Abandonment of Democracy," Muravchik -- the author, most recently, of The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East -- observes that every president since Jimmy Carter has made the advancement of democracy and human rights one of his foreign-policy objectives. Now, he writes, "this tradition has been ruptured by the Obama administration."

The rupture was telegraphed at a pre-inauguration meeting with the Washington Post, during which the incoming president argued that "freedom from want and freedom from fear" are more urgent than democracy, and that "oftentimes an election can just backfire" if corruption isn't fixed first. Muravchik points out that when Obama gave Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language satellite channel, his first televised interview as president, he focused on US relations with the Middle East and Muslim world, yet "never mentioned democracy or human rights.".....

Authoritarian regimes, naturally, have welcomed the new approach. According to the Associated Press, Egypt's ambassador to the United States expressed satisfaction "that ties are on the mend and that Washington has dropped conditions for better relations, including demands for 'human rights, democracy and religious and general freedoms.'" And just as Team Obama has downplayed democracy and human-rights efforts in the Middle East, it has done so as well with regard to China, Russia, and even Sudan. "Obama seems to believe that democracy is overrated, or at least overvalued," Muravchik writes.

Obama may see himself as the un-Bush, cool to democracy because his predecessor was so keen for it. But to millions of subjugated human beings, he is the leader of the free world -- an avatar of the democratic freedoms they hunger for. On the streets of Iran recently, many protesters held signs reading "Where Is My Vote?" There are limits to what the American president can do for Iran's beleaguered democrats. But is it too much to ask that he take their question seriously?

More HERE

**************************

Just A Coincidence?

The day after Hall Of Record publishes a post critical of the Administration's Climate Bill, this is received:

Hello, Your blog at: http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at [link]. Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your readers will see a warning page during this time. After we receive your request, we'll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. Once we have reviewed and determined your blog is not spam, the blog will be unlocked and the message in your Blogger dashboard will no longer be displayed. If this blog doesn't belong to you, you don't have to do anything, and any other blogs you may have won't be affected. We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577 Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting efforts. Sincerely, The Blogger Team

Sure, just a coincidence.

See the sidebar at Hall of Record

***********************

A Sign of the Times?

Is this the new “justice” for America? A massive armed federal raid in Utah has resulted in two deaths, including the suicide of a popular small town doctor. Those arrested have been accused of stealing American Indian artifacts from federal land.

The Obama administration’s Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar flew to Salt Lake City to proudly announce the raid. But the arrests were conducted in a chilling manner. According to the LA Times:

Shortly after sunrise last week, a squad of flak-jacketed federal agents surrounded the remote home of Dr. James Redd, arrested his wife and then stopped the 60-year-old doctor as he returned from his morning rounds to arrest him as well….

Nearly 20 agents had surrounded a pair of mobile homes belonging to septuagenarian brothers and led them away in cuffs…. Local authorities called the raids overkill.

Then a day after his arrest, Dr. Redd killed himself…. Redd, the town's only physician, was known for traveling to treat patients at all hours. Huge lines formed outside the town mortuary for his wake.

The Times story says that the US attorney for Utah “noted that many of the defendants own guns, common in this part of the country but still a cause for caution.”

"Eighteen vehicles surrounded the Redd’s house,” San Juan County Supervisor Bruce Adams said in an interview. “Do we do that with child molesters? With murderers?” He added, “I haven’t seen a piece of pottery or an artifact that’s worth a human life.”

All of this for stealing shards of pottery. For those Americans who bitterly cling to their guns and Bibles … did you get the message?

SOURCE

************************

ELSEWHERE

German hard line may spur sanctions against Iran: "EUROPEAN Union ministers may be ready to push for tougher sanctions against Iran after Germany has shown growing willingness to take a harder line. At the G8 gathering in Italy yesterday, EU foreign ministers were loath to press ahead with plans for tightening curbs amid turmoil in Tehran. The EU and US do not want to help anti-Western voices in Iran. But even before the election, EU ministers were considering tighter curbs on exports and on Iran's banks. If they revive those plans, in which Germany is taking a prominent role, it will come as a relief to the US, which has criticised the EU's softness. Germany was the target of harsh remarks from Iranian officials at meetings in Tehran on Sunday and Tuesday with EU counterparts. Chancellor Angela Merkel has led a shift in German ties with Iran, which have been warmer than those of Britain or France. Germany is Iran's largest trading partner in the EU, with sales of between E4 billion ($7bn) and E5bn a year, more than double those of Italy, France, Switzerland and Britain. It has been Iran's largest trading partner overall, although now overtaken by China."

Hitler's heirs: "A hardline cleric close to the Iranian regime demanded the execution of leading demonstrators yesterday as the opposition ended the week in disarray. In a televised sermon at Friday prayers in Tehran, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami called on the judiciary to “punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson”. He said that those leaders were backed by the United States and Israel. They should be treated as mohareb — people who wage war against God — and deserved execution. In a clear warning to all other dissenters, he declared: “Anybody who fights against the Islamic system or the leader of Islamic society, fight him until complete destruction.” The Ayatollah claimed that Neda Soltan, the woman shot during a demonstration last Saturday, had been killed by fellow protesters because “government forces do not shoot at a lady standing in a side street”. Ayatollah Khatami’s address came at the end of a week in which the regime has brutally suppressed all street protests and arrested hundreds of opponents for daring to challenge President Ahmadinejad’s re-election".

Britain: The bankrupt welfare State: "The stark evidence of the growing imbalance between what the Government raises and what it spends is likely to intensify the political row over the public finances and may strengthen calls for cuts in spending. Treasury figures show that welfare payments will exceed income tax receipts by almost £25 billion. Normally, income tax receipts comfortably cover the benefits bill. The disparity between tax revenue and welfare costs was identified by Andrew Brough, a fund manager at Schroder Investment Management, who suggested that the amount of money spent on social protection could soon exceed that raised from both income tax and national insurance. According to an official Treasury forecast, benefits will cost £170.9 billion in 2010/11. That is equal to what the Government will spend on the NHS, schools and universities combined. This year will be the first in a decade that benefits cost more than workers pay in income tax."

Conn. church creates stir with gay exorcism video: "A Connecticut church has outraged gay rights advocates by posting a video of members performing an apparent exorcism of a teen's "homosexual demons." The 20-minute video was posted on YouTube before it was taken down. Gay youth advocate Robin McHaelen (mih-KAY'-lehn) says the video appears to show abuse. She says she plans to report it to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. The boy confirms he is 16 but otherwise has declined to comment. The Rev. Patricia McKinney of Manifested Glory Ministries in Bridgeport says he is 18 and came to the church on his own seeking help. She denies the church is prejudiced and says it took care of the youth.

Tax leeches lose in N. Carolina: "The U.S Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision forbids states from forcing tax-collection obligations on out-of-state merchants, but Tarheel legislators still want Amazon and other online retailers to start taxing their constituents. The Seattle-based retailer has no physical presence in the state, but a pending North Carolina bill holds that since affiliate Web sites in the state link customers to Amazon, the company is now responsible for extracting cash from Carolina shoppers. Other proposed North Carolina legislation would apply a new tax only to Internet ticket resales, in direct defiance of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits taxes that target the Internet with burdens not applied offline. To its credit, Amazon yesterday refused to accept the expected new compliance burden and announced the cancellation of its North Carolina affiliate relationships. Said the company, "This is a direct result of the unconstitutional tax collection scheme expected to be passed any day now by the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) and signed by the governor." So now the state won't get the revenue, even as in-state Web retailers lose their ties to Amazon thanks to the legislature's revenue grab. Brilliant."

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

We've suffered a great loss

While the focus today, tomorrow and for the next God-knows-how-many-days will be the death of a pop culture icon; while many will mourn, wail and quite literally make fools of themselves over it and while as many will speak endlessly about it, allow me, if only for a moment, to remind us all that others have died this month; others whose lives were cut short; others who leave behind loved ones and whose families will dearly miss them; families who'll suffer with much more dignity and honor than we'll be exposed to on the tube in the coming days.

Yes... it's true... we've suffered a great loss... but forgive me while I tell you that I'm not talking about the king of pop music. These American military members died in Iraq this month:

Sergeant Justin J. Duffy
Specialist Christopher M. Kurth
Specialist Charles D. Parrish
Lance Corporal Robert D. Ulmer
Staff Sergeant Edmond L. Lo
Sergeant Joshua W. Soto
Captain Kafele H. Sims
Specialist Chancellor A. Keesling

And these members of our U.S. Armed Forces died in Afghanistan this month:

Sergeant Jones, Ricky D.
Specialist Munguia Rivas, Rodrigo A.
Command Master Chief Petty Officer Garber, Jeffrey J.
1st Sergeant Blair, John D.
Sergeant Smith, Paul G.
Staff Sergeant Melton, Joshua
Sergeant 1st Class Dupont, Kevin A.
Specialist O'Neill, Jonathan C.
Chief Warrant Officer Richardson Jr., Ricky L.
Specialist Silva, Eduardo S.
Lance Corporal Whittle, Joshua R.
Major Barnes, Rocco M.
Major Jenrette, Kevin M.
Staff Sergeant Beale, John C.
Specialist Jordan, Jeffrey W.
Specialist Griemel, Jarrett P.
Specialist Hernandez I, Roberto A.
Sergeant Obakrairur, Jasper K.
Staff Sergeant Hall, Jeffrey A.
Private 1st Class Ogden, Matthew D.
Private 1st Class Wilson, Matthew W.

Let's remember and honor this day those whose deaths are truly impacting. God rest them and God comfort their loved ones they've left behind. And may God use their deaths to remind us all of the shortness of our days.

SOURCE

Pew: Palin Is The Most Popular Republican

By Don Surber

Pew: Palin is the most popular Republican. 73% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Gov. Sarah Palin (17% unfavorable) while only 57% have a favorable opinion (18% unfavorable) of Mitt Romney.

Now, I may not know much about presidential politics, but I am pretty certain that before one can get elected president, one has to win the party’s nomination first — a concept that Hillary Clinton had a difficult time grasping last year as she began her general election campaign in January instead of the traditional after-winning-the-nomination.

Which leads me to conclude that Mrs. Palin is in the driver’s seat with Gov. Romney riding shotgun.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press polled 1,502 adults on June 10-14. This was at the height of the David Letterman controversy, Letterman having told the Willow Palin joke on June 10. That may have skewed the poll. I don’t know. Also this was an all adults survey, rather than likely voters or even registered voters. That tends to skew the results.

Pew made a big deal about their overall favorable/unfavorable ratings among all voters. It is too early for that comparison. Among all adults, Palin is at 45/44 and Romney is at 40/28 — but by the time the election rolls around, any Republican gets beat up; she’s recovered from 42/48 just before the 2008 election.

Within the party, she is golden. In many ways, her popularity reminds me of Ronald Reagan. She is not as polished as a speaker or as a thinker. Reagan had a very clear — if unfashionable for the time — idea of what America is about in the Carter years. He was considered old and dumb and a good actor.

The 2012 election is way off. But Republicans are known to go with the guy who finished second last time. Is it Mitt Romney, who finished behind John McCain in the primaries? Or is it Sarah Palin, who almost carried McCain to the White House last fall? Republicans seem to be leaning toward Palin

SOURCE

*********************

Shift in Political Power Has Catapulted Fox News

Balanced News Channel Could Be Heading for Its Best Year Ever

Fox News is on track to have its most-watched year ever, showing significant ratings growth despite having just come off a highflying election year. With the second quarter coming to a close, Fox News averaged about the same number of viewers as the top three other cable news networks combined. And while rivals including CNN (-22%) and MSNBC (-18%) took hits following last quarter's inauguration-fueled boost, Fox News (-3%) remained nearly steady, Hollywood Reporter reports.

Compared with last year, Fox News (averaging 2.1 million viewers, 509,000 adults 25-54 quarter-to-date) is up 35% over last year in primetime viewers and 48% in the demo. CNN (805,000 viewers, 210,000 in demo) fell 16% in viewers and 29% in the demo. MSNBC (787,000 viewers, 259,000 in demo) climbed 15% in viewers and about on par, -3%, in the demo. And CNN Headline News (553,000, 201,000) showed very strong growth, up 39% and 37%, respectively, and is on track for its best second quarter, reports HR writer James Hibberd.

Earning double-digit growth after an election year is quite a feat for a news network. With Fox News best known for such right-leaning personalities as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, one might assume having a Democrat in the White House somehow helps boost viewership.

"I don't look at who occupies the White House, I just look at it as news," said Bill Shine, senior VP of programming at Fox News. "How well are you going to report on that news? And certainly, over the course of the last 10 years, we've done a better job at that than anybody else," he told HR. Still, Shine acknowledged that a Barack Obama presidency probably helps because viewers will "see some sides of an issue that they won't see elsewhere."

SOURCE

*************************

The Albany-Trenton-Sacramento Disease

How three liberal states got into deep trouble with 'progressive' ideas

President Obama has bet the economy on his program to grow the government and finance it with a more progressive tax system. It's hard to miss the irony that he's pitching this change in Washington even as the same governance model is imploding in three of the largest American states where it has been dominant for years -- California, New Jersey and New York.

A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due. These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.

Here's a rundown on the results: Government spending as economic stimulus. State-local spending per capita is $12,505 in New York (second highest after Alaska), $10,136 per person in California (fourth) and $9,574 in New Jersey (seventh).

Has all this public sector "investment" translated into jobs? Not quite. California had the nation's third highest jobless rate in May (11.5%). New Jersey and New York had below average unemployment rates in May compared to the national average of 9.4%, but one reason is that so many discouraged workers have left those states. From 1998-2007, which included two booms on Wall Street, New York and New Jersey ranked 36th and 31st in job creation. From 2000 to 2007, the New Jersey Business & Industry Association calculates that nine out of 10 new Garden State jobs were in the government.

Soak the rich. Mr. Obama plans to pay for his government investments through higher tax rates on the top 1% and 2% of taxpayers. Our troika of liberal states are champions at soaking the rich. The state-local income tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation, is the highest in the nation in New York, second highest in California and sixth in New Jersey. New York City boasts the highest business tax rate, 17.6%, according to a study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Seven of the 10 highest property tax counties in America are located in New Jersey.

Instead of balanced budgets, these high taxes have produced record red ink. California's deficit for 2010 is projected at $33.9 billion, New Jersey's $7 billion and New York's $17.9 billion, despite multiple tax increases this decade. The Manhattan Institute finds that three-quarters of the loss in revenues this year in Albany is a result of reduced income tax payments by rich people even though the state keeps raising taxes on high earners.

California's debt burden has multiplied so fast that it now has the worst bond rating of any state, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators are pleading with Washington to command the other 49 states to pay off its IOUs. The interest rates on Golden State bonds have nearly tripled in the last two years.

Powerful unions. Mr. Obama believes union power is a ticket to the middle class. The middle class is getting creamed in all three of these "progressive" states, where organized labor is king. The unionized share of the workforce is 20% in California, 19% in New Jersey and 27% in New York compared to 13% across the country. All three are non-right-to-work states, have super-minimum wage requirements and provide among the nation's most generous public-employee pensions.

Workers in these paradises are indeed uniting -- by leaving. New York ranks first, California second and New Jersey third in moving vans leaving the state. A study by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research found that over the past decade these and other high-union states (mostly in the Northeast) had one-third the job growth of states with low union penetration.

Government health care. New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."

Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.

As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation.

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

SOURCE

**************************

ELSEWHERE

Report: FEMA misspent $7 million: “The Federal Emergency Management Agency ignored the law and misused millions of dollars to build two warehouses after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, according to government investigators. Some of the money FEMA misused should have gone toward Katrina victims in Louisiana, according to a Homeland Security Inspector General report obtained by the Associated Press. The report is expected to be released today. ‘FEMA had no authority to use appropriated funds to construct the two buildings,’ the investigators said, adding that the agency violated a prohibition against agreeing to spend money without congressional authority.”

Spain reins in crusading judges: “For more than a decade, a drab, beige building in central Madrid has been the global destination of choice for anyone wanting to file allegations of genocide, torture and crimes against humanity. The Audiencia Nacional — National Criminal Court — has heard complaints of human-rights abuses as far afield as Guatemala, Rwanda, Chile, Tibet, Gaza and Guantanamo Bay. Currently, 10 cases from five continents are being investigated by Spanish judges, under the principle of ‘universal jurisdiction,’ which holds that some crimes are so grave that they can be tried anywhere, regardless of where the offences were committed. In a recent statement, almost 100 organisations collectively praised Spain’s ‘pioneering approach,’ gushing that the country ’should feel proud of itself’ for becoming a reference point for other nations. Except, Spain’s left-leaning government sees things rather differently.”

“As naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined” : "Property rights were probably the last thing on President Barack Obama’s mind when he selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. But that hasn’t stopped Sotomayor’s nomination from reigniting the long-simmering national debate over the use and abuse of eminent domain. The controversy centers on Sotomayor’s vote in a 2006 eminent domain case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester. New York entrepreneur Bart Didden says Port Chester condemned his land after he refused to pay $800,000 (or grant a 50 percent stake in his business) to a developer hired by the village. One day after Didden refused to pay those bribes, Port Chester began eminent domain proceedings against him. As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein put it, ‘The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined.’ But that didn’t stop Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals from upholding the district court decision that ruled in favor of the village.”

How not to help the poor : "People often talk about ‘a culture of poverty’ as if being mired in dependency and despair is a personal choice. But what if government contributes to that culture with counterproductive rules that keep struggling families down? Today, a special state commission will release a report that identifies bureaucratic barriers to climbing out of poverty — some familiar, some new — and recommends ways to correct them. The Massachusetts Asset Development Commission spent the past 18 months looking for ways that low-income people can build up financial cushions, becoming less dependent on state assistance and providing a better foundation for their children. ‘Assets’ can be something as simple as a used car for getting to work, a savings account, or a less tangible benefit such as an education or vocational skills. They are the keys to financial stability.”

Hope versus reality : “There is an element about public choice theory that economists do not emphasize often enough, namely, that the objectives of regulators are often very obscure, unclear, even contradictory. For example, governments often embark on historical preservation but at the same time they are supposed to make sure that building and other facilities are properly managed, kept safe, etc. But historical preservation mostly require keeping things in their original form, while the pursuit of safety involves making use of the most up to date technology and science. One can generalize this kind of conflict within government policies all over the place — which is what accounts for vigilant propaganda against smoking while tobacco farmers keep receiving government subsidies.”

Fueling controversy : “Gaza on the Mediterranean, with an offshore natural gas resource worth an estimated $4 billion and with Palestinian statehood believed an imminent proposition, should be looking at the brightest possible future. But still abject poverty and hopelessness rack Gaza and the standard explanation by many Arabs and Western media is to depict the Palestinians as in a permanent state of Israeli-inflicted victimhood. Gaza is the poster case of how radical Islamism, exemplified by Hamas, has such a difficulty to absorb modernity and Gaza’s problems surely must be related to the 2006 Hamas takeover and the ensuing low-level civil war between Hamas and Fatah that controls the West Bank. As such it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Palestinians are to a large extent responsible for their own misfortunes.”

Privatize the Post Office: “The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) may be the next too-big thing if it continues on its present course. It stands to post $6 billion to $12 billion in losses by the end of the fiscal year. So far, USPS has depended on loans from the Federal Financing Bank to help make up the difference, but it’s fast approaching its $15 billion credit limit. Something has to give, says the Washington Post. The USPS has asked Congress to omit a rider on an annual appropriations bill that mandates six-day service, opening the possibility of five-day delivery as a cost-cutting measure. It has also requested a temporary relaxation of its pension program obligations, enabling it to put nearly $2 billion toward breaking even. Both these short-term fixes fail to address the challenges facing USPS.”

UK: Hackers recruited to help fight against cybercrime : “Reformed computer hackers are being recruited by the Government to defend Britain from international crime gangs and terrorists plotting cyber attacks on the country. With internet fraud costing billions of pounds a year and Whitehall computer systems facing repeated assaults from abroad, ministers are hiring hackers to protect state secrets. A new ‘cyber security operations centre’ at GCHQ in Cheltenham will monitor attempts, many orchestrated from abroad, to infiltrate the national computer network.”

Journalism and the British expenses scandal: “Sunday Telegraph editor Ian Macgregor was our guest at a power lunch in Westminster this week. His topic was ‘The importance of journalism in modern society.’ And of course, that’s a topic that Telegraph have earned a right to talk about in the last couple of months, with their brilliantly handled investigation into MPs expenses. There’s no question the story has been good for the Telegraph’s business, winning them many thousands of new readers. But I also think they have performed a genuine public service, by making people realize that you just can’t trust politicians to be responsible with taxpayers’ money.”

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

Radicalism, Rewarded

There’s never been a better time to be an enemy of the United States of America. Whether you’re a trained jihadist in US custody, a diminutive cult leader starving his own people while developing nukes, or part of a ruthless regime that murders dissidents in broad daylight, you can rest assured that the United States government is unlikely to act—or perhaps even speak—in a manner likely to disrupt your daily routine. While invoking “our values,” hailing the importance of American humility, and rejecting the “failed policies of the past,” the current administration is projecting a dangerous image to the world. This approach may be extolled as cautious pragmatism on the Beltway cocktail party circuit, but it’s most assuredly perceived as something entirely different by America’s current and emerging adversaries around the globe: Weakness.

Within days of assuming office, President Obama ostentatiously announced his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within one year. That his administration had no workable plan to do so was beside the point; details were not about to obstruct the path to Hopenchange. Obama has since been thrashed by former Vice President Cheney in a public debate on this matter, and public opinion polls are trending decisively against his rushed and irresponsible decision.

Nevertheless, to avoid allowing a campaign promise to go by the wayside—while (quietly) adopting yet another staple of the previous administration's supposed failures—Obama has been working hard to relocate Gitmo detainees. He first floated the idea of releasing some of the supposedly least threatening blokes, Chinese Uighurs, onto US soil, where they’d be supported with welfare checks. His own party was so receptive to that lead balloon that they voted down funding to close the prison altogether. Obama then went knocking at the collective door of the same “international community” that had decried the facility’s very existence for years. Strangely, none of those nations were especially keen on welcoming radical Islamists onto their streets. After being rebuffed more than 100 times, the president finally identified two takers; the island paradises of Bermuda and Palau.

After training with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Uighers were caught on the battlefield (the terrorist Miranda warning policy wasn’t in effect at the time—a grave injustice) and transferred to Guantanamo Bay, where they were afforded soccer, television, and pizza privileges. Their TV viewing got a bit dicey at times, as they reportedly destroyed a television set after being subjected to the obscene image of a woman’s bare arms. Aside from picayune details like that, they’re generally regarded as a pretty reasonable, well-adjusted bunch. They’re now arriving in exotic vacation destinations, along with millions of US tax dollars in aid—making themselves at home on pristine tropical islands. Islands, mind you, that most law-abiding, tax-paying, non-terrorist American citizens couldn’t afford to visit right now, given the current economy. Wage war against the West, and you too might end up catching rays in Bermuda! What a deal.

Meanwhile, the plump, aging woman who rules North Korea has been conspicuously misbehaving for months. The White House has been attempting to determine a productive way forward that—needless to say—bears no resemblance to those failed policies of the past. Remember, the era of US hubris, in which America “punishes” outlaw regimes by refusing to legitimize them, is over. So when Kim Jong Il’s military test fired a missile in April, the Pentagon was instructed not to deploy its most sophisticated missile-tracking technology to, well, track a missile launched illegally by an enemy regime. Why? As the Washington Times’ Bill Gertz reported at the time, officials were concerned that employing our superior technology simply to gather data on North Korea’s test would “provoke” the North Koreans.

The North Koreans, in turn, have exhibited their appreciation for the administration’s non-provocative, humble, “smart power” approach by conducting multiple additional proscribed weapons tests, and pledging to lob a ballistic missile toward US soil on July 4th. So it’s back to the ever-useful bargaining table, it would seem.

Speaking of July 4th, guess who’s coming to dinner at US embassies across the globe? Despite fomenting historic internal unrest by shamelessly rigging an election, denouncing and taunting the aforementioned international community, callously beating and slaying its own reform-minded citizens in the streets, and unilaterally declaring all nuclear negotiations permanently “closed,” envoys of the profoundly evil Iranian regime are invited to Independence Day barbeques hosted by top American diplomats. As State Department spokesman Ian Kelly blithely explained, “We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran.”

“Therefore,” he might has well have continued, “literally no level of Iranian barbarity will dissuade us from the undeniable wisdom of inviting to Iranian representatives to our parties, and we just can’t wait to start a dialogue.”

President Obama has insisted for days that America must not “meddle” in Iran’s business, despite demonstrators’ pleas for Western support, and in the face of much stronger statements from European leaders. In fairness, Obama has finally begun playing rhetorical catch-up with John McCain and Nicholas Sarkozy. Still, in his public statements, Iran’s unapologetic meddling in our business (funding terrorism, killing American soldiers in Iraq) goes unmentioned, as does his own administration’s overt meddling in Israel’s internal affairs.

A primary reason for Obama’s rhetorical reticence is his stubborn commitment to the campaign-promise-turned-inoperable-fantasy that he might actually manage to strike a historic accord with the regime in Tehran through direct, unconditional negotiations. In light of recent developments, this notion is more absurd than ever, yet Obama cannot let it go. Consequently, he’s hedging, taking pains to avoid inflaming the Ahmadinejad/Khameini unholy alliance by siding with pro-freedom demonstrators (which they’ve accused him of anyway) in the hopes of eventually inducing them into rational and honest negotiations.

Even if one fully endorses Obama’s no-meddling policy, how can the July 4th barbeque invitation decision possibly be justified? Not only is Obama assuring these theocrat thugs that he won’t lift a finger to stop their violent suppression of millions yearning for freedom, his State Department is taking this posture a step further by reaffirming Iranian emissaries’ friendly invitations to American-hosted parties. Parties held on a day that celebrates freedom from tyranny, no less. He’s not simply refraining from undue interference. He’s actually rewarding coercive despotism. It’s a shameful low point in this young administration’s history.

Enemies of America, this is your moment. This is your time. Considering joining the jihad? If captured, you’ll be read your rights, spared any and all harsh interrogation methods, and might even win an all-expenses-paid trip to a hot vacation spot. Hankering for some illicit WMDs? We’ll bend over backwards to avoid appearing provocative. Want to attend a fun summer BBQ? Just mercilessly quash a reformist uprising in your country, slaughter some unarmed young women, vow to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, and relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons. The State Department’s e-vite to DeathtoAmerica1979@gmail.com should be arriving any minute.

SOURCE

****************************

Monitor ABC World News Sponsors in Light of White House "Town Hall" Meeting on Health Care

New Webpage Provides List to Public

In light of the ABC World News program's decision to host a "Town Hall" meeting on health care at the White House without opposition participation, the National Center for Public Policy Research is making a list of ABC World News sponsors available online for those who wish to boycott sponsors or/or send a letter of protest to them.

The list of sponsors includes sponsors from the June 18, 2009 program - the date ABC announced the White House-based program would take place - to the present and beyond, and is available at www.nationalcenter.org/ABCNewsSponsors.html.

"Town Hall meetings are generally understood to cover a wide range of viewpoints," said National Center for Public Policy Research president Amy Ridenour, "and network newscasts are supposed to be objective. Yet ABC is holding a Town Meeting with the chief backer of government-run health care at a venue entirely favorable to him, and inviting opposition only in the form of questions to him from a generalized audience placed in an entirely inferior position. An objective conversation is impossible under those conditions."

"Moreover," said Ridenour, "ABC News has refused offers from opponents of the President's plan even to buy paid advertising during scheduled commercial breaks. ABC is not only pitching for Obama, it's pitching him a no-hitter."

"Many Americans, probably millions, believe so-called 'ObamaCare' will lead to shortages of health care services, leading to pain, misery and even death," Ridenour continued, "as this is the experience of every nation that has tried government-run health care so far, The health care debate is literally life-and-death, yet ABC is treating it like an afternoon tea at the White House."

"Because of this," she concluded, "the National Center for Public Policy Research is posting online a list of all the sponsors of ABC World News since ABC announced this program, and we encourage people to make their views -- including, if they so choose, with their wallets -- known to ABC's sponsors."

The list of ABC World News sponsors can be found online here.

SOURCE

*************************

ELSEWHERE

I have just put up on my Scripture blog an article about John Calvin -- for those who are interested in Christian history.

There is an article here which not only points out that Hitler learnt his eugenics from America but also shows that the American system was twisted and crooked too.

Iran’s unrest: Opportunity or threat? : "Iran’s Sunni Arab neighbors have long feared its revolutionary rhetoric, its Islamist political style, and its popularity among many of their own citizens for its strident criticism of Israel. With that background, one would expect the Arab states to be jumping for joy at the political turmoil in Iran, a Shiite oil power. But so far their response has been muted to non-existent. Here’s why: The mechanism that has created Iran’s biggest political crisis since the Islamic revolution in 1979 is street power, the voice of a disenfranchised populace. And while that might eventually deliver a regime in Iran that Arab states would be more comfortable with, it also provides a powerful immediate example of the sort of popular sovereignty that the autocratic Arab regimes fear most.”

MA: State cuts health coverage by $115 million: “Overseers of Massachusetts’ trailblazing healthcare program made their first cuts yesterday, trimming $115 million, or 12 percent, from Commonwealth Care, which subsidizes premiums for needy residents and is the centerpiece of the 2006 law. The board of the Connector Authority made the cuts as officials confronted two side effects of the recession: the state budget crisis and a surge in enrollment by the recently unemployed. The largest share of the savings will come from slowing enrollment. An estimated 18,000 poor residents who qualify for full subsidies, but who forget to designate a health plan, will no longer be automatically assigned a plan and enrolled and thus could face delays in getting care"

Racism in the market and voting booth: “Nobody likes racism. At least, nobody whose opinion we should take seriously likes racism. Many argue that private racism provides a justification for state intervention to ensure everyone is treated fairly. When we carefully look at basic economic theory and the historical record, though, it becomes clear that government is much more likely to produce racism than to prevent it.”

Obama’s Iran policy is a bomb : “Here is the one immutable fact of Barack Obama’s foreign-policy agenda as it relates to Iran: It’s over. The rule book he came in with is as irrelevant as a tourist guide to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama’s plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama’s plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.”

The nirvana fallacy: “President Obama has announced his ’sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system.’ We can debate endlessly whether the Constitution authorizes any president to ‘overhaul’ the financial system. But I want to focus on a different matter: whether any president, with all his advisers, is capable of overseeing something as complex as the financial system. My answer is no, and it is ominous that a bright guy like Obama doesn’t know this.”

Finally, a state that cuts tax rates on the rich: "At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to promote growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would have thought it would be Maine? This month the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax. The new law junks the state's graduated income tax structure with a top rate of 8.5% and replaces it with a simple 6.5% flat rate tax on almost everyone. Those with earnings above $250,000 will pay a surtax rate of 0.35%, for a 6.85% rate. Maine's tax rate will fall to 20th from seventh highest among the states. To offset the lower rates and a larger family deduction, the plan cuts the state budget by some $300 million to $5.8 billion, closes tax loopholes and expands the 5% state sales tax to services that have been exempt, such as ski lift tickets. This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many other states in the Northeast and East -- Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York -- have been increasing rates. "We're definitely going against the grain here," Mr. Baldacci tells us. "We hope these lower tax rates will encourage and reward work, and that the lower capital gains tax [of 6.85%] brings more investment into the state."

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

Thirst for freedom takes root in dust

By Janet Albrechtsen, an Australian commentator

As adults wonder aloud and in print about the finer details of what is happening in Iran, whether opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi is truly a moderate given his history as a member of the political establishment; whether a leadership change would change Iran’s poisonous relations with the West; whether US President Barack Obama struck the correct cautionary note in responding to a rigged election and violent militias operating under the nose of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without stoking stories of a US-led coup, Australian children should hear - and understand - the simpler, more basic yearnings of Iranians for democracy.

I want our children to see how a green democracy takes roots, not just through a technology that is their own - Facebook and Twitter - but the old-fashioned way, in the hearts and minds of Iranians from all walks of life, finally ready to march in the streets. I want them to see the human dignity in people who have the courage to confront a leader who described them as “dirt and dust”, a leader who condones the killing and imprisonment of people whose only crime it is to want to control their own destiny.

Newspapers here in Europe devote page after page to the hunger for democracy among millions of Iranians. That hunger ought to be mandatory reading for all in the West, young and old. Especially the young, those who may be most inclined to take democracy for granted. But also for the old - or older, those who are daily following the battles normal in an established, functioning democracy - arguing over debts and deficits, over ute-gate and political lobbying. Compared to our political debates, there is nothing grander than listening to the first murmurs of democracy from those who have been silenced and manipulated, repressed and ignored by their leaders.

No one can explain why this is happening now. As Michael McFaul from the US National Security Council said: “In retrospect, all revolutions seem inevitable. Beforehand, all revolutions seem impossible.” For years we were told that a slim hope of a reformed Iran lay among the pro-Western educated Iranian middle classes. But we were also told they were outnumbered by the poorer rural voters who supported Ahmadinejad’s anti-West tirades.

Then, after days of demonstrations, tens of thousands of protesters gathered last Thursday in 35C heat, filling Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Square in the poorer south-central part of Tehran, voicing passions that cross class. Britain’s The Guardian newspaper carried some of those voices.

Frustrated by the ruling party’s more recent blockade of mobile phone and internet reception, Morteza Amani, a 25-year-old, said: “They can block SMS and emails, but how can they block hearts? Nearly a million (people) have gathered here in Imam Khomeini Square, although they didn’t have any source of information except for people distributing the news on the streets to each other ... One of the good consequences of these protests is that the world now sees the true Iran and how strong they are to injustice.”

And 29-year-old secretary Somayeh Bahari, who told The Guardian that “For years this regime wanted to hide the real Iran from the world. Today the world is witnessing the real Iran.”

And 60-year-old retiree Hashem Riazi, who dispelled the myth that opposition is only among the educated while Ahmadinejad has the support of the rural poor. “You see the real Iran today in this square; you see rich, poor, young, old, tight hijab, bad hijab, all kind of people. They are not just a specific class of people in our society, they are from all classes.”

As Eric Hoogland, editor of the journal Middle East Critique, wrote: “Is it possible that rural Iran, where less than 35percent of the country’s population lives, provided Ahmadinejad the 63percent of the vote he claims to have won?” The answer is no as he detailed how villagers from towns such as Bagh-e Iman in the Zagros Mountains, most of them under the age of 18, were outraged at the rigged election.

The young wear T-shirts and headbands demanding to know “where is my vote?” They chant slogans such as “we are not dirt and dust, we are Iran’s nation”. Writing from Tehran for the International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen comes across a four-year-old boy publicly mocking the Iranian President. In the streets where people gather to protest, a man asks the reporter “Where are you from?” When Cohen tells him he is from the US the man says, “Please give our regards to freedom.”

These are the voices I want school students in the West to hear if only to remind them that democracy is a universal aspiration. Could it be that history will now record George W. Bush more kindly than his critics would prefer? What is happening in Iran cannot be separated from what has happened in Iraq. This year, during provincial elections in Iraq, Iraqis came to polling booths in their millions to vote, by an overwhelming margin, for national, secularist parties. Iraqi security forces - not coalition troops - ensured Iraqis could vote safely and securely. There were no suicide bombers endangering polling stations. People turned up with their children to cast their vote.

As Winston Churchill said, “at the bottom of all the high-sounding tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper. No amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly palliate the overwhelming importance of that point.” Lambasted for speaking about exporting “Western values” to the Muslim world, it turns out the former US president was right to remind us that people, whatever their religion, class or creed, will ultimately seek out and embrace democracy. That yearning, now unfolding in Iran, will one day be written up as one of the finer lessons of history.

More HERE

************************

Obama and the Ayatollahs

As between freedom and dictatorship, in principle Obama is fine with dictatorship — we are seeing less and less freedom in our own country, and I believe Obama (who is dirigiste by nature) values stability over the rambunctiousness of a free society. He has certain values, and while he'd be delighted to have a free society arrive at them, he'd rather see them imposed if the alternative was a free society likely to shun them.

As for "anti-American," I think Obama's sense of the term is different from yours and mine. Obama agrees with a lot of the anti-Americanism that we hear from both apologists for radical Islam and the Left (many of whom are the same people). While the mullahs may be "anti-American" as we understand that term, Obama doesn't think they would be resolutely anti the America that he intends to shape. I think he sincerely believes he could deal with the mullahs and make them less anti-American than they now are, once they realize how he is reversing a lot of what offends them (and him) about America.

I'm not suggesting that Obama loves the mullahs or that he wants to turn America into Iran. I am not saying Obama wants the mullahs to abuse their own people — I'm sure he'd prefer this all to end without (further) bloodshed. I am merely saying that (a) the president does not think the mullahs are evil, (b) he thinks they have a point, (c) he thinks he can forge a rapprochement and deal effectively with them (though he is under no illusions about stopping their nuclear ambitions), (d) he is not a big believer in freedom, and (e) he thinks the world would be more stable and easier for him to navigate if the mullahs win.

First, if you look at the sweeping changes that have occurred in the past five months, I think what I argued before the election about the significance of Obama's Leftist background and radical connections was on the mark. Second, I am saying what I am saying because I respect the president. As I said in the last post, I don't think he is weak at all. To the contrary, I think he has strategic goals that he pursues in highly disciplined, tactical pragmatism. He is a force to be reckoned with, and I don't think you reckon with him by hopefully assuming that, on some level, he shares our ideas about what's best for the country and the world. I credit him for wanting what's best — but only as he sees it.

More HERE

*********************

ELSEWHERE

Iran: Military charges family of dead son “bullet fee”: “The family of Kaveh Alipour, a 19-year-old Iranian killed amidst protests in Tehran, was allegedly charged a ‘bullet fee’ by Iranian security forces, according to a report Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal. ‘Upon learning of his son’s death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a ‘bullet fee’ (a fee for the bullet used by security forces) before taking the body back,’ relatives purportedly told the Journal. Details of Alipour’s death remain unclear — he was apparently not part of the protests and may have been killed in crossfire.”

Ten days that shook Tehran: “Given its monopoly of guns, bet on the Iranian regime. But, in the long run, the ayatollahs have to see the handwriting on the wall. Let us assume what they insist upon — that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election; that, even if fraud occurred, it did not decide the outcome. As Ayatollah Khamenei said to loud laughter in his Friday sermon declaring the election valid, ‘Perhaps 100,000, or 500,000, but how can anyone tamper with 11 million votes?’ Still, the ayatollah and Ahmadinejad must hear the roar of the rapids ahead. Millions of Iranians, perhaps a majority of the professional class and educated young, who shouted, ‘Death to the Dictatorship,’ oppose or detest them. How can the regime maintain its present domestic course or foreign policy with its people so visibly divided? Where do the ayatollah and Ahmadinejad go from here?”

A dangerous precedent: "Here's a political thought experiment: Imagine that terrorists stage an attack on U.S. soil in the next four years. In the recriminations afterward, Administration officials are sued by families of the victims for having advised in legal memos that Guantanamo be closed and that interrogations of al Qaeda detainees be limited. Should those officials be personally liable for the advice they gave President Obama? We'd say no, but that's exactly the kind of lawsuit that the political left, including State Department nominee Harold Koh, has encouraged against Bush Administration officials. This month a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that a civil suit filed by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla can proceed against former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo for violating the terrorist's rights. Mr. Yoo is one of those who wrote memos laying out the legal parameters for aggressive interrogation of al Qaeda captives. If Mr. Yoo can be sued, why couldn't Obama officials also be held liable for their advice if there's an attack on their watch?"

AZ: County feud costs taxpayers $1.1 million : "Disputes among Maricopa County officials over the past 11 months have cost taxpayers $1.1 million in fees, according to an analysis released Monday by the Office of Management and Budget. The fees include billings to date for six legal actions, cases in which Sheriff Joe Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, County Treasurer Charles Hoskins and the Board of Supervisors have fought each other in court. The money includes costs associated with a grand-jury proceeding focused on the $340 million court-tower project. Like all government in the current economy, the county’s budget is tight. On Monday, the supervisors adopted a $2.1 billion budget for fiscal 2010, reflecting a $122 million reduction from 2009. Administrators expect that 200 employees will lose their jobs during the early part of the fiscal year. According to County Manager David Smith, that $1.1 million in legal fees could fund 20 low-level county jobs. Officials on all sides agree that the money spent fighting each other is a waste, but no one sees a way to stop it.”

US, Kyrgyzstan reach deal on air base use: “The former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan tentatively approved a deal on Tuesday that should allow the U.S. to continue shipping military hardware and troops crucial to operations in Afghanistan through an air base in the Central Asian state. U.S. forces had in February been ordered out of the Manas air base by a presidential decree that stunned Washington and drew suspicion that Kyrgyzstan was acting under the influence of Russia, which staunchly opposes Western military presence near its borders. Russia also has a base in Kyrgyzstan.”

FL: Tea party organizers plan Independence Day protests: “More than two months after the nationwide tax day protests, anti-tax tea party groups are planning to again take to the streets. They will again be protesting, but this time they also intend to mark the nation’s birth. Plans are being crafted between the Treasure Coast and Palm Beach County tea party groups, as well as others in Florida and across the nation, to hold protests on July 2 outside the offices of congressional members who support President Barack Obama’s health care plans.”

Census, ACORN and other fertilizer: “Greetings fellow prisoners! Live from inside the Blue Curtain! It’s almost time for the 2010 Census. Says here that if you refuse to answer any questions you can be fined $5000 per refusal and imprisoned! I intend to answer every question like this: How many people in your home? 2 (me and my cat) (this is the only question they’re supposed to ask) How much money do you make? All of it, but my printer is broken right now. … You get the idea. There is absolutely nothing in the census law that says they have to like the answers you give.”

Bid to expand knife ban doesn't cut it with critics: "Hunters, whittlers and Boy Scouts, beware - your knives may soon be on the government's chopping block. The Obama administration wants to expand the 50-year-old ban on importing "switchblades" to include folding knives that can be opened with one hand, stirring fears the government may on the path to outlawing most pocket knives. Critics, including U.S. knife manufacturers and collectors, the National Rifle Association, sportsmen's groups and a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill, say the rule change proposed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would rewrite U.S. law defining what constitutes a switchblade and potentially make de facto criminals of the estimated 35 million Americans who use folding knives. "Boy Scout knives, Swiss Army knives - the most basic of knives can be opened one-handed if you know what you are doing," said Doug Ritter, executive director of Knife Rights, an advocacy group fighting to defeat the measure. "The outrage is gaining steam," he said."

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************

Iran: “Conservatives” and Liberals

Comment by David Yeagley below. I add some further notes at the foot of his post

In the great American liberal media, the word “conservative” represents the bad guys, the meanies. Any liberal media report on Iran’s current crisis will use the world “conservative” in reference to the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and the present regime. By contrast, anyone who respects human rights (sometimes called “freedom”) is to be called “liberal.”

The truth is exactly the opposite. This is not something that should be ignored, unnoticed, or not condemned.

Liberals think the conservatives are those clinging to tradition, or to “their guns or religion,” as Barry Soetoro, acting US president, declared. This is a highly relative, subjective call. When applied to the country of Iran, liberal media shows the classic example of partiality, selective history, and gigantic ignorance.

The tradition of Iran is Persia. The foundational identity of Persia is the reign of the Achamenid emperors, from Cyrus the Great (560-530 BC) through Darius III (336-330 BC). This is the era known for general humanitarian sentiments, internationalism, and advanced civilization. This is Iran. Islam is an Arab religion, brought to Iran by the invading slaughters from Arabia in the 8th century AD. There is nothing Persian about this religion, language, or culture. Iran’s Persian culture has survived today because of patriots like Ferdowsi, Persian patriots, who resisted the Arab Islamicist’s attempt to obliterate Persian glory.

The Iranians who want to honor and preserve their Persian identity are the true conservatives of Iran. The mullahs are coercivists, just like American liberals, like Barry Soetoro in the White House, who want to coerce their ideas on the American people. Coercion is the liberal way.

It is a grave error to equate American conservatism with the Islamic regime in Iran. This is simply grossly mistaken, and should not be ignored. The AP wire by “ALI AKBAR DAREINI and BRIAN MURPHY” demonstrates the typical error:

a state-run television channel reported that a suicide bombing at the shrine of the Islamic Revolution leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini killed at least two people and wounded eight. The report could be not independently evaluated due to government restrictions on journalists. If proven true, the reports could enrage conservatives and bring strains among backers of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Note that the “conservatives” are those who support the Islamic regime. Therefore, the “liberals” must be anyone who opposes them.

I say it is time to correct this error. Liberals in America will of course try to take credit for anything good that comes out of the opposition movement in Iran. It’s time the lying deceivers were exposed.

SOURCE

This same problem arose in the dying days of the old Soviet union. Hardliners there too were often called "conservatives" in the Western media. Journalists saw nothing strange in calling Communists "conservatives"! That is the sort of blindness that could only come out of Left-dominated journalism schools.

The mistake arises from the very simple-minded nature of Leftism. Leftists define the political spectrum purely in terms of attitude to the status quo. They are against it so conservatives must be for it. But conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were great changers of the status quo so does that make them Leftists? Clearly not. So defining politics solely in terms of attitude to the status quo is brain-dead. While it is true that rejection of the status quo defines Leftists pretty well, what defines conservatives is something quite different: A desire for individual liberty. But Leftists know that to change the status quo significantly you need coercive power: the power of government in particular. And conservatives don't want to be coerced. They want individuals to be able to make their own decisions as freely as possible. So that is why the Left and the Right clash.

The Soviets, the Ayatollahs and American "liberals" are the ones who are three peas in a pod: They all depend on the coercive power of the State in order to get their way. Conservatives don't want to get their way. They just want to be left alone to do their own thing. Sadly, however, we have to fight the left in order to be left alone. I say much more about the nature of conservatism here -- with particular reference to the history and psychology of conservatism

***********************

That fierce Jewish drive and ambition leads to public distinction yet again. Bercow becomes Speaker of the British House of Commons

But, as a "turncoat", he is loathed by his own Conservative party. A wise Jew foresaw this and was horrified. I also have made some previous comments in this general area

How the former secretary of the repatriation committee of the notorious Monday Club became a Tory Speaker elected on almost entirely Labour support is testament to years of work by the MP from Buckinghamshire and the deep cynicism of his backers. Few dispute the fervour with which John Bercow wanted to succeed Michael Martin, a campaign that he has been waging by stealth for months. Indeed, a burning ambition sustained him through a vicious “anti-Bercow” campaign by Tory MPs and parts of the media, much of which had the tacit support of David Cameron, his erstwhile parliamentary tennis partner.

Yet by 11am yesterday morning it was clear that his support on the Labour benches was making him unstoppable, pushing him to victory by 52 votes — a wider margin than some of Gordon Brown’s critical votes.

Mr Bercow did not escape criticism over his parliamentary expenses, paying to Revenue & Customs the £6,500 that he avoided in capital gains tax after “flipping” his second-home allowance.

He is the first Jewish Speaker and at 46, the youngest since Charles Shaw-Lefevre, Viscount Eversley, who was 45 on election in 1839. The result yesterday is a tribute to the organising power of Martin Salter, the Labour MP for Reading — Mr Bercow’s neighbouring constituency — and serial rebel and their desire to punish the Tories for ousting Mr Martin. But who exactly did he persuade them to sign up for?

At first he looks like an unlikely candidate for widespread Labour support. The son of a taxi driver who went to a comprehensive school, in his teenage years he was an exceptional tennis player destined for Wimbledon until his chances were dashed by glandular fever. From this point he became more political. At 18, inspired by the speeches of Enoch Powell and concerned about the impact of mass immigration, he joined the Monday Club — a right-wing Conservative pressure group founded in 1970 that was notable for having promoted a policy of voluntary, or assisted, repatriation for non-white immigrants.

At the University of Essex, he fought battles with the Left and became national chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students. It was the era of “hang Nelson Mandela” T-shirts in the Tory party — he says he never wore one — and one that he would rather forget.

He went into banking before joining the Major Government in its final days as a special adviser, first to Jonathan Aitken — before the minister resigned to fight a libel suit with The Guardian — and then Virginia Bottomley. In 1997, on his third attempt, he became an MP, with a smooth ascent through the opposition ranks, pausing only once to declare that he did not consider himself ruthless enough to reach the top of politics.

Then, in 2002, came the event that defined his political career — his resignation from the Tory front bench in protest at Iain Duncan Smith’s decision to impose a three-line whip on MPs in the debate on gay adoption. Although he was brought back by Michael Howard, this event proved seminal as he “came out” as a moderate Conservative. “It’s true that I’ve got the zeal of the convert but that doesn’t mean that the conversion is any less genuine or that the need for constant repetition of the message is any less great,” he said days after the resignation. “It was extremely ill judged to prescribe how Tory members should vote on that subject. It defies common sense that there can be only one Conservative view on this subject.”

From then on, he was treated differently by Tory MPs and, as if to underline his ideological switch, married a Labour supporter, Sally Illman, who watched his triumph yesterday. “He has been on a journey that makes his one-time hero Michael Portillo seem like a mere day-tripper,” one prominent Conservative said.

More HERE Other comments here and here and here. Positive comments about the man and his character are hard to find. He has paid a price for his success that would be too high for many.

***********************

ELSEWHERE

Sarkozy has the balls that Obama lacks: "President Nicolas Sarkozy says the Islamic burqa is not welcome in secular France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community. Condemning the head-to-toe cover for women as a symbol of subjugation rather than faith, Mr Sarkozy overnight was emphasising his divergent views from US president Barack Obama. On a visit to Paris earlier this month, Mr Obama urged Western countries to avoid "dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear". "We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy said. "That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity. "The burqa is not a sign of religion; it is a sign of subservience," he told lawmakers in a major policy speech at a special session of parliament. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic." France, home to an estimated five million Muslims, passed a law in 2004 banning headscarves or any other "conspicuous" religious symbol in state schools in a hotly contested bid to defend secularism. Last year a Moroccan woman was refused French citizenship after social services said she wore a burqa and was living in "submission" to her husband. Mr Sarkozy said he was in favour of holding an inquiry sought by some French lawmakers into whether Muslim women who cover themselves fully in public undermine French secularism and women's rights."

FTC to monitor blogs for “false claims,” payola: “Savvy consumers often go online for independent consumer reviews of products and services, scouring through comments from everyday Joes and Janes to help them find a gem or shun a lemon. What some fail to realize, though, is that such reviews can be tainted: Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all. The practice has grown to the degree that the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.”

White House can’t explain half of alleged drug savings: “The Obama White House cannot explain more than half of today’s announced $80 billion in prescription drug savings. A senior official said the White House estimates $30 billion in savings will be achieved through drug companies reducing by at least 50 percent the cost of brand-name prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the so-called coverage ‘donut hole.’ The other $50 billion in savings will come from unspecified and unknown changes to drug costs linked to Medicare and Medicaid. The $80 billion in savings is a 10-year estimate. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday details on non-donut hole savings remain to be negotiated between the drug companies and the Senate Finance Committee.”

Accident chasers: “Gov. Charlie Crist might have missed the mark with some of the bills he signed last week, but his Tuesday signing of a ban on charges for emergency response was dead on. Across the state, several municipalities and counties, including Tallahassee and Escambia County, were charging those involved in car accidents for police and firefighter response. (Bay County and area municipalities did not.) According to the Tallahassee Democrat, fees ranged from $180 to $200 for police response and $600 to $800 for fire departments.”

GM stiffing a lot of people: "General Motors owes hundreds of millions of dollars to major suppliers who have never made an auto part, rubber tire or sheet of steel — and they're not likely to get paid anytime soon. GM is on the hook for more than $100 million for advertising it purchased before filing for bankruptcy earlier this month. While virtually all of the auto parts makers who work with GM are being declared "critical vendors," which allows them to receive their next payments by July 2, GM's other suppliers are not guaranteed payments anytime soon.... GM's transportation suppliers, such as railroads CSX and Union Pacific also have critical vendor status. So do a handful of its major suppliers from outside the auto or transport industries, such as technology giant Hewlett Packard and telecommunications provider AT&T. But even some of the vendors not granted critical vendor status will have their pre-bankruptcy bills paid, although not as fast at those with critical vendor status... Sorvino said she expects widespread bankruptcies of smaller GM vendors. That could lead to many workers losing their jobs who didn't even realize they were depending on GM for their livelihood. Worse off are suppliers who do not have a continuing contract relationship with GM, but are currently owed money."

My Twitter.com identity: jonjayray. For more blog postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here

****************************

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

****************************