Legal Insurrection has the whole story.
Legal Insurrection has the whole story.
If the Iranian state media and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke salute your church’s work, your church is doing something wrong.
“The 1980′s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,” Obama swiped at Romney during a 2012 presidential debate. He echoed his insistence that approaching Russia with a Cold War-mindset is counterproductive, in spite of the fact that Russia appears to view geopolitics in its near abroad as a zero-sum game.
But events in recent months have suggested that Romney had a greater grasp on the threat to American interests that Russia poses than his critics gave him credit for.”
And while we’re on the subject of incompetent liberal leaders, have a look at what jackass Justin tweeted today.
Reminder: Canada’s version of J Street is J Space.
“The key question raised by the film is what it means to be “pro-Israel” not on a personal level, but within the context of the political lobbying and advocacy that swirls around American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or, as Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse more accurately terms it in her interview in the film, “the Arab conflict with Israel”). And when you examine J Street’s record, it becomes very hard to dispute Professor Alan Dershowitz’s assertion that the organization—despite its much-vaunted tagline—is “neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace.”
To begin with, there are J Street’s funders. As the film documents, ferocious critics of Israel like the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros and Genevieve Lynch, a board member of the pro-Iranian regime National Iranian-American Council, have donated significant sums to the organization. And although it says it is opposed to the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, J Street maintains close ties with those who advocate collaboration with the BDS movement in targeting West Bank settlements, like the writer Peter Beinart and the corporate lawyer Kathleen Peratis. This milieu is hardly conducive to J Street’s “pro-Israel” self-image.”
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) published an op-ed in the New York Times Saturday in which its leaders made a passionate and well-argued case for continued pressure on Iran, and also for the role of Congress in setting foreign policy. The organization, the op-ed made clear, supports the Kirk-Menendez bill, i.e. the “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act,” which would apply new sanctions “if, and only if, the talks fail.”
The op-ed notes that Iranian leaders have proudly declared that they do not intend to dismantle their nuclear program, and even includes what might be considered a little dig at the administration and its hostile attitude towards Congress in general: “At this moment, we must not allow Iran to dictate the appropriate role of Congress…..America’s elected representatives are not the problem; the unelected theocrats of Iran are.”
It is tough talk, and sets the agenda for AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference next week, which will bring many thousands of pro-Israel volunteers to Capitol Hill to lobby their respective members of Congress. But no one takes AIPAC’s tough talk seriously. That is because AIPAC sheepishly backed away from the Kirk-Menedez bill earlier this month, when it was clear that Democrats would not fight President Barack Obama’s veto threat.
“It’s a thought experiment I often present to the Western Chavista, one that usually ends up demonstrating that sympathizers of the regime, both in this country and in Europe, have something of a colonialist attitude towards Venezuela. Because one wonders the reaction of these faux progressives if Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel–pick your the imperialist lackey!–arrested an opposition leader who had organized peaceful street protests? Or if the CIA shut off the internet in politically restive cities like Berkeley and Brooklyn; blocked Twitter traffic it found politically suspect; and took over PBS, forcing it to broadcast only pro-administration agitprop, never allowing the opposition party to traduce the government across public airwaves? Or if the president forced the removal of BBC America from all cable providers for being too anti-American?
Perhaps reactions would be muted if motorcycle gangs loyal to President George W. Bush circled anti-Iraq War protests physically attacking–and occasionally murdering–demonstrators. How about if a judge ruled against President Obama’s domestic spying apparatus and, in return, the White House ordered that judge thrown in prison? How long would an American president be allowed to run up massive inflation, despite massive oil revenues coming into government coffers? How long would it be considered reasonable–and not the president’s responsibility–to preside over 23,000 murders in a country of just under 30 million people, a rate that would horrify the average resident of Baghdad? How long could supermarket shelves remain bare of basic staples like bread and milk before The Nation or The Guardian would gleefully decide that America was a failed, kleptocratic state? Or if Bush or Obama’s economic policies meant that toilet paper could no longer be found on the open market?
So I ask a rather straight-forward question to those who pretend to care about the Venezuelan people (much like those who miraculously lost interest in the Vietnamese people after 1975 or the Nicaraguan people after 1990), those who care so deeply for the poor and destitute in Latin America: Why the double standard?”