Image 01 Image 03

April 2014

We wrote the other day of the tensions between J Street and other pro-Israel groups, including on campuses, J Street issues media Fatwa against its toughest pro-Israel student opponent. J Street wanted to join the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, but it was rejected today. Via JTA:
J Street failed to gain admission to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. The vote of conference members Wednesday was 17 in favor, 22 against and three abstentions, according to four sources. J Street needed a two-thirds majority of the entire membership, 34 out of 51, for entry.
It was a no lose vote for J Street in reality. If it was admitted, it would be vindication for the relatively young group that it was a major player. If it lost, it could play victim, accuse others of smears (as it did to the Brandeis student who challenged it), and otherwise leverage its anti-establishment narrative. Indeed, J Street lashed out at "right-wing" groups:
We are especially disappointed that a minority of the farthest right wing organizations within the Conference has chosen to close the Conference’s doors to this emerging generation of inspiring and passionate young leaders. In the long run, it does a grave disservice to the American Jewish community to drive some of our brightest young people away and to tell them that there is no place for them in an ever-shrinking communal tent where the conversation on Israel’s future is limited.
And its saavy media operation tweeted out a photo of a collapsed tent: J Street Founder and Executive Director Jeremy Ben Ami called it's the Conference's loss: Fundraising letter to follow, no doubt. Before the vote, Jonathan Tobin at Commentary argued that it was better for J Street itself to lose:
The point here is that rather than signifying its acceptance, today’s vote is merely a sign that J Street failed in its mission to overturn the Jewish consensus on Israel. A seat in what is, for all intents and purposes, a debating society–most of whose members are little known even among American Jews–strikes me as a poor consolation prize for such a defeat.
It's not at all clear, however, that the rejection has to do with J Streets politics. Yair Rosenberg notes that there are members who are even more left-wing than J Street. It appears to be personal, based on J Street's sharp elbows:

A press release from the House Energy and Commerce Committee (emphasis added):
Data provided to the committee by every insurance provider in the health care law’s Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) shows that, as of April 15, 2014, only 67 percent of individuals and families that had selected a health plan in the federally facilitated marketplace had paid their first month’s premium and therefore completed the enrollment process. Nationwide, only 25 percent of paid enrollees are ages 18 to 34.... ...bThe committee has compiled the data that provides a snapshot of the true enrollment picture as of April 15, 2014, after the official end of the open enrollment period. Due to the administration’s repeated and unilateral extensions and changes, as well as the fact that many insurers have reported that individuals will still have time to pay their first month’s premium, the committee plans to ask the insurers in the federally facilitated marketplace to provide an enrollment update by May 20, 2014. On April 17, 2014, President Obama declared the success of his law, claiming that 8 million Americans had signed up for health insurance, but data from the insurance providers reveals that the president’s figure is largely misleading. As of April 15, 2014, insurers informed the committee that only 2.45 million had paid their first month’s premium for coverage obtained through the federally facilitated marketplace. While the administration has relied on questionable nationwide figures to boast the law’s success, the state-by-state breakdown compiled by the committee underscores the serious problems facing some states.

Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News reporter shut down and cut off because of her dogged search for the truth, writes at her website, White House Directed Incorrect Benghazi Narrative:
Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened. One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from ​Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, ​2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s ​Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure: Ben Rhodes ​is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.) ​ In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.” The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television ​ network political talk shows. The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group JudicialWatch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date. Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.
Kudos to Jon Karl, he has been on this case since the beginning, and has been the subject of administration intrigue, as I documented in May 2013, White House-created “doctored” war on Jon Karl and Stephen Hayes falls apart:

Last night, comedian Louis C.K. was apparently very frustrated with the Common Core inspired homework his children were charged with doing. To vent his frustration, he took to Twitter to give the world a glimpse of what he and his children were dealing with.

On April 21, in light of the multitude of problems, I asked Is Wendy Davis’ campaign about to fall off a cliff?
How much longer will out of state interests keep funneling money to Davis? With control of the U.S. Senate and various House seats on the line, will liberal activists keep spending good money after bad in the Texas Governor’s race.
Well, that didn't take long.  National Democrats are abandoning Davis' sinking ship, as reported by the L.A. Times:
If Washington was reeling on Tuesday, the vertigo may have stemmed from something rare: blunt honesty from the mouth of an elected official. Really. It occurred as Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, head of the Democratic Governors Assn., detailed for reporters the group’s target races this year. Top tier: Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida. Second tier: Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin. Fingers crossed: South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Arizona. Notably absent was one of the supposed marquee races of 2014, Democrat Wendy Davis’ effort to derail Republican Greg Abbott in Texas. Shumlin sent an unmistakable signal that the moneyed organization had better places to place its dough. “We all understand Democrats haven’t won Texas in a long time,” he said, after a reporter noted that Texas had not been included among his targeted states.
Davis' campaign reacted with fury, as reported by The N.Y. Daily News:
But the lack of confidence from her own party set Davis’ team off. "The uninformed opinions of a Washington, D.C., desk jockey who's never stepped foot in Texas couldn't be less relevant to what's actually happening on the ground," Karin Johanson, Davis campaign manager, said in a surprising statement after Shumlin’s slight. Johanson later clarified that the “uninformed Washington, D.C., desk jockey” was meant to describe whoever scripted the party’s talking points on the DGA’s priority campaigns.
Erick Erickson is gloating, Democrats Abort Their Texas Takeover:

This will be a short post, and is intended to just briefly answer the question I'm often asked as to why I haven't blogged about Byron Smith. I've had the question asked hundreds of times, and I'm going to defer now to a group response, and generate a source to which I can simply direct future inquiries. Byron Smith is the Minnesota man just sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for the murders of 18-year-old Haile Kifer and 17-year-old Nick Brady after they broke into his house, as reported today by the Star Tribune. I never covered this case because my interest lies in cases of self-defense.  And this never looked to me like a case of self-defense. Instead, it looked to me from the start as a case of thoroughly premeditated, well-prepared ambush, followed by  unnecessary and excessive deadly force in the form of execution-style pistol rounds to the back of the head. A person fighting intruders in his home has a presumption of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm--either based on statute or based on common sense.  There's a reason why defensive shootings of home intruders so rarely come to trial--they're simply losers from a prosecutor's point of view. That presumption, however, is subject to being rebutted, in the rare and extraordinary case that such is possible. And in the case of Byron Smith it was not merely possible, but inevitable.  There's a reason the jury deliberated only three hours before convicting him. Smith believed, correctly, that the youths would break into his home.  But instead of calling 911 when it happened, or using force in reasonable defense against a deadly-force threat, or in the defense of home when faced with an unexpected intruder, he instead prepared for their break-in . . . and for their execution. He prepared himself with a comfortable hide position, complete with snacks and water, and a book to read while he waited.  He had tarps prepared, such that when he murdered them the mess might be contained.  He shot them first with a rifle, then finished them with execution-style head shots using a pistol. If any of this sounds like reasonable self-defense or defense of dwelling to any of you, I don't suppose there's anything I could say that would change your mind. But I can assure you that it doesn't sound like reasonable self-defense or defense of dwelling to the law of self-defense. It sounds like deliberate and premeditated murder.

In Egypt, it looks like they have opted to go BIG:
A judge in Egypt on Monday sentenced to death 683 alleged supporters of the country's ousted Islamist president in the latest mass trial that included the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, defense lawyers said. But in a surprise reversal, the same judge also reduced most of the death sentences handed to 529 defendants in a similar case in March, commuting the majority of them on Monday to life imprisonment. The judge, Said Youssef, said he was referring his ruling on the 683 death sentences for violence and the killing of policemen to the Grand Mufti, the top Islamic official -- a requirement under Egyptian law, but one that is considered a formality. Both mass trials are linked to deadly riots that erupted in Minya and elsewhere in Egypt after security forces violently disbanded sit-ins held by Brotherhood supporters in Cairo last August.
General Sisi apparently has decided not to win the "hearts and minds" of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, he may be winning the support of his people, who have suffered with enormous civil unrest since "Arab Spring" sprung in 2011.

The European Union has announced a new round of sanctions that target 15 individuals with a travel ban and assets freeze as the situation in eastern Ukraine has continued to escalate. From CNN:
The European Union has imposed sanctions related to the crisis in Ukraine on another 15 people, bringing the total number targeted to 48. The EU said Monday they are responsible for actions that "undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine." The targets include Dmitry Kozak, Russia's deputy prime minister; Russian military chief Valery Gerasimov; and pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, including Denis Pushilin, the self-declared leader of the "Donetsk People's Republic." EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was alarmed by the worsening security situation in eastern Ukraine, and she called on Russia to take "concrete steps" in support of an international deal signed this month aimed at easing tensions. She warned that if necessary, the European Union "will look at possible additional individual measures" related to the crisis.
The EU’s move comes just on the heels of an announcement from the United States regarding its own expansion of sanctions against Russia. The Department of Treasury indicated Monday it is imposing additional sanctions on “seven Russian government officials, including two members of President Putin's inner circle, who will be subject to an asset freeze and a U.S. visa ban, and 17 companies linked to Putin's inner circle, which will be subject to an asset freeze.” The situation on the ground in eastern Ukraine meanwhile remains tense.

Professor Jacobson just asked if a Toyota can get from California to Texas on single tank of gas? As a Californian, I would like to answer that question. First, you need to know that California Governor Jerry Brown recently said Rick Perry's efforts to recruit businesses to Texas are "barely a fart." So, if the fuel is blended with those farts, the answer is: Hell, yes! Interestingly,Toyota has had a relatively long-term stay in California.
With its worldwide headquarters in Japan, Toyota's U.S. operation has headquartered in Southern California for more than 50 years. Most employees affected by the move, which begins in 2016, work on a sprawling campus in Torrance. "This is the most significant change we've made to our North American operations in the past 50 years, and we're excited for what the future holds," says Jim Lentz, Toyota's U.S. CEO.
My question is not why Toyota is leaving, but why it took them so long to make the move. The economic advantages to both the company and its employees are quite compelling.

Andrew Branca wrote the other day about his bet with CNN Legal Analyst Sunny Hostin, recorded on air at the Berkeley Law School Stand Your Ground debate, CNN analyst welches on bet after Andrew Branca wins “Stand-Your-Ground” Debate. The bet was over whether George Zimmerman was told not to leave his car when he was on the phone with 911 prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. When a panelist claimed Zimmerman was told not to leave his car, Branca offered a $100 wager that such an order never took place. CNN Legal Analyst Sunny Hostin took Branca up on the bet. It's on video: Of course, as anyone who followed the trial knows, there was no such instruction not to leave the car. The mention by the 911 operator that "we don't need you to do that" was not an order -- by the 911 operator's own testimony -- and in any event, took place after Zimmerman already had exited the car. See my long ago post, In busting Zimmerman myths, Jonathan Capehart perpetuates the greatest myth of all, in which I presented the transcript and video of trial testimony. According to Branca, Hostin has not paid the wager, even though he sent her the audio of the 911 call and has tweeted demands for payment to her. In his post yesterday, Andrew noted that there was an entry on Hostin's Wikipedia page regarding the Berkeley debate mentioning the wager and failure to pay. 

In Manila yesterday, Fox News' Ed Henry asked President Obama to explain the Obama doctrine. As Obama faces increasing criticism from all sides regarding the efficacy of his foreign policy, he first scoffed at the question responding, "Well Ed, I doubt I'll have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine." The President then proceeded to go into a long-winded explanation highlighting several foreign policy endeavors, including Ukraine and Syria. President Obama also took aim at his critics and, true to form, the policies of the Bush administration. [Emphasis Added]
Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
Despite insinuating that critics of his foreign policy are essentially war-mongers, the President had trouble finding examples where the criticism of his foreign policy centered on a lack of American boots on the ground.

I'm recommending the book Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties by David Horowitz and Peter Collier. It's a chilling document, especially because---unlike in 1989, when the book was first written---it's become more and more clear that the left's long Gramscian march through our institutions has been largely successful. The book's first chapter---the story of Fay Stender, is a tale of such sadness it's almost unbearable. Stender was an idealistic leftist lawyer who defended, and had affairs with, black prisoners such as Huey Newton and "Soledad Brother" George Jackson, and was later shot by another black con after her supposed "betrayal" of Jackson. Stender's life trajectory wasn't just sad, of course. It was offensive and outrageous and anger-provoking, and not just for what was done to her but for her own role in it. But it was also sad. It was sad that Stender was so naive in the first place as to dedicate her life to defending a group of socipathic con men who happened to talk a good line of racial victimization, sad that she deceived herself so greatly in her perverted idealism. It was sad that, when she finally realized who and what they really were, it was too late to save herself (or others) from their revenge although she tried her best. Sad (although ultimately good, if it's truth you're after) that she lost her illusions even before her former buddies managed to get her, and sad that, prior to their destroying her physically, she had realized her life's work was a sham and a betrayal of the principles she had thought she was defending. Sad and ironic that, at the trial of the man who had shot her five times and left her in horrific unremitting pain and paralyzed from the waist down as well as handicapped in the use of her arms, his defense (unsuccessful, at least) was based on the sorts of arguments she had formerly used to defend other black activist criminals. You might say that Stender got what she deserved, but I see her story as tragic despite (or perhaps because of?) her own role in her destruction and the destruction of others.

1. Federalization

In Ukraine, parties on the losing end of the electoral process take turns demanding federalization or even secession. The idea's been floating around for years; The Svoboda party, formerly known as the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, includes decentralization in their official platform.  After Viktor Yanukovich, whose power base is located in Ukraine's Russian- speaking south-west won presidential elections in 2008, the Svoboda stronghold of Galicia was talking secession.  Their head, Oleh Tyahnybok, is currently against federalization, however:
Regarding the idea of federalization, this structure suits Russia, where in some regions ethnic minorities make up a majority of the population such as Tatarstan, Kalmykia, Ingushetia, Buryatia and others. The idea of Ukrainian federalization is nothing more than another underhanded attempt to weaken Ukrainian statehood and subordinate Ukraine to Putin's geopolitical ambitions.
That Ukraine is a homogeneous society would be news to people mildly familiar with the country. The current push for federalization is spearheaded by, among others, Ukrainian Communists as well as Vladimir Putin, who, while massing his troops on Ukraine's border, continues the talk of extending self-rule of Ukraine's regions, something that Russia does not allow.  Federalization is a frequent demand of separatists in the south-east. Mikhail Dobkin, the former Kharkiv mayor and gubernatorial appointee of the deposed Yanukovich, is running for president on the platform of federalization. Dobkin, however, is not a serious candidate because a) his Party of Regions is all but dead; b) he's a bona fide Jew in a country where politicians go out of their way to hide their Jewish roots and c) he doesn't appear to have support outside of Kharkiv. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="529"] [Ukrainian GDP by region. Dnipropetrovsk governor and second richest person in the country Ihor Kolomoisky had formed his own security force in the wake of Maidan's victory][/caption]To be sure,  federalization is not a popular idea, and Ukrainians view centralized government as the perfect expression of the nation-state. And yet it continues to be tossed around by all sorts of politicians, among them the mayor of the western-most city of Lviv, Andriy Sadovy.  Proponents of federalization include high profile Western figures, most notably, Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics Roger Meyerson.

We have addressed J Street multiple times before. J Street is the progressive lobbying and political action group created as an alternative to AIPAC and other mainstream pro-Israel groups. J Street was co-founded by Jeremy Ben-Ami, with major early funding from George Soros and a mysterious Hong Kong financier.  J Street initially denied the Soros funding, but that was exposed, as we wrote in 2010, Yup, Soros Is Behind J-Street. J Street has grown rapidly, and is on the verge of being accepted into the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. J Street's critics argue that J Street is nothing more than a Trojan horse, meant to weaken American support for Israel. The J Street Challenge, a movie being screened now, presents the case against J Street. Under the guise of supporting Israel's right to exist, J Street allegedly relentlessly criticizes Israel, and plays into the anti-Israel narrative behind the BDS and other movements, even if it doesn't support such movements openly. Gullible liberals, particularly liberal students, it is argued, fall for the J Street line, and thereby legitimize the demonization and delegitimization of Israel.  J Street calls many of the accusations Myths. Part of the drama between AIPAC and more traditional pro-Israel groups, on the one hand, and J Street, on the other hand, plays out on college campuses, where J Street U -- the very active college division of J Street -- routinely hosts anti-Israel speakers and fails to push back against anti-Israel agitation. Brandeis University is one place where that tension has been sharp the past academic year, as Daniel Mael, a religious Jew who writes for pro-Israel websites like TruthRevolt.com, has exposed and criticized J Street. Mael has been a relentless critic of J Street and its college chapters, authoring at least the following articles (these were pulled from Mael's Twitter feed, where he has been tweeting the links):