Super Tuesday Analysis

So today is the big day...Super Tuesday. I already wrote my predictions for the election right here.

I shall confess something today: I am not voting! I am a registered Democrat, and frankly the choice between Hillary and Obama is so horrifying, I have exercised my right not to vote. Evidently in New York State, delegates are proportionately allocated, so Obama is a threat in NYS. The whole system is nonsensical. I believe that all states should allocate delegates proportionately, or no states. Doing it in the haphazard way we do things is so counterintuitive, it is crazy! Speaking of crazy, it makes no sense that somehow if you live in one state, you vote before another state and have a bigger say than someone else who is supposedly an 'equal citizen' in the same country. All this is an insult to the 'one man, one vote' formula that supposedly this nation claims to stand for. And do not get me started on electors!

But anyway.

One thing people do not realize is the impact of foreign policy advisers on presidents. And so with that in mind, here is a link to the foreign policy advisers of the remaining candidates.

THOUGHTS: It is horrifying to think of Robert Malley and Samantha Power (Obama's advisers) have positions of power. They are well known anti-Zionists. With that said, McCain's choice of advisers is also troubling, notably Brent Scowcroft, he of the Iraq Study Group. I know little of Romney's advisers, except for Dan Senor, who I know is very strong on Iran. With that said, McCain has taken strong foreign policy positions. See them here.

What will become of any of these when they are in office? I do not know. It is easy to fall into the State Department malaise. If a Republican is chosen as president, I most certainly hope they do not fall pray to the State Department vapors that evidently has lately taken ove Bush. And more than ever, I hope the person for the job has the will and knowhow to fight Global Jihad.

Only time will tell what will happen.

The 2008 US Election

I know this blog has really not discussed the US presidential election, so here goes nothing...

I predict that Hillary will win the election, which is something I predicted in the year 2000. (that she would win in 2008)

This means 24 years straight (at minimum) of presidents related to each other.

Ultimately, I think it will be Hillary v. either Romney or McCain. Anyway, I think Hillary will win, and then the country will be having that morning after hangover, wondering "what did we do??"

As far as the nominees go...there are many bad choices, but there are "bad" and "worse" choices.

The three worst choices - by far - are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.

Kucinich might literally be a traitor to the American nation, and under different times would be charged for treason under the Logan Act. He went to Syria and met with Assad privately, then went onto Syrian state TV, called Assad, a murderous tyrant who presides over a regime that tortured and killed a friend of mine's cousin - a 'man of peace,' and then proceeded to denounce Bush to America's (not just Bush's) enemies. On Syrian state TV. Disgusting. (see the video evidence of this here, if you have the stomach for it) The only saving grace of this man is he has a hot wife.

Mike Gravel worked with an ex-friend of mine (qrswave) who literally supports terrorism. She was a contributor to his campaign, until the fact that she was made him look bad. (see evidence here) Pathetic.

Ron Paul's solutions to the world's problems is to dig America's head in the sand and act as an isolationist. Oh yeah, and he is linked with Neonazis and 9/11 "Troothers." (LGF catalogues that all quite well)

So that's what I think. I predict Hillary will win, and while I do not support her, I guess she is not as bad as those three nutcases.

Regardless, this election is like a side show. I was just recently in Europe, and tried to explain the electoral college to PM and Steven, and they were shocked and flabbergasted.

So much to say, so much to say!

I have been terrible about updating this blog, I know!

Anyway, I have so many things that have happened in my life since I last updated, too many to count, really. These are things that C4A readers would find of interest, and I have been lax in updating...

To sum it up...

1. I went to a conference, organized by CAMERA, exploring Jewish antisemitism in the media. By that I mean Jewish sources which are explicitly anti-Israel, to the extreme of telling utter lies. How do you combat such lies, when a Jewish source is telling them? I took copious notes for no real reason, since I have no idea where I put the notes. One complaint I have about the conference is that they did not serve adequate food over the time period of the conference. All there were were muffins and cookies, over a whole day! But definitely it was memorable.
2. I went to another conference, organized by Eye on the UN, which explored the antisemitism of the UN. I saw Pamela from Atlas Shrugs from afar, and never spoke to her in person. (I was thinking how she supports Vlaams Belang) There were AMAZING speakers at this conference, including John Bolton and Senator Norm Coleman. But most importantly of all, there was Nonie Darwish. She gave a very impassioned speech about the plight of Muslim women in the Islamic world. She is doing amazing things. As far as the UN goes...there is a permanent majority of antisemitic nations, which are out to do Israel in. It's a sad tale. It's one we all know. The saddest part is that an international agency like the UN could do real good...but it has been totally delegitimized.
3. I heard Alan Dershowitz talk...twice. Let me say...he is excellent when he is attacking Israel's attackers. He was infuriating when he decribed Israel as "occupying" the West Bank, and the "human rights dilemma" of home demolitions. He is good friends with Shimon Peres, so what do you expect? I heard him say that Israel should abide by the Barack plan, or something close to it, because otherwise Israel will be an "occupying" power. It was very difficult to listen to. Mr. Dershowitz, please stick to what you are good at: debating Noam Chomsky and others! The sad thing is that because he is seen as "pro-Israel," he is considered a right wing nutcase. Truly sad state of affairs.
4. I heard the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN speak, at Columbia. Yes, that very Columbia, where Ahmadinejad spoke. Disgusting to set foot on those grounds, but I did anyway. The ambassador basically said that there is progress in Iraq, but it is not covered by the media. He said that the nation is 4 years old, and it takes time to really build a country out of scratch. With that said, he pointed to the oil sharing deals as proof of Sunni-Shia-Kurd reconsiliation, as well as the big turnout for voting. He spoke of how 25% of the Parliamentarians are women - as said in the constitution. He has a point - that is major. And he said that the US should not leave Iraq right now, until the nation is stable. It should be noted that there was a Columbia student who was upset with the ambassador...for being too pro-American!
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I went on the tour of Europe that I said I would. I traveled to six countries in ten days! I traveled to England, Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland, and Czech Republic. I have no idea how I had the gumption, and the energy, to do so much traveling. It should be noted that this was a C4A trip, as I went with fellow posters PM and Steven. I am so excited to have met these amazing people, and I consider them friends for life, truly. Words cannot even adequately sum up the trip, which was a trip of a lifetime. I saw Auschwitz, I saw a Jewish museum in Basel, Switzerland - home of the First Zionist Congress, and I had amazing conversations. I feel renewed and reinvigorated in my activities.

And so, with that all said...summing up my life as best as I could...I shall bid you adieu, for now.

Letter to Columbia University's Provost and President

Today is a sad day in the history of academia. Today is the day that the mass murdering tyrant, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be speaking at Columbia University. To protest this, I decided to write a letter to the president of the university, as well as the provost. I doubt this will do anything, but at least I was able to let out my frustration SOMEWHERE. Please send emails to Provost Brinkley at ab65@columbia.edu and to President Bollinger at bollinger@columbia.edu to protest this abomination.

I am writing this email to express my extreme disappointment at the decision to invite Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia's campus. Ahmadinejad is a mad who has denied the Holocaust and even led a Holocaust denial conference. He speaks of wiping Israel off the map and funds terrorism around the world, including Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, famously said "If all the Jews around the world would gather in Israel, that would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Sadly, these are not just idle words, as the Iranian-backed Hizballah was behind the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Argentina. More than simply being an antisemite, Ahmadinejad famously calls America "the Great Satan," and just yesterday in Iran held a massive anti-American rally, with giant signs saying "Death to America." Again, these are not merely idle words, as Iran funds and trains the Mahdi army and Revolutionary Guard, who attack US forces in Iraq. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has publicly been seeking nuclear weapons to follow through with all his threats.

The evil of Ahmadinejad thus established, I have to question what could possibly be gained by having him speak on campus. What possible legitimate reason does such a man have to seek to wipe a nation off the map which has not been aggressive towards Iran? What possible legitimate reason is there for Holocaust denial? What possible legitimate reason is there for funding a terror organization, Hizballah, whose goal is an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon, and the destruction of worldwide Jewry? And as there is no possible justification for these actions (other than a desire for power and destruction), then how could Columbia invite such an evil man to speak on campus, thus legitimitizing Holocaust denial? What will Columbia's representative ask Ahmadinejad? "Why do you deny the Holocaust?" And what will he possibly say that could suffice a sufficient answer? "Why do you wish Israel's destruction and say Death to America?" What could Ahmadinejad answer that will be anything except legitimizing these concepts?

Merely inviting such an odious personality to campus implies that Ahmedinejad's evil is not evil, but rather is part of the post-modern morally relative world. After all, "Who are we to judge what is evil and what is not evil?" Merely inviting Ahmadinejad to campus implies there is no objective reality. It invites the thinking that maybe the Holocaust did not exist; perhaps there should be a 'debate' on this subject. (Of course, Ahmadinejad refuses to actually meet any survivors, nor tour Auschwitz.)

Finally, inviting a leader on campus who is so repressive against his own people, and regularly jails dissidents in his own country, flies in the face of the supposed atmosphere of "freedom of speech" that Columbia purportedly believes in. If Columbia really seeks to engage and legitimize all sides of the political spectrum, including tyrants and mass murderers, then at least Columbia should require that these tyrants and mass murderers do not jail and torture dissident voices within their own nation. Inviting Ahmedinejad to speak spits in the faces of the thousands of political prisoners within Iran, and the unknown numbers who were killed for the "crime" of being gay, a feminist, a modernist, or even raped. For a campus that claims to believe in freedom of speech, feminism, and civil rights, I do not see it putting its money where its mouth is.

If this administration had any respect for the thousands of victims, worldwide, of Iran's regime, they would immediately retract the invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak. If it fails to do so, it has abdicated its role as a model of higher learning.

My meeting with Elliott Abrams

As mentioned previously, I met with the Deputy National Security Advisor to the United States, Elliott Abrams, a few weeks ago. He was at a local area synagogue, and spoke after Friday night services. The main subject of his talk was Jews in government. Essentially, his claim was that from the 1960s-1990s, it was basically a nonissue to see a Jew in government. However, with the Walt and Mersheimer paper, suddenly, the outside community (not the Bush administration) sees it as a problem that Jews are in government. He said that there are now college courses at elite universities that look at whether the "Israel lobby" and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The Walt/Mersheimer paper is read, and then the Dershowitz response paper is read. Both are 'debated,' to determine the 'truth' of whether AIPAC and the "Israel lobby" control foreign policy. Imagine that. Imagine if there was a class where Holocaust denial literature was read on par with Elie Wiesel's books, and the "truth" of it were debated. Such is the state of modern American academia. Truly frightening. Abrams said that he feared for the future generations, saying he saw antisemitism on the rise not just abroad, but here on American soil, in American academia.

After his talk, there were many questions and answers posed. I raised my hand and asked the first question. My question was: "In light of the fact that Yassir Arafat's uncle was a Nazi who was an architect of the Final Solution, and that Fatah's roots are indeed in Nazism (and there is no indication that Abbas/Abu Mazen thinks any differently)...why is Israel and the US fooling itself by pretending that somehow Abu Mazen is 'moderate' and should be 'negotiated with'?"

Abrams's response was very instructive. He said that Abu Mazen may not be a moderate by "our standards," but he was someone who at least "wanted to talk." However, Abu Mazen has little power, and so it's basically pointless to speak to him until and unless he does have power. He then went on a long sidenote about how moderates rarely do end up in power in these sorts of nations. According to this 'logic,' then it would be up to the US and Israel to do all that is possible to empower Abu Mazen.

But here is where you kind folks will be enlightened. After the talk, a little birdie told me that some people close to Elliott Abrams completely disagree with his characterization of Abu Mazen as "someone who wants to talk," and a "relative moderate," but could not say so publicly. This little birdie also thanked me for saying what I said publicly.

Interesting, no?

Other tidbits from Abrams...

He spoke of Iran and its nuclear threat, and then said that the Democrats wanted to put language into a bill that would take the military option OFF the table for Iran. He said (and I agree with him) that the only way to be effective with Iran is to keep the military option on the table, and he admonished many Jewish organizations who remain silent about this. He also spoke support of the democracy project in these Muslim nations. He believes that democracy is ultimately the answer, since no democracy is a threat to the world.

Afterwards, I privately approached Mr. Abrams. I said to him "Mr. Abrams, respectfully, how can you say that democracy is the answer, when in Egypt, if there were fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected TOMORROW? And the same is true in most of the Muslim world. Democracy? What about Indonesia, where the "democratically" elected president said the Holocaust never happened? What about Iraq, where it looks likely that there will be sharia law? Islam itself is both a political system and a religion. Isn't THAT the problem?"

His response was basically that Egypt is in the state it is in because Mubarak (president of Egypt) has suppressed all opposition parties, and hence the ONLY choice now is the Muslim Brotherhood. He said democracy is a long term, not immediate solution there. Then he said that the Indonesian PM who denied the Holocaust was, after all, voted OUT. He spoke ultimately a line about optimism. And he did so privately - with no one else nearby to even listen in. In short, this is what he really believes. I also mentioned Sandmonkey (with regards to democracy in Egypt) - and yes, Mr. Abrams has heard of him.

There you have it, folks. An inside track into the mind of a top official in the Bush administration, and my interaction with him. I hope you enjoy this read.

I should say that after the talk with Mr. Abrams, I spoke with a director from the Obsession movie (who attended this event), about radical Islam and the like. It was interesting that he did not know much to anything about India. He also thought Robert Spencer's words were "extremist," but he has read his books.

My next post will be a detailed rendering of my attendance at the US-Indian-Israeli relations event.

The fight for democracy goes on

It's easy for us in secure democracy's to take them for granted. Not so for many other people across the world. From Burma to Zimbabwe. Each country is in a struggle against oppressive regimes.

Burma has been under military rule for the last couple of decades. It appeared that some progress towards democracy was being made with the 8888 Uprising of 1988 and the following election victory by Aung San Suu Kyi in 1990. However the Military refused to hand over power and made the election null and void. She has been hounded by the Military regime ever since, at this moment in time she is under house arrest. The Military Junta have resisted international pressure to release her from house arrest. I think Aung San Suu Kyi summed up her own future predicament quite well in regards to the ruling Military government in Burma:

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

Until the people of Burma over come the fear that the Military Junta have on them, then they will keep the Military Junta in power. But even if Aung San Suu Kyi dies at the hands of the Military Junta, her legacy will i believe one day drive somebody to strike back and bring about the downfall of that regime (which has been known to use food as a weapon against rebels and those suspected of helping rebels i.e. The Military places land mines in the fields, so that the villagers cannot harvest the crops and therefore have to flee or otherwise starve to death). International pressure has been mounting, but I'm afraid words are not enough. If we value our own democracy's at all, we should help others achieve the dream of democracy.

Zimbabwe is another trouble spot. The Movement for Democratic Change has been fighting the rule of Robert Mugabe for the last few years. Zimbabwe was once described as the breadbasket of Africa. Not any more. Due to the land seizures of white owned farms, Zimbabwe's economy has gone into free fall, current inflation stands at 1,700%. Around 80% of Zimbabwe's population is now in poverty. Robert Mugabe of course blames all of this on Western governments. He has a particular hatred for the British government (being the former colonial power).

Mr Tsvangirai is the leader of the opposition of the DMC (which has split into two factions), he was recently beaten up quite badly by Mugabe's regime after the opposition tried to stage a peaceful prayer meeting. However Mugabe's regime declared it an illegal protest and those taking part were arrested. African nations have so far been reluctant to put pressure on Mugabe, notably South Africa who have the most influence over Zimbabwe as it supply's a majority of resources to Zimbabwe. Things seem to be changing, though only because it seems Mugabe has moved the next round of elections to 2010 which clashes with the World Cup in South Africa.

I'm hopeful that the situation in Zimbabwe will be resolved in the next few years. A tipping point will come for Mugabe's regime and it will topple. Chaos will most likely follow, but hopefully a strong democracy will emerge from that chaos. Now the point i am trying to make is a very simple one. It is time that we in the West stopped taking democracy for granted and to rid ourselves of the notion that we cannot do anything to change things. We can do a lot and it is quite simple. We use what we take for granted the most. The right to vote.

If a Government does something you don't like, you can punish it by voting on the issues as you see them. But if we sit back and think “My vote won't change anything”, then it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Vote even if the government in power does not lose power, you will add dissenting voices to the political processes that your country has in place.

I think it's crucial we do this. Why ? Because we are facing dangers that lead down a dark and dangerous path. Radical Islam is but one of the threats we face, but that threat seems to be a distant one. 5 years on 9/11 seems to have lost it's impact upon people. Yes we remember the day, but we have been taken on a ride by our political masters. And i believe firmly that the Bush doctrine and War on Terror is fundamentally flawed. We are not in a traditional war in the sense of large armies meeting on the battlefield. We are if you like in a guerrilla war. One that is being fought by radical extremists who have no morals and have no fear of death. We can fight that more effectively by standing up for what we treasure the most. Freedom and the ability to vote.

We should not trade in freedom for security, no matter the threat we face. It is our Freedom that defines us. If we let the terrorists define who we are, then they win. So it's time we started to treat our democracy's with the respect they deserve and to be aware that the freedom that democracy can bring can be taken away in a moment. The fight for democracy goes on. And it is a cause worth fighting for.

Aung San Suu Kyi wiki article

Robert Mugabe wiki article