Erdogan Moves Closer to Turkey Army Control as Generals Quit

July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan moved closer to controlling NATO’s second-biggest army as he replaces four top generals who quit in an unprecedented spate of resignations.

The prime minister, re-elected in June to a third term with nearly half the popular vote, late yesterday accepted the resignations of Chief of General Staff Isik Kosaner and the heads of the army, navy and airforce. Kosaner derided the government for treating the military “like a criminal gang” in trials of senior officers accused of plotting a military coup, in a letter published by state news agency Anatolia.

“For the first time in the history of the Republic the armed forces are being forced where they ought to be, under civil control,” Ozer Sencar, head of Ankara-based polling company MetroPOLL Strategic and Social Research, said by phone. “Erdogan has the power and the popularity to force this essential process of normalization, even though it may be stressful at times.”

Erdogan, 57, has reduced the secularist armed forces’ power over Turkish politics since he first won office in 2002. His party was formed after the closure of an Islamist movement he belonged to. More than 40 serving generals, or about a tenth of the senior ranks of the army, are under arrest after prosecutors alleged they planned bomb attacks to undermine Erdogan’s administration.

‘Clear Message’

“The armed forces are having difficulty understanding the clear message Erdogan is sending: you are answerable to civil power,” Sencar said. “In a world that no longer approves of coups, there’s little they can do to resist a government that has 50 percent popular backing.”

President Abdullah Gul appointed Necdet Ozel, 61, formerly head of the military police, as chief of the army and acting chief of the general staff, according to a statement on the website of Erdogan’s office that thanked the resigning generals for their service.

The Supreme Military Council, the half-yearly meeting of the prime minister and the armed forces to decide promotions, will go ahead as planned Aug. 1, the Prime Minister’s office said in the statement. In the last two years, Erdogan has challenged the generals’ power to determine their own careers, sometimes rejecting or modifying their proposals.

Lira Slides

Turkey’s lira was the worst performer among 178 countries excluding Gambia, yesterday, falling as much as 1.3 percent. The currency closed down 0.7 percent against the dollar. Credit- default swaps rose 10 basis points to 193, data provider CMA said. Stock and bond markets were closed.

“This came at an unfortunate junction for markets,” Tunc Yildirim, director at broker Standard Unlu in Istanbul, said in an e-mailed comment. Erdogan “will try to get things under control fast this weekend and try to emphasize that the relations between a democratically elected government and the military will proceed like in western countries,” he said.

The departures come as Erdogan tries to keep intact an economic boom that swept him back to power, putting him on course to become the longest serving Turkish leader since national founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Recent data indicate the economy is facing some imbalances. The country’s trade deficit swelled to a record $10.2 billion in June, the statistics office said yesterday, and the lira fell to the lowest in more than two years this week.

Rewriting Constitution

Erdogan campaigned for June 12 elections on a pledge to rewrite the constitution that was drafted under military rule after a coup in 1980. That would cement his victory over the generals, who accuse him of imposing Islamic values.

The armed forces have deposed four governments in the past four decades and see themselves as guardians of the secular state Ataturk established in 1923.

Erdogan has chipped away at the powers of the military since his Justice and Development Party was elected with a mandate to press for European Union membership. In 2003, he ended army control over the National Security Council, the body on which politicians and general meet to discuss security threats. In the same year he ignored the generals’ objections to a United Nations plan for the reunification of Cyprus. The army failed to block the appointment of Erdogan ally Gul as president in 2007 after Erdogan called elections.

Courts in Istanbul have jailed scores of former and current military officers, as well as journalists and academics, on charges that they conspired to weaken Erdogan’s government through violent attacks designed to create instability. The defendants say the cases, which focus on plans allegedly drawn up soon after Erdogan’s party was elected in 2002, are based on forged documents.

Trials to ‘Provoke’

Kosaner said the trials breach international law and are being used to “provoke our great nation against their own armed forces,” according to the resignation note published by Anatolia. He said he was quitting because he was unable to protect the rights and freedoms of his personnel.

“The fact that Kosaner, who had a relatively better relationship with the Erdogan’s party than his predecessors, was the one to pull the trigger, reflects the depth of tensions,” Kaan Nazli, director of emerging markets at Medley Global Advisors in New York, said in e-mailed comments. “In recent weeks a series of new indictments were unveiled that implicated more officials, directly impacting the process of appointments at the Supreme Military Council.”

The resignations followed a series of meetings in Ankara between Kosaner, Erdogan and Gul to discuss promotions at the council meeting.

Erdogan was pushing to block the promotions of the generals and admirals, who were jailed as part of the coup plot trials and force their retirement, according to a report in Cumhuriyet newspaper on July 5. None of them has been convicted.

--With assistance from Emre Peker in Diyarbakir and Linda Shen and Fergal O’Brien in London and Mark Bentley in Ankara. Editors: Tasneem Brogger, Benedikt Kammel.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ercan Ersoy in Istanbul at eersoy@bloomberg.net Steve Bryant in Ankara at sbryant5@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net. John Fraher at jfraher@bloomberg.net.

Pentagon, CIA open targets for crippling attack? Country’s electrical grids, power plants may also be unprotected

By Aaron Klein

Is the U.S. government, including the CIA and Pentagon, an open target for a crippling cyberattack?

Are the country’s major industries, such as electrical grids and nuclear facilities, properly protected for the looming, major threat of cyber terrorism?

There are multiple developments indicating the Obama administration has been slow to shore up critical infrastructure, which may be ripe for attack in a new age of cyber warfare.

Just last week, U.S. cyber security chief Randy Vickers (above) resigned following a string of cyber attacks on the websites of various U.S. government agencies.

Earlier this month it was reported 24,000 Defense Department files were lifted from the Pentagon in a hack attack by what was believed to be a foreign group.

Also, recent months witnessed several high-profile hacker attacks against the Pentagon and public websites such as the CIA and U.S. Senate.

Vickers abrupt departure was the second high-profile resignation from the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber security department in the past few months. Philip Reitinger, the top cyber official for the department, resigned in May.

There have been six different directors of the DHS’s cyber department in the past seven years.

Colleagues of a former department director, Mischel Kwon, told the Washington Post in 2009 that Kwon resigned that year because she was frustrated by bureaucratic obstacles and a lack of authority to fulfill her mission.

In March 2009, another Homeland Security cybersecurity official, Rod Beckstrom, resigned, citing a lack of support inside the agency and what he claimed was a power grab by the National Security Agency.

Earlier this week, government officials testified before a U.S. House Subcommittee that the country has been slow to beef up its IT security despite numerous known threats,

The hearing reportedly also examined the Obama administration’s progress in safeguarding private-sector networks that are considered part of the country’s critical infrastructure, such as the electric grid and nuclear power plants, against cyber-threats.

Gregory Wilshusen, the director of information security issues at the Government Accountability Office, told lawmakers the administration has implemented only two of 24 recommendations from the president’s cyber-space policy review.

Sean McGurk, director of the National Cyber-security and Communications Integration Center at the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber-division, warned during the hearings the nation’s critical industries may be open to Stuxnet, the worm that reportedly crippled some of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Stuxnet works by infiltrating systems run by Siemens. McGurk noted there are approximately 300 critical U.S. infrastructure companies using the Siemens systems that the Stuxnet worm could compromise.

President Bush in 2008 stepped up efforts to combat cyber warfare by creating a new agency to deal with the threat.

Roger Cressey, a former Bush administration official stated at the time Bush’s creation of a new coordinating group on cyber-security “reflects a concern that government networks have been compromised at an unprecedented level.”

“The very fact that the president signed a cyber-security presidential directive in the last year of his administration reflects that the current approach the government is taking is not working,” Cressey said.

Meanwhile, under the Obama administration, the new coordinated body was folded into the Homeland Security Department.

According to a White House cyber-security proposal, the Department of Homeland Security would take the lead role in protecting non-military networks such as power grids and transportation networks.

Last week, WND reported an elite team of computer technicians assembled by the Obama administration to protect Pentagon networks from cyberattack shockingly includes a former Clinton official who “lost” thousands of archived emails under subpoena and who more recently left the Department of Homeland Security under an ethical cloud related to her qualification.

The Obama administration in May delivered a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy to Congress.

The White House also released its International Strategy for Cyberspace, which details a U.S. strategy to foster international cybersecurity cooperation.

Hundreds of Al Qaeda gunmen kill at least 7 in rampage through Sinai town

In a Taliban-style raid, at least 150 masked, uniformed al Qaeda gunmen rode into the Sinai capital of El Arish on pickups and motorcycles Friday, July 29, shooting up the desert town with heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and automatic rifles. Before they rode out six hours later, at least seven people were killed, and upward of 30 injured.

Egyptian police and troops pulled back to their fortified station as terrified citizens of this desert town of 150,000 inhabitants fled the rampage. At least two of the dead were Egyptian civilians, a man of 70 and a 13-year old boy shot while take a cell phone picture.

debkafile's military sources report that round about 1800 hours, the assailants split into two groups, one keeping up the street attacks, the other heading for the police station.

Witnesses said the masked gunmen were not local because they lost their way several times and asked for directions to the police station. They then attacked the building with rockets and a battery of five mortars - the first time al Qaeda in Sinai is known have procured mortars, setting a police armored truck and other vehicles on fire. Rather than capturing the police station, the gunmen appeared concerned to keep the police pinned down in a shootout and to prevent from interfering with the deliberate occupation of the town.

The Egyptian news agency reported an Egyptian lieutenant colonel and captain died in the shootout . The number of dead and injured may be higher than reported. Two military planes were sent out from Cairo to evacuate the casualties.
After nightfall the gang withdrew to central Sinai.
El Arish townsmen are convinced that the black-uniformed jihadis, having demonstrated that they can't be stopped, will be back and next time, stay to proclaim Sinai a Muslim caliphate.

debkafile notes that El Gorah, 20 kilometers to the west, houses the international MFO established there nearly three decades ago to monitor the Sinai demilitarization provisions of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty. Attached to the force are 1,000 troops, most of them American and Canadian marines.
This command center has been on supreme alert for an al Qaeda threat for seven months. Since President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown, Hamas, al Qaeda and Bedouin gunmen have been running riot through Sinai, while Egyptian security officers stay holed up in their bases.
Israeli forces deployed the length of the Egyptian border likewise stood aside while El Arish was occupied and terrorized by al Qaeda. According to debkafile's counter-terror sources, none of the Egyptian, Israeli or American intelligence agencies monitoring the desert peninsula were prepared for al Qaeda to raise a force of hundreds of men, oufit them with uniforms, heavy arms and vehicles and train them in the military skills and disciplines required for capturing a complete town two and-a-half hours drive from Tel Aviv and five hours from Cairo.

Until July 29, al Qaeda in Sinai was believed to be no more than a handful of cells mostly working with local Bedouin dope and arms smuggling rings. None suspected them of acquiring quasi-military competence.

This evaluation will have to be urgently revised now that the Egyptian authorities have lost their grip on Sinai. The lawlessness reigning today in this strategic territory, which abuts on Israel, the Red Sea and Suez Canal, is cause for Israeli and US alarm.

Terrorism Against Israel More Justified Than Terrorism Against Norway?Terrorism Against Israel More Justified Than Terrorism Against Norway?

Terrorism Against Israel More Justified Than Terrorism Against Norway?By Alan M. Dershowitz

In a recent interview, Norway’s ambassador to Israel has suggested that Hamas terrorism against Israel is more justified than the recent terrorist attack against Norway. His reasoning is that “we Norwegians consider the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel.” In other words terrorism against Israeli citizens is the fault of Israel. The terrorism against Norway, on the other hand, was based on “an ideology that said that Norway, particularly the Labor Party, is foregoing Norwegian culture.” It is hard to imagine that he would make such a provocative statement without express approval from the Norwegian government.

I can’t remember many other examples of so much nonsense compressed in such short an interview. First of all, terrorism against Israel began well before there was any “occupation.” The first major terrorist attack against Jews, who had long lived in Jerusalem and Hebron, began in 1929, when the leader of the Palestinian people, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, ordered a religiously-motivated terrorist attack that killed hundreds of religious Jews—many old, some quite young. Terrorism against Jews continued through the 1930s. Once Israel was established as a state, but well before it captured the West Bank, terrorism became the primary means of attacking Israel across the Jordanian, Egyptian and Lebanese borders. If the occupation is the cause of the terror against Israel, what was the cause of all the terror that preceded any occupation?

I was not surprised to hear such ahistorical bigotry from a Norwegian ambassador. Norway is the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel country in Europe today. I know, because I experienced both personally during a recent visit and tour of universities. No university would invite me to lecture, unless I promised not to discuss Israel. Norway forbids Jewish ritual slaughter, but not Islamic ritual slaughter. Its political and academic leaders openly make statements that cross the line from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, such as when Norway’s foreign minister condemned Barak Obama for appointing a Jew as his chief of staff. No other European leader would make such a statement and get away with it. In Norway, this bigoted statement was praised, as were similar statements made by a leading academic.

The very camp that was attacked by the lone terrorist was engaged in an orgy of anti-Israel hatred the day before the shooting. Yet I would not ever claim that it was Norway’s anti-Semitism that “caused” the horrible act of terrorism against young Norwegians.

The causes of terrorism are multifaceted but at bottom they have a common cause: namely, a belief that violence is the proper response to policies that the terrorists disagree with. The other common cause is that terrorism has often been rewarded. Norway, for example, has repeatedly rewarded Palestinian terrorism against Israel, while punishing Israel for its efforts to protect its civilians. While purporting to condemn all terrorist acts, the Norwegian government has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism as having a legitimate cause. This clearly is an invitation to continue terrorism.

It is important for the world never to reward terrorism by supporting the policies of those who employ it as an alternative to reasonable discourse, diplomatic resolution or political compromise.

I know of no reasonable person who has tried to justify the terrorist attacks against Norway. Yet there are many Norwegians who not only justify terrorist attacks against Israel, but praise them, support them, help finance them, and legitimate them.

The world must unite in condemning and punishing all terrorist attacks against innocent civilians, regardless of the motive or purported cause of the terrorism. Norway, as a nation, has failed to do this. It wants us all to condemn the terrorist attack on its civilians, and we should all do that, but it refuses to live by a single standard.

Nothing good ever comes from terrorism, so don’t expect the Norwegians to learn any lessons from its own victimization. As the ambassador made clear in his benighted interview, “those of us who believe [the occupation to be the cause of the terror against Israel] will not change their minds because of the attack in Oslo.” In other words, they will persist in their bigoted view that Israel is the cause of the terrorism directed at it, and that if only Israel were to end the occupation (as it offered to do in 2000-2001 and again in 2007), the terrorism will end. Even Hamas, which Norway supports in many ways, has made clear that it will not end its terrorism as long as Israel continues to exist. Hamas believes that Israel’s very existence is the cause of the terrorism against it. That sounds a lot like the ranting of the man who engaged in the act of terrorism against Norway.

The time is long overdue for Norwegians to do some deep soul searching about their sordid history of complicity with all forms of bigotry ranging from the anti-Semitic Nazis to the anti-Semitic Hamas. There seems to be a common thread.

‘Sharia-Controlled Zones’ Sweep UK

Only days after a deranged Anders Breivik claimed creeping Islamization of Norway as an excuse for cold-bloodedly murdering 76 people, the majority of which were children, a group of British Muslim extremists have seemingly mocked the tragedy by hanging bright yellow posters in several London boroughs declaring them “Sharia-controlled zones.”

One has to wonder about the timing.

Pasted on bus stops and street lamps, the posters have appeared in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham. The message they convey is that there is to be “no gambling,” “no music or concerts,” “no porn or prostitution,” “no drugs or smoking” and “no alcohol” in the areas where the posters are displayed. The warning at the top reads: “You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.” The messages are going up in both Muslim and non-Muslim-majority areas and are expected to appear country-wide.

“We now have hundreds, if not thousands of people up and down the country willing to go out and patrol the streets for us,” said Anjem Choudary, 41, the Muslim “preacher” claiming responsibility for the poster campaign.

A former lawyer, Choudary says that besides addressing “the sort of thug life attitude you get in British cities,” the campaign’s goal is also “to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.” Choudary heads the banned radical Islamist group Islam4UK and has advocated for a Sharia-ruled Great Britain.

Choudary has a long association with radical Islamic politics in Britain. He was the co-founder of the Salafist group al-Muhajiroun (“the emigrants”) with Omar Bakri Mohammed. Bakri, a Lebanese citizen, once headed Great Britain’s Sharia law court and was prohibited from returning to Britain from Lebanon in 2005. The British government banned al-Muhajiroun last year.

Choudary also has a record for provocative behaviour. He once called the 9/11 terrorists “magnificent martyrs” and said the 2005 London subway bombings had been only “a matter of time.” He has also called for the execution of Pope Benedict, saying the Catholic leader had insulted Islam.

But Choudary is probably best known for a statement he made on a British television show after the interviewer suggested he should move to a country that already had Sharia law if he did not like Great Britain. Enraged, Choudary told the interviewer: “Who told you … that Great Britain belonged to you. The country belongs to Allah! If I were to move to the jungle, I would also not live there like the animals.”

One of the London areas targeted by the poster campaign, Tower Hamlets, has also seen “gay-free zone” warnings pasted on its walls in recent months, as well as women threatened by Islamists if they were not wearing headscarves. As a result of his extremist views, Choudary has received little support from Great Britain’s mainstream Muslim groups.

In a way, Choudary’s Sharia poster campaign is similar to the plan a Muslim group in America had to build a mosque at Ground Zero. With the Ground Zero mosque, the location was very suspect, while with the sharia posters, it is the timing. The possibility of a connection between the posters and the Norwegian tragedy may or may not exist, but the cultural and spiritual insensitivity of both initiatives, however, is great, especially with respect to the Ground Zero mosque plan.

But in the case of the poster campaign, just when Europe — and the rest of the world for that matter — is trying to come to grips with the senselessness of Norway’s tragedy, to promote Sharia law so soon after the event, whether deliberately or not, and claim it is part of a long-term plan to turn Great Britain into an Islamic state, is as unfeeling as it gets. Indirectly, with their posters the British Islamists are supporting Breivik’s evil, indicating his analysis was essentially correct concerning both the Islamization of Europe and multiculturalism. After all, the Sharia posters are obviously not an enlightened multicultural exchange.

Columnist Thomas Sowell described the planned mosque at Ground Zero as a big middle finger being given to America. The same can be said about the poster initiative vis-à-vis the Norwegian massacre. There is a human impulse to commiserate with Norwegians at this time, but the Sharia posters are not only devoid of compassion but also strike at our basic human sensitivity. And it is useless to think the Islamists will ever stop to think about some of these things. They have long used our tolerance to promote their intolerance and now are using our sense of decency and compassion against us to mutilate our world. Perhaps the more important question concerning this matter is why the community of moderate Muslim leaders is not condemning this offensive behaviour?

To their credit, the British police are investigating the posters with the intention of prosecuting the people who put them up. Part of the reason is to prevent any escalation. If Choudary’s Islamist thugs are allowed to walk the streets and enforce Sharia rules, frightening and intimidating people, the police know it would only be a matter of time before there would be a very unpleasant counter-reaction.

Ironically, because of the Oslo massacre Choudary says he is organizing a march against the English Right. Never ones to miss an opportunity, it is obvious that Islamic extremists like him will now cynically use the Oslo tragedy to deflect attention away from their own extremism.

“The Muslim community needs to be vigilant,” he said. “There is an undercurrent against Islam. I do believe a Norway-style attack could happen here.”

Contrary to Choudary’s belief, a Norway-style attack has already taken place in Great Britain. The 2005 London subway bombings by Islamic extremists took 52 lives and injured more than 700 people. Therefore, due to this home-grown tragedy, perhaps the most fitting prohibition symbol Choudary could put on his posters is one of a crossed-out bomb.

Obama's ‘Balanced’ Approach By Thomas Sowel

| Barack Obama's political genius is his ability to say things that will sound good to people who have not followed the issues in any detail — regardless of how obviously fraudulent what he says may be to those who have. Shameless effrontery can be a huge political asset, especially if uninformed voters outnumber those who are informed.

President Obama's big pitch in his Monday night televised talk was that what is needed to deal with the national debt crisis is a "balanced" approach — not just spending cuts but revenue increases as well.

What could sound more reasonable — especially to those who have not been following what Obama has actually been doing and not doing? This is the same Barack Obama who, earlier this year, called for a "clean" increase in the national debt ceiling.

In this context, the soothing word "clean" referred to an increase in the national debt ceiling without any provisos. That is, no spending cuts at all. In other words, a blank check to keep spending. How balanced is that?

Another word that sounds good to people who don't stop and think is "fair." President Obama says that he only wants the wealthiest Americans to pay their "fair share." But he says zilch about just what that fair share is, or even how to determine it.

Is the "fair share" of the top 10 percent of income-earners 20 percent of all taxes? 40 percent? 60 percent? Those who talk about paying a "fair share" of taxes don't want to be pinned down.

This is another blank check that Obama wants. "Fair share" in plain English means "more," regardless of how large a share of all income taxes is already being paid by a fraction of the population, while nearly half pay no income taxes at all.

	RECEIVE LIBERTY LOVING COLUMNISTS IN YOUR INBOX … FOR FREE!
	Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

What President Obama says may not make any sense if you stop and think about it — which he of course assumes that most people will not do. But that does not mean that he is a confused man. He is crystal clear in what he is doing, however confusing his words may be to others.

At the heart of the political games being played in Washington is taking credit and putting blame on the other guy. That is the game that Obama played flawlessly in his speech.

It began by referring to the increased government spending that had been going on for a decade — in other words, before Barack Obama reached the White House. It is true that President George W. Bush had a record amount of deficit spending. But what is also true is that President Obama's deficit spending has broken Bush's record.

While Obama seldom misses an opportunity to blame his problems on the situation he inherited from President Bush, he says nothing about all the hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus money he inherited from the Bush administration. Incidentally, this "stimulus" money did not do any more stimulating under George W. Bush than under Barack H. Obama.

Nevertheless, Obama is an accomplished master at playing the blame game. Having gotten all the political credit for the money he has showered on his favorites from coast to coast, he now seeks to share the blame for the resulting financial crisis with Republicans, by maneuvering them into a position where they have to help solve the debt crisis that Obama created.

He has done this in great part by simply speaking of spending cuts mostly in the abstract, leaving it to the Republicans to be specific, and thus have them face the wrath from the constituencies who support the programs they want to cut.

However one might criticize President Obama's policies in terms of their effect on the American economy, those policies can turn out to be very successful in the terms that matter most to him — namely, his own re-election.

A Washington Post-ABC poll shows that while 52 percent of the public disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy, 65 percent disapprove of the Republicans' handling of it.

The Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2006 elections. Whether the Republicans' ideas are good, bad or indifferent, they have not been able to pass economic legislation — or any other kind of legislation — for more than four long years.

Yet Obama is still ahead in the blame game.

Oy Vey! Look what news media doing now with Glenn Beck…

TEL AVIV — Scores of major news media outlets published pictures of Glenn Beck in Israel while reporting on the radio host’s seemingly unrelated controversial comments regarding a Norwegian summer camp that was the site if a shooting massacre last week.

In a radio segment Monday morning on “The Glenn Beck Program,” the former Fox News star described the deadly attack “as a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. I mean who sends their kids to a political camp?”

Beck was referring to the shooting last week allegedly carried out by Anders Behring Breivik at a Norwegian Labor Party youth camp, killing at least 68 people, many teenagers, and wounding 66.

It was the second attack blamed on Breivik that day. He is also accused of exploding a car bomb in downtown Oslo, near the offices of the Prime Minister of Norway and several other governmental buildings. The explosion killed eight people and wounded 26.

Beck’s remarks about the summer camp received a significant amount of news media coverage.

Some major media outlets reporting on the comments published images of Beck in Israel even though none of the reports mentioned the Jewish state.

Beck visited the Israel earlier this month to address the Knesset, the country’s parliament. On Aug. 24, Beck is planning a rally in Israel called “Restoring Courage.” The event is purportedly a follow up to Beck’s massive “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington DC last summer.

The LA Times published an article entitled, “Glenn Beck hits ‘new low’; compares Norway victims to Hitler Youth.” Splashed across the top is a picture of Beck sitting in front of two Israeli flags.

The photo has no caption. No explanation is given as to why the particular image of Beck was used. Thousands of images of Beck are readily available.

The same picture accompanied CNN.com posting entitled, “Overheard on CNN.com: Beck’s camp comments appalling.”

The CNN blog post didn’t mention Israel. Even the photo’s caption did not explain the choice of an image that included Israeli flags.

The caption stated, “Glenn Beck is taking heat for comparing the Norwegian summer camp, run by the Labour Party and where most of the 76 victims in the terror attacks died, to the Hitler Youth organization.”

USA Today published a similar image in its article titled, “Glenn Beck compares Norwegian victims to ‘Hitler Youth’”

However, in the image used, there is only one Israeli flag and it is less visible. The photo bears no caption.

Reporting “Glenn Beck says Norway camp like ‘Hitler Youth,’” Newsday, meanwhile, used an Associated Press image of Beck with a caption stating the photo depicts Beck gesturing as he speaks in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

CBS News.com took an alternative route altogether, using a picture of Beck addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Feb. 20, 2010. The CBS piece was titled, “Glenn Beck criticized for comparing Norway victims to “Hitler Youth”

On his radio program yesterday, Beck defended his remarks, implying he didn’t mean to draw an exact comparison between the Hitler Youth and the Norwegian political camp.

“If we’re living in a society where we can’t say X in the same paragraph as Y and not be told we are comparing it…we are going to be a society of gas chambers,” Beck stated.

The Hitler Youth was a paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party comprised of teens and preteens that existed from 1922 to 1945.

No Prizes for Erdogan CarolineGlick.com

Shortly after Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recip Erdogan came to power in 2002, he began undermining Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. Erdogan officially ended the alliance last May when he sent the IHH, an al Qaeda-aligned, Turkish NGO affiliated with his Islamist AKP Party to lead the pro-Hamas flotilla to Gaza.

Aboard the Mavi Marmara, IHH members violently attacked IDF naval commandos who boarded the ship in order to prevent it from breaking Israel's lawful maritime blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coast. In the life and death battle that ensued, nine of the IHH assailants were killed.

By attempting to break Israel's lawful blockade, passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara and the rest of the ships in the flotilla were engaged in illicit acts of war against the Jewish state and providing illicit aid and comfort to an illegal terrorist organization. In supporting and arguably organizing the flotilla, including the Mavi Marmara, Erdogan himself was waging an unlawful war against Israel.

Erdogan reacted to the Mavi Marmara incident with enraged indignation. He demanded that Israel apologize for its commandos' actions and pay compensation to the families of the dead. He also demanded an international inquiry into Israel's actions.

Answering his call, the UN set up a commission to investigate last year's flotilla episode. The report has been ready since May. But its publication has been repeatedly delayed. According to media accounts of its findings, the UN commission agrees that Israel's blockade of Gaza is legal. It also claims that the naval commandos used disproportionate force in fending off the Mavi Marmara passengers' assault against them.

In a bid to salvage Turkey's ties to Israel and so increase waning Congressional support for Turkey, the Obama administration has been mediating talks between Israel and Turkey for the past few months. According to news reports, the administration is now pressuring Israel to agree to Erdogan's demand for an apology and to pay compensation to the families of those killed onboard the Mavi Marmara. The U.S. is also demanding that Turkey agree not to press damages or war crimes claims against Israeli personnel in international or other courts.

Given President Obama's expressed admiration and support for Erdogan, it makes sense that he is pushing this position. But the question remains, why is Turkey insisting that Israel apologize and pay damages for the IDF's lawful actions on the Mavi Marmara? What is he trying to achieve? And what would be the consequences if Israel were to bow to U.S. pressure and apologize?

There are two explanations for Erdogan's behavior. First, there is the issue of honor, which plays such a prominent role in Islamic society. He views the Mavi Marmara incident in the context of honor politics. And he demands an apology from Israel in order to increase his honor and diminish Israel's.

Most of Israel's objections to Erdogan's demand to date have centered around this issue. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon have cited this as the primary reason for refusing to apologize.

But while unpleasant, honor is probably not Erdogan's main rationale for pursing his demand for an Israeli apology. Since he was reelected to serve a third term as prime minister last month Erdogan has been openly seeking to establish a neo-Ottoman Turkish hegemonic position in the Arab world.

To this end he has been actively interfering in the popular revolt against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. The IHH has been hosting Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey. Erdogan's clear aim is to replace Iran as Syria's overlord in a post-Assad Syria.

Erdogan has also been actively engaging Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood since the overthrow of former president Hosni Mubarak in February. Erdogan plans a high profile visit to Egypt in the near future. And he plans to end his visit to Egypt by crossing the Egyptian border with Gaza. There he will become the highest-level foreign leader to visit Gaza since the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood Hamas took over in 2007.

As far as Erdogan is concerned, if he gets the U.S. to force Israel to apologize, it will be a massive public relations coup in his bid to convince the Arabs to accept his leadership. After all, Israel would be apologizing for having had the temerity to oppose the aggression of IHH terrorists engaged in an act of war against Israel. An Israeli apology would serve as proof that his double game of remaining a NATO member and carrying out aggression against Israel is the winning formula. If Israel apologizes for defending itself against Turkish aggression, Erdogan will have succeeded where the Arabs have failed.

Obviously, on the merits, Israel has no reason to apologize. And Turkish promises not to file lawsuits and war crimes complaints against Israel will have no legal weight. The Turkish pledge will not bind the relatives of the dead. And an Israeli apology and compensation will provide them with a prima facie claim that Israel admits culpability.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and senior IDF officers reportedly argue in favor of an apology, claiming the strategic alliance with Turkey is so important that Israel must be willing to swallow its pride in order to rebuild it.

This argument has apparently won over Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor. It has also caused Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to temper his honor-based rejection of the Turkish demand.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to take address Erdogan's second, and more strategically significant motivation of using Israeli humiliation to strengthen his image as a pan-Islamic leader.

That motivation gives lie to the notion that Erdogan has any interest in reinstating Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. The man who is cultivating Hamas in the PA, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, is not going to permit the Israeli Air Force to renew its training flights over Turkish airspace.

Erdogan is not going to share intelligence with Israel on Iran. He will not cooperate with Mossad agents along Turkey's border with Iran or Syria.

Instead he will use his ability to humiliate Israel and curb its military operations to demonstrate to the Muslim Brotherhood that it should accept Turkey's role as regional hegemon and operate under its wings.

Moreover, Israel can fully expect that under Erdogan, Turkey will share any intelligence information Israel provides with the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that any intelligence information Turkey transfers to Israel to be of limited value.

The UN announced on Sunday that it was delaying the publication of its report on the Mavi Marmara for another month. The expectation is that Israel will bow to Turkish and U.S. pressure and apologize and so obviate the need for the report to ever see the light of day.

Given the true stakes involved, Israel must stick to its guns and say no apology, no compensation, and no political prize for Erdogan.

Originally published in The Jewish Press.

Posted on July 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM

© 2011 Caroline Glick

California Counties Reel From Tax Hit

SAN ANDREAS, Calif.—Declining home prices are starting to slam California harder than the rest of the nation, in part due to a state law that sets a ceiling—but no floor—on property taxes.

The toll is evident here in Calaveras County, a largely rural area about 100 miles east of San Francisco. Over the past three years, it has seen among the biggest property-tax roll declines of any California county, with the total value of taxable properties down about 5% from last year—and 18% over the past three years—to $5.67 billion. Statewide, assessed values declined 1.8% last year from a year earlier, according to state data.

Calaveras's shrinking property taxes have resulted in cuts to the sheriff's department and public-health services, as well as an effort to cut 10% of the county's budget for the coming year. The tax drop also has pitted the county assessor, who has lowered taxes by re-evaluating home prices, against the head of the county board of supervisors, who said the reassessments have been too aggressive.

"We're getting cremated" by the decline in property taxes, said Tom Tryon, chairman of the board of supervisors.

Calaveras's situation shines a spotlight on the unintended consequences of California's property-tax law. While many counties nationwide have offset property-tax declines by raising tax rates, a 1978 California law dubbed Proposition 13 prohibits that practice in the Golden State. The law caps property taxes at about 1% of a home's value and forbids major tax increases unless a home is sold or rebuilt, though it permits taxes to go down if a home's value drops.

As a result, while local governments in Washington, Maine, Hawaii and elsewhere recently raised property-tax rates to compensate for home-value declines, California doesn't have that option. It can take years for a California county to recover from a short-term decline in property-tax revenue, because tax revenue doesn't go up until home prices rise and many properties are sold.

Nationwide, property taxes make up about 45% of local-government revenue, according to Nathan Anderson, an economics professor at the University of Illinois.

They have become a pivotal source of funding for local governments as other revenue sources dried up, said Mr. Anderson, who studies property taxes.

Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank in Los Angeles, said there were "pros and cons with Prop 13." While the measure has succeeded in its goal of protecting senior citizens on fixed incomes from big tax increases due to rising real-estate values, he said, people didn't expect California property prices would drop for a long period, and therefore didn't foresee the problems in counties suffering from declining property values.

Counties across the state are now grappling with Prop 13's fallout. Central California's Stanislaus County saw its property-tax roll—the cumulative value of assessed properties—fall 4.7% this year and 21% over the past four years. It levied $447 million in property taxes last year, down 11.6% from two years earlier.

In San Diego County, property-tax levies in 2010 fell by more than $100 million to $3.96 billion—the first year-over-year decline in more than a decade.

In Calaveras, declining property values and property taxes have put Leslie Davis in the hot seat. Since being elected the county's tax assessor last year, she has been fielding calls from residents who said their taxes were too high because their homes were assessed at prebust values.

Under state law, assessors are supposed to re-evaluate homes to make sure they are being taxed at a fair rate. So Ms. Davis sent employees to re-evaluate home prices, which generally had gone down.

That caused consternation among other officials, who were struggling with state budget cuts and a county unemployment rate of more than 15%.

Budgetary woes continue to plague local agencies that depend on direct tax support for their operations," the county's civil grand jury, an investigative arm of the court system, wrote in a June report.

The county's board of supervisors, led by Mr. Tryon, said it will have to cut services such as sheriff patrols.

He has criticized Ms. Davis's reassessments, saying they are too aggressive. "All we live on in this county is basically property tax," Mr. Tryon said, adding that assessors "have a lot of discretion, and [Ms. Davis has] used hers in a way that's devastated the county."

Ms. Davis said she is just doing her job. "The law requires me to reassess," she said.

Write to Justin Scheck at justin.scheck@wsj.com

Obama’s Anti-American Love Fest

This past week saw the President of the United States finding solace within an audience of anti-American activists who have openly called for the dismantling of the American government. Birds of a feather indeed…

When I initially viewed the video footage of Barack Hussein Obama speaking before a group of La Raza members – those anti-American Hispanic activists who have long advocated an aggressive challenge to some of the most fundamental aspects of U.S. sovereignty, I found the moment a bit absurd. It was yet another seeming gaffe by a president prone to repeated public mishaps time and time again. Anyone still insistent that President Obama is a man possessing either intellect or common sense are themselves a member of the blind following the blind club.

Once that initial disappointment of having an American president speak to such a group settled in though, the more troubling realization of what Obama did, has been doing, and likely further intends to do, more fully developed within me. In 2008, due to a combination of Bush-fatigue, a worsening economy, and a barrage of media induced pro-Obama frenzy, American voters placed into the White House a man of shockingly limited leadership experience. All of the multiple faults of the man were either ignored or spun as positives, such as Obama’s years as a “community organizer” – one who basically shakes down corporations for money, the kind of shakedown in fact that greatly led to the economic collapse of 2008 via the easy-money-houses-for-the-poor policies so strongly advocated by liberal Democrats over the course of decades of terribly misguided and irresponsible do-goodism. In 2008 candidate Obama slipped up a few times, revealing his belief in “spreading the wealth” and “fundamentally transforming” America. Information seeped out about his views on the American Constitution as being a “fundamentally flawed document”. Such errors were quickly swept under the rug by a highly cooperative media though. Nothing to see here folks – just move along.

Now this past week we have President Obama on two separate occasions complaining of the American system of government. It seems the implied constitutional powers of President of the United States are not enough for this part-time Senator and former community organizer. That indeed, as he stated in the past, the essence of the American government is “fundamentally flawed.” Damn those checks and balances. Damn any who would limit the seemingly voracious appetite this president has for unlimited power. During the Obamacare debates, when Obama enjoyed strong majorities in Congress, he repeatedly denounced his Republican counterparts at every turn, demanding they “get out of the way”, and “sit in the back of the bus”. When voters in turn rebuked Obama’s policies by overwhelmingly supporting Republican candidates in 2010, the president pouted, complained, and played golf. Lots and lots of golf.

Which brings us to President Obama’s complaints against America as he speaks to La Raza – a group well known for its anti-American activism. A group whose very title means “the race”- as in the Master Race. This same group that gets millions in American taxpayer dollars to help fight a battle against…the American taxpayer. Such wicked irony, yes? Reports earlier this year detailed how La Raza waged war against local school boards in demanding their version of what is called “Mexican-American Studies” be taught in public schools. (In some cases taught exclusively in Spanish – no English speaking students need apply.) When some parents learned of the content of this course – namely its strong anti-American sentiment, they were understandably outraged to learn of their tax dollars being used to teach Hispanic students to hate America. La Raza views Americans descended from Europe as “squatters”, and likens those who wish for protected American borders as being akin to Nazis. According to La Raza, North America is “our continent”.

And so it is to this group the current American president so recently spoke to and complained about the very stystem he took an oath to both uphold and defend. Barack Obama expressed a desire to, in essence, be an absolute power dictator…“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Taken alone, the comment might appear somewhat harmless. The fact though that it was basically the same complaint and desire the president had voiced days earlier, only this time voicing it to a group of people who desire to see America’s authority dismantled, lends the words of President Obama a far more troubling and sinister tone.

Watch the video of the president’s comments, and remind yourself as you do so that he is speaking to those who would denounce white America as racist, squatters, criminals, Nazis, and the system created by the Founding Fathers as being in essence, a criminal document to be dismissed and ignored. In that context, this video becomes chilling…

Read more: http://socyberty.com/history/the-ulsterman-report-obamas-anti-american-love-fest/#ixzz1TJ0FPvYI

Obama’s Anti-American Love Fest

http://socyberty.com/history/the-ulsterman-report-obamas-anti-american-love-fest/

Rating the Obama, Reid, and Boehner Deficit Reduction Plans

Rating the Obama, Reid, and Boehner Deficit Reduction Plans on Mish's 10-Point Credibility Scale

Many people have asked where they can find details of what the budget cuts proposed by President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner.

Because the plans have been in a constant state of flux, and because President Obama did not release details of ongoing discussions, it has been difficult to properly analyze the credibility of the recent proposals.

However, on Monday the CBO chimed in on Boehner's latest phased-in proposal.

Dear Mr. Speaker:

As you requested, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the impact on the
deficit of the Budget Control Act of 2011, as posted on the Web site of the Committee on Rules on July 25, 2011.

...

In total, if appropriations in the next 10 years are equal to the caps on discretionary spending and the maximum amount of funding is provided for the program integrity initiatives, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about $850 billion between 2012 and 2021 relative to CBO’s March 2011 baseline adjusted for subsequent appropriation action.

As requested, CBO has also calculated the net budgetary impact if discretionary savings are measured relative to its January baseline projections. Relative to that baseline, CBO estimates that the legislation would reduce budget deficits by about $1.1 trillion between 2012 and 2021.

There you have it. Boehner has proposed a $850 billion reduction over 10 years, a minuscule $85 billion a year on a deficit of $1.4 trillion.

Bear in mind it is far worse than it looks because it is heavily back-loaded. The 2012 reduction is only $4 billion.

ZeroHedge Comments As CBO Scores Boehner's (Laughable) Deficit Cut Plan, Jay Carney Admits Obama Still Does Not Have An Actual Plan

Boehner's plan is an abysmal joke, with $4 billion in discretionary spending cuts in 2012 growing mysteriously to $111 billion by 2021, and $0 billion in debt service reduction for 2012 and 2013 (growing to $37 billion in 2021), for a combined cumulative deficit impact of $850 billion, which on a NPV basis is more like $50 billion, but at least it is a plan.

In the meantime, here is what is going on on the other side of the spectrum.

From the NRO: After bobbing-and-weaving for nine minutes, Carney [Obama's Press Secretary] finally says what everybody knows: the president won’t put his plan on paper because he doesn’t want it to become “politically charged” before a compromise can be reached. In other words, you’ve got to pass it to find out what’s in it.

$1 Trillion Budget Gimmick

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan writes about Senator Reid's Trillion-Dollar Gimmick

The $2.7 trillion debt-limit increase proposal offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid contains a $1 trillion gimmick meant to disguise the plan’s shallowness on spending cuts. Supporters of the Reid plan are measuring their savings against a baseline that assumes the continuation of surge-level spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the President has neither requested this funding nor signaled that he might request it. Instead, the President has signaled the opposite: a troop drawdown over the next few years. In other words, the Reid plan is claiming credit for “savings” that were already scheduled to occur, and for “cutting” spending that no one has requested.

Ryan's article included a humorous flashback to a March 12, 2009 article at Washington Post, Paved With Magnificent Intentions.

Writing on the credibility of Obama's budget assumptions in 2009, George Will concludes ...

Although only a small fraction of the supposedly countercyclical stimulus will be spent by the end of the year, the budget assumes that by then the economy will have perked up, and that it will grow robustly -- 3.2 percent, 4 percent and 4.6 percent -- in the next three years. Growth supposedly will cut the deficit in half -- growth and the $1.6 trillion "saved" by first assuming, and then "canceling," a 10-year continuation of the surge in Iraq.

Why, one wonders, not "save" $5 trillion by proposing to spend that amount to cover the moon with yogurt and then canceling the proposal?

Obama's Growth Estimates

• 3.2% 2009
• 4.0% 2010
• 4.6% 2011

How credible was that?

Veto Credibility

The president has vowed to veto deficit cutting legislation if it contains a balanced budget amendment or if it does not go past the 2012 elections.

How credible is that threat? The correct answer is not at all. The veto threat is nothing but hot air because Reid will see to it that such bills will never make it out of the Senate.

Whatever does make it out of the House and Senate, Obama will sign. Thus, a veto is an imaginary threat.

With that backdrop, it's time to rate the Obama, Reid, and Boehner Deficit reduction plans on a credibility scale.

10-Point Credibility Scale

1. Golden
2. Rock Solid
3. Fudge
4. Jello
5. Marshmallow
6. Cream Puff
7. Nauseous
8. Gaseous
9. Imaginary
10. Delusional

Scoring the Proposals

• Given a $1.4 trillion deficit, the latest plan from Boehner to cut a minuscule $85 billion a year (and back-loaded at that) is somewhere between nauseous and gaseous. It's no wonder that various Tea-Party members will not vote for it.


• Obama's plan is imaginary or delusional depending on whether or not the President actually believes he has a plan, when he doesn't.


• Parts of Senator Reid's plan are gaseous and the rest is clearly imaginary.


• In contrast, the gang-of-six $4 trillion deficit cutting plan has something of the consistency of Jello, fudge, or marshmallow depending on details that were never disclosed.

$4 trillion sounds like a lot but it is only $400 billion a year, while the deficit is $1.4 trillion. Thus it's tough to give that plan a rating higher than Jello, and impossible to give it a rating higher than fudge.

At this late juncture, the best one can reasonably hope for is a nauseous resolution. Unfortunately, the odds now favor something between gaseous and imaginary with delusional a distinct possibility.

The higher the score, the lower the credibility, and the better for gold.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Young Israeli "tent city" protesters ape Arab Revolt, go political

Two weeks ago, a motley group of youngish people set up a "tent city"in the high-end Tel Aviv Rothschild Boulevard to protest the unavailability of affordable housing in the city and other parts of the country. Since then, the movement, although never acquiring the same dimensions or fury, has assumed three attributes of the uprisings in Arab lands: It enjoys backstage foreign political support, some from certain circles in Washington; it is exploiting genuine popular grievances for political capital; and it wants regime change, namely, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's head on a platter.

The common features stop there: Israel's democracy is alive and kicking with an over-abundance of parties, an active opposition, an independent judiciary, full employment (falling to 5.7 percent in May) and a thriving entrepreneurial and innovative economy.
The protest movement grew out of the fragile underpinnings of that economy – an underpaid, overtaxed workforce; a professional 20-50 aged class that can't make ends meet between overpriced food, housing (rents or mortgages) and schooling for their children; no prospects of change and the widest social gap in the Western world.
A group of impatient, twenty-something Tel Avivians started out by spearheading social struggle for a bigger slice of the economic pie for the disadvantaged. Today, they have shifted into parroting political watchwords borrowed from the lexicons of the Arab Revolt and left-wing extremism.
Self-appointed organizer Dafna Lief shouted through a bullhorn that the revolution had begun. Housing was not the issue, she said, a comprehensive package of benefits must be forthcoming "at once." Another called for the market economy to be abolished along with the regime because only the tycoons benefit. Others declared there is no point in waiting another 60 years; the time for action is now, and: "Mubarak is waiting for Bibi!"

These slogans with boos, hoots and rude gestures were their response to the ambitious reform program for helping the hard-up attain cheap homes which Netanyahu sketched out in broad lines Tuesday, July 27.

He promised new legislation before the Knesset's summer recess to cut the red tape which routinely holds up building permission for five to ten years; release state land at cut-prices for 50,000 new apartments on which building will start over the next 18 months; cheap land for developers guaranteeing to pass the saving onto renters and purchasers; free state land for building 10,000 new student dorms and half-fares on public transport for students living far from universities and colleges.
Bibi believed his initiative would take the wind out of the protesters' sails. He was wrong. Their leaders accused him of divide and rule tactics and the students, the only organized, elected body represented, decided that although he was offering the best deal they had ever had, they would not break ranks with fellow protesters.

And the protesters don't talk about electons or putting forward a program for social reform. Instead, they are waging a war of attrition to keep Bibi off-balance: They plan to reject every concession he makes to their demands as spin, then come back with a new one.
Interestingly, while the media record its every move, politicians on both sides of the Knesset have tended to keep their distance from the tent city. Even social crusaders like Labor MKs Amir Peretz and Shelli Yachimovitch, are careful not to be identified with what looks like an off-the-wall fringe group before they see which way it goes.
Ofer Eini, chairman of the Histadrut Trade Unions Federation waited until Tuesday, July 26, before commenting that his members also had grievances. But he did not mention the demonstrators.
Those politicians are canny enough to grasp that if they make common cause with the nascent revolt, they could end up at the wrong end of it like Bibi.
In Egypt, the protesters got rid of Hosni Mubarak only to be stuck with a military junta with no intention of implementing promised reforms. Riots have flared up again in Tahrir Square under the slogan "They have stolen our revolution."
Israel once had model public welfare institutions which too were stolen in the 90s when public services were indiscriminately privatized by the very leaders of the day who now head the opposition and were then inspired by Bill Clinton's free global economy.
Turning the clock back is not an option. But the classes with legitimate claims are beginning to see that the Tel Aviv tent leaders have gone off on a tangent into revolutionary politics with no real social agenda beyond Bibi's removal.
The mess in the hospital and medical services today resulted from the reckless reforms of two decades ago. In between dead-end negotiations with the government, Israel's public sector doctors have been striking for 120 days for better conditions and more staff.

The Netanyahu coalition government enjoys a stable parliamentary majority. But if the protest movement gathers steam and he continues to pour out generous benefits to shut them up, the economy may start cracking. Investors will lose confidence and flee and the shekel, one of the strongest currencies today, will plummet.
The price of a sagging economy will not be paid by the banks and corporations but by the classes who are already finding it hard to eke a living.

The Tel Aviv tent movement might be more believable if it turned its ire against Israel's cartels and corporate bandits including the banks - as well as the government. But its main thrust is clearly political and points strongly to a political motive underlying its campaign.
Take a look at the timing. The tent-protesters plan to keep going through August towards a peak which they schedule to occur just before the Palestinians plan to ask for United Nations recognition of their state.
According to this scenario, the Netanyahu government is doomed to fall on the eve of the UN vote. The political havoc in Israel will persuade many countries to give their votes to the Palestinians. A new Israeli government will recognize Palestinian independence within the 1967 boundaries, reversing the Netanyahu government's firm rejection of this formula.
It is no accident that, as the Rothschild Blvd. protest gathers momentum this week, a group of Israeli ex-officers who once held high security service ranks is paying a visit Washington with a message for the Obama administration: Keep up the heat on the Netanyahu government and make him agree to Israel's withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries. One that is in the bag, the Rothschild Blvd. tent city will scatter to the four winds.

Robbers 'organise store raids on social networks'

Thieves use Facebook and Twitter to co-ordinate 'flashrob' raid of Victoria's Secret store

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018835/Facebook-Twitter-used-plan-flashrob-raid-Victorias-Secret-store.html#ixzz1TDWNFvN7

A group of men and women robbed a Victoria's Secret lingerie store after organising a 'flashmob' style robbery using Facebook and Twitter, police have revealed.

The group entered the high-end lingerie store in Georgetown, Washington, on Monday afternoon and made off with products 'within seconds' after co-ordinating the raid online.

The incident is the latest in a worrying trend of thefts through 'flashmobs' which until now were used merely to organise large-scale public dances or protests.

Police believe the 'flashrobs' are planned on Facebook and Twitter, with raiders entering stores filled with stunned customers before brazenly stealing goods directly in front of store security cameras.

Officers in Georgetown, Washington, have reported similar incidents where robbers enter stores after apparently planning the raids using social network sites.

Lt John Hedgecock, from Washington D.C. Police, told Fox News: 'They come in and they do it so fast - within a matter of seconds.

'What happened in this store probably lasted around 20 seconds.

'They go in, they distract the employees and they grab the merchandise, they are in and out.

'We have some information that they may be using some of the social media such as Facebook and Twitter to schedule an event if you will.'

During the robbery on Monday afternoon at around 2pm, two men and two women entered the store with two baby strollers, while a small child distracted staff, allowing the theft to take place.

Store owners have told how robbers show no concern for store security, and sometimes even 'pose' for cameras in the knowledge that the confusion of the flashrob means identifying them could be difficult.

Alex Brown, an employee at Georgetown Park store Riccardi, which has a dozen cameras, said: 'The people who do it don't care and sometimes pose.

Repeat offenders: Just three months ago another 'flashrob' gang made off with $20,000 of goods at a DuPont store in Washingtn

'They will stand there and look at the camera in a funny way.'

Experts believe young people get a rush from taking part in the 'flashrobs' and having the footage circulated in the media or on YouTube by police.

Scott Decker, Professor of Criminology at Arizona State University, told Fox News: 'Young people are risk takers and seeing themselves on security videos uploaded on YouTube or the news can be a thrill to them.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018835/Facebook-Twitter-used-plan-flashrob-raid-Victorias-Secret-store.html#ixzz1TDWhLTqX

No, You're Not King Sir Jackass

That was an absolute disaster for Obama.

Let us not forget that this President came into office and ran the credit card to the extent of more than $1,500 billion a year for the last two years. He continued the bankrupt policies of George Bush who did the same damn thing. He has blown money like crazy, yet has utterly refused to face the fact that there is no way he can continue to do what we've been doing with these deficits for the indefinite future.

We were told these deficits were necessary due to a crisis in 2008. But we have also been told the crisis is over. That our economy is recovering. That Wall Street is "healthy." That the banks are "ok" and "well-capitalized."

These are lies and The President knows it! The economy is a damn wreck. The banks are only "solvent" because they're lying about asset values. And Wall Street is punch-drunk - again - on cheap leverage, headed for yet another utter and complete disaster.

So now, having run smack into the Tea Party and Boehner saying "no more damnit; we're going to blow up if this crap continues!" The President now turns around and throws a temper tantrum on national television threatening the old "tanks in the streets" (effectively) if he does not get what he wants - which is yet another blank check.

Well Mr. President I want to know when the blank check demands stop!

Why? Because there's no damn money, that's why. The US Government is unable to keep doing this crap forever.

It has to stop!

In fact S&P has clearly stated that if you pull the crap you intend the downgrade you claim you're trying to avoid will come.

I know in advance it is going to suck when the deficit spending stops. I've been writing on it for more than four years and have been utterly consistent. There is no escape from the mathematical facts.

So, Mr. President, if you intend to demand this crap continue, you have the affirmative obligation to tell the American people exactly when and how this is going to stop because you are not a King, you're a President and you are subservient to the people - not the other way around.

If you can't or won't then Congress has the absolute responsibility to say NO - period - and force a balanced budget right now, since you will have, by doing so, declared that you never intend to resolve the underlying problem.

It's that simple.

Schumer And Reid: You're LIARS

It's a good thing I don't have a baseball bat - or 5-iron - handy around here, or I'd be stimulating the economy buying a new TV this afternoon.

The abovementioned clowns are, as I write this, on CNBS and basically everywhere else throwing the old blame game around again - stating that it's all the Republican's fault.

Well, here's the reality folks:

The Democrats have not agreed to actually cut spending. As in right now, today, and in FY 2012 forward. All their alleged "cuts" are to pull defense funding and nothing else, and is predicated on ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which the Democrats said they would do when Obama was inaugurated two years ago and did not. So why should we believe any of those spending reductions will happen now? If you're going to make them then make them today.

There are no specifics on discretionary spending cuts. No actual items identified.

Their final "funny math" is to presume they will get reduced interest payments, which now means they're presuming they'll have a 3% 10 year treasury rate for the foreseeable future! Well that's utter and complete crap. If the economy recovers they won't have that, and if it doesn't then they'll get the rate but won't get the tax revenues. Either way it's a lie.

The problem for the Republicans is that they haven't put forth a credible plan either. They're not talking about actually cutting spending - they too are talking about trying to jigger military "cuts" down the road along with other funny math. Even "Cut, Cap and Balance" is a scam in that it claims less than $200 billion in actual spending reductions for FY2012 and fails to identify where the actual cuts are going to come from or what baseline is being used.

May I remind everyone that the deficit for the calendar year 2010 was $1,700 billion? That is, $200 billion is immaterial and does exactly nothing toward moving the budget toward sustainability - that is, balance. Neither does $2 trillion over ten years which is that same $200 billion.

To be credible we need $700 billion in cuts for FY2012 and another $700 billion the next year, with an automatic across-the-board, no-exceptions trigger of 20% out of every program in each case if the Congress fails to perform in either year.

Horse trade all you want, but this is what you arrive at - a real $700 billion less in spending for FY2012 than you had in FY2011 inclusive of all supplementals and other gimmicks. Then you have to do it again in FY2013.

And yeah, I know this will hit the economy. That's unavoidable.

Tell the truth or get the hell out of town and let some people come into that cesspool called "Washington DC" that both can and will.

Beck likens Norway victims to Hitler Youth

On radio show, US political pundit calls terror attack "a shooting at a political camp... I mean who sends their kids to a political camp?”

Is Obama a pathological liar?

"Mendacity is a system that we live in."

- Brick, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances "rhetoric."

But across the rest of the country, plain ol' folk call 'em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you're saying is patently false, then it's a lie. Simple.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

His late-evening news conference Friday was a tour de force of flat-out, unadulterated mendacity — and we've gotten a first-hand insider's view of the president's long list of lies.

"I wanted to give you an update on the current situation around the debt ceiling," Mr. Obama said at 6:06 p.m. OK, that wasn't a lie — but just about everything he said after it was, and he knows it.

"I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations," he said.

Not so: "The White House made offers during the negotiations," said our insider, a person intimately involved in the negotiations, "and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down."

Mr. Boehner was more blunt in his own news conference: "The discussions we've had with the White House have broken down for two reasons. First, they insisted on raising taxes. ... Secondly, they refused to get serious about cutting spending and making the tough choices that are facing our country on entitlement reform."

But back to the lying liar and the lies he told Friday. "You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that theyve been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues," Mr. Obama said.

That, too, was a lie. "The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill," our insider said.

The negotiations just before breakdown called for $800 billion in new "revenues" (henceforth, we'll call those "taxes"), but after the supposedly bipartisan plan came out — and bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase.

Mr. Boehner was blunt: "The White House moved the goalpost. There was an agreement, some additional revenues, until yesterday, when the president demanded $400 billion more, which was going to be nothing more than a tax increase on the American people."

But Mr. Obama, with a straight face, continued. "We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

The truth: "Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to 'go big.' But their actions never matched their rhetoric," the insider said.

Now, Mr. Boehner and the real leaders in Congress have taken back the process. He'll write the bill and pass it along to the president, with this directive, which he reportedly said to Mr. Obama's face in a short White House meeting Saturday: "Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign."

Watching the one-third-of-a-term-senator-turned-president negotiate brings to mind a child spinning yarns about just how the living room lamp got broken. Now, though, the grown-ups are in charge; the kids have been put to bed. Ten days ago, the president warned the speaker: "Dont call my bluff."

Well, Mr. Boehner has. He's holding all the cards — and he's not bluffing.

• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Allen West, looking every inch the soldier

PLANT CITY, FLORIDA -- Conservative South Florida Congressman Allen West, looking every inch the soldier he was for 22 years, knocked 'em dead in this small city east of Tampa Saturday night.

The 400+ plus Republicans who gathered to break bread and listen to West's sermon at the Arthur Boring Civic Center here were anything but bored. No one nodded off over the peach cobbler, even though coffee was not served.

West gave a stem-winder based on conservative values and principles and a call to action to save the republic. The gathered faithful loved it. They loved West. They love what he's doing. They love the way he's doing it.

Lefty Fort Lauderdale Congresswoman Debbie Wasserperson-Schultz (D-Karate Chop), au the contraire, couldn't have gotten a single vote from this crowd for Miss Congeniality.

As even people in Kuala Lumpur must know by now, Wasserperson-Schultz (pardon the slight rearrangement of the name, but feminist etiquette must be observed, as Debbie herself would insist), Chairwomanperson of the Democratic National Committee, made some inflammatory remarks about West on the House Floor last week. She said in effect that West and conservatives who supported Cut, Cap, and Balance were stupid and venal and were not only snatching food from the mouths of widows and orphans, but were shoving them out of doctor's waiting rooms as well. They're doing this, our Debbie helpfully explained, so that they can direct more money to their rich oil and corporate patrons, just like those selfish and heartless conservatives always do.

Of course, this is abusive nonsense was nothing new for DWS. She's been making inflammatory and insulting remarks about conservatives for years -- with an uptick in frequency and intensity since she was made a Democratic poo-bah -- and paying no price for it. But this time she picked on the wrong conservative. West is a counter-puncher, and fired off an email to Wasserperson-Schultz that contains strong language, including the words "vile," "despicable," and "sophomoric." He also demonstrated a firm grasp of the obvious by asserting that Wasserperson-Schultz is "no lady." (Why anyone should take umbrage at this is a puzzle, as geek-branch feminists like Wasserperson-Schultz consider the title "lady" an insult.)

Well now, we can't have this. Under the current Vagina-Monologues rules of engagement, when a leftist woman rains down inaccurate and insulting abuse on conservatives, the only proper and allowable response is, "Yes, dear." But West, a former combat infantryman who has faced much tougher and more dangerous opponents than DWS, isn't playing this mug's game. The left-stream media are shocked, shocked that West isn't rolling over and apologizing, and have circled their pathetic wagons around their heroine.

Columnists and pundits are on OT, and will be dining out on this inelegant little dust-up for quite a while. One of the more amusing non-sequiturs to come out of this one is that West is being labeled "sexist" and a "misogynist" for daring to call out our Debbie. For alert TAS readers who may be confused by this, I've looked up "misogynist" in the "Liberal's Political Dictionary." It means disagreeing with a liberal woman.

But this unedifying episode was not what West talked about Saturday, though clearly many of the folks in attendance would have enjoyed it had he done so. West confined his remarks to the critical challenges facing America, which West described as "the most exceptional country in the history of mankind." Thanks to the political left's incontinent spending, their assaults on traditional American liberties, and their attempts to create a "social utopia" through ever-expanding government, "the light is starting to dim a little bit" on the shining city on a hill.

West called out President Obama and the U.S. Senate for not being serious about the country's current debt crisis. He said it was "heinous" that the Senate would not even debate Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation passed by the House. West said it's critical that we get our national debt below 20 percent of GDP. It's now at 24.4 percent and rising rapidly, on its way to 30-plus percent and banana-republic land at current levels of spending. After the current crisis is dealt with, West wants a balanced budget amendment to prevent us from marching back to the edge of the cliff.

"America is standing on the precipice with one leg dangling over the edge," because of the current debt and spending crisis, West said.

West says there is something downright fishy about the leftists' calls for "shared sacrifice" in the current debate. Shared sacrifice translated means raising taxes. Already, West said, the top one percent of taxpayers pay 32 percent of the nation's income taxes, the top five pay more than half, the top 20 pay 86 percent. West pointed out that already 47 percent of American wage-earning households pay no income tax at all. West worries there may be a tipping point where the entitlement class could politically dominate the productive class.

West ticked off the well-known laundry list of ways the republic is in worse shape since Obama took office: the price of gas, the unemployment rate, home values, number of people on food stamps, the crushing debt, ever increasing regulations, et al. All this, West says, is "snuffing out the entrepreneurial spirit" that is the basis of America's freedom and prosperity. In this atmosphere, West says he is not surprised that "entrepreneurs are not looking to invest."

West said the political left in this country is succeeding in making America not only more socialist, but more secular as well. Contrary to the hopes, dreams, and fervent efforts of the political and cultural left, West says America is a Judeo-Christian nation and should remain one. We should not be ashamed of conservative values.

"There's nothing wrong with believing that marriage is between one man and one woman," he said. "There's nothing wrong with trying to protect the life of the unborn."

West didn't just criticize Democrats. He pointed out that the national Republican Party lost its way for years. "The Republican Party has to regain its credibility," the colonel said. "When Republicans had the presidency and both houses of Congress they did not do what the American people sent them there to do."

All these things were what West's audience came to hear. They were on their feet numerous times to cheer. They responded when West exhorted them to get out there and block and tackle during the next election cycle. Mixing and mingling after the services it was easy to encounter the sentiment that the Allen Wests of the world represent the hope and future of the Republican Party in Florida, not the squishy establishment types that Debbie Wasserperson-Shultz has so enjoyed working with for years.