Trial by Media or the Great Show

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

In this day of instant gratification in all things is it any wonder our news media can’t wait for a criminal trial to be completed before they ask their adoring public to come in with a verdict. This morning’s question of the day on Fox was, “Who’s presented the strongest case so far in the Zimmerman trial?” Three possible answers are listed, “defense, prosecution or too soon to tell”.

On one side of our society folks are lighting torches and shouting, “the cracker’s guilty”, while looking around to see which tree is sturdy enough to use for the lynching. “That looks like a good strong limb, toss me a rope”.

Of course NBC’s only comment on the editing of material in such a way as to enflame racial tensions was to say it was an error, just a simple error.

“Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.

Capus confirmed a previous Reuters report that an internal network investigation had determined that a producer made the editing error, and that the network’s editorial controls – including senior broadcast producer oversight, script editors and often legal and standards department reviews of sensitive material to be broadcast – simply missed the selective editing of the phone call.”

If you believe that pile of male bovine excrement then perhaps it explains why you’re holding one of the torches and would have had a son who would have looked just like Treyvon; but with no hint of drugs in his system, burglary and theft or assault to commit murder, none of that’s important anyway. “Damn cracker’s gonna git whu he ga’ comin’”

On the other hand many have wondered how criminal charges were filed for Second Degree Murder against Zimmerman in the first place. Some more reasoned individuals, like Alan Dershowitz, lawyer, professor and political commentator, are perplexed about the omission of facts in the original affidavit to the filing of charges by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey

“This affidavit,” he said, “submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a crime. It’s a crime. If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Unfortunately the Zimmerman “trial”, if you can call it that, is nothing more than a mockery of our ‘fair and impartial’ judicial system, a media show put on for the masses in order to create further racial division and unrest; but why?

Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton could care less what happens as long as the media continues to ignore her part in the Benghazi cover up in which she’s a key player in the deaths of four Americans, Americans who’d pleaded for more security and never got any. Sadly, there are enough torch bearers who’d vote for Hillary at the drop of a match. Who ever said character was the most important trait for anyone aspiring to lead this nation must have been talking about days gone by; the folks we have in power now couldn’t get a job requiring a lie detector, that’s for sure.

Not to let Obama off the hook; why wasn’t assistance sent when they screamed for help while under attack. It’s amazing how much the media has permitted important stories to remain hidden in the shadows. The president is the only person with the authority to issue a “stand down” order on military issues like the one in Benghazi. So why isn’t the news media hounding Obama for answers; I forgot, they’re covering the Zimmerman trail.

The list of important stories not being kept front and center is nearly endless, stories which place the Obama administration in a bad light. The IRS scandal, EPA, Obamacare train wreck in progress, a hundred million dollar tax payer funded vacation to Africa, promising amnesty to illegal aliens without securing the borders ; oh, and don’t forget the economy headed for the toilet.

None of these stories are nearly as important to folks looking for social justice, a way to even the score for all those years of discrimination. This is their chance to get even, the reality of America; stacking the deck against Zimmerman in order to placate the ignorant angry mobs awaiting social justice. It must be the half light from those torches, mobs on their way to a lynching; that’s what’s casting a bad light on things. The great show must go on.


Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

By: Publius Huldah

If politicians introduced a bill mandating the slaughter of all human babies under the age of two years; but called it, “The Little Babies Protection Act”, establishment conservatives and unthinking people all over the Country would be clamoring for its passage.

We have become a shallow and easily deceived people. If it sounds good on the surface, we are all for it. We assume the proposal will live up to its name. 1 We don’t trouble ourselves to actually read proposals and analyze them before we clamor for passage.

The name, “parental rights amendment” (PRA), sounds so good! But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government.

In order to understand this, you must first learn about “enumerated powers”.

Enumerated Powers

When WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States, We listed, itemized – enumerated – every power WE delegated to each branch of the federal government over the Country at Large. All other powers were retained by The States or The People.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, says in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government over the Country at Large. These are the “enumerated powers” actually listed in the Constitution. 2

These enumerated powers over the Country at Large concern:

• Military defense, international commerce & relations;
• Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
• Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
• With some Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights.

It is only with respect to the “enumerated powers” that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at Large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People. 3

So! Where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government power over children and their care and upbringing? We didn’t. Accordingly, it has no lawful authority over these objects.

Thus, any federal law, treaty 4, executive order, agency rule, or court opinion which pretends to exercise such power over children is unconstitutional as outside the scope of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at Large. 5

See? This is all very simple.

So then, how does the federal government go about obtaining lawful authority over the care and upbringing of children? By means of lies, trickery and deceit:

The so-called “Parental Rights” Amendment

Let us now read it. Here it is from the website of the deceptively named, parentalrights.org:6


The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.


The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.


Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

Look at Section 3! We will go through each section. But first, two general observations:

1. Parents have Responsibilities to their children, not “rights” over them.

The Creator God who – as recognized by the Signers of our Declaration of Independence – endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. 7 Among these are:

• Provision for children: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.

• Education and moral instruction of children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17.

• Discipline of children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.

Parents are supposed to provide for, care for, teach, protect, and educate their children. NOT civil government!

2. The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts

Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, enumerates the powers of the federal courts:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

“Judicial Power” refers to the power of courts to hear and decide cases.

Amendments are part of the Constitution. Thus, federal courts have power to decide issues addressed by Amendments.

The PRA would transform “families” and “children” from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government.

The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government. Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children – and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government’s interest. If so, you lose.

Lawsuits involving these matters would become cases “arising under this Constitution”, or “Laws of the United States”, or “Treaties”, which would ultimately be decided by five (5) judges on the supreme Court. The authority of millions and millions of American parents would be transferred to five (5) judges on the supreme Court.

That Court has a long history of perverting every word of our Constitution it touches. 8 It is suicidal to transfer Family Authority to that Court.

Let us now look at each section of the PRA:

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.”

Just as the supreme Court sees the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is protected by that Amendment and what speech is not, 8 so it will see the PRA as the source of “parental rights”, and they will decide what “rights” parents have and what “rights” they do not have.

Consider also: Do the words “upbringing” or “care” in Section 1 include religious training, discipline, diet, medical treatment, and whether the child may wield a hoe in the family garden? What does it mean that these are not listed? That parents have no “rights” regarding these issues? The supreme Court will decide what it means.

Section 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

What is not included in the parental right to direct education? What is a “reasonable” choice? Who decides what is not included and what choices are “reasonable”? Federal judges decide.

Section 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

Do you understand this Section? Whatever “parental rights” you think you have will be infringed by the federal government or the State governments if they have a good reason for it. Federal judges will decide whether the federal or State governments have a good reason to infringe your “parental rights”.

Section 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.”

What? Does this mean that parents retained the “right” to make these decisions? Or does it mean that the PRA does not “protect” that right, hence parents no longer have it?

I suggest to you that federal courts will construe this section to mean that parents will no longer be permitted to make decisions about terminating or continuing medical care for their seriously ill, injured , or “defective” (Downs’ syndrome, birth defects, etc.) children.

Do not forget: We elected as President a man who supports the murder of little babies who survive abortions. 9 Is this man going to appoint federal judges who disagree with the killing of children?

Section 5: No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

The PRA does not stop the President and Senate from ratifying the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child.

NO RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE PRA! You cannot name one “parental right” which cannot be voided if the federal or state government shows federal judges that the government has an interest in voiding the right.

Further, since the PRA makes federal control of children an enumerated power, it is the PRA itself which would give the U.S. Senate constitutional authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child!

The PRA is monstrously deceitful.

Here is the PRA which has been introduced in the current Session of Congress: H.J. Res. 50

Here is a list of House sponsors of the PRA in this Session of Congress. Form delegations and go see your Representatives. Instruct them! I bet they never read it before they endorsed it.

Put Not Your Trust in Princes

People! Your blind trust in charlatans and politicians is destroying us. They pretend to be what they are not in order to deceive you. Stop flaunting your blind trust as a mark of virtue. Blind trust in humans is irresponsible – it is not a virtue. PH


1 E.g., we assume the “Balanced Budget” Amendment is about curtailing federal spending. Since we don’t look behind the name, we don’t know that the BBA is really about eliminating the enumerated powers limitation on spending & legalizing what is now unconstitutional spending.

2 See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers, the President’s Enumerated Powers, & the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts.

3 Read the Tenth Amendment!

4 parental rights.org has been using the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into believing that only the PRA can save them from the UN Declaration.

You must learn about the treaty making powers of the United States. The President and Senate may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by international treaties – they may not do by treaty what they are forbidden to do by the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates NO powers over children to the federal government, they may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by ratifying the UN Declaration. These 2 papers explain the treaty-making power.

It is the PRA which would give the federal government lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration! So the PRA is a monstrous deception.

5 Accordingly, they are proper objects of nullification.

6 Parental rights.org periodically changes the text of their proposed PRA. The version set forth herein was copied from their website during June 2013.

7 To my friends in the Ayn Rand camp: These are historical facts – the Bible says what it says and our Framers believed it. Ayn Rand had no argument with the Natural Law Principle that parents have the responsibility of raising their own children.

8 The supreme Court looked at the word, “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means “privacy”; and “privacy” means “women may kill their unborn babies”! A short time later, they looked at the same word and decided that it means, “homosexual sex is a liberty right”! Do you see? That Court treats the 14th Amendment as Marquis de Sade’s play dough.

And look at how that Court has butchered the First Amendment: That Amendment says, in part:

“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech…”

Since speech control is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large; and since all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 1); neither the Executive nor Judicial Branches have power over “speech” for the Country at Large.

Regulation of speech is reserved to the States and the People (10th Amendment). The States exercised this retained power by means of State laws against defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, etc., etc.

Yet the supreme Court treats the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is “protected” by the First Amendment and what speech is “not protected” by the First Amendment. If the former, you may say it; if the latter, you may not say it. The supreme Court has usurped power to censor our speech!

So! In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Westboro Baptists picketed, with vile and defamatory signs, the funeral of an American Soldier who was killed in action. The bereaved Father filed a lawsuit under various State Laws such as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

The Jury found for the Father and held Westboro liable for $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

But the supreme Court overturned the Jury Verdict and said that the Westboro Baptists had a “right” protected by the First Amendment to spew their malice at this young soldier’s funeral, and it mowed down the State laws which made such defamatory speech actionable.

This is how the supreme Court construes an Amendment which merely prohibits CONGRESS from making laws restricting speech!

The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large! Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools!

9 Jill Stanek is an RN who worked in the Labor & Delivery Department in an Illinois hospital where aborted babies born alive were left to die. Read her article where she proves that our President opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama wanted the babies to die. How can you put YOUR children in the hands of judges this man nominates? PH


Elusive Facts

Arlene from Israel

Well, I did write in my last posting was that “there are often conflicting reports on any given situation, so that nailing down the facts is a challenge.”

But did I have to make the case myself?

My correction today has to do with the identity of Egypt’s newly appointed interim prime minister. I wrote on the 9th that it was Samir Radwan.

But it isn’t.

I didn’t pull this name out of the air. I read on reputable English language Egyptian sites, first that he was the front runner, approved by the Islamist Nour party, and then that he had been offered the position. Silly me. I assumed that was it.

The real new interim prime minister is Hazem El-Beblawi (below). Like Radwan, he is a liberal economist and served as finance minister (although after Mubarak was brought down); he was also approved by the Nour party. He is now busy moving ahead and trying to form a government.

Perhaps most significantly, he has secured commitments of billions from Gulf states, which should serve to keep things together until a viable economic plan can be put in place.

Credit: Shorouknews


According to the NYTimes, $12 billion has come in already from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait. These are states delighted to support a counter to the brotherhood.

The Times story is actually fascinating:

“The streets seethe with protests and government ministers are on the run or in jail, but since the military ousted President Mohamed Morsi, life has somehow gotten better for many people across Egypt: Gas lines have disappeared, power cuts have stopped and the police have returned to the street.

“The apparently miraculous end to the crippling energy shortages, and the re-emergence of the police, seems to show that the legions of personnel left in place after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011 played a significant role — intentionally or not — in undermining the overall quality of life under the Islamist administration of Mr. Morsi.

“When Mr. Mubarak was removed after nearly 30 years in office in 2011, the bureaucracy he built stayed largely in place. Many business leaders, also a pillar of the old government, retained their wealth and influence.

“Despite coming to power through the freest elections in Egyptian history, Mr. Morsi was unable to extend his authority over the sprawling state apparatus, and his allies complained that what they called the “deep state” was undermining their efforts at governing.

“While he failed to broaden his appeal and build any kind of national consensus, he also faced an active campaign by those hostile to his leadership, including some of the wealthiest and most powerful pillars of the Mubarak era.”


If this report is accurate, there may be less instability inherent in Egypt’s situation than what is being described by commentators.


The US, it should be noted here, has decided it will honor its commitment to deliver four F-16 jets to Egypt in the coming weeks, part of a package of 20 jets to be supplied in total this year. The first four were delivered in February.

The deal, made originally with Mubarak in 2010, was inherited by Morsi, and is not being overturned now. Unrest in the country remains a concern, but better fighter jets in the hands of the military than a Brotherhood regime.

With this announcement, it becomes clear that the US has decided not to consider the change of regime a “coup.” There’s a great deal of facile talk about responding to the demands of the people.

Whether Egypt needed (or needs) these jets at all is another story. But it must be understood that this is part of the $1.3 billion in aid supplied to Egypt by the US: aid money allocated to Egypt is turned back to the US for the jets.


El-Beblawi is not the only one moving ahead: The Brotherhood continues to try to stir up the unrest to the maximum, while the military is playing tough, bringing charges against Brotherhood leaders.

The military is gearing up for a major operation against Islamists in the Sinai, which Israel is expected to approve. A report, based on an ostensible Egyptian security source, is being floated that the military has killed 32 Hamas gunmen who were in the Sinai. But this is not confirmed — and in fact is denied in several quarters.

Whether it’s the case or not, Hamas has clearly taken a hit in terms of support with the downfall of Morsi and the ramifications of this have yet to play out.


A rocket was launched into the area of southern Israel adjacent to Gaza this afternoon. No one was injured. There is speculation as to whether Hamas, post-Morsi, is trying to flex its muscles.


According to experts at IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review who have studied satellite imagery, Saudi Arabia has a (hitherto unknown) missile base deep in the desert, with ballistic missile launching pads that have markings pointing to Tel Aviv and to Tehran.

Seems the Saudis — who despise and fear Iran and, as a result, have increased their “discreet back channel communications” with Israel — are covering all their bases, or what they perceive to be their bases. While they are major instigators of terrorism, I do not think they are about to launch missiles on us.

A deputy editor at IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review qualified the assessment thus:

“We cannot be certain that the missiles are pointed specifically at Tel Aviv and Tehran themselves, but if they were to be launched, you would expect them to be targeting major cities. We do not want to make too many inferences about the Saudi strategy…”

The Saudi armaments are dated and it is believed an update is in process.



Here’s yet another example of the ever-elusive nature of “truth”:

Maariv has reported, — relying on “sources in Washington” — that Netanyahu “was willing to release 40 Palestinian prisoners with blood on their hands… even without any Palestinian commitment to return to the negotiating table.”

According to this report, the US and Israel have both already informed Abbas about the impending release.

However, according to Haviv Retig Gur, writing in the Times of Israel, a senior official in the prime minister’s office says this report has “no basis in reality.”


George Will has always been a savvy and literate commentator of the world scene, and I am pleased to share what he says here, in a piece called “Egypt’s preferable tyranny” (emphasis added):
“Former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi knows neither Thomas Jefferson’s advice that ‘great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities’ nor the description of Martin Van Buren as a politician who ‘rowed to his object with muffled oars.’ Having won just 52 percent of the vote, Morsi pursued his objective — putting Egypt irrevocably on a path away from secular politics and social modernity — noisily and imprudently.

“It is difficult to welcome a military overthrow of democratic results. It is, however, more difficult to regret a prophylactic coup against the exploitation of democratic success to adopt measures inimical to the development of a democratic culture.

“Tyranny comes in many flavors. Some are much worse than others because they are more comprehensive and potentially durable. The tyranny portended by Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood promised no separation of politics and religion, hence the impossibility of pluralism, and a hostility to modernity that guaranteed economic incompetence. Theologized politics, wherein compromise is apostasy, points toward George Orwell’s vision of totalitarianism — ‘a boot stamping on a human face — forever.'”



Then, please! see Harold Rhode’s important and insightful article, “Honor and Compromises in Middle East Leadership” (emphasis added):

“Why couldn’t Egypt’s deposed President Morsi admit mistakes? Why couldn’t he ‘compromise’ with the military and stay in power? And what can one learn from Morsi’s behavior about the concept of leadership in the Middle East?

“In the Middle East, leaders almost never admit that they made mistakes: doing so would bring shame…on them. Shame in the Middle East is about what others say about you — not what you think of yourself. While to some extent this is true in Western culture, in general Westerners are more susceptible to feelings of guilt, rather than shame. The Western concept of compromise — each side conceding certain points to the other side in order to come to an agreement — does not exist in the Middle East. What is paramount is preserving one’s honor…People will go to any lengths to avoid shame; they are prepared to go to jail, risk death, and even kill family members (usually females) to uphold what they perceive as their honor and that of their family. The consequences of dishonor are always permanent and always collective, often extending to the entire family and even the entire clan.

“This battle to avoid shame at all costs indicates why Morsi, Erdoğan, Saddam, Assad, Arafat, and Abu Mazen – when they either have painted themselves into a corner — or have been painted into one — can never back down.

“If our policy-makers could understand this cultural imperative, they might better be able to understand why we constantly fail to achieve our policy goals, and how better to achieve them.

“…Both Arafat and Abu Mazen, both of whom have led the Palestinian people, cannot sign any agreement with Israel to end the Israel-Palestinian conflict and recognize Israel and a Jewish state. When, at Camp David in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat 97% of everything said he wanted, Arafat jumped up and said that he could not sign such an agreement: he ‘didn’t want to have tea with Sadat’ – a reference to the Egyptian leader who had been assassinated at least partially for having signed an agreement with Israel. Arafat knew that had he signed, he would have been regarded as having backed down from a confrontation and therefore shamed; been considered a traitor by his people, and most likely killed.

“U.S. President Clinton, in a display of how little he really understood about leadership and the values of the Middle East, looked on at Arafat’s reaction in amazement. But no compromise would have been possible. Egypt, during its negotiations with Israel for the peace treaty signed in 1981, held out for 100% of what it asked for — and got it. Had Arafat gotten 100% of what we wanted, Israel would no longer exist.

“The same holds true for the Palestinian Authority’s current leader, Abu Mazen, to whom, later, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered an even better deal than had been offered to Arafat. Condoleezza Rice, like President Clinton, also looked on in amazement at Mahmoud Abbas’s reaction…

“The same condition continues to hold true today. Why Secretary of State Kerry and the Obama administration believe they can persuade Abbas to sign an agreement guaranteeing Israel’s right to exist in any form is astonishing. These leaders can lead only so long as they are not perceived as a shamed sell-out and traitor.”



Please share this far and wide, my friends, with people who require this education — particularly decision-makers.

What galls me is why people such as Clinton and Rice, who experienced astonishment at the PLO intransigence, do not stand up now and tell Americas — leaders and electorate — that negotiations are just not going to work. Bill Clinton, in particular, is a duplicitous enabler, smiling at his wife when she was secretary of state, and at Obama, when in truth he knows better. Terribly naive, I guess, to expect honesty, forthright pronouncements for the sake of the nation. They just play the game. Let’s pretend, and let’s pressure Israel.


Rhode mentions Erdogan as one of those unable to back down. Remember the Netanyahu “apology,” which distressed many of us when it was made? It had been predicted that this would bring a normalization of Israeli-Turkish relations. It has not happened and is not likely to happen.

And now Erdogan is struggling with his own (relatively low key) unrest.


Michael Oren is leaving his position as Israeli Ambassador to the US in September. He will be replaced by Ron Dermer, a very good man. Dermer has been a close advisor to the prime minister, to his right.

Credit: Jewish student leaders

Today Oren gave an interview to Haaretz; it typifies the sort of positions he’s taken that make me glad he’s leaving.

Stating that Obama is a “true friend” to Israel, he said that the president was misunderstood:

He “tried to make peace with the Arab world…This was misunderstood in Israel…

“And when an American president goes to Egypt and goes to Turkey and doesn’t come to visit us, it causes a sense of insecurity…”

Excuse me? What a gross oversimplification of the situation. Oh that I would have the time and space necessary to expand upon this.

Oren was then asked questions about Netanyahu’s readiness to go to war against Iran in spite of world objections. He said there is no escape from our responsibility as a sovereign nation to act on our own behalf. He believes the prime minister is capable of handling such a mission.

“Netanyahu now faces a Ben-Gurion-type dilemma. The question he faces is similar to the question that faced Ben-Gurion in May 1948 and the question that Levi Eshkol faced in May 1967.” [Re: whether to go to war]


And so?