The Only Game in Town

Arlene from Israel

Let me qualify this: The only viable game. I’m speaking of the Levy Report Campaign.

I’m not promoting this because I’m working on it. Quite the contrary, I am working on it because I believe it merits enormous promotion.

Why do I call it the only viable game? Because I see it as the best option for advancing Israel’s rights. It’s the hook that provides rationale for Israel’s legal grounds, and offers a basis for moving ahead so that the paradigm of thinking can be changed. No more “occupation.”

And so I will continue to talk about this, especially during these terrible times. As we progress I will ask that you inform yourselves about the Report, share information with others, and otherwise assist us.

For today, a reminder: www.facebook.com/thelevyreport. Like it, share it, promote it. And a small word of caution: Facebook has a page called “About Levy Report” that has nothing to do with us. Be careful when accessing the page.


And now, a look at these terrible times.

If I have a sense of deja vu, it’s because all that I will be writing about indeed has happened before, many times, in various permutations.

It is clear as clear can be that the gaps between the two sides (Israel and the PLO/PA) are so huge that the notion of a negotiated settlement is nothing but a figment of the imagination of those in the US government.

Three days ago, Abbas is reported to have put out his red lines on negotiations. These red lines, which do not deviate significantly from what he has been saying all along, would completely undercut what Kerry is aiming to do:

[] No recognition of Israel as a Jewish state (a Netanyahu demand)

[] No demilitarization of a Palestinian state (a Netanyahu requirement)

[] Not a single IDF soldier in the Jordan Valley (something Netanyahu insists upon)

[] Control of all of eastern Jerusalem — by which is meant everything over the Green Line; there is no “East” Jerusalem — for utilization as a Palestinian Arab capital (when Netanyahu sees Jerusalem as eternally united)



When all of the above is said and done, what is most significant is that the PLO does not want a “two state solution” that means end of conflict and end of claims. The PLO seeks Israel’s destruction, whether in stages or all at once, and nothing less.

Of course, this is all of a piece: the demands put out by PLO leaders are maximalist in part, I have no doubt, to ensure that there is no deal. The other part is the fear that Abbas harbors that his throat might be slit if he were perceived as having caved to the Jews — and I kid not here.


Add to this the fact that a concession regarding a pull back from Judea and Samaria to make way for a “Palestinian state” is not something that could be readily achieved, no matter how willing Netanyahu might be.

It would probably spell the end of his government, as the nationalists in several parties, including his own, would walk and the coalition would crumble. He likes to “play the game,” and he might well anticipate this end-result, so that he would only have to throw up his hands and say, “Gee, I’d like to, but I just can’t do this, my government will collapse.” That is, as he calculates, he might be depending on the response of his coalition.

What is more, there are some safeguards in place: a referendum would be required, for example, if the prime minister were to attempt to give away (Heaven forbid!) part of Jerusalem: and there is a strong national consensus for a united Jerusalem under full Israeli sovereignty.

One highly knowledgeable source with whom I just checked says that he believes Netanyahu will hold fast on the issue of Jerusalem — an honorable way of playing it — and that this will be a deal-breaker, no matter what else he might concede.


So what is the problem? Are we not “home free,” so to speak? Could be that we are. I fervently hope so.

According to Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian Arab negotiator, as of this past Sunday, in a statement to Al Quds Al Arabi:

“…bilateral negotiations with Israel have been frozen for weeks, and it is currently underway between the Palestinians and the Americans on the one hand and between the Americans and the Israelis, on the other hand.”



But there are these rumors that will not go away.

Keeping in mind that they ARE rumors, not confirmed directly by all parties concerned, this is what is being said:

“The United States intends to unveil a formal framework peace agreement to Israel and the Palestinian Authority by the end of the month, senior Arab League sources revealed to the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. According to these sources, cited by Israeli daily Ma’ariv on Sunday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said during a meeting of the League held over the weekend in Cairo that the Americans are trying to salvage the talks between the parties through the framework agreement…

“‘The Americans are determined to present an agreement by the end of December and have already chosen a location for the signing ceremony for the framework agreement,’ Abbas reportedly told Arab diplomats, according to Israel Hayom.”


The Palestinian Arab news agency Maan, citing Arab League sources, says this is due to happen on December 31. Gil Hoffman of the JPost says this may happen “as early as next month.”


Neither the US nor the Israeli government has confirmed this. In fact, Erekat, in the statement to Al Quds Al Arabi cited above, also said (rough translation):

“…the Americans are still confined to unwritten ideas, noting that this is within the framework of the negotiating style of the U.S. that is based on trial balloons…not written ideas, in order to see trends and test the pulse. (Emphasis added)

Trial balloons feed rumor.


According to Israel National News just days ago:

“Kerry’s staff rented 50 rooms at a luxurious Jerusalem hotel for January, in order to ‘attack’ Netanyahu and demand that he accept the US plan, reported Yidiot Aharonot on Friday.

Attack? Demand? Threaten, perhaps?

The main focus of Kerry’s demand, according to this report, would be that Israel dismantle all communities in the Jordan Valley. (More on this below.)


What we are seeing — and this is apparent on the face of it — is a persistent Kerry who refuses to pack it in, and is determined at all costs to make something happen that allows the US to appear to have achieved a diplomatic success.

Since even he must see the difficulties (read: impossibility) of attempting to finalize an agreement by April, something interim, in the way of a “framework,” might appeal to him.

Never mind that the Palestinian Arab leadership has said it would not accept an interim deal and, furthermore, would not agree to extend the time for negotiations.


For Israel, a “framework” understanding is fraught with dangers. Israel’s policy has always been that nothing is decided until everything is decided. If, for example (again, Heaven forbid), Israel says at the table, OK, in the context of a final agreement, we will agree to remove from Judea and Samaria all communities that are not part of the major settlement blocs. Then, if there is no final agreement, the PLO cannot come back to Israel and demand that she remove all communities that are not part of major blocs.

But if there is an interim agreement — a “framework” — which, by definition is not a final agreement, then what happens if Israel agrees to something?

Always, in the context of these faux negotiations, there is worry about setting precedents that will come back to haunt us later.


There are a couple of major reasons why the current situation promotes anxiety: The first can be summed up in one word: Coercion. (As in “demand” above.)

Kerry and Obama both play dirty pool. We know this. And we know that, in the interests of their own diplomatic/political interests they are quite capable of squeezing Israel and making threats. So, always, in the back of our minds is concern about what the terms are, what is being said behind closed doors.

And then the companion concern is one of Netanyahu’s resilience or lack there of: a concern about his caving under pressure. Were we confident of his ability to say NO, then there would be less anxiety.

But for all of the talk and worry, we’re not seeing a whole lot of caving at the moment.


Yesterday, it was reported that Netanyahu might condition advancing peace talks on the release of Pollard.

According to the JPost, citing a Monday night report by Channel 2 diplomatic correspondent Udi Segal:

“Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will ask US President Barack Obama to commute the life sentence of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard at a critical stage of the diplomatic talks with the Palestinian Authority…

“The Channel 2 report, which the Prime Minister’s Office would neither confirm nor deny, suggested two possible alternatives for when Netanyahu could insist on Pollard’s release: when US Secretary of State John Kerry announces his framework for concluding an agreement…or when Israel releases the final round of 26 Palestinian terrorists in April.”


We never should have agreed to release a single terrorist from prison — the entire procedure is immoral. But we seem to be on that path to continue doing so, with Netanyahu so far having refused to budge. Should he now predicate the release of the final group on Pollard’s release, that would be quite fine.

But, with regard to Kerry’s framework, what is suggested here? Would Netanyahu consider making concessions that should not be made? This is only talk. But it is worrisome talk, especially in light of what I wrote above regarding the dangers of a “framework” agreement.

At any rate, Obama has since declared that there is no connection between negations and the release of Pollard, who will not have his sentence commuted any time soon.

It’s all so amorphous and vague — a scenario based on unsubstantiated reports and speculation.


To further complicate our attempt to understand this situation, also yesterday, came a report that “Kerry’s security proposals accept most Israeli positions.”

The “security proposals” are with regard to what Kerry has already advanced. This is not the “framework” deal that is being referred to.

According to this report, which cites army radio, Kerry would give full security control in the Jordan Valley to Israel, at least for some years. Of course, security control for a duration is not the same as retention of residential communities and Israeli sovereignty over this area.

It’s all a matter of how the story is framed, isn’t it?



With regard to Kerry’s security proposals, Caroline Glick provides a very incisive critique in “Kerry’s oh-so-’90s security nonsense” (emphasis added):

“Kerry has proffered us security arrangements, which he claims will protect Israel from aggression for the long haul. They will do this, he argues, despite the fact that his plan denies the Jewish state physically defensible borders in the framework of a peace deal with the PLO.

“There are several serious problems with Kerry’s arrangements. But in the context of Kerry’s repeated claims that his commitment to Israel’s security is unqualified, their most glaring flaws are rooted in their disregard for all the lessons we have learned over the past two decades.

“Kerry’s security arrangements rest on three assumptions. First, they assume that the main threats Israel will face in an era of “peace” with the Palestinians will emanate from east of the Jordan River. The main two scenarios that have been raised are the threat of terrorists and advanced weaponry being smuggled across the border; and a land invasion or other type of major aggression against Israel, perpetrated by Iraqis moving across Jordan…

“…first we need to ask whether a threat from across the border would really be the only significant threat that Israel would face after surrendering Judea, Samaria and much of Jerusalem to the PLO.

“The answer to this question is obvious to every Israeli who has been awake for the past 20 years, since Israel started down the ‘land for peace’ road with the PLO.

“The greatest threat Israel will face in an era of ‘peace’ with the Palestinians will not come from east of the Jordan. It will come from west of the Jordan – from the Jew-free Palestinian state.

“The Palestinians don’t give us peace for land. They give us war for land. Whether they support the PLO, Hamas or anything in between, the Palestinians have used every centimeter of land that Israel has given them as launching bases for terrorist and political attacks against Israel…

“Our most peaceful periods have been those in which we have been fully deployed in Judea and Samaria. The more fully we deploy, the more we exercise our legal and national rights to sovereign power in those areas, the safer and more peaceful Israeli and Palestinian societies alike have been.

“The only way to be smart, we have learned, is by being right. The only way to secure peace is by insisting that our rights be respected. We won’t get peace for land. We will get war – not from the Iraqis or anyone else to our east, but from the Palestinians. And since the Palestinians are the people Kerry is intending to empower with his peace plan and his security arrangements, both his peace plan and his security arrangements are deeply dangerous and hostile…

“…US security guarantees are about as useful as a three dollar bill.”



Just today we have reassurance that Israel is standing strong, and not caving, with regard to Kerry’s proposals. This addresses the very concerns raised by Glick, and more (emphasis added):

“Israel and the U.S. are divided over security considerations for a future peace agreement with the Palestinians. The U.S. accepts the Palestinian position that their state must be sovereign within its territory, meaning Israel would not be permitted to conduct anti-terror operations in Palestinian cities, as it does now.

“Israel opposes this and seeks to preserve the right to thwart terror and kill terrorists in the future Palestinian state. Israel also demands the right to conduct hot pursuits of ‘ticking bombs’ within the Palestinian state. In other words, the Israel Defense Forces would be able to enter Palestinian territory to pursue terrorists who are either about to commit a terror attack in Israel or are escaping after having carried out a strike on Israel. The Palestinians oppose this, claiming it would be a violation of their sovereignty.

“The Israeli defense establishment, including Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, also opposes an Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley. Israeli defense officials say that situating an advanced security apparatus in the Jordan Valley would be useless if Israeli forces were unable to operate on the ground there.



And this is where I’m going to leave us today. There is a good deal to say, with regard to dangers from across the border in Jordan, should the monarchy fall and Islamists move in. Ironically, the Jordanian king himself prefers an Israeli presence at his border — for he is aware of the risks of a radicalized Palestinian Arab state that might move in on him.

Looked at from either direction, Israel is the stabilizing force that makes peace possible.

We’re been enduring a spate of terror attacks, as well, not unrelated to what I have written about here.


But I want to end by noting that my Christian readers and friends today are celebrating (or perhaps have already celebrated) Christmas. To each of you I wish a good holiday and an interlude of peace.


Thanks Duck Dynasty for the Christmas Gift

By: Lloyd Marcus

Duck Dynasty gave me an unexpected wonderful gift for Christmas; a renewed hope in America. Polling on various social issues confirm that liberals have made significant inroads towards secularizing America into a culture in which anything goes.

The norm on TV is disrespectful kids scolding their parents, cussing, youths sleeping around, the promotion of homosexuality and poking fun at Christians. Traditional principles and values are on the chopping block.

Several months ago, I heard about this cable show, Duck Dynasty, that was kicking American Idol’s butt in the ratings on Wednesday nights. Since the recent controversy surrounding the show, I learned that Duck Dynasty is huge; the highest rated show in cable history.

So what does the show’s popularity tell me? It tells me that instinctively people are drawn to things wholesome and good; traditional principles and values.

I watched a recently produced family Christmas movie. While it was somewhat enjoyable, a subtext of the movie was the female lead feeling hurt over the male lead’s reluctance to ask her to move in with him. Note that marriage was not on her agenda.

Then, I watched my favorites, “It’s A Wonderful Life”, “The Wiz of Oz”, “A Christmas Carol” and “The Sound of Music”. There is a reason that millions of people feel their Christmas season is not complete without viewing at least one of these classics. These old movies possess that sappy wholesome intangible something that makes us feel good, safe, warm and happy.

Neither the coarsening of our culture or liberal indoctrination have been able to destroy millions of Duck Dynasty viewer’s instinctive attraction to wholesome tradition family values.

So thank you Duck Dynasty. Thank you for letting me know that the battle for the culture of America is not over. Perhaps, Phil Robertson’s leadership will inspire more Americans to push-back against the tyranny of political correctness.

I still get a thrill hearing George Bailey say in “It’s A Wonderful Life”, “Burt do you know me? My mouths bleedin’ Burt! Zuzu’s petals! Merry Christmas!”; Judy Garland as Dorothy singing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow”; the nun singing “Climb Every Mountain” in “The Sound of Music”. http://bit.ly/1gTyTAW Yes, I am just a sappy old fashion Christmas kind of guy.

Thus, I will close quoting Tiny Tim in “A Christmas Carol”, “God bless us everyone.”

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman: Conservative Campaign Committee


Watcher’s Council Nominations – Christmas Day Edition

The Watcher’s Council

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

Ah, Christmas… a time for warmth and family, as the Dropkick Murphys remind us:

No worries Ken… we know you’re just funnin’…

But also, on a more serious note, a time for faith:

At this time, our thoughts and prayers need to go out for Christians under siege in the Middle East and elsewhere, where, with the exception of Israel, the one country in the Middle East where the Christian population is actually growing, they are systematically being ethnically cleansed by Muslims.

This shares something with the Holocaust, because once again there is an obscene conspiracy of silence and cowardice by the West to avoid confronting the perpetrators and protecting, or at least providing, a haven to the victims. For instance, President Obama, who likes to remind us that he is a Christian, just sent troops to the new country of South Sudan because of tribal unrest there between the government and a rival tribal faction. He never saw fit to do anything like that to protect these people from assault by the Arab Islamist government of the Sudan and the orgy of rape, torture and murder perpetrated on Black Christians by the Muslim Janjiweed militias in South Sudan and Darfur. Nothing.

At this time of year, I urge all of us to pray for these beleaguered Christians and to raise holy you-know-what to demand that our respective governments put these Christians’ lives and well being ahead of appeasing Islam. I run a serious risk of operating outside my pay grade here, as our president would say, but I flatter myself in thinking that I think it’s what Jesus would expect… not only of Christians, but of all of us.

Okay, rant over. Sorry about that.

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere and in our second decade, the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Today is not only Christmas Day, but additionally special in that it is the birthday of our friend and colleague Dave Schuler of The Glittering Eye.

Ordinarily, I pick out a cake and some liquid libation for these celebrations and this is no exception.

German chocolate, I think:

And perhaps. chilled Veuve Cliquot to drink… brut, of course.

Dave and I have known each other for some time now. In fact, he predates me on the Council. When I first got the nod from the original Watcher, I replaced a blog called New Sisyphus, if memory serves me, and I remember he wrote something to the effect that he had enjoyed New Sisyphus, but was going to wait and see on this Joshuapundit fella. I hope I’ve lived up to his expectations… certainly he’s lived up to mine. I have never ceased to appreciate his wide range of interests, his clarity of thought, his dry sense of humor or the friendship and collegiality we’ve shared.

Many, many happy returns Dave.

This week, Ask Marion, Right Truth, The Independent Sentinel and The Pirate’s Cove, took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries. Here’s how to bring something you want considered to my attention…

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered, along with an e-mail address (which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6 PM PST, in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members, while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s take a look at what we have this week… and our heartfelt wishes to all of you for a joyous and blessed Christmas from the Watcher’s Council:

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy! And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


More Bogus Reporting from “60 Minutes” on Benghazi

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Susan Rice is perhaps best known for her role in the Benghazi, Libya attacks, after which she went on five Sunday talk shows to explain to the American people that, indeed, these terrorist attacks were birthed out of spontaneous protests in reaction to a YouTube video that had inflamed the Islamic world at the time. Both assumptions were proven to be false, and Rice was accused of purposefully misleading the American people. Since then, some in the media have claimed that Rice received a “bad rap”—and that at issue was a rivalry between various departments within the government.

Last weekend, in a puff piece which should make the Obama administration blush at its coziness, CBS’s “60 Minutes” featured Susan Rice and attempted to cast her as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reborn—a stillborn Secretary of State who CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl called the “quarterback of American foreign policy” in her role as National Security Advisor to the President. Clearly Stahl meant that as a compliment, and perhaps a dig at Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been clocking the miles.

The segment just adds inaccuracies onto the falsehoods perpetuated by the show’s last segment on Benghazi, this time tilting politically in favor of the administration. (Not that they mentioned President Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even once in the aforementioned retracted story).

Stahl repeatedly highlighted Susan Rice’s vital work for the Obama administration, and her “missed opportunity” to become Secretary of State. In fact, Stahl went so far as to say to Rice at the end of the piece that “You know, if you hadn’t done [those Sunday talk show appearances], I’d be calling you ‘Madame Secretary.’” That assumes she would have been confirmed by the Senate.

Other notable aspects of the piece, besides likening Rice to Henry Kissinger, included visiting a soccer game with her daughter, and noting the interracial aspect of her marriage. (Her husband used to work as an executive producer at ABC News. Does this have anything to do with why ABC News said it was the White House’s, State Department’s, and CIA’s fault that the message got screwed up to the American people—anyone but Rice’s fault?)

According to NPR, Susan Rice also now “works closely” with Ben Rhodes, brother to CBS News president David Rhodes, who was “instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.” Did this relationship affect how the CBS “60 Minutes” team approached Rice?

“I don’t have time to think about a false controversy,” said Susan Rice on the show when asked about her Sunday talk show performances on Benghazi. Neither, apparently, does the Obama administration, which keeps identifying Benghazi as a “phony scandal.”

It is worth pointing out that Rice was preceded that Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation by Libyan National Congress President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf. He blamed the attacks on foreigners and said that the attacks were 1) perpetrated by extremists, 2) run by foreigners, and 3) “preplanned…predetermined.” Host Bob Schieffer directly asked Rice what she thought of El-Magariaf’s comments and she stuck to her talking points.

“Madam Ambassador, [El-Magariaf] says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months,” said Schieffer to Rice. “I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?”

Should she have known? The facts were placed before her right on CBS.

“60 Minutes” did not show this exchange, instead showing a small snippet from her Sunday appearance on Face the Nation.

The aforementioned talking points, ostensibly created by the CIA but in reality massaged by the State Department and White House, were sent on to Rice in revised form. Noticeably missing: the original references to Islamic extremists and Ansar al Sharia, which a Library of Congress report in August 2012 characterized as an extension of al Qaeda.

“60 Minutes” characterized Rice’s current employment as a “consolation prize.” Others might characterize it as a reward for political loyalty. “She lost her chance to become Secretary of State when she, then the UN Ambassador, was asked to pinch-hit for Hillary Clinton and answer questions about the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, where our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three others were killed,” stated the show.

“That particular assessment, from talking points prepared by the CIA, was wrong, and Rice was accused of being deliberately misleading,” it stated. “But a former senior intelligence official told us that the talking point that called the Benghazi attack spontaneous was precisely what classified intelligence reports said at the time.”

Indeed, the talking points emails do show that the original wording included the spontaneity assessment. However, Aaron Goldstein points out at length for the American Spectator the reasons why this phrasing is deceptive. “While the CIA’s original talking points do indicate that the attacks occurred ‘spontaneously’ following protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo they also stated, ‘We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack,’” he writes. “These talking points also mention Ansar al-Sharia.”

“However, at the request of the State Department, references to both al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed,” he continues.

“In the final analysis, by omitting crucial details reported by the CIA in the original Benghazi talking points, 60 Minutes effectively misled the American public by minimizing the role of Rice, the State Department and the Obama Administration in misleading the American public about what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 and thus further tarnishing its diminishing credibility,” writes Goldstein. It also proves, once again, how far CBS is willing to go to bat for the Obama administration.

Just because it got burned on its last piece on Benghazi does not mean that CBS should abandon all journalistic skepticism and parrot the administration’s talking points to regain its favor.

Even The New York Times has taken to questioning CBS’s bias in favor of the administration, particularly on the NSA. “No matter how the deal was brokered, the optics were terrible and the N.S.A. got its hands on a megaphone with nary a critic in sight,” writes David Carr for the Grey Lady. “‘60 Minutes’ is a calling, not an assignment, and the program should not be the kind of outfit that leaves its skepticism at the door to get inside,” he argues.

Investor’s Business Daily has an excellent editorial about Rice’s appearance on “60 Minutes,” and they challenge her claim that the NSA has been successful in preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, pointing to the Boston Marathon bombing:

In that case, the NSA’s blanket surveillance did not detect Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s reported interest in building the pressure-cooker bombs that would be used to devastating effect. Nor did it catch his visit to the al-Qaida online magazine Inspire for its ‘Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom’ recipe.

Neither did the massive databases uncover the online communications that Tsarnaev had with a known Muslim extremist in Dagestan.

David Carr’s assessment of “60 Minutes” for the Times notwithstanding, this idealized notion that “60 Minutes” has always been an unbiased seeker of truth is a rather distorted version of history. While it has certainly done some excellent and important work, Accuracy in Media has been exposing its agenda-driven reporting for more than 40 years.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


The Counter-Revolution Begins

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

As 2013 comes to a close, two important developments have the potential to turn the tide against Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States.

First is the public rejection of the so-called “Affordable Care Act” due to its cancellation of health care plans for millions of Americans. Second is the public backlash against the suspension of a character in the “Duck Dynasty” television show, over his critical comments about gay rights.

These two seemingly unrelated developments were dramatic indications that the American people are beginning to understand that their country is being transformed in ways that run directly contrary to their best interests and values.

In the House, 39 Democrats voted for Republican Rep. Fred Upton’s “Keep Your Health Plan Act.” The measure would allow Americans to keep their current health-care plans, even if they don’t meet the standards or requirements established by the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The uproar over the suspension of the “Duck Dynasty” star, Phil Robertson, was reminiscent of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, when hundreds of thousands of people turned out to protest the homosexual rights movement’s targeting of the chain. The company’s president, Dan Cathy, had outraged the gay lobby by stating his support for traditional marriage.

It is clear that millions of Americans are looking for bold leadership to really “take their country back” from Obama and his “progressive” backers, who are pushing socialized medicine, homosexual rights, and other radical measures, such as amnesty for illegal aliens.

What is lacking at this point is an adequate public understanding of what the Obama administration is doing to the country in the area of foreign policy.

Consider what passes for an intellectual discussion on a recent edition of CNN’s “Crossfire” show. Liberal columnist Ruth Marcus described as “brilliant” Obama’s decision to send homosexual athletes to the Winter Olympics being held in Sochi, Russia in February, to protest anti-gay propaganda laws in Russia. Co-host S.E. Cupp agreed the decision was brilliant. “Me, too,” she said. She also made it clear that “I support same sex marriage. I’m a gay rights advocate from the right. And clearly the President is delivering a strong message to Russia in this.”

The “liberal” co-host, Van Jones, said, “And I’m super excited about it as well, and I think it is interesting that you can now have a President of the United States slap down [Russian President Vladimir] Putin on the issue of gay rights. That wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago and now it is. It seems to me Republicans are nowhere to be seen on this fight.”

Conservative commentator William Kristol was a guest on the show and countered, “…wow, that was really bold. He is really showing Putin who is boss. I’m sure Putin is sitting there thinking, boy, I’ve just been humiliated by the President. And he sends a couple of gay athletes over [to] the Olympics. That’s going to cause me big problems. Meanwhile, we’re capitulating to him on everything important.” He added that Obama’s “reset” with Russia “has been a total failure.”

Unfortunately, time ran out before Kristol could explain how dramatically the reset has boomeranged.

We are seeing Obama’s capitulation to the Russians unfold in the Ukraine, where the government, under pressure from Russia, has cut a deal with Putin involving natural gas purchases and financial credits. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (CT), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs, recently spoke to a crowd of hundreds of thousands of protesters in Kiev, some of whom had toppled a statue of Lenin in Bessarabska Square and used hammers to attack it.

Murphy said, “Ukrainians are protesting in the streets today because they know they’re being sold out by their government for short-term monetary gain from Russia, and they rightly fear the long-term economic cost to Ukraine’s economy.”

The New York Post commented that “…there are moments when the world needs to hear from the president of the United States. This is one of them. And what was his signal? As Ukrainian police cracked down [on protesters], Obama was shaking hands with Cuban President Raul Castro.”

That handshake, of course, took place during the memorial service in honor of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, exposed after his death as a member of the central committee of the South African Communist Party.

Very few people, even on the right side of the political spectrum, wanted to hear the truth about Mandela’s involvement in the international communist movement, or about the current South African government’s strategic relationship with Russia, giving the Putin regime special access to strategic minerals.

Even Republican conservative Senator Ted Cruz (TX) praised Mandela after his death and attended his memorial service (although he says he walked out on Raul Castro’s speech).

Interestingly, Cruz has said that his father, who came from Cuba and is now an outspoken anti-communist, was allied with Castro’s forces who successfully overthrew the Cuban government because “they didn’t know Castro was a Communist.”

Cruz apparently didn’t know or suspect Mandela was a communist (although the evidence existed even before his death). He should have had a long talk with his father before he made the trip to South Africa to honor Mandela. Hopefully, his father would have set him straight.

Only through a real understanding of communism, which President Ronald Reagan acquired through personal experience in Hollywood by fighting communist-dominated unions, can the Republicans truly understand and counteract the Obama phenomenon and his “fundamental transformation” of the nation that is now underway.

In the area of foreign policy, like the case of the ACA, it appears that even some Democrats are coming around. Whether this is because they are hearing from constituents or recognizing a policy disaster in the making, is not important. What is critical is that top Democrats are abandoning their leader.

In fact, Democratic Senator Robert Menendez (NJ) just introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, in order to expand sanctions on Iran. The Washington Post noted that the bill “highlighted deep divisions among Senate Democrats on whether to heap new pressures on Tehran’s government…” Menendez is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Both Democrats and Republicans are apprehensive about Obama joining with Putin’s Russia, the major international sponsor of the Iranian regime, and other nations, to make a deal with Iran to avoid further sanctions. Some may even be aware of the evidence that Iranian “Supreme Leader” Khamenei is a Russian agent trained by the KGB whose ultimate goal is to get United Nations help in disarming Israel.

As AIM has reported, Obama accepted a form of disinformation—the claim that Khamenei had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons—in order to lay the groundwork for this proposed deal with that regime. An examination of the facts showed that the alleged fatwa simply doesn’t exist.

Former CIA officer Clare Lopez commented, “The Iranians have used classic clandestine tradecraft that their services learned directly from the KGB,” and refers to Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba University, attended by Khamenei, as “KGB Tech.” She added, “Such tradecraft includes denial and deception to lead us all astray on their WMD programs.”

This is why, as William Kristol suggests, Putin is probably snickering at the news that Obama has sent some gays to Moscow as a form of foreign policy protest. Laughter should quickly turn to sober reflection on the direction of U.S. foreign policy under Obama if our nation and our allies are going to survive. Let’s hope that “Crossfire” and other media start to get serious about these issues before they lose even more of their audience by focusing on the trivial and the absurd.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


“Gay Thought Police” Funded by the Media

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The attempt by the homosexual group GLAAD to undermine the show “Duck Dynasty,” as a result of the main character’s stand in favor of traditional values, is focusing attention on the nature of this Hollywood-funded group and the financial support it receives from the major media.

GLAAD claimed credit for the A&E network putting one of the stars of “Duck Dynasty,” Phil Robertson, on suspension following publication by GQ magazine of his remarks critical of the homosexual lifestyle. Robertson said homosexuality was sinful, unnatural, and a violation of Biblical standards.

The A&E Network has actually funded GLAAD in the past, according to a list of the organization’s corporate sponsors.

In addition to A&E, corporate sponsors of GLAAD events have included NBC Universal, Comcast, TimeWarner, The Walt Disney Company (including the ABC television group and ESPN), CNN, CBS, Bloomberg, TBS, HBO, and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

In response to Robertson being put on “hiatus” by the network, other members of Robertson’s family say they won’t return to the show until Phil Robertson is reinstated. They said, “We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, said GLAAD represents the “Gay Thought Police” and that the organization “has a long history of attempting to shut down speech critical of homosexuality—and demonizing as ‘haters, bigots and homophobes’ those (usually Christians) who speak out against homosexualism or affirm the truth that homosexuals can change and leave the lifestyle.”

Janet Porter of the pro-family group Faith2Action has argued that the homosexual movement aims at nothing less than the criminalization of Christianity, and has issued a statement declaring “We Cry Fowl—Reinstate Phil!”

GLAAD describes itself this way: “Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That’s GLAAD at work.”

In addition to pressuring the media into adopting a particular “narrative” on homosexuality—that it is a normal and healthy lifestyle—the group lobbies for passage of pro-homosexual legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which has passed the Senate. The group had also demanded that the Boy Scouts of America drop its ban on open homosexuals. The group complied with that demand, leading to the formation of a youth alternative devoted to traditional values, Trail Life USA.

GLAAD issues a “Network Responsibility Index” that in 2013 found the FOX network, an affiliate of News Corporation, to be “the most inclusive broadcast network with 42% of primetime programming hours having included LGBT images…”

It regularly gives awards to people in the media who toe the homosexual line, including:

  • CNN’s Anderson Cooper
  • NBC for its drama series Smash
  • CBS for its reality program The Amazing Race

Other programs and hosts receiving awards in 2013 included:

  • Outstanding TV Journalism—Newsmagazine: “Being Transgender in America” Melissa Harris-Perry (MSNBC)
  • Outstanding TV Journalism Segment: “Obama Endorses Marriage Equality” Good Morning America (ABC)
  • Outstanding Newspaper Article: “Game Changer” by Andy Mannix (City Pages [Minneapolis, Minn.])
  • Outstanding Newspaper Columnist: Frank Bruni (The New York Times)
  • Outstanding Newspaper Overall Coverage: The Boston Globe
  • Outstanding Magazine Article: “School of Hate” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely (Rolling Stone)

Another powerful homosexual media group is the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which held its national convention in Boston in August. The group’s corporate and media sponsors include the Fox News Channel, The Boston Globe, The McClatchy Company, The New York Times, WBZ-TV, the Gannett Foundation, Bloomberg, CBS News, Comcast, NBC Universal and Google.

Peter LaBarbara says the media have compromised their objectivity by funding one side of the debate and that, in regard to the Duck Dynasty controversy, “Christians and moral-minded Americans must rally behind Phil Robertson, condemn the homo-fascist ‘Gay Thought Police’ led by GLAAD who regularly pressure the media into silencing moral speech, and demand that an energetic and civil debate on homosexuality be allowed to flourish in this land we call free.”

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.