In a story that went largely unnoticed over the weekend (particularly among Jews celebrating Rosh Hashana), the New York Times reported that VP Joe Biden attended a meeting of 15 rabbis in Boca Raton, Florida, in an attempt to “reassure Jewish voters, and get them to contribute, too.” However, it was Biden’s statement regarding a convicted Israeli spy that is getting a lot of attention from not only the Jewish press, but the Israeli government, as well.

From the NYT report:

One of the rabbis asked why Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy convicted in 1986, was still in prison. Mr. Biden, on a mission to shore up support for President Obama, replied forcefully, according to several people at the meeting.

“President Obama was considering clemency, but I told him, ‘Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time,’ ” Mr. Biden said. “If it were up to me, he would stay in jail for life.”

Aside from the obligatory “Bidenism” (Pollard was sentenced to life in 1987), what is interesting here is the VP’s complete and unexplained reversal of course on this issue, given that he expressed his support for commuting Pollard’s sentence to time served just four years ago:

Biden’s contradictory positions on Pollard’s continued imprisonment come at a particularly curious time for an administration that has made more than a few missteps in its relationship with Israel, and suffered dramatic losses at the ballot box with the elections of Republicans Bob Turner and Allen West in districts with substantial Jewish populations.

Speaking of Rep. West, the Jerusalem Post’s Gil Hoffman quoted from a letter the Florida Republican wrote to the president back in June regarding the repeated calls from the Jewish community for Pollard’s release:

“After serving 26 years behind bars, Pollard’s health is deteriorating as is his wife’s,” West wrote. “If [the US] can consent to the release by the British of the Lockerbie Bomber back to Libya due to health concerns, how can we justify keeping Mr. Pollard behind bars when his crimes were clearly not as serious as a terrorist who murdered hundreds of Americans?”

Now, as a former Army nuclear weapons officer, I harbor no deep and abiding respect for convicted spies, be their sponsors allies or enemies. However, West’s comparison of this case to al-Megrahi (who’s still quite alive, incidentally) is absolutely spot-on.

So the question remains: Why the sudden (not to mention strongly worded) shift in attitude, Mr. Biden? Certainly, the Obama administration’s motives here wouldn’t be so ridiculously transparent and obscenely dishonest, would they?

Given what we’ve seen from this administration, and their curious habit of assuming the 53% of the American population that elected them still believe today is Tuesday, January 20, 2009, I believe they would, indeed.

Not so fast, Christians…

The ANC [American News Commentary] reported in its September 21, 2011 issue that the ACLU is defending the right of Muslims to exercise prayer in public schools in San Diego… Really?

Is that a change of heart or the expression of a cowardly and terrified heart? It is most likely the latter. Let me explain.

Over the last 40 years or so, the ACLU has terrified many school boards, school administrators, and school children by threatening to drag them into court if they pray in public.

A few years ago, they terrified many coaches and sporting event coordinators by warning them that if they dare pray in public, the ACLU would bring about the full weight of their false interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

For many years, they have sent their emissaries across the land, “Gestapo-like,” checking out every small city council, lest they open their meeting with prayer.

But now they are coming out of their closets and are supporting Muslim students praying in public schools.

Yes, I know. This makes your head hurt. Hell, it makes my soul hurt.

See, this is where Simon Peter went wrong: instead of proselytizing, he should have gone around with a scimitar and just beheaded anyone who didn’t believe that a certain Galilean had risen from the dead, right?

As Mr. Youssef says, fear is, indeed, a powerful factor. Especially if you’re a liberal.

Dangerously selfless, that is…

A former Marine who was awarded the Medal of Honor bowed out of his quest Tuesday to join the New York City Fire Department after a federal judge denied his request to extend the application deadline for all aspiring firefighters — not just him.

The judge had been willing to grant a 24-hour application extension for Sgt. Dakota Meyer, who saved the lives of 36 people during an ambush in Afghanistan two years ago. Meyer missed the FDNY’s application deadline because he was busy with official Medal of Honor commitments and ceremonies, said Keith Sullivan, his attorney.

But when the city offered to reopen the application process to the public, Brooklyn Judge Nicholas Garaufis refused, saying a brief extension would create a risk of “adverse impact” on minority groups who are under-represented in the ranks of the FDNY. Instead, the judge agreed to grant Meyer a one-day exception because he is “one exceptional individual.”

That didn’t seem fair to Meyer, who charged five times in a Humvee into heavy gunfire in the darkness of an Afghanistan valley to rescue comrades under attack from Taliban insurgents.

“Dakota refuses to compromise his values,” Sullivan said Tuesday. “He said he would like to thank the city of New York and the people who have shown him so much support, but he couldn’t in good conscience take a one-person exception. He will apply for the exam when it’s given again in four years.”

You would think that risking your own life to drag 36 of your fellow Marines to safety under heavy enemy fire, thereby earning the Medal of Honor, would be enough for some people, but nooooooo! Not Sgt. Meyer. Not that jarhead. What a show-off. Sheesh. This kind of principled selflessness could lead to young people thinking the Marines are pretty damned cool, right?

This Dakota Meyer fellow might even end up running for President, or something.

He’s dangerous, I tell you. Dangerous, and epically awesome.

With profound thanks to my blogger-in-chief, B. Daniel Blatt at GayPatriot…

Was thinking in recent days about the president’s latest jobs bill and wondering if he really believes, given the current make-up of Congress, it is possible to “pass this bill.”

Seems he knows the Republican House will reject that big-spending bill, so he’s just promoting the legislation as means to demagogue this issue. In today’s CampaignSpot, Jim Geraghty provides some evidence to buttress this theory:

White House press secretary Jay Carney declared, “The president is campaigning for jobs.” But instead of heading to states where there are persuadable senators, he’s heading to 2012 swing states.

As NBC News correspondent Norah O’Donnell noticed, Obama somehow feels the need to hold events to promote this legislation — again, the legislation, not his reelection bid — only in states that are considered in play in the 2012 presidential election.

UPDATE (from Eric): According to Illinois Senator Dick (US troops are Pol Pot, and others) Durbin, the Democrats will get to this incredibly important, “Pass This Jobs Bill Now” bill sometime next month:

But Obama did want to show how really urgent he said the situation was, even though it had taken him 961 days as president to say them. And even though from Day #1 of the brief Obama Era polls had shown jobs and the economy were the No. 1 priority among voters but he pursued healthcare and financial reforms first. And even though unemployment had been at or above 9% for 26 of the last 28 months.

So, given the president’s professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation?

And, well, it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn’t actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday.

Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we’ve just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won’t really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there’s this month’s congressional vacation, which in Washington is called “a recess,” like elementary school.

Here’s the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union:”

CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?

DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we’re going to move forward on the president’s bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to…

CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?

DURBIN: I think that’s more realistic it would be next month.

So, as of right now, “right now” uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later.

Good thing the president’s own Democratic party controls the Senate. Because, otherwise, there might be some kind of silly, unnecessary delays in deliberating Obama’s urgent jobs bill that he says will surely help the nation’s unemployed millions if only those Republicans don’t connive to slow things down.

As an Illinois constituent of Senator Durbin’s, I called his DC office and asked just when this “Pass This Jobs Bill Now” jobs bill would, indeed, be passed. A very nice young man named “Anthony” informed me that it would be passed just as soon as it was introduced. When asked when that might be, he confirmed the Senator’s estimation of, “sometime next month.”

This has gone beyond the realm of political theater, and has become “cirque du freak.”

h/t: Ace@AoSHQ

Well, that didn’t take very long, did it?

A collection of some of the thoughts of the “reality-based” community over at HuffPo, following the tragedy in Reno:

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mandalay007
Good the “legend” and his apparent ego are gone.

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tresco
The P-51 Mustang is a WEAPON OF WAR. IT HAS ONLY ONE PURPOSE. IT KILLS. THAT’S ALL IT DOES. STOP THIS MADNESS. BAN THESE TERRIBLE MACHINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

handsout
I am sure many of the people in the area that was hit will turn out to be casino guests. Big money must have had a reason to thin the herd.

anthonyCA
I say we kill the Air Shows. It is a waste of fuel and a dim and dangerous spectacle. The air show is not just a display of the vulgarity of speed, it is a pornographic illustration of the grim utility of modern weapons of war

cambo
Yeah,let`s go huntin`and then race our big ol v8 and then go to an air show yeaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa grandma!

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamenta
There are other human values besides greed. They really need to simply cancel the races. No way should they go on after this.

totaleclipse
airshows bad for the environment and deadly to people.

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamenta
I yearn for the good old horse and buggy days.

Rob Chapman
This is a horrible incident & worthy of lawsuits against the fairgrounds, the show organizers, the city of Reno & the state of Nevada in the coming months by the victims (understandable), the families of the dead (again, understandable) & many others in attendance who were irreparably psycologically effected.

As I’ve said, there really is no debate to be had with people like this. To their way of thinking, the sooner their perceived intellectual inferiors are eradicated, the better.

h/t: Dave Blount@Moonbattery

Simply breathtaking…

I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It’s not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, “Second-Term Blues,” that “their second terms did not measure up to their first.”

To be replaced, of course, with Hillary…

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she’s been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she’s never been accused of being a pushover.

As Ed Morrissey states, Obama deciding to throw the towel in of his own volition has always been a long shot, at best. After all, he’s been groomed for this position since that night in Bill Ayers’ living room in 1995, and has never been held to account for anything, other than his sudden abandonment of that weird, angry preacher after what, 20 years? Instead, seemingly credible journalists fawned over him, reporting everything from “tingles” to an almost Christ-like talent for “healing the world.”

Such acclaim, so freely proffered absent any effort to actually earn it, must be as addictive as heroin, one imagines.

However, when the Sunday hometown paper begins to smell the coffee, the prospect becomes a bit more, shall I say, mainstream?

I ran across Walt Harrington’s remarkable essay last week in the American Scholar, but had only glanced at it until just this morning. If you haven’t yet read G.W. Bush’s “Decision Points” (or even if you have), I can’t encourage you enough to spend a few moments reading the words of an admittedly progressive journalist who, despite disagreeing with the former president on just about everything, demonstrates a sense of objectivity rarely seen amongst his colleagues when the subject turns to the 43rd President of the United States.

An excerpt:

…at the University of Illinois, where I had become a journalism professor after leaving The Washington Post in 1996, I was surrounded by students and faculty angry about Bush’s impending invasion of Iraq. In my academic cocoon, Bush was called a stupid warmonger trying to avenge his father’s failure to oust Saddam Hussein, a stupid warmonger trying to make the world safe for Big Oil, a stupid warmonger trying to prop up his sagging popularity. I told colleagues that I believed Bush—right or wrong—sincerely considered Iraq a deadly threat to the United States, period. My view got me labeled a Bush conservative. Then one morning I got into my academic office building’s elevator and saw this scratched into the paint: “Kill Bush.”

I had to catch my breath: Was this America?

Harrington goes on to describe his print response to what had become the left’s biggest failure in the eight years of GWB’s presidency: mistaking his solid convictions (be they right or wrong) for stubborn ignorance.

“I have told various George W. haters that they had best not underestimate the man,” he wrote, “that he’s smart, thoughtful in a brawny kind of way and, most of all, a good and decent man. … What I’ve never mentioned is that I didn’t vote for George W. I disagree with him on the Supreme Court, environment, abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action. So I voted against this good and decent man. It pained me to do it. … It baffles me that grown people must convince themselves that those with whom they disagree are stupid or malevolent.”

Harrington goes on to describe an evening he spent with GWB shortly after the ill-advised “Mission Accomplished” event:

The president gestured for me to sit facing the beautiful, sunny vista, and he sat facing me, his back to the yard. We lit up, puffed on our cigars, caught up on family news, talked briefly about my memoir and my column in the Post-Dispatch, which he had read. I could think of only one question to ask him: “What is it like to be president of the United States?”

President Bush leaned forward, put his elbows on his knees, and stared at me intently. “Are we off the record?”

“Yes.”

And he began to talk—and talk and talk for what must have been nearly three hours. I’ve never told anyone the specifics of what he said that night, not even my wife or closest friends. I did not make notes later and have only my memory. In the journalism world, off the record is off the record. But I have repeatedly described the hours as “amazing,” “remarkable,” “stunning.”

President Bush—and he was, no doubt, by then a real president—talked expansively about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Korea, Russia…He was the same confident, brash man I had met years ago, but I no longer sensed any hint of the old anger or the need for self-aggrandizement.

Needless to say, I wish Harrington had recorded that conversation. I’ve read Bush’s memoir, but from Harrington’s description (not to mention his astonished reaction), I would gladly pay triple the price to read the unedited, heartfelt words of this good and decent man.

It is, as I’ve said, a remarkable essay, and one that compels me to pay closer attention to my perception of the current occupant of the Oval Office. Unlike GWB, I remain convinced that Obama is in way over his head, and has consciously made the decision to enact his agenda “by any means necessary.” However, unlike those who continue to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I do not subscribe to the belief the he is intentionally trying to destroy this country. Obama is indeed incompetent and arrogant, but he’s not stupid and evil.

I will therefore continue to gleefully mock the left’s deification of BHO, but I will endeavor to refrain from indulging in the sort of self-destructive, irrational hatred of the man, simply because he has the misfortune of never being told he isn’t The Smartest Man In The World by everyone who claims to respect him.

Yeah, I said it.

Well, actually he said it…

Tavis Smiley says the President is ignoring blacks, the “most loyal” part of his base who “ought to be looked out for.” Smiley spoke to NBC’s Lester Holt. In April, Smiley said the 2012 elections will be “the most racist in the history of this Republic.

“It’s just not that black folks are hurting the most now. It’s that there’s no sign that it’s going to get any better. There really are two questions in black America, I think, Lester, have to wrestle with. At least two questions. Number one: what is the pain threshold in black America? What is our pain threshold, number one. And number two, what is the presidency really worth? Is it worth not saying anything? Is it worth being silent when you’re catching the most hell, when you’re suffering the most pain? Especially, when you’re the most loyal part of the President’s base,” Smiley said.

“That’s not hating on the President, it’s defending your own flanks. And whatever happened to that notion that to the victor goes the spoils? If anybody ought to be looked out for, it ought to be the persons who represent the most significant and the most loyal part of the base. That would be African-Americans.”

I’m not usually prone to internet memes, but there is simply so much FAIL in Smiley’s rant, one hardly knows where to begin.

How about his insistence that blacks somehow need to be “looked out for?” Somehow, this patronizing sentiment, whenever I hear it, reminds me of that scene in the 1989 movie, “Glory,” when Colonel Robert Gould Shaw’s 54th Massachusetts Regiment is ordered to accompany a company of “contraband” soldiers, under the command of Colonel James Montgomery, who seems to have a similarly condescending view of blacks:

MONTGOMERY

Look around. You really think anybody’s gonna put these boys into real combat?

SHAW

Do you?

MONTGOMERY

They’re little children, for God’s sake. They’re little monkey children. You just gotta know how to control them.

Simply put, I find no discernible difference between Montgomery’s belief that the men under his command are incapable of achievement, and Smiley’s insistence that his fellow African-Americans are in perpetual need of some specialized, governmental care. Both are racist, and different sides of the same coin. His spectacularly fallacious claim that “black folks are hurting the most right now” notwithstanding, Smiley is among those most repellant of race-hustlers, interested only in propagating the myth of “The Man” as some cultural boogeyman, out to ensure the eradication of the black race via AIDS, narcotics and a racist criminal justice system.

What should make his assertions even more distressing (especially to the decreasing number of the president’s supporters) is that in the midst of Obama’s seemingly endless string of policy failures, faux pas and declining poll numbers, Smiley still insists upon getting what he sees as “his,” completely oblivious to the fact that such blatant selfishness is precisely why the Democrats are on the verge of electoral annihilation.

As for Smiley’s bemoaning the fact that Obama seems hesitant to claim his “spoils,” perhaps someone might remind him that the reason his ideology is about to be cast onto the ash heap of history (once again) is that “The Man” already tried that a few times.

Trouble is, he forgot about that whole, pesky “consent of the governed” thing.

A young man asks a simple question at a Republican debate…

The best answer to this, of course, would have been “the highest amount possible, with the least amount of governmental intrusion,” right?

However, in the eyes of Illinois’ own Redistributionist Cheerleader, Democrat Jan Schakowsky, such an answer proves annoyingly evasive…

In other words, she can’t answer the question because according to these people, you “deserve” none of it.

Time to make the donuts, kids.

h/t: Chicago’s Very Own Don & Roma on WLS-AM 890

As I mentioned in a post yesterday, DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz still has a lot to learn about the “art of spin,” after claiming that losing NY-9, a seat her party has held since 1922, can be chalked up to it being an historically “difficult district for Democrats.” Oh, and those Orthodox Jews didn’t help any, either.

Well, just in time comes Sen. Chuck Schumer to double down, er…“clarify” his party’s position:

After canceling his own conference call (on getting federal disaster aid for flood-ravaged NY farmers), Sen. Chuck Schumer teamed up with DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to push back against the GOP spin that Congressman-elect Bob Turner’s upset win in NY-9 spells bad news at the national level for Democrats, and President Obama in particular.

Schumer, who represented NY-9 for 18 years, insisted the district is about 75 percent the same today, geographically speaking, as it was when he was in office, but drastically different when it comes to demographics. There are more Orthodox Jews, he said, and also more immigrants, making the district skew even more conservative than it had been back in his day…

Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Jew, also predicted Obama – and the Democrats in general – “have consistently received the Jewish vote and will again” due to the president’s “strong record” on Israel and other issues Jewish voters care about.

Apparently, she hasn’t spoken with former NYC Mayor Ed Koch lately.

So, if I hear these two correctly, this heavily Democratic, Jewish district just told their party to go pound sand, but that was to be entirely expected, given that the number of Orthodox Jews has increased exponentially. However, they always vote Democrat, and will continue to do so, except for this one time, right?

This isn’t just mind-boggling spin – it’s delusional.