by Walter Williams:
It’s not unreasonable to ask how valuable the variously labeled liberal, Democratic or progressive agenda has been to black Americans and whether blacks should proceed in political lock step with this agenda.
According to an American Community Survey, by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent.
The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them — such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia — haven’t elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. What’s more is that, in some cases for decades, the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans. You say, “What’s the point, Williams?” Let’s be clear about it. I’m not stating a causal relationship between poverty and Democratic and/or black political control over a city. What I am saying is that if one is strategizing on how to help poor people, he wants to leave off his list of objectives Democratic and black political control of cities. According to Albert Einstein (attributed), the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
by P. David Hornik:
As reported on Jihad Watch this week, an adviser to President Obama has tweeted a criticism of President Bashar Assad of Syria for not being able to mount enough “resistance” to Israel. In the Arab and Middle Eastern context resistance is, of course, a codeword for terrorism and war.
The adviser is Dalia Mogahed. Yet another example of the strange company Obama has kept and continues to keep, he appointed her to serve on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. On March 10 she tweeted on her Twitter account:
Speaking at a conference on Palestinian refugees on Monday in Brussels, Catherine Ashton cited the tragedy of “young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances.”
She then mentioned the Toulouse shooting earlier on Monday, along with a massacre last year in a Norway summer camp, a bus crash in Switzerland that killed 22 Belgian school children a week ago, the current violence in Syria and “what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world.”
Israeli leaders seized on her original remarks as an attempt to compare the events in Toulouse to those in the Gaza Strip, where children have at times been among the casualties of Israeli attacks on Palestinian militants operating in civilian areas.
“What gets me especially incensed is the comparison between the targeted slaughter of children and the surgical, defensive activities of the (Israel Defense Forces) that are meant to hit terrorists who use children for human shields,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters.
Ashton would be more at home in Iran or an Arab League country …
Bible-believing Christians should agree with Cameron because what he is saying is Biblical.
By DANIEL HALPER:
Susan Crown is supporting a more pro-Israel candidate this year. So instead of supporting Barack Obama as she did in 2008, she’s fundraising for Mitt Romney. The Washington Post reports:
I’ve had some computer issues today but I think I’ve sorted it out now. Sorry for the delay in posting.
by Ron Radosh:
Monday’s New York Times ran an op-ed by none other than Peter Beinart, a man who is quickly becoming the poster boy for the anti-Israel movement. I have written about Beinart before. You can find my earlier columns here and here and finally here. So, in case you didn’t guess, I am not what you would call a fan.
But nothing so far exemplifies his hubris and the simplicity of his understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian issue than Monday’s article, excerpted from his forthcoming book, which obviously the New York Times hopes to make a super best-seller.
Beinart’s short essay reveals the heart of his argument, which is quickly endearing himself to the anti-Israeli American left in particular. Pretending to support a two-state solution, Beinart advances his thesis that Israel’s pro-settler policy is the reason that Palestinians have turned against the Jewish state.
The new EO evokes fear because it is occurring in peacetime and, more specifically, when the United States remains the strongest military power on Earth. There is no indication that an attack by any other nation is anticipated, so the implementation of the EO raises concerns that its purpose is not what it says.
In effect, the EO allows the federal government, directed by the President, to commandeer and control all aspects of the economy and the lives of all Americans. It centralizes control to an astonishing and frightening degree.
As just one example, it parcels out control to “ the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer” and thereafter to: