Monthly Archives: June 2007

"I've Never Told Anyone This Before"

Ann Coulter on her allegedly outrageous remarks about John Edwards:

…I can only speak to the first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards’ harangue [on Hardball], but it mostly consisted of utterly dishonest renditions of things I had said on my “Good Morning America” interview this week and a column I wrote four years ago. (You can’t rush Edwards’ “rapid response team”!) She claimed I had launched unprovoked attacks on the Edwards’ dead son and called for a terrorist attack on her husband.

These are bald-faced lies, and the mainstream media knows they are lies. Yet they were repeated ad nauseam on Wednesday by The Associated Press, the AOL pop-up window, CNN, NBC and — stunningly — the host [Chris Matthews] of the lowest-rated cable show himself, who personally told me he knew the truth.

…Here is my full sentence on “Good Morning America,” which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: “But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack — so I’ve learned my lesson: If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

…Judging by his fundraising efforts so far, I gather most of you don’t know who John Edwards is — unless you’re an overpriced hair dresser. He’s the trial lawyer who pretended in court to channel the spirit of a handicapped fetus in front of illiterate jurors to scam tens of millions of dollars off of innocent doctors. According to The New York Times, Edwards told one jury: “She speaks to you through me … And I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.”

Let me also quote from campaign consultant Bob Shrum’s book “No Excuses”:

“(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he’d never told anyone else — that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid (sic) there and hugged his body, and promised that he’d do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade’s ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before — and with the same preface, that he’d never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn’t pick Edwards unless he met with him again.”

Apparently every time Edwards began a story about his dead son with “I’ve never told anyone this before,” everyone on the campaign could lip-sync the story with him.

Toss Tinker

Anyone interested in how our education system degenerated into chaos should read Clarence Thomas’s (yes, that Clarence Thomas) terrific concurring opinion in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Supreme Court decision.

Dan Henninger comments and agrees with Justice Thomas that the schools’ devolution from the adults to the children began with the 1969 Tinker decision of the Supreme Court and thus should be overturned.

A Martyr For Civil Rights?

James Piereson describes how John F. Kennedy, who was murdered by a communist, was transformed by the liberal establishment into a “martyr for civil rights” and a victim of “bigotry” and how that fueled the chaotic 1960’s.

An excerpt:

Immediately after John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, Jacqueline Kennedy, along with other members of the Kennedy family, decided that the slain president should be viewed, like Abraham Lincoln, as a martyr for civil rights and equal justice for all. The funeral rites for President Kennedy were organized on the model of Lincoln’s, provoking continuous pronouncements by journalists and television commentators covering the funeral about the similarities between the two fallen leaders. Russell Baker, covering the mourning ceremonies for the New York Times, wrote that “the analogy to Lincoln’s death must have been poignantly apparent to most of those who passed (Kennedy’s) flag-draped coffin.”

Few called attention to the disquieting fact that President Kennedy had been shot by a communist whose motives were probably linked more closely to the Cold War than to the civil rights struggle. Lee Harvey Oswald, the likely assassin, was no arm-chair or academic communist out to impress relatives or associates with his radical theories, but a dyed-in-the-wool communist who had defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 and had spent nearly three years there before returning to the United States in 1962 with his Russian wife and infant child. During the months leading up to the assassination he had been active in a front group in New Orleans that defended Castro and attacked U.S. efforts to oust his communist regime in Cuba.

The attempt to portray President Kennedy as a modern-day Lincoln was inspired by the purest of motives but it turned out to have had the most unfortunate consequences for the nation and for the liberal movement that Kennedy represented. Kennedy’s assassination, as it happened, was not at all like Lincoln’s. The two shattering events had political consequences that were directly opposite of one another: Lincoln’s assassination tended to unite the nation around the ideals of union, freedom, and emancipation; Kennedy’s assassination divided the nation against itself, sowing endless division, confusion, and controversy that continued for a generation afterwards. Much of this was caused by the false portrayal of President Kennedy as a martyr for civil rights.

… The cultural and political understanding of the assassination had become detached from the details of the event itself. It appeared that the liberal leadership of the country -the New York Times, James Reston, Earl Warren, Mike Mansfield, President Johnson, religious leaders, even Mrs. Kennedy – had come together to blame the assassination of the president on hatred and intolerance which (they said) had engulfed the country. It was but a short step from here to the conclusion that the nation itself had to bear the guilt for Kennedy’s death.

Taylor Branch, in his history of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, described Kennedy’s surprising legacy as it was crafted from the public ceremonies surrounding his death:

“In death the late president gained credit for much of the purpose that King’s movement had forced upon him in life. No death had ever been like his – Niebuhr called him an elected monarch. In a mass purgative of hatred, bigotry, and violence, the martyred president became a symbol of the healing opposites. President Johnson told the nation that the most fitting eulogy would be swift passage of his civil rights bill. By this and other effects of mourning, Kennedy acquired the Lincolnesque mantle of a unifying crusader who had bled against the thorn of race.”

Branch seemed to understand that the anomalous facts surrounding Kennedy’s death had been redirected by the culture along more familiar and established paths. There was an irony in this for Kennedy had come slowly to the support of the movement King led. It was not even the case that the slain president “had bled against the thorn of race.” Yet this is what was believed, and this surprising response to the assassination had profound consequences. Branch went on to observe that “The reaction to Kennedy’s assassination pushed deep enough and wide enough in the high ground of political emotion to allow the civil rights movement to institutionalize its major gains before receding.” Kennedy had indeed come to be seen as a martyr for civil rights and the heir to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

Oxygen Flowing to a Corpse

Bret Stephens examines the question “Who Lost Palestine?”.

An excerpt:

…make no mistake: No matter how much diplomatic, military and financial oxygen is pumped into Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, it’s oxygen flowing to a corpse. Palestine has always been a notional place, a field of dreams belonging only to those who know how to keep it. Israelis have held on to their state because they were able to develop the political, military and economic institutions that a state requires to survive, beginning with its monopoly on the use of legitimate force. In its nearly 14 years as an autonomous entity, the PA has succeeded in none of that, despite being on the receiving end of unprecedented international goodwill and largesse.

Hamas’s seizure of the Gaza Strip this month–and the consequent division of the PA into two hostile, geographically distinct camps–is only the latest in a chain of events set in motion when Israel agreed, in September 1993, to accept Arafat and the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. An early indicator of what lay ahead took place on July 1, 1994, when Arafat made his triumphal entry into Gaza while carrying, in the trunk of his Mercedes, four of the Palestinian cause’s most violent partisans. Among them were the organizers of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and the 1974 Ma’alot school massacre. If ever there was an apt metaphor for what Arafat’s rule would bring, this was it.

Arafat was determined to use Gaza and the West Bank as a staging ground for attacks against Israel, and he said so publicly and repeatedly: “O Haifa, O Jerusalem, you are returning, you are returning” (1995); “We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion” (1996); “With blood and spirit we will redeem you, Palestine” (1997). With equal determination, the Clinton administration and the Israeli governments of Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak treated Arafat’s remarks as only so much rhetorical bluster. Mr. Clinton desperately wanted a Nobel Peace Prize; Israelis wanted out of the occupation business at almost any cost. These were respectable goals, but neither had as its primary aim the creation of a respectable Palestinian state.

Later, after the second intifada had erupted in all its suicidal frenzy, former U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross would admit the Clinton administration became too obsessed with process at the expense of substance. He should give himself more credit. The decision to legitimize Arafat was Israel’s, not America’s; once he was brought inside the proverbial tent he was bound to put a match to it. Still, the Clinton administration elevated Arafat like no other leader of the 1990s. If the rais came to flatter himself as a second Saladin, the flattery of White House banquets surely played a role.

The global media also did their bit in Arafat’s elevation. Successive generations of Jerusalem bureau chiefs developed a conveniently even-handed narrative pitting moderates on both sides against extremists on both sides–a narrative in which Arafat was a “moderate” and Ariel Sharon was an “extremist.” When Mr. Sharon took his famous walk on the Temple Mount in September 2000, it was easy to cast him as the villain and Palestinian rioters–and, later, suicide bombers–as the justifiably aggrieved. Cheering Palestinians on from the sidelines were the Arab media and the governments that own them, happy to channel domestic discontent toward a foreign drama.

As with individuals, nations generally benefit from self-criticism, and sometimes from the criticism of others. No people in modern history have been so immune from both as the Palestinians. In 1999, Abdel Sattar Kassem, a professor of political science in the Palestinian city of Nablus, put his name to the “petition of the 20,” written to “stand against [Arafat’s] tyranny and corruption.” Arafat imprisoned him; the rest of the world barely took notice. Arafat’s global popularity reached its apogee in the spring of 2002, exactly at the same time the civilian Israeli death toll from terrorism reached its height.

Yet what served Arafat’s interests well served Palestinian interests poorly. Arafat learned from his experience with Mr. Clinton that one could bamboozle an American president and not pay a price. George W. Bush took a different view and effectively shut the Palestinians out of his agenda. Arafat learned from the “international community” that no one would look too closely at where its foreign aid was spent. But a reputation for theft has been the undoing of Fatah. Arafat thought he could harness the religious power of “martyrdom” to his political ends. But at the core of every suicide bombing is an act of self-destruction, and a nation that celebrates the former inevitably courts the latter.

Above all, Arafat equated territory with power. But what the experience of an unoccupied Gaza Strip has shown is the Palestinians’ unfitness for political sovereignty. There are no Jewish settlers to blame for Gaza’s plight anymore, no Israeli soldiers to be filmed demolishing Palestinian homes. The Israeli right, which came to detest Mr. Sharon for pulling out of the Strip, might reconsider its view of the man and the deed. Nothing has so completely soured the world on the idea of a Palestinian state as the experience of it.

Prosecutorial Zeal and Moral Certitude

Dorothy Rabinowitz, the journalistic scourge of ambitious out-of-control prosecutors, takes on Patrick Fitzgerald:

The obligation to truth, the prosecutor argued, was of the highest importance, and one in which Mr. Libby had failed by perjuring himself. It would be hard to dispute the first contention. It is no less hard to avoid the memory of Mr. Fitzgerald’s own dubious relation to truth and honesty–as, for example, in his failure to disclose that he had known all along the identity of the person who had leaked the Valerie Plame story. That person, he knew, was Richard Armitage, deputy to Colin Powell. Not only had he concealed this knowledge–in what was, supposedly all that time, a quest to discover the criminals responsible for the leak of a covert agent’s name–he had instructed both Mr. Armitage and his superior, Colin Powell, in whom Mr. Armitage had confided, not to reveal the truth.

Special prosecutor Fitzgerald did, of course, have a duty to keep his investigation secret during grand jury proceedings, according to the rules. He did not have the power to order witnesses at those proceedings not to disclose their testimony or tell what they knew. Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald requested Messrs. Armitage and Powell to keep quiet about the leaker’s identity–a request they understandably treated as an order. Why the prosecutor sought this secrecy can be no mystery–it was the way to keep the grand jury proceedings going, on a fishing expedition, that could yield witnesses who stumbled, or were entrapped, into “obstruction” or “lying” violations. It was its own testament to the nature of this prosecution–and the prosecutor.

And Judge Reggie Walton:

That prosecution was abetted by the draw of Reggie Walton, a trial judge not disposed to sympathy for the defense. Still, even for a judge with a reputation for toughness and a predilection for severe sentences, the court’s behavior was–there is no other word for it–strange.

There were bouts of regularly expressed irritation when it occurred to Judge Walton that his conduct of the trial was being challenged–as when the defense, arguing for postponement of the sentence, cited the existence of grounds for a successful appeal. And Judge Walton was impelled, at frequent intervals, to hold forth on the need for the man in the street to be persuaded that he receives equal justice. Defense lawyers must do what they must do, but at a certain point it was obvious that letters of support testifying to Mr. Libby’s service to the country would avail nothing. Given a judge enamored of the image of his courtroom as an outpost in the class struggle–a judge obviously determined that this government official had to be sent to prison now–the outcome of this plea hearing was clear. It would have been the same, one understood, if Mr. Libby had been a Medal of Honor winner in a wheelchair.

At one point the judge delivered an outraged denunciation running to several paragraphs, about a footnote to an amicus brief filed on behalf of the defendant: One, he complained, in which the brief writers cited white collar cases. This indicated, the judge concluded, their indifference to the principle that blue collar criminals were entitled to the same rights as white collar ones. The writers had put the names of these white collar cases out there, the fugue continued, “solely in the hope that it would cause me to feel pressured . . .”

Finally, the judge dismissed the amicus brief filed by 12 distinguished law professors as “not something I would expect from a first-year law student.” Nothing, however, quite equaled the court’s flow of resentment toward the brief writers as his jeering observations about “these eminent academics” and how he trusted they might be moved in the future to “to provide like assistance” for litigants around the nation who lacked financial means.

The judge of course knew nothing about the signers of the brief or their pro bono work, nor did he have any need to, as he knew. A judge with life tenure doesn’t have much to fear. Among the signers of the brief dismissed as unworthy of a first-year law student was Alan Dershowitz, more than half of whose cases are done pro bono. As to the merits of the case for allowing Mr. Libby to remain free pending appeal, Mr. Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat, notes that one of the other signers is Robert Bork: “I agree with Robert Bork on nothing–but on this we’re of one mind.”

Mighty Mike Saves the Day

Michael Bloomberg is a short Jewish billionaire who became a Republican and spent millions of his own money to get elected mayor of New York City. There are two things to admire about Bloomberg- his shortness and, as Charles Krauthammer said the other day, that he didn’t screw up the amazing accomplishments of his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. His fans point to Bloomberg’s putative “reform” (aka, centralization of the New York public schools which reformed the previous reform- decentralization). Well, if you think those schools are any better than they were before Bloomberg, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Now Bloomberg seems to be getting ready for a Ross Perot-style independent presidential run. Here’s a look at Bloomberg’s politics via a Wall Street Journal editorial.

An excerpt:

Mayor Bloomberg has been traveling the country, making the case that there’s something rotten in our two-party system. “We do not have to settle for the same old politics,” Mr. Bloomberg said in California. “We do not have to accept the tired debate between the left and right, between Democrats and Republicans, between Congress and the White House.” It’s less than clear what Mr. Bloomberg would prefer in place of debate between Congress and the President–agreement? Abolition of Congress? Debate between the legislative and executive branches and among competing “factions” was designed into our system of government by the Founders.

But his contention that what the country really needs is an executive that transcends politics to “get things done” merits closer scrutiny. In his own words, “any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.” He added, in a statement that would make any motivational speaker proud, “Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.”

Terrific. Amid such happy sentiment, it seems churlish to point out that our disagreements about what the country should do are what lead to those debates that Mr. Bloomberg finds so tiresome. But underlying his critique is a belief, inconveniently belied by the evidence, that there is a large American center unserved by our two-party system.

This is not to say that there aren’t plenty of moderates in America, but moderation takes many forms. Antigun, pro-gay-rights, vaguely pro-business (but tax increasing) Mike Bloomberg is one sort. Pro-gun, economically populist Jon Tester, the junior Senator from Montana, is another, different sort. Pro-war Democrat Joe Lieberman is yet another kind. Their differences from each other are at least as important as their supposed moderateness.

As for “rigid adherence to ideology,” it’s hard to understand how President Bush’s current support for immigration reform, Bill Clinton’s signature on welfare reform or George H.W. Bush’s tax hikes fit into this caricature. Pragmatism is not the sole province of the Mike Bloombergs of the world. But calls on our politicians to be more pragmatic are usually, in practice, calls for them to agree with whoever is doing the calling.

And Brent Bozell calls attention to Bloomberg’s busy-body autocratic performance as mayor of New York:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announcing he’s leaving the Republican Party is a little like Madonna announcing she’s leaving the Catholic Church. Was he ever really a paragon of the GOP?

Speculation abounds that he’s running for president on the Ross Perot egotistical-billionaire plan, with press reports citing his intention to spend a cool $1 billion of his personal fortune. That will surely create a headwind, but a big part of the wind beneath his wings will be the support he hopes to generate from the national media.

…Time’s Michael Grunwald cheered that Bloomberg the Action Hero was “talking about saving the planet … opening a climate summit, highlighting his ambitious plan to slash the Big Apple’s carbon emissions.” In a time of “partisanship on crack,” he hailed Bloomberg for advocating an $8 “congestion fee” on commuters to the Big Apple and “leading a national crackdown on illegal guns, along with America’s biggest affordable housing program. He also enacted America’s most draconian smoking ban and the first big city trans-fat ban.”

If you think autocratic mayors are out of control when they ban things like incandescent light bulbs and trans-fats, just wait until you see what happens when they become president. Bloomberg will probably ban the internal combustion engine.

See post from Mark Steyn for more on the pie-in-the-sky politicians.

The Father of the Iranian Revolution

Jimmy Carter: Father of the Iranian Revolution.

Michael D. Evans writes in the Jerusalem Post:

We just don’t get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called “dim-witted cowboy,” has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter’s ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

And here’s an example of Carter’s more recent nuttiness:

From an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily:

Has Jimmy Carter gone off the deep end? He’s now scolding the West for refusing to bankroll Hamas terrorists who’ve just seized power at gunpoint in Gaza. It’s a new low in coddling terrorism.

As the Gaza Strip flamed into Hamas gang warfare and the West Bank slid into another civil war, Carter — cozy in distant Ireland accepting another “human rights” award — found cause Tuesday to blame America first for all the violence.

Amid wine, cheese and good feeling, America’s worst ex-president drew a bead on the West. The refusal by the U.S., Israel and the EU to support Hamas, an armed terror group that just launched a coup d’etat and civil war in full view of the world, was nothing but a “criminal” act at the root of the trouble there, Carter asserted.

“The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah,” he said.

The statement was so malevolent and illogical as to border on insane. Carter wasn’t honest enough to say he was rooting for terrorists who started a terrifying new war in the region and trashed what little democratic rule the Palestinians had.

Un-hyphenated Americans

Interesting column on ethnically incorrect famous Americans.

Actress Jessica Alba is one:

Alba is my last name and I’m proud of that. But that’s it. My grandparents were born in California, the same as my parents, and though I may be proud of my last name, I’m American. Throughout my whole life, I’ve never felt connected to one particular race or heritage, nor did I feel accepted by any. If you break it down, I’m less Latina than Cameron Diaz, whose father is Cuban. But people don’t call her Latina because she’s blonde…

My grandfather was the only Mexican at his college, the only Hispanic person at work and the only one at the all-white country club. He tried to forget his Mexican roots, because he never wanted his kids to be made to feel different in America. He and my grandmother didn’t speak Spanish to their children. Now, as a third-generation American, I feel as if I have finally cut loose.

My whole life, when I was growing up, not one race has ever accepted me, … So I never felt connected or attached to any race specifically. I had a very American upbringing, I feel American, and I don’t speak Spanish. So, to say that I’m a Latin actress, OK, but it’s not fitting; it would be insincere.

The Palestinian Malignancy

The always sensible Fouad Ajami tells the sad story of the Palestinian fantasy world.

An excerpt from an article in today’s New York Times:

The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other national movement has had the indulgence granted the Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and the senseless violence, in the inability of a people to come to terms with their condition and their needs.

The life of a Palestinian is one of squalor and misery, yet his leaders play the international game as though they were powers. An accommodation with Israel is imperative — if only out of economic self-interest and political necessity — but the Palestinians, in a democratic experiment some 18 months ago, tipped power to a Hamas movement whose very charter is pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state and the imposition of Islamist rule.

The political maxim that people get the leaders they deserve must be reckoned too cruel to apply to the Palestinians. Before Hamas, for four decades, the vainglorious Yasir Arafat refused to tell his people the basic truths of their political life. Amid the debacles, he remained eerily joyous; he circled the globe, offering his people the false sense that they could be spared the consequences of terrible decisions.

In a rare alignment of the universe, there came Mr. Arafat’s way in the late 1990s an American president, Bill Clinton, eager to redeem Palestinian claims and an Israeli soldier-statesman, Ehud Barak, who would offer the Palestinians all that Israeli political traffic could bear and then some.

But it was too much to ask of Mr. Arafat to return to his people with a decent and generous compromise, to bid farewell to the legend that the Palestinians could have it all “from the river to the sea.” It was safer for him to stay with the political myths of his people than to settle down for the more difficult work of statehood and political rescue.

For their part, the Arab states have only compounded the Palestinian misery. The Arab cavalry was always on the way, the Arab treasure was always a day away, and there was thus no need for the Palestinians to pay tribute to necessity. In recent years, the choice was starkly posed: it was either statehood or a starring role on Al Jazeera, and the young “boys of the stones” and their leaders opted for the latter.

…It isn’t a pretty choice, that between Hamas and Fatah. Indeed, it was the reign of plunder and arrogance that Fatah imposed during its years of primacy that gave Hamas its power and room for maneuver. We must not overdo the distinction between the “secularism” of Fatah and the Islamism of Hamas. In the cruel streets and refugee camps of the Palestinians, this is really a distinction without a difference.

It is idle to think that Gaza could be written off as a Hamas dominion while Fatah held its own in the towns of the West Bank. The abdication and the anarchy have damaged both Palestinian realms. Nablus in the West Bank is no more amenable to reason than is Gaza; the writ of the pitiless preachers and gunmen is the norm in both places.

… For decades, Arab society granted the Palestinians everything and nothing at the same time. The Arab states built worlds of their own, had their own priorities, dreaded and loathed the Palestinians as outsiders and agitators, but left them to the illusion that Palestine was an all-consuming Arab concern.

Now the Palestinians should know better. The center of Arab politics has shifted from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, a great political windfall has come to the lands of the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula, vast new wealth due to the recent rises in oil prices, while misery overwhelms the Palestinians. No Arabs wait for Palestine anymore; they have left the Palestinians to the ruin of their own history.

The rise of Hamas in Gaza should concentrate the minds of the custodians of power in the Arab world. Palestine, their old alibi, the cause with which they diverted the attention of their populations from troubles at home, has become a nightmare in its own right. An Arab debt is owed the Palestinians — the gift of truth and candor as well as material help.

Arab poets used to write reverential verse in praise of the boys of the stones and the suicide bombers. Now the poetry has subsided, replaced by a silent recognition of the malady that afflicts the Palestinians. Except among the most bigoted and willful of Arabs, there is growing acknowledgment of the depth of the Palestinian crisis. And aside from a handful of the most romantic of Israelis, there is a recognition in that society, as well, of the malignancy of the national movement a stone’s throw away.

Caroline Glick has more on fantasy and the Palestinians.

Enforce the Law? Can't Be Done.

Mark Steyn on the liberal creed: The government can’t enforce the law, but can eliminate poverty, disease and global warming.

An excerpt:

The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from the heaventh will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can’t be done, old boy. You’re dreaming. Cloud-cuckoo stuff. Pie-in-the-sky.