Millions of voters braved the threat of bombs and bullets to participate in yesterday’s Parliamentary elections in Iraq. As usual, the terrorists tried to intimidate voters but again as usual, the sorry few cowards could not intimidate the courageous majority. What a triumph for democracy.

In the election’s aftermath, Mithal al-Alusi, an Iraqi Parliamentarian up for re-election, told a member of the Australian media he thanks former U.S. President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Here is what he said:

”Whoever would have imagined this day would ever come? I think you people in the West, who criticise those two great leaders, don’t understand that it is beginning to work. We are the beginning of true democracy in the Middle East and it is starting to spread and have an impact on the other countries.”

Last week I spoke with Mr. Alusi, whom I have interviewed many times through the years, and whose words and brave actions have blazed a trial towards a brighter future in Iraq. He is optimistic that the Iraqi Nation Party, his grassroots, secular party, which champions human rights, free press, and alliance with other democracies, will gain an additional seat in the Parliament in this election.

More to come.

Tonight the 2010 Winter Olympics ended. Canada squeaked past the U.S. to win in men’s ice hockey, with Pittsburgh Penguins team captain Sidney Crosby scoring the winning goal.

Since Crosby has brought his great talent to Pittsburgh over the past several years, we are inclined to forgive him for playing his heart out for Canada, where he was born (there is no place like home, after all).

In total, what a phenomenal sweep for Canada, with the most gold medals ever won in a Winter Olympics in history -14! With the most medals overall, the U.S. did well, too.

However, it looks like our Prez will soon be buying Canada’s PM, Stephen Harper, a case of Molson Canadian.

Could any of this possibly be good karma for a good decision?

My brilliant and beautiful writing partner and friend Jennifer Ginsberg is scheduled to appear tomorrow (Wed. February 24) night on the TV show EXTRA as an addiction expert discussing Charlie Sheen.

In addition to being an author, Jennifer is a clinical social worker and expert in addiction who has worked as clinical coordinator of the country’s largest Jewish addiction rehab center, Beit T’shuvah, in Los Angeles.

Jen is the hottest, smartest–and toughest–relationship pundit to bring brains, compassion, and spiritual insight to the work of helping humans since Dr. Laura.

If I were Charlie sheen, I’d sober up.

Tonight on the Factor, Bill O’Reilly put forward an interesting, sobering argument regarding the classification of President Obama as a socialist by some conservatives.

“When you have a country starting to define a sitting President as a socialist, is that working? Remember how the far left defined President Bush, as a ‘liar,’ he ‘lied’ about Iraq, as a ‘dummy.’” O’Reilly said in an interchange with Fox anchor Brit Hume. “That [the classification of President Obama as a socialist] is gaining traction and that’s going to be a hard moniker for the President to get off him.”

Hume and O’Reilly proceeded with a debate about the definition of socialism, with O’Reilly arguing the definition is that the citizens have no right to private property, which can be usurped at the whim of an autocratic leader (and that therefore Obama is not a socialist), and Hume arguing that the way the term is generally used, it can refer to Western-European style combination economies in which private property exists alongside huge social welfare programs and heavy government regulation in many areas of life. By that definition, Hume maintained, Obama critics like Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are correct to characterize the President as a socialist.

I tend to agree with O’Reilly that President Obama, no matter what his core beliefs, is not fundamentally trying to turn the country socialist (he came close, though). For one thing, I believe the President has a pragmatic, success-oriented personality and it’s increasingly clear he couldn’t turn the country socialist if he wanted to (tea, anyone?), at least not if he wants a chance at re-election. It’s still a center (slightly) right country overall, and the health care fiasco (which arguably would have brought us closer to becoming a socialist economy, over time) has demonstrated that the President can’t impose an extremely leftist agenda on the country against the wishes of the majority. Knowing President Obama as I believe we are coming to, he will continue to push for reform, but will tack slightly more to the center on it. I think O’Reilly is correct that, whether the President holds socialist views or not, he is not enough of a true socialist to sacrifice his ambition to them (in other words, like many armchair socialists who have any chance at personal success, when it comes to his own advancement, he’s a capitalist).

What was striking to me in O’Reilly’s back-and-forth with Hume was what I felt Bill was inching toward without coming out and saying directly: much as vigorous criticism of the President may be in order, conservatives might keep in mind the way the deluge of vitriol and attempts to de-legitimize President Bush affected the morale of the country and, possibly, the perception of the U.S. to allies and enemies alike. Although O’Reilly characterized it as coming from the “hard left” (perhaps he was thinking of his viewers, many of whom are Democrats), the reality is, as his Presidency wore on, bashing President Bush became a mindless blood sport and a favorite pastime of many Americans, not just hard leftists. In reality, this mass characterization of President Bush as a “dummy” was intensely, and hypocritically, anti-intellectual (most critics who flattered themselves they were qualified to disparage the President’s intelligence knew precious little about the details of his polices, about geopolitics, about world history, and had not taken the time or exercised the personal discipline to examine the complex issues our country faced in an intellectually honest way). Bashing him became an extremely easy way to appear - and feel–intelligent, and in the end actually worked against intelligent examination of complex issues, because people who knew relatively little became complacent in the fantasy that they knew much. Ironically, the down side of our complete freedom is freedom to be closed-minded, which is what many of the President’s most vicious, name-calling critics actually were. Look no farther than the fact that President Obama has kept in place many of President Bush’s security policies, from so-called “warantless wiretapping” to the housing of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, to the maintenance of troops to keep the peace and help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan build democracy. If those policies were the evil work of an atrocious moron, as most leftists relentlessly characterized President Bush, why has President Obama kept these policies in place?

One of the points O’Reilly made in his broadcast tonight was that the relentless groupthink characterizing President Bush as a “liar” and a “dummy,” “hurt the President.” Although he was not more specific, I think O’Reilly is suggesting that it may have weakened President Bush’s abilities to effectively negotiate and leverage American power in the world, because it possibly added to America’s enemies’ — and allies’ — perception that he lacked power at home. This erosion of basic respect for the President probably reduced respect for him, and for the U.S., among our allies, and reduced fear of him on the part of our enemies.

I think O’Reilly is cautioning the right against engaging in the kind of un-nuanced personal attack against President Obama that leftists made commonplace during the Bush years. The point, I suspect, is not so much that conservatives must wear the white hat to be morally superior, but that disparaging and attempting to de-legitimize a sitting President could, if it becomes the norm, have negative real world consequences.

Today it was reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledges “the existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” Although that’s hardly plain English, a close examination of the statement suggests that the IAEA is saying that, in addition to the secret uranium enrichment facility discovered in Qom last fall, the Iranians have even more secret programs to develop a nuclear weapon that could be shot via missile. I’m no scientist, but it seems clear that even the IAEA, a left-leaning, Iran-sympathizing internationalist body, is stating clearly its contention that Iran’s program is for nuclear weapons, not peaceful energy.

This statement by the IAEA jibes with what Iraqi Parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi has warned about for months, and which I published in a story in The Jerusalem Post on Christmas Day. Alusi has told me that, based on reports from sources with direct access to information about Iran’s nuclear program, Iran is racing to build both a nuclear bomb and the missiles to launch it.  Alusi also told me something this IAEA report suggests may be accurate: in addition to the six known nuclear production sites in Iran monitored by the IAEA, there are additional secret sites.

It seems a brutal, autocratic regime with genocidal intent is indeed on the threshold of nuclear capability. It is difficult to imagine, at this critical juncture in world history, what could be more urgent than stopping them from attaining that capability.

Last week at UC Irvine, a large group of extremist students repeatedly shouted down Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. You can watch a video of this debacle here.

When appeals to the values of liberal education, free speech, and even threats of expulsion failed to quiet the disruption, Ambassador Oren appealed to the attendees on the basis of the middle eastern tradition of hospitality. That failed, too.

The fanaticism, lack of civility, and lack of respect the disruptive students demonstrated in this incident were not only an offense towards Israel or the ambassador. Their behavior appeared to be a proud demonstration of contempt for liberal education and the values that sustain it. It is also worth noting that, as evidenced here, the people who really hate Israel tend to hold America and its institutions in contempt as well.

Choudhury, who faces prosecution by his government on charges of “blasphemy, treason, and sedition”– for writing articles favorable to Israel, and for exposing the rise of radical Islam in his country — has been the victim of harassment and torture at the hands of his government since 2003.

While he does not necessarily believe the government perpetrated this recent break-in, Choudhury believes the government may be complicit.

“When my office was attacked we were sure they were government agents,” Choudhury told me. “In this latest incident we don’t know why they came or what their motives were… When police refuse to record the case and are reluctant to investigate the whole matter, as a journalist I feel there is something fishy.”

In February, 2009, members of Bangladesh’s ruling party, the Awami League, ransacked the office of Choudhury’s newspaper, The Weekly Blitz, physically assaulted Choudhury and Weekly Blitz employee Amanur Rashid Aman, and drove them out of their office. Since then, they have been unable to enter their office, and Choudhury has needed to hire additional bodyguard protection for himself and his family.

Choudhury tells me the Bangladeshi government, initially hailed as a left-wing improvement on the previous, right-wing government, is becoming more repressive all the time. Crazy (there’s no other word) actions the Awami League government is perpetrating include arresting a journalist “for cursing the prime minister” and “digging up the bones of their political opponents,” from a cemetery, according to Choudhury.

Additionally, the Awami League is persecuting minorities and physically attacking political rivals, according to Choudhury.

Choudhury e-mailed me yesterday, “The present ‘Grand Alliance’ government has virtually turned Bangladesh into a country of no law and order. If you will read Bangladeshi newspapers, you will see, almost every day, ruling party activists are killing someone here and there. Corruption is everywhere …The government is doing everything in suffocating the voice of all political opponents. Recently in the Parliament, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and another senior lawmaker named Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim [cousin of the PM] demanded removal of the remains of the late President Ziaur Rahman [founder of Bangladesh’s main opposition party named Bangladesh Nationalist Party] from the graveyard and throwing away his remains in the river. They [the ruling party] wants to delete every existence of the political opponents in Bangladesh.”

Geez. And we thought American politics lacked civility.

In all seriousness, it sounds from Choudhury’s front-lines report like there has been a  deterioration of law and order in Bangladesh. Choudhury himself has been abused and beaten so severely since 2003—by his own government—that he has sustained hearing loss. He has also lost vision after being denied his glaucoma medication during his incarceration.

He says freedom of the press is under attack by Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, whose father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s first prime minister, at one time “banned all newspapers” in that country, according to Choudhury.

He adds that a “black law” is still on the books in Bangladesh allowing government and law enforcement agencies to arrest anyone without any reason and place them on detention for an indefinite period.

When a free press is banned, corruption is not far behind. And this courageous independent journalist, who has exposed the rise of radical Islam in his traditionally moderate Muslim country, remains in the crosshairs of his own government.

His next trial date is February 18^th.

More to come.

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Just watched this video clip of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani discussing the impending trial of high level al Qaeda operatives, including 9/11 master planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in New York City.

Giuliani, who in his capacity as a former U.S. attorney prosecuted numerous terrorists, thinks the Obama administration’s plan to bring KSM and others to New York City for civilian trials is a bad one. He points out that these notorious war criminals will, if tried in U.S. courts, be granted the rights of civilians, which is inappropriate given that they have declared and committed acts of war.

To Giuliani’s analysis I would add/emphasize that not only will KSM & Company be granted the rights of civilians, but of civilian U.S. citizens, who are the people our laws and courts are designed to protect. So this decision seems doubly wrong-headed; not only are these dangerous men not civilians, they are not U.S. citizens.

Giuliani points out that the cases could be thrown out by a judge who, say, deems that some of the evidence of these men’s crimes was gathered in a way that “shocks the conscience.” That is because, as Giuliani explains, the entire U.S. criminal justice system is designed, first and foremost, to protect the rights of innocent U.S. citizens. “Our system is geared towards letting the guilty go free if there is any doubt. It’s a very different situation when you are at war.”

Giuliani believes the Obama Justice Department’s move reflects a concern about offending people in the Islamic world over concern for the safety of U.S. citizens. He also eloquently explains that it is not treating terrorists as such that is likely to offend law-abiding members of the Muslim world, but the condescending assumption that peaceful Muslims can’t differentiate between our handling, as a nation, of terrorist masterminds and our handling of Muslim-American citizens, or our perceptions of Islam. I’m inclined to agree, and would also argue that this decision more reflects concern over others’ opinions than true concern for civil liberties. For one thing, the small number of individuals who are now being held at the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are treated humanely, something no greater a critic of the Bush Administration than filmmaker Michael Moore (of all people) highlighted in his movie Sicko, which asserted the excellent health care (superior, according to Moore, to that available to many U.S. citizens) available to the inmates there.

More significantly, bringing these men to trial in New York will increase safety risk to U.S. citizens — especially if they are released. And as Giuliani pointed out, U.S. defense attorneys will be under legal and ethical obligation to make strenuous arguments in favor of their release. That is the way our civilian justice system is designed to operate. Despite Eric Holder’s recent statement to the effect that a high-level terrorist like KSM would not be released, if defense attorneys failed to muster all the arguments and evidence they could (including exploiting sophisticated legal arguments and loopholes) to argue for these men’s release, or if a judge refused to allow for the possibility of acquittal, the trial would not be legitimate. To put it simply, in bringing these men to civilian trial the Obama Administration is allowing for the possibility that they may be released at some point, unless the trials are kangaroo trials and our system made a mockery.

Safety does not always automatically trump concerns over civil liberties. In times of war, a balance must be achieved. Incarcerating whole populations in order to theoretically protect Americans against attacks that might — or might not — materialize, as happened to Japanese-Americans during World War Two, was a gross violation of the civil liberties of American citizens. The theoretical possibility of threat from Japanese-Americans (a threat that, as far as I am aware, did not materialize) was given huge weight over the rights of these Americans, who unlike their ethnic brethren overseas were simply not at war with us. Thus despite a lack of evidence, whole populations of Japanese-Americans were lumped in with foreign enemy combatants in our assessment of their mindset. Although it may have been motivated by desire to protect Americans, the policy punished innocent Japanese-Americans and, insofar as it reflected fear, not logic, failed to accomplish anything in the realm of national security.

On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that, with mistakes like the incarceration of innocent Japanese-Americans fresh in our memories, we are fighting the last war and have swung to the other extreme. Endangering innocent Americans in order to bend over backwards to grant “civil liberties” to a small number of foreign enemy combatants (whose own nations and codes of ethics recognize no such concept) is a violation of Americans’ civil liberties — starting with the rights to life and security.

After all, before one’s right to a fair trial, to freedom of speech and assembly, to freedom of religion, comes one’s right to keep breathing. If a government cannot reasonably protect its citizens from the threat of physical attack, cannot within reason ensure basic security, it is not doing its number one job as a government that serves its people. Similarly, when a government abandons a suitable level of national defense and leaves itself vulnerable to attack or overthrow, all the other rights and privileges it grants its citizens will soon be meaningless.

Protecting citizens from violence should not be used as a cover to encroach on civil liberties. And basic rights such as the right to move in public spaces, to assemble, to speak, etc. should not be sacrificed, even during wartime, if at all possible. But being at war with a fanatical enemy does sometimes necessitate common sense defensive measures.

Like those who, at a time when thousands of Israeli civilians were being attacked in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem on the streets, in restaurants, and on buses by suicide bombers, argued against the construction of Israel’s security fence in favor of deference to Palestinian Arabs’ civil liberties, those who argue for civilian trial for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are misapplying sacred principles — the right of citizens of democratic countries to protection against government overreach — to people who are at war with us (and with those principles). Also, they have picked a dangerous time to misapply those sacred principles.

To put it simply, what about the civil liberties of the Israeli citizens who were losing their lives, their arms and legs, on buses that had been turned into infernos? What about the rights of New Yorkers who go to Lower Manhattan to work, and will be exposed to greater physical risk, and the rights of all U.S. citizens who will be exposed to great risk in the event these men are released, even years hence? These rights are being cast aside so our government can grant imaginary rights to citizens of other nations, in this case to individuals like KSM, who make no secret of their intention to fight against us a war without end.

It’s just not good common sense. And it is a violation of Americans’ civil liberties.

From The Huffington Post
by HEATHER ROBINSON

Last week the United States announced an initial contribution of $40 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency dedicated to providing food, jobs and education in the Palestinian territories. According to a U.S. State Department press release, the money will “provide critical health, education, and humanitarian services to 4.7 million Palestinians across the region.”

This United Nations agency, which receives the largest share of its funding from the U.S. taxpayer, has in recent years come under fire due to at least one of its employees’ admission that it employs members of Hamas.

Last month, due to concerns Hamas had infiltrated UNRWA, the Canadian government quietly decided to redirect funding away from the agency; instead, the $300 million in aid Canada has pledged to the Palestinians for the next five years will go to food aid and the support of the Palestinian justice system in an effort to help the Palestinians build a civil society.

Perhaps the U.S. should follow Canada’s lead.

In recent years, watchdog organizations have shined a light on the content of books in schools in the Palestinian territories - and what they illuminated was a consistent pattern of propaganda denying Israel’s right to exist, dehumanizing Israelis and Jews, and lacking any concrete perspective that would point towards a nonviolent resolution of the conflict, such as a two-state solution. UNRWA schools use the same text books as those that are used in Palestinian schools run by the Palestinian Authority - and by Hamas.

In 2007, Senator Hillary Clinton joined Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch, an organization that translates and publishes online the contents of Palestinian media, in presenting a report to Congress analyzing eight textbooks used in Palestinian schools.

In a press conference on Capitol Hill, then-Senator Clinton said, “These school books together with the media are profoundly poisoning the minds of these children.”

(Clinton also convened a Senate subcommittee hearing on the subject at which Marcus testified in 2003).

In the aftermath of last week’s State Department announcement of its plan to give UNRWA $40 million, I spoke with Marcus and asked whether text books in UNRWA schools continue to incite intolerance and hatred.

He said that, the wake of consciousness-raising including Hillary Clinton’s stand, the Palestinian Authority had removed overt anti-Semitism from a new crop of text books. But the new books do not acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and, perhaps even more chilling, are laden with content that romanticizes suicide martyrdom to children.

He shared with me some examples: In a textbook used in United Nations’ UNRWA schools called Our Beautiful Language used for sixth and seventh graders, this verse appears:

“I see my death but I hasten my steps toward it.”

In a textbook for eighth grade students called Reading and Text Part II–Grade 8:

“O heroes, Allah has promised you victory… Don’t talk yourselves into flight… Your enemies seek life while you seek death … Death is not bitter in the mouths of the believers.”

In addition to glorifying jihad martyrdom, the new textbooks make intolerance politically correct by avoiding direct mention of violence toward Jews–and instead de-legitimize Israel and Zionism, according to Marcus.

“The new approach is to demonize Zionists and Israel,’” he said. “All of Israel is defined as Islamic land, and they say this is part of their historical narrative… the new schoolbooks call the war against Israel a religious war.”

(Marcus noted that while the UNRWA schools only go up to grade 8 they use the same elementary- and middle-school texts as schools run by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas for students of those ages).

Asked if he feels UNRWA is contributing to this problem of incitement, including incitement of children to suicide martyrdom, Marcus spoke of what he believes is passivity on the part of UNRWA in the face of child exploitation.

“Regarding the incitement of Palestinian children to martyrdom, [UNRWA] does not do anything to put pressure on Palestinian leadership to stop that practice [of encouraging children to become suicide martyrs]–nothing to make it better,” Marcus said. “U.N. workers [in the Palestinian territories] for the most part are local Palestinians and for them the issue of hatred is not seen as a problem.”

Last week I contacted UNRWA’s office in New York and spoke with Andrew Whitley, its director.

Citing Peter Hansen’s October, 2004 statement that there were members of Hamas on the payroll, I asked Whitley if it remained the case that UNRWA does not vet potential employees to ensure they are not members of Hamas. Whitley responded that, while the agency has rules about its employees not bringing politics in to work and not engaging in certain “after-hours behavior,” UNRWA does not vet its employees based on whether they belong to Hamas “in the same way, [interviewing for a U.N. job] people don’t ask if you’re a Democrat or a Republican.”

Regarding the contents of textbooks used by UNRWA, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas, Whitley acknowledged that all three bodies use the same text books in their schools, saying that is because “all Palestinians take the same matriculation exams” but said the books “have been found to be clear of anti-Semitic content.”

Whitley said that in recent years the Palestinian Authority has made changes to their textbooks “of their own volition” and disputed that there was a cause and effect relationship between the congressional subcommittee hearings chaired by then-Senator Clinton and the content of Palestinian textbooks. “A few years ago … [there was] a great deal of pandering to the usual lobbyists,” Whitley said. “In the past, elements which could have been considered anti-Semitic [have been removed] … my understanding is changes were made seven or eight years ago so contents are ones that could be considered appropriate for children of these ages.”

In response to an e-mail including excerpts of the verses Marcus quoted to me and asking why the U.N. is using books that extol jihad martyrdom to children, Whitley responded that he would have to “check with our education colleagues to see if those quotes are accurate.”

He added, “The second one [from Reading and Text Part II–Grade 8] sounds like it could be Koranic. The point comes back to, what is the context and what is it used for?”

(The rest of the passage is as follows: “O heroes, Allah has promised you victory… Don’t talk yourselves into flight… Your enemies seek life while you seek death. They seek spoils to fill their empty stomachs while you seek a Paradise as wide as are the heavens and the earth… Death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers. These drops of blood that gush from your bodies will be transformed tomorrow into blazing red meteors that will fall down upon the heads of your enemies.”)
[Reading and Texts Part II, Grade 8, p. 16]

Whitley added, “I don’t think it’s an absolutist issue. Are there problems with Israeli textbooks that deny the green line? Textbooks with people in a state of conflict are often [politically incorrect]. I’m from the U.K. and some of the textbooks we had [in earlier eras] would be completely obnoxious [by today’s standards]. We need to look not from a moralistic point of view but look at the actual circumstances under which people are living.”

Whitley went on to say that UNRWA has a compulsory program in its schools in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories “to inculcate tolerance and respect for human rights,” and he suggested I report on a project UNRWA recently organized that brought Palestinian teens to the U.S. to talk about human rights.

I replied that that does sound like a worthy story. But I also thought privately that once a child’s mind is poisoned early on by hatred and fanaticism, I question to what extent later efforts, however well-intentioned, can undo it.

As Hillary Clinton said, “These textbooks don’t give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination.”

Between what is appearing on Palestinian television, what is being preached in the mosques, and what is taught in Palestinian schools, Palestinian leadership is doing its best to ensure there will be no peace in the middle east in this generation.

As long as the U.S. and others continue subsidizing that indoctrination, how can the world expect peace in the Middle East?

Granted, he’s no Ph.D. But then again, he calls ‘em like he sees ‘em and is not influenced by partisan politics or ego. Who knows what the future will bring, but with a severe snowstorm on its way to New York City this weekend, we are battening down the hatches - and Phil is looking like an oracle.