All the Emperor’s Men Part II

When diplomacy fails…go with the Shakedown

 

As of this writing, the United Nations is giving serious consideration to a Statehood petition submitted by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. This move by Mr. Abbas is in direct contradiction to the publicly stated wishes of President Obama, which leads me to speculate that Mr. Abbas is either incredibly reckless, or he is confident the required rebuke from the United States would never materialize. Only time will tell. The most telling feature of Mr. Abbas’ strategy for “recognition of Palestine as a State,” is his fervent refusal to similarly recognize Israel’s right to exist. Mr. Abbas further demands a do-over—requiring Israel to return all territories captured in the various military conflicts with its Arab neighbors—as a precondition for returning to the negotiation table. By issuing his proposal in so public a forum (viz UN General Assembly), Mr. Abbas has sent a clear message to the International Community, in general, and to the United States, in particular: butt out. This affront does not bode well for Mr. Obama; it is further evidence of his consistent inability to manage the most basic issues of diplomacy. It also demonstrates why the Palestinians would forever be viewed as second-class citizens of the larger Arab Community.

To understand fully, the depth of the Palestinians’ gripe with Israel, it is important to take into account the recent history of the Palestinian people, especially their relationship with Arab states in the region. The Palestinians could immediately be absorbed into any number of Arab states, if a homeland was genuinely what they [and their benefactors] desire. I suspect, however, that the Palestinians’ problem is Israel–as long as there are Jews in the Middle East, Arabs generally, and Palestinians in particular would have a problem. This is indeed true of the rest of the vast majority of Arab and Islamic countries, many of whom have violent anti-Israel rhetoric embedded in their constitutional charters and in their hearts. While many nations within the League of Arab States provide financial support to the Palestinians, their donations do not match their rhetoric. The funds they do provide, however, are just enough to keep the Palestinians supplied with munitions to wage war against Israel; thus keeping the minds of the Palestinians, off the greater tragedy: abandonment by their Arab fellows. The stark dichotomy between the rhetoric of the Arab Community of nations, with respect to Israel’s alleged mistreatment of the Palestinians, leaves little doubt about its insincerity. Public statements of support for the Palestinians means nothing if these nations refuse to actively provide material support. Surely, the Palestinians must, by now, realize that the lip service from within the larger Arab Community lacks the concrete action necessary to alleviate their plight.

 

For the sake of clarity, the land Palestinians, and their benefactors claim as their homeland has always been the Jewish homeland. As luck would have it, following a Jewish revolt against Roman oppression and maltreatment in 135 A.D., Emperor Hadrian devised, what he thought was the best strategy for teaching the Jews a lesson: he renamed the entire region, then known as Judea, after the Philistines, arch enemies of the Jews. Ironically, the Philistines were of European heritage.

 

A concoction of the International Media and their accomplices in academia, the Palestinians’ Arab heritage is linked solely to their geography and their acceptance of Islam. Based on the fact that the larger Arab community has [always] kept the Palestinians at arm’s length, there might even be a case for the retention of much of their European genetic heritage. The giant Goliath, in the biblical story of David and Goliath, was a Philistine. As you would recall, Goliath and his contemporaries taunted the Jews until he met his maker at the hands of the lad David—the teenage son of Jesse—who would go on the later become King of the Jews. With this perspective, it is easy to see the history of Europe’s mistreatment of the Jews. Also evident, is the time course of the conflict between the two sides. It is foolhardy arrogance to believe that as a result of our intellect, or the fading memory of history, we somehow know what it takes to forge peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Like the Palestinians of late, the Philistines’ hatred of the Jews appears to be based solely on the fact that they are Jews.

 

Would it not be more prudent to explore ways to nurture acceptance (not tolerance) of one another? With acceptance comes the acknowledgement of each other’s right to pursue satisfaction of the instinctive human desire for, among other things, shelter and safety. The notion of tolerance is batted about by social engineers who use it as a tool for bringing warring sides together. Humans tolerate what they do not like, only until we find ourselves in a position to make a radical change. With acceptance; however, we acknowledge the inevitability of the condition in question. We see this phenomenon at work right here in the US, there the Civil Rights Act [legally] imposed tolerance of Blacks. The result was that some acquiesced and fell in line, others tolerated Blacks, and the remainder disguised their true feelings. As stated previously, tolerance is of limited duration, which typically culminates in an explosive outburst of resentment. These outbursts are usually violent and extremely destructive to the larger society.

 

The idea of acceptance implies inevitability, which is best compared with the role of women in American society. When, in the 1960s, American women sought acceptance as equals in the workforce, men ultimately acquiesced. Had men been asked, simply to tolerate women in the workplace, an eventual rebellion would result, and I think you know who the loser would be. Human nature has demonstrated mankind’s ability to engage in problem-solving. The mere toleration of an undesired condition leaves the door open for varied interpretations of what is required to alleviate the offending condition.

 

Use of the word Palestine has become a code phrase for masking the users’ anti-Israel beliefs. I would go as far as saying that when spewed by the educational elite and certain segments of the news media, it is a clear indication of their belief that Israel does not have a legitimate right to the land, and most importantly no right to exist as a sovereign country. Nowhere is this more evident that in the case of Jimmy Carter, who, since leaving office has thrown about the term Palestine with a casual arrogance that  belies his anti-Israel sentiments.

 

In spite of the passage of time since Mr. Carter’s exit from office, one fact of his political ideology remains unchanged: he continues to be distrustful of Israel, with a stubborn unwillingness to acquiesce to the reality of Israel’s right to exist. Mr. Carter has gone to great lengths to convince the world of Israel’s misdeeds and maltreatment of the Palestinians, yet he fails to disclose atrocities against Israel, whether from the Palestinians or their cohorts in the region. In the words of Mark W. Muesse, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Rhodes College: “the critics would not tell you that Israel is the most ethnically diverse country in the world.” Instead, you would be fed a steady diet of anti-Israel rhetoric designed to inflame your instinctive urge to take the side of the downtrodden.

 

In reality, Mr. Carter’s anti-Israel sentiments are in lock step with those of his party. His views are no different from those of Mr. Obama, who continues to call for a “free Palestine.” When Mr. Obama took office, he swiftly signaled that as far as Israel is concerned, it is not business as usual. In my spring 2010 three part series, High Crimes on the High Seas, I discussed Mr. Obama’s mistreatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the signal his actions sent to Israel’s enemies—from Turkey to Somalia.

 

Unlike Mr. Carter, who hides his anti-Israel sentiments between the covers of his books, and would only spew his similar views to the foreign press, Mr. Obama is more brazen with his feelings towards Israel. I found it mildly rewarding, however, to watch the recent public conciliation of Mr. Obama’s anti-Israel views. No doubt, Mr. Obama’s handlers have refreshed him on the importance of the Jewish vote, as election season nears.

 

In the long view, we are a society constrained by media bias that transcend the boundaries of morality and spirituality. It is important, therefore, that all men and women of character rise above the instinctive urge to succumb to irrational decision-making. The Middle East situation will never be resolved by the efforts of bullies who seek only to right the wrongs their jaded views permit them to see. A bomb is a deadly weapon whether it is made in the most state-of-the-art facility in Iran, or a barn in Gaza. Whether it is capable of killing thousands, or mere dozens, atrocities must be answered in like measure, irrespective of the relative strength or perceived victimhood of the perpetrator.

 

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” As God’s admonition to Noah clearly states, Israel has, at least, the rujight to self-defense. Acceptance of this most basic precept of survival would cause Israel's enemies to admit to unprovoked aggression on the part of the Palestinians.

 

While this view counters the traditional notion of a unilateral conflict in which Israel is forever the aggressor, acceptance is the critical next step toward finding a solution. Neither diplomatic grand-standing, nor media-directed manipulation of the truth will bring about the long sort after peace.

.

Chinese Car Company Knocks-Off Ford F150 Pick Up

From flattery to contempt: the unmaking of American

manufacturing greatness, Chinese style.

It is hardly a secret that the Chinese have, for years, been counterfeiting American currency and just about anything they believe would sell, period. In fact, any inventor who has ever had his/her product manufactured in China would tell you that there is a better than good chance that your product would likely debut in China [under a Chinese name, of course] long before your production run ships. The Chinese illegally copy and sell everything from computer software and hardware, designer goods, ranging from clothing to handbags, and fragrances, to name just a few. The Chinese have even copied an American Aircraft Carrier. I can't wait to see what they intend to do for qualified sailors...then again, with cloning and DNA technology, the drones are probably being tested as I write this.

Up until now, American automobiles and books by American and other Western authors appeared to have been immune to this sort of theft. If the Stolen Ford F150 is a barometer of things to come, Mark Levin's book, Ameritopia might be next—let’s just pray they print this knock off in Chinese.

I found it odd though, that they targeted the Ford F150; especially since Ford was the only of the big three American automobile manufacturers to refuse to kneel at the government's "Stimulus Trough." Why not bootleg the Chevy Volt? Or the Chrysler Town and Country?

While the Chinese manufacturing sector behaves highly unethically, they are certainly not idiots. After all, they still have to sell these bootleg autos to the Chinese consumer, so they had to choose one that actually worked. Why target an overhyped Chevrolet battery operated car with a history of bursting into flames? Or a Chrysler minivan, of which one owner recently questioned why he bought it in the first place. This same owner did comment, however, that Chrysler has been good about paying for a rental car while [he waited] several days to get [the air conditioner on his three month old Town and Country] fixed. 

In spite of the obvious theft of Ford's intellectual property and other associated violations, the American Press, and Ford, for that matter have been uncharacteristically silent on this affront. Ford and the US Authorities appear to have resigned themselves that as Chinese consumers become increasingly sophisticated, they would—over time—come to reject counterfeit merchandise.

You have to wonder why President Obama and his predecessors have not taken the Chinese Government to task over this sort of behavior. While the damage to the Automobile Industry could be quantified in terms of lost [potential] sales to willing Chinese consumers, the long-term impact to the reputation of the Ford Motor Company is limitless. Combine these detrimental effects with the global impact on other American and global companies, and then we are talking real damage.

Should the revenue generated by the Chinese counterfeiting industry from China’s GDP, then the “Paper Dragon” shows its true weight; very, very light.

HURT: 'Islamist Firster' president not what he claimed - Washington Times

HURT: 'Islamist Firster' president not what he claimed - Washington Times

All the Emperor’s Men Part I

When diplomacy fails…go with the Shakedown

        Most Americans would agree that as presidents go, Jimmy Carter dedicated more time and resources, during his presidency, to peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians than any other American President–then or since. In fact, Mr. Carter and his fleet of envoys are credited with brokering the [still standing] peace deal between Egypt and Israel. I shudder to think of what the state of affairs would be in the region had this deal not been struck. A masterful accomplishment, since Egypt was frequently at the helm of Arab efforts to oust Israel from its historic homeland. Mr. Carter uniquely deserves his 2002 Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts.” As the fruits of Mr. Carter’s labor teeter on the brink of obsolescence so too is Mr. Carter’s reputation as a peace broker and what remained of his legacy—if there ever was one.

After twelve days of secret negotiations at Camp David, the Israeli-Egyptian negotiations were concluded by the signing at the White House of two agreements. The first dealt with the future of the Sinai and peace between Israel and Egypt, to be concluded within three months. The second was a framework agreement establishing a format for the conduct of negotiations for the establishment of an autonomous regime in the West Bank and Gaza. The Israel-Egypt agreement clearly defined the future relations between the two countries, all aspects of withdrawal from the Sinai, military arrangements in the peninsula such as demilitarization and limitations, as well as the supervision mechanism. The framework agreement regarding the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza was less clear and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US. President Carter witnessed the accords which were signed by Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin.

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

As evidenced by the books he has written since leaving office, in recent years Mr. Carter’s true feelings about Israel have surfaced. Even a cursory reading of any of his books published since leaving office would reveal that Mr. Carter’s show of impartiality (during his tenure in the White House) might have been just that: a show. While this essay is in no way an outright criticism of Jimmy Carter, his administration or his foreign policy, it is important to ponder his motives especially in view of recent developments, vis-à-vis President Obama’s call for a roll-back of the borders governing the Palestinian territories.

Upon publication of his book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" in 2006, many in the diplomatic community and the friends of Israel everywhere appeared to have been caught off guard by Mr. Carter's accusation that Israel is an apartheid state. Nothing could be further from reality. As South African professor of international law John Dugard pointed out in his review of the book, apartheid and the Israeli system are polar opposites. While apartheid relies on institutionalized racial discrimination as the basis of its power, the Israeli system can be characterized as a process of colonization, predicated on, among other things, border security. While Professor Dugard goes on to condemn Israel, his acknowledgement of the distinction sets a significant precedent, as he breaks with his cohorts in academia, who typically refuse to credit Israel with any measure of civility.

Mr. Carter betrays his own hypocrisy when he criticizes the Bush Administration’s decision to sever diplomatic ties with Syria—in light of that nation’s role in fermenting turmoil in Lebanon. Moreover, Mr. Carter’s failure to deal with Syria’s relationship with Iran, whose sponsorship, support and training of the Lebanese Insurgency threatens to permanently destabilize the region and antagonize Israel. Having gone as far as praising Bashir al Assad for his ability to lead Syria, in what he calls, “one of the most difficult posts in the region,” I suspect there is little hope that Mr. Carter would reverse his contempt for Israel. Compared with his attitude towards Israel, Mr. Carter’s affinity for Syria bears a striking resemblance to the Stockholm syndrome or at least a sad denial of Syria’s true intent [where Israel is concerned]. Surely, Mr. Carter could not have anticipated that Mr. Assad would banish the press from Syria while he slaughters his own countrymen, in order to protect his fiefdom. Worst still, Mr. Carter has bought into the false notion that as a condition for Syrian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist, Israel should return the Golan Heights, which Israel captured (and continues to hold) from Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria led a coalition of Arab States in a surprise attack on Israel.

So committed to his idea of what is fair, that even in the face of credible evidence to the contrary, Mr. Carter will not modify his views accordingly. In the realm of behavioral psychology, this phenomenon is a classic demonstration of man’s aversion to risk. Mr. Carter would risk total loss of credibility over an admission that he has backed the wrong side. Max Bazerman, Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School has demonstrated to power of this sort of irrational decision-making in his famous $20 auction. In the $20 auction, the winner is locked into the idea of not losing, and is compelled to shell out far more than the extrinsic value of the bill. Luke Plumber does a nice job of describing the nomenclature of the auction. This thought process has defeated scholars and laymen for eons; not even US presidents are immune to the pull of irrational thought, and certainly not Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter’s sincerity and objectivity are in doubt, and beg the question: what role did his anti-Israel views play in his advocacy for one side over the other? Whether Mr. Carter’s ideological stance caused him to compromise the efforts of the Camp David mediators is a critical consideration when evaluating the historical significance of his efforts on behalf of peace. Any prudent skeptic would immediately move to question the legitimacy of Mr. Carter’s stewardship of the Camp David Accords. To do so; however, would, in some small way, soil the relative peace that resulted from these sessions. Furthermore, Mr. Carter was successful in forging a peace deal under conditions far more tenuous than those met by his predecessors. And it is my opinion that Mr. Carter’s achievements stand, to this day, as a benchmark for every American President since.

It would appear, therefore, that Mr. Carter has fallen victim to the psychological phenomenon known as the “attribution bias,” which erroneously ascribes a measure of innocence and victimhood to the Palestinians. While I am certain that Israel has not always acted honorably, the Jewish people are in a fight for their very existence. The Palestinians represent a proxy enemy for neighboring Arab states that lack the courage to take on Israel directly. Viewed as a quest for national survival, it is easy to conclude that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are likely to surrender their core ideological positions. On the one hand, for the Jew, Israel represents the final stage of a prophetic wandering–a sort of coming full-circle and acquiescence to the will of God. As such, they are not likely to back down; to do so would mean certain annihilation. The Jew haters in the region would seize upon the opportunity to do what so many others have attempted for millennia: wipe Israel off the map. On the other hand, the Palestinian struggle–as embodied by the Intifada (circa 1987), and other similar uprisings de-cries the morbid reality of Palestinian existence: one predicated on perpetual struggle. To eliminate the conflict with Israel is tantamount to denying the Palestinian a reason for living.

In part II of All the Emperor’s Men, I will discuss recent developments around attempts to broker a permanent peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and the role of the current US administration in these efforts. I will also discuss why it is impossible for there to ever be peace between the two sides by delving into the true cause of the rift. Answering, once and for all, why, contrary to decades of media misinformation, the disputed lands truly belong to the Jews.

In Memorium 9-11-2011

        911

By: Tony Lombardi

In going over and getting close

I saw the missing hero’s ghost

Amidst the haze of thick gray air

Surround their neighbors center bare

The king and queen upon the field

Mighty fortress made of steel

Concrete jungle island calm

Morning coffee and the bomb

Full of breathing peace full lives

Terror roared across the skies

Target, forest made of bricks

Home for Yankees and the Knicks

Sleeping soundly in his cave

Civilian soldiers strong and brave

Coward, demon, evil pure

Your day will come rest assure

Armed with life equipped with love

Our nation will rise above

Peace to all and all to peace

That is when the hate will cease

Pray for guidance, faith and hope

Lean on shoulders as we cope

Kiss your children, hug a friend

Treat each day like it's the end.

   

Back in the Saddle Again

Healing in a matter of time, but it is sometimes also  a matter of opportunity.

Hippocrates

As many of you know, I learned last November that I had prostate cancer. After consultations with my family doctor and the experts, I opted for a radical prostatectomy via the da Vinci Method, which utilizes a computer assisted robot [operated by a surgeon] to remove the prostate. I chose the da Vinci method for two reasons: first, it would allow me to recover much faster than I would with traditional surgery; second, Dr. Mutahar Ahmed (my surgeon), —a specialist in Oncology, Larparoscopic/Robotic Surgery, Cryo Surgery and Reconstructive Urological Surgery, and his colleagues— at the New Jersey Center for Prostate Cancer and Urology boast a zero percent mortality rate. With these odds, how could I lose? I underwent treatment In February, and I am happy to report that I recently received a clean bill of health, from my doctors; I am now completely cancer free.

I recall, vividly, the moment I received the call from my Urologist informing me that my biopsy was positive for cancer. It was November 2, 2010, and I was sitting in my car listening to a news report, which predicted a Democrat landslide, solidifying “the Obama Mandate.” In spite of the obvious solemnity of the news from my doctor, my mood was bolstered by the day’s events—it was Election Day 2010, which saw the rise of the Tea Party.
Far more significant than the emergence of a viable “Third Party,” the results of the 2010 Midterm Elections signaled a new beginning for the American Voter, one that has likely changed the American political landscape forever. Average citizens, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, the politically savvy and the political novice took matters into their own hands, and en mass, sent legions of political lifers packing. The only ones surprised by the day’s “carnage” were those political hacks who would just as well have the political destiny of all Americans decided by the “intellectual elite.” Thankfully, the American Voter is far more sophisticated than the elitists could ever imagine. When the citizens felt they’d had enough, they stood together and took decisive action.

Reminiscent of revolutionary times, legions of do-nothing bureaucrats were replaced by the newest breed of American elected representatives: young, multi-ethnic, somewhat representative of the genders, and with fire in their eyes. So committed is this group, that a number of them has gone as far as publicly setting their own term limits. Surely, any number of this new class of representatives is likely to become tomorrow’s do nothing bureaucrats, but for now, they’ll do just fine.

On the subject of my health scare, my experience with Prostate Cancer has certainly opened my eyes in a number of ways: first, like it or not, I had to come to grips with my own mortality. Had it not been for my belief and faith in GOD, I am not certain that my mental state today would not be as intact as it is. It is in confrontation with death that man’s character is tested —submission to self-pity and depression wins you no points, it only demonstrates your lack of faith in GOD. Furthermore, any such distractions bring on stress, which could complicate treatment and recovery.

Second, this was my first real encounter with the American health care system as an acute care patient, which is significant, in view of my many years of work in the health care industry. My plan is to chronicle my experience as a cancer patient in the context of a discussion of the US Health Care System and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act. Publication of this article would be timed to coincide with the 2012 Presidential Election season.

Besides Dr. Ahmed (mentioned earlier), the true heroes of this story are my Primary Care Physician, Michael Casser, MD and my Urologist, Richard Garden, MD.

An unassuming man, Dr. Michael Casser is credited with identifying the abnormality that would eventually prove to be Prostate Cancer. While this resulted from a rather routine office visit procedure, it is Dr. Casser’s style that sets him [far] apart from his peers. Dr. Casser epitomizes Malcolm Gladwell’s portrayal of the ideal physician in his 2005 best-selling book, Blink. In what I call true “Casserian style,” Dr. Casser first sets the tone for every visit by announcing via his body language that the visit has little to do with him, and everything to do with you —the patient. Through the years, I have worked professionally with more than two hundred physicians across an array of disciplines, and from all walks-of-life; Michael Casser, MD sets a standard that would, at best, be unattainable for most, and in the least, educational for the remainder. Dr. Casser’s clinical competence is evident in his answers to even the most trivial questions —straightforward and reassuring. He creates an atmosphere that mimics a chat with a trusted friend, one whose advice you would seek, and most certainly follow. Dr. Casser is everything that is right with then American health care system.

Then, there is Dr. Richard Garden, Urologist; I can think of no other person more qualified to stand at the vanguard of Prostate Cancer treatment. When politicians ruminate that the American Health Care System is in need of reform, they have obviously not met Richard Garden, MD. The most striking feature on my encounter(s) with Dr. Garden is his empathy. Beginning with my very first encounter, I had the feeling that I was about to embark on a journey with a friend. One whose experience and expertise I would come to rely on. Whether it was the team of nurses who held my hands during my biopsy procedure, which I foolishly opted to undergo without anesthesia —machismo has its price, or Dr. Garden’s calm and reassuring manner, I never doubted for a minute that I was in the very best hands. Not only did Dr. Garden and his team [in the Oradell office] live up to my expectations, they exceeded them.



Prostate Cancer Facts

Prostate cancer is the “second leading cause of cancer death [for] American men.” According to the American Cancer Society, in 2011, 240,890 American men would be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and 33,720 of whom will die as a result of prostate cancer. Similarly, 1 in 39 men ages 40 to 59 and 1 in 14 men ages 60 to 69 would develop prostate cancer. More than 65% of all prostate cancers are diagnosed in men over the age of 65. Roughly 2 million American men currently live with prostate cancer.

In spite of some age and ethnic implications —men over 50 years of age and Black men are at greater risk for developing prostate cancer— prostate cancer remains highly treatable. With early detection and prompt treatment, many men go on to lead normal lives.


Prostate cancer takes an unnecessarily high toll on men. This is why I am urging all men, regardless of age or ethnicity, to discuss prostate cancer with their physician, and discuss testing.

40 Acres and a Mule…and a couple of low income apartments, and a nice tax break, and…

The Fall of Charlie Rangel

If you know anything about Congressman Charlie Rangel’s legacy, you have to ask yourself why, after more than four decades in the US House of Representatives, and numerous allegations of wrongdoing, did Mr. Rangel’s colleagues vis-á-vis the House Ethics Committee, wait until now to bring his alleged wrongdoing to the fore? Granted, Mr. Rangel has consistently employed his usual tactic of belligerence dressed up with a touch of charm and a measure of incredulity to beguile his foes and delay the Ethics Committee hearing, the timing of the hearing is suspicious. In my opinion, Mr. Rangel and his benefactors thought it best to wait until after the crucial midterm elections in order to soften anticipated voter outrage. On the one hand, had Mr. Rangel lost his bid for reelection, the charges would be mute, on the other; however; with a win, the Rangel Camp hoped to ride the wave of voter excitement to achieve an indefinite adjournment, if not an outright dismissal. Unfortunately for Mr. Rangel, the larger than expected Democrat losses in the House of Representatives motivated the committee to proceed with the hearings with uncharacteristic fervor and swiftness. Rangel’s delay tactics appeared to have backfired.

Among Mr. Rangel’s numerous delay tactics, was the dismissal (firing) of his legal team mere days before the hearing commenced, then appealing to the Committee to grant him additional time to retain new Counsel. Following the Committee’s denial of his last-minute bid for an adjournment to allow him to retain new counsel, Mr. Rangel suggested that an undisclosed group of New York attorneys would represent him pro bono. When the Ethics Committee informed Mr. Rangel that accepting free legal services amounts to an ethics violation, he promptly held a press conference at which he castigated the Committee; suggesting they had it in for him. Mr. Rangel did not specify whether Democrat or Republican Committee Members [or both] had it in for him. And in keeping with the Obama tradition, Mr. Rangel has even raised the specter of his race as a motivation for his ethics charges. This tired old tactic reminds me of my favorite quote from Mark Twain: “if you are ever being run out of town, get out in front and make it look like a parade.” The image brings a wider than normal smile to my face. I say, strike up the band, let’s have a bunch of parades; there are a few scoundrels in need of some motivation.

Mr. Rangel’s consistent misbehavior speaks volumes for the potency of the singular malady suffered by the career politician‒the loss of all concern for doing good, and a hyper greed fueled by the ever-present lure of easy money. Keenly aware of the potential for moral corruption, the founding fathers struggled with the concept of refreshing the body of elected representatives with freshly elected citizens who, by virtue of their newness would be less prone to succumbing to the entrapments of political power. Furthermore, these freshly elected representatives would, by virtue of their recency among the populace, tend to be more in-tuned with the actual needs of the constituency.

Irrespective of your political or ideological position, Mr. Rangel’s blatant disregard for the most basic of rules speaks volumes for his contempt of the House and its processes. Worst still, his willingness to hide behind the Race Card is shameful. I am not a gambler, but I would be willing to speculate as to the verdict if he were to be tried before a jury of his [citizen] peers. I am also certain that many of his fellow Democrats, who ultimately voted to convict and censure Mr. Rangel, did so only after witnessing the carnage that befell the Democrat party in November’s elections. Ironically, of the 12 members on the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, the only other African American on the committee, G. K. Butterfield of North Carolina cast the only vote to acquit Mr. Rangel. Surely, he did not buy Rangel’s racial conspiracy dribble; you have to wonder. But considering the frequency with which Race has been used over the past two years to explain abhorrent behavior, I have come to expect it.

Charlie Rangel, at long last, has had to face his misdeeds. To hear Mr. Rangel explain that “mistakes were made,” (a clever play on words intended to cash the shadow of blame elsewhere) one can only conclude that Mr. Rangel is clueless as to the state of his personal and professional affairs. If, by his own admission, Mr. Rangel is so out of touch with his own financial affairs then he lacks fiduciary competence to effectively represent the people of the 15th Congressional District of New York.

Having faced his colleagues in the Well of the House was for Mr. Rangel just another day in the office. His record is such that he typically faces the aftermath of his charges with what resembles conciliation and contrition. Similarly, Mr. Rangel’s record is such that, in very short order, it would be business as usual. Mr. Rangel’s behavior is reminiscent of a [long oppressed] Third World Dictator who upon his ascent to power behaves much like the proverbial “kid in a candy store”—stuffing his pockets with as much loot as possible. These individuals leave a legacy of carnage and debauchery; haven’t the people of Harlem endured enough?

Now, Mr. Rangel closes the year under yet another cloud of ethics violations; here we go again. On the heels of these new allegations, Mr. Rangel has appeared somewhat more conciliatory in recent days. Absent his usual taunts and jabs, one could conclude Mr. Rangel knows there is more substance to this new set of charges. Mr. Rangel should save himself and the Democrat Party any further humiliation by following President Obama’s earlier suggestion and step down. He should think of the people of Harlem and allow for a younger generation to take the reins of leadership. If he is to be believed when he professes his love for the people of Harlem, then he would do the right thing and step down now.

Enemy of the State, Part II

Siege at the O.K. Corral

Now that we have weathered to Post Obama election cycle, the American electorate have spoken in a profound and unequivocal fashion: they disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies; including his administration’s opposition to and, his legal challenge of SB-1070. Punctuated by the election of Jan Brewer to a full term as Governor, the people of Arizona have also spoken.

News reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Arizona is well within its rights (as prescribed by the Constitution) to pursue enforcement where Federal Laws fall short. Governor Brewer’s summary of a Ninth Circuit Court Hearing on SB 1070 provides the relevant facts of Arizona’s argument. Arizona’s efforts are a last resort attempt to navigate the broken immigration enforcement system.

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma; I risk betraying my predecessors by announcing my unequivocal support for Arizona’s [new] immigration enforcement law. With that, I am compelled to state that I am a naturalized American citizen. I emigrated to the United States in the 1970s with my family in pursuit of a “better life.” When I took my oath of citizenship, I swore [on the Bible] to adopt America as my home and to “forsake all ties” to the land of my birth (somewhat like a vow of marriage). I further swore to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—that is, all laws not just the ones I like. Thus, I must obey the law which requires me to maintain a speed at 30 MPH when driving in a residential neighborhood with the same zeal with which I obey the law that restrains me from robbing my neighborhood bank because I am broke and hungry. The President is likewise obligated to “support and defend” the laws of the land. By agreeing to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Mr. Obama and the Justice Department are similarly compelled. It is; therefore, puzzling to see the zeal with which The Administration has attacked Arizona.

It would be hypocritical of me to deny my sensitivity to the plight of immigrants; however, it would be equally hypocritical of me to condone lawlessness by looking the other way while lawbreakers breach our borders with reckless abandon and contempt. These are “crimes against the people,” of which we are the people. Moreover, how can the American people (the We) justify the efforts and diligence of those individuals, the world over, who visit American embassies daily, in pursuit of a LEGAL pathway to American residency and citizenship? These individuals and families have chosen the legal route to American residency and should not be punished. Lawbreakers should be punished; not rewarded with the prize of their illegal pursuit. To be fair, Arizona is not the only breech point for illegal immigration, nor is Mexico the only country whose citizens seek to violate US Immigration laws. Those seeking to enter the United States do so for two basic reasons: to seek a safe harbor from political and ethnic violence, and pursuit of better economic conditions that are characteristic of the US.

Like many would-be immigrants, I too was captivated by the myth of American streets being paved with gold. In retrospect; however, the gold metaphor could be said to be true; instead of bits of precious metal, the true commodity is one of opportunity. Agreeably, the United States, like no other nation on earth offers endless opportunities for success in just about any endeavor to those with the vision, courage and fortitude to have a go at it. At the risk of over simplification, whether one pursues an education, commerce, invention or philanthropy, the only limitations are likely to be self-imposed. A short walk down any American street would validate this observation. Nowhere else on the planet do opportunities to improve one’s condition exist as they do here.

From its earliest days, America has served as a beacon to the world through its open and [somewhat] liberal immigration policy, yet reports of illegal immigration paints the opposite picture. Whether Irish, Italian, Eastern European, or in recent times, African and [Southern Hemisphere] Hispanic, recent migrants frequently encounter hostility from the largely immigrant populace.

A recent conversation with my brother, an attorney with a sizeable immigration practice, shed some light on this phenomenon. Historically, American immigration policy and laws have tightened against targeted ethnic groups as they sought entry into the US. For example, in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Irish immigrants were met with twofold obstacles; hostile incumbents and equally hostile immigration laws. Similarly, once the Irish were adequately assimilated, they in-turn discriminated against the incoming wave of Italians. With discrimination came the inevitable legal obstacles that at a glance, reeked of anti-Italian sentiment. This phenomenon has repeated with incredible consistency over the ensuing years; and continues today with the current wave of immigrants, thus blurring the line between opposition to illegal immigration, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

As a diplomatic tool, immigration serves two essential functions; the first is economic and the second, humanitarian. When applied for the economic benefit of a nation (such as labor force expansion), both the recipient nation and the immigrant benefit from the resulting economic intercourse; however, when applied for humanitarian reasons, the immediate beneficiary is likely to be the immigrant.

I suspect, it is this latter application that engenders hostile emotions in incumbents. A closer look at the current immigration debate, especially as it pertains to Mexico, reveals coexisting humanitarian and economic triggers to the immigration wave. While Mexicans flee deteriorating economic conditions, and increasing drug violence, they make ideal targets for American anger, especially in communities hardest hit by the recent global economic downturn. Nowhere is the disruption caused by the economic slump starker than it is in Arizona. With state by state unemployment ranging from 4% to 12.9%, Arizona is near the top at 10% of its workforce unemployed. Furthermore, Mexican citizens who receive medical care in the United States, effectively shift the burden of health care cost from one failed Welfare State (Mexico), while threatening to create another (Arizona). A review of Arizona’s government support systems, revealed that utilization by Mexicans outstrip that of native Arizonians and non-Mexican immigrants in 8 of the 9 categories reviewed. Allowed to continue, the daily influx of illegal immigrants will, in short order, overburden the State of Arizona, while inflaming anti-Mexican sentiments. With this approach, everyone loses—the taxpayers, by having to shoulder the burden of inflated social programs (including law enforcement costs); and the illegal immigrants, by perpetually settling for substandard living conditions and recipients of the wrath of angry citizens.

A solution to the illegal immigration dilemma will come only after those responsible for devising one, take the time to understand, fully, the historical and behavioral nature of the debate. This is only achievable with a dispassionate approach to the situation. Unfortunately, if Washing’s emotional response to Arizona’s SB1070 is any indication of the intended approach, this debate will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.

Historically, there have been periods when the United States was compelled to relax its immigration policies in order to accommodate displaced and economically deprived peoples. We saw this during the industrial revolution, where in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, large numbers of Europeans, fleeing economic distress, migrated to the United States. As fate would have it, the United States was also in the throes of its own economic crisis. Then, as now, new immigrants received much of the blame for the state of the economy. Are we to, once again, head down the same road, that of knee-jerk tightening of immigration laws? Or are we better off seeking a solution that, once-and-for-all, puts the on-again, off-again debate to rest. Immigration has the potential to catapult a nation to social and economic heights never before imagined. Tragically, however, immigration does not always lead to redemption. Whether as a result of misapplication, or mismanagement, immigration can, equally, account for the destruction of a culture as it can for its advancement. By failing to equitably enforce existing immigration laws, the United States faces such a danger.

In the final analysis, consistent and equitable enforcement of existing immigration laws would go a long way to quashing the racial tensions that fester around this topic. In addition, a solidly bipartisan effort to derive a legislative solution is mandatory. To be effective, any solution must be made to remain intact with every coming wave of immigrants. The legacy of shifting policy to stem the current tide is wrongheaded and immoral. In the words of Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq., “we create illegal immigration by not allowing legal immigration.” This is tantamount to social cannibalism, and betrays the legacy of what makes America exceptional—its “melting pot” of diverse cultures operating as one harmonious body. Stephens further emphasized the need to include cultural education in primary and secondary schools. By learning what makes us different [culturally], we can better understand and accept what unites us socially.

GOD bless America.

Enemy of the State, Part I

Arizona’s New Shootout at the O.K. Corral

Rare is the occasion when an elected official appears willing to be tossed out of office because he or she has taken a position on a particular issue, that is unpopular or cuts against the mainstream political current. It is, therefore, rather refreshing to see Jan Brewer, Governor of the embattled State of Arizona put it all on the line for the lawfully passed Immigration Bill SB-1070, which calls for cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws. Brewer, and a majority of the State Legislature, has committed to doing the will of the people of Arizona: “to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

If the resulting furor over this act is any indication of the price these individuals would pay at the ballot box, upcoming elections in Arizona could set the stage for national debate on this issue.

I am reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, in Federalist # 52 stated as follows: [elected office is open to all citizens] “whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” They further called for frequent election of fresh representatives who are expected to “have a common interest with the people” whom they represent. Most would agree that Hamilton, Madison and their contemporaries never intended for elected representatives [at any level] to aspire to life-tenure in office. The Arizona contingent appears to have taken this message to heart.

Spurred on by the Federal Government’s refusal to enforce existing immigration law, the Arizona Legislature exercised, what could be deemed a last resort option: passage of laws to compensate for shortfalls in Federal enforcement, at the potential loss of their jobs.

While enforcement of immigration laws fall under Federal jurisdiction, Arizona was compelled to take appropriate action in the face of growing violence and an ever growing drain on its law enforcement and other resources.

Whether you agree or disagree with Arizona’s decision to pass SB-1070, one thing is indisputable: the immigration debate is far from over. In fact, immigration issues are certain to play a major role in upcoming midterm elections as well as the 2012 presidential election. The president’s decision to pursue legal action against Arizona sets the stage for a constitutional battle over states’ rights. Furthermore, the Administration’s actions have unleashed the hounds of racial tension, the likes of which we have never seen before.

In previous articles I have commented on the intensification of racial tensions since Mr. Obama’s election. Mr. Obama’s public denouncement of the new law, and his subsequent comments and actions served only to embolden agitators who would like nothing more than to stir-up racial conflict. Contrary to the pronouncements of its opponents, SB-1070 is not an anti-immigration law, nor is it an anti Mexican law; in fact, this law would pave the way for improved legal immigration from Mexico. This country is built on immigrant culture, albeit, legal immigration. End part 1

High Crimes on the High Seas Part III

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

In the past one hundred years, the Middle East has seen its fair share of meddling from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Russia (and the former Soviet Union). It would be hypocritical of me to deny America’s primary interest in the region -crude oil- has not led to some past misdeeds. While I speak only to America’s reliance on crude, I would speculate that any nation’s interest in the Middle East over the past one hundred years was predicated primarily on oil. A consequence of this multi-lateral international meddling is the ever-present need to prevent any one nation from becoming too powerful, thereby threatening regional stability and the flow of oil to the world’s consumers. A consequential outcome is a dearth of local leadership; the very thing the region needs in order to assure long-term stability.

The following list of once dominant nations in the region have seen their fortunes (monetary and political) ebb through the years; and with them all chances for regional leadership:

• Egypt—waning significance since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood (a precursor to Al-Qaeda), believed to be responsible for Sadat’s assassination, continues to exert its influence by quashing any attempts at moderation;
• Saudi Arabia—no real interest in leadership; quite comfortable with living on its oil-wealth;
• Syria—viewed as corrupted by Iranian meddling and instigation;
• Lebanon—ruled by Hezbollah, a puppet Terrorist State whose strings lay in the hands of the Mullahs in Iran;
• Jordan—content to stay out of the fray. Jordan has since reconciled to having Israel as a neighbor;
• Iran—in spite of the hostage crisis, which ended as Ronald Reagan took office, Iran continues to squander its chances for leadership significance.

Iran has so infuriated the international community that it has lost any credibility it might have had in the region. The Iranians are even at odds with the Saudis; more than 100 Iranian newspapers have been banned in Saudi Arabia. None of the nations listed here possesses the capability or the credibility to effectively fulfill the role of leader of the Middle East. Unmistakably, unless a strong Middle East leader emerges, the Israeli/Palestinian question is not likely to be resolved in the foreseeable future.

Curiously absent from this list is Turkey, which by all appearances has the potential for providing some stability within the [Muslim] Middle East. The central flaw with this wish is Turkey’s desire to join the European Union (EU). Having abandoned its Middle East roots, Turkey has sought a European identity—a pursuit that has occupied most of Turkey’s recent history (since its founding in 1923; following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire). In the interim, Turkey has seen its chances for EU membership diminish. It could be argued that Turkey is more than ten years away from meeting the basic qualifications for EU membership.

This explains why Turkey has seized upon the opportunity to supplant itself into to picture by flagrantly sponsoring and flagging a ship to sail on a military blockade. Moreover, since the conclusion of World War I, Turkey has sought a European identity. Having abandoned its Middle Eastern heritage in favor of courting the Europeans, Turkey appears to be losing hope of ever joining the EU. Furthermore, Turkey would be required to conform to many rigorous standards [such as human rights requirements and women’s’ rights, to name a few] in order to qualify for EU membership. Needless to say, irrespective of European attitudes towards Turkey, the Turks are a long way from being ready to comply with EU membership requirements. Turkey’s quest for legitimacy has led it back to the Middle East, where it hopes to emerge as the de facto leader.

If Turkey’s initial strategy is any indication of how it plans on establishing its dominance (by going after Israel), the world community could be in for far graver events in the Middle East in years to come. U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has voiced his concerns over Turkey’s growing influence in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. Gates has also expressed grave concern over Turkey’s relationship with Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan vis-à-vis its willingness to become embroiled in local politics.

Turkey’s play for Middle East leadership has a two-pronged strategy: first, normalizing relations with its neighbors (including Armenia—home to the oldest existing Christian community); and second, mounting a credible anti-Israel effort. The anti-Israel tactic is essential if Turkey is to have any credibility with its proposed Middle East constituents. Robert Gates is right on target by monitoring Turkey’s relationship with its neighbors; however, its attitude towards Israel poses far graver consequences. Worst still, should Turkey succeed in normalizing relations with Armenia, this would give the appearance that the Muslims and the Christians have joined forces against the Jews; a prospect I do not relish.

My singular hope here is that Mr. Obama puts aside any personal/ideological differences he might have with Israel and demonstrate his willingness to defend our most loyal and stalwart ally in the region. Anything less would betray the efforts of his predecessors to cultivate a loyal ally and lay the groundwork for any future chances for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Furthermore, an abandonment of Israel would backfire on the United States by putting our other allies on notice that we cannot be trusted to be there in times of need.

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Published December 23, 1776, these words from Thomas Paine [an immigrant at the time] sum up the moral and strategic necessity to stand with our ally, Israel. We cannot afford the shroud of personal ideological fragments to cause us to squander what hundreds of thousands of men and women have fought and died for—FREEDOM—whether ours or Israel’s.

Contact your elected representatives and tell them that you expect the United States to stand with Israel, and any of our allies or you will not stand with them on Election Day.