On November 1^st, HBO presented a new documentary called “To Die In Jerusalem: Two Daughters Lost in Conflict.” According to promotional materials, the film portrays two seventeen year old girls as they “die in a Jerusalem market, their mothers confront each other, revealing a microcosm of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the complexity of reconciliation.” Like the infamous Newsweek cover that inspired it, this documentary treats both girls – Palestinian Ayat al-Akhras and Israeli Rachel Levy – as victims of “faith or fate that brought each of them to the end of her life in such a tragic manner.” Appallingly, the filmmakers blur the distinction between murderer and victim, evil and innocence. The Israeli girl went to the market to buy Sabbath supplies; the Palestinian girl went there to murder strangers in a homicide bombing. The publicity for the film also downplays the security guard killed alongside the girls, and the thirty bystanders wounded in the blast. The real reason for the “complexity of reconciliation” is that the mother of the bomber, encouraged by a society that praises her murderous child as a heroine with posters and commemorations,  now feels “hesitant pride” in her heinous act. Ignoring the gigantic moral gulf between crazed killer and blameless target doesn’t advance the cause of peace, but perpetuates the ignorance and blindness that faciliates continued terrorism.

For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% with uncompromising principles feels somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.  

On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority). 

By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them. 

Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them. 

This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%. 

In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”? 

Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.   

      Does Pakistan have a right to exist?

      Though a Newsweek cover story recently labeled the turbulent South Asian state “the most dangerous nation in the world” no one dares to ask this obvious question.

       In fact, Pakistan represents an arbitrarily constructed, chronically unstable, perpetually embattled, deeply dysfunctional and undeniably shaky creation of the retreating British Empire. Before 1947, the territories eventually designated as “Pakistan” (the name means “Pure Land” in Urdu) comprised an integral part of British India. The hastily and sloppily drawn borders corresponded to no historic nation state, and represented only a desperate concession to Muslim agitators who wanted no part of a newly independent, Hindu majority India. The creation of Pakistan led to an explosion of unspeakable barbarity and bloodshed, with “Independence Riots” claiming a total of at least 500,000 lives (some sources say more than a million). Meanwhile, Pakistan’s creation created the greatest refugee crisis in recent history; UN figures indicate that more than 14 million human beings fled their homes in desperation, with Hindus and Sikhs trying to escape the hostile new Muslim state and find safe haven in India, and Muslims moving from India to Pakistan.

      During most of its 60 year history, Pakistan has suffered from dictatorial military rule – in contrast to the surprisingly durable democracy in its gigantic neighbor, India. The majority of the nation remains both illiterate and impoverished—with little of the spectacular economic progress that his made India into a high tech and commercial powerhouse. In 1971, the eastern portion of Pakistan engaged in a bloody struggle against federal forces to separate itself into the new country of Bangladesh. Border wars with India over the disputed province of Kashmir have flared up on two major occasions, with the issue still unsettled at a time that both combatants possess nuclear weapons. Now a new crisis looms as General Musharraf tries to hold onto power in the face of twin challenges from rabid Islamist fanatics and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, recently returned from exile.

      In light of this history, it’s shocking that few Americans or Europeans question the troubled and divided nation’s existence.

      Instead, agitators on the international left love to challenge the “right to exist” of Israel – a far more stable, prosperous, democratic and, yes, peaceful nation than Pakistan. Though formally recognized as a modern state at almost exactly the same time as Pakistan (1948 rather than 1947), Israel occupies similar borders to the ancient Jewish commonwealth that flourished for more than a thousand years. Moreover the transfer of refugee populations – with 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fleeing the territory of the new state of Israel, and more than 800,000 Jews fleeing Arab states and finding new homes in Israel --- represents scarcely 10% of the massive population shift (involving more than 14 million people) attendant to the birth of Pakistan.

     This doesn’t stop the President of Iran, or the terrorist organizations he openly supports (Hamas and Hezbollah), or twenty states in the Arab League (except for Jordan, Egypt and Morocco), from regularly denying Israel’s very existence – excluding it from maps, referring to the Jewish State as “Occupied Palestine” or “The Zionist Enemy.”

     This Islamist intransigence raises the obvious question: on what basis does Pakistan constitute an “authentic,” “well-established,” “respect-worthy” nation, but Israel does not?

      On every conceivable basis—history, international recognition, authorization by world bodies (The League of Nations supported a Jewish homeland on the site of Israel in 1923, a decade before anyone even proposed the idea of Pakistan), stability, functioning economy, democratic institutions, rule of law, enforceable borders, successful self-defense on multiple occasions, desire of peace with neighbors, support by a majority of its own citizens, respect for religious and ethnic pluralism --- Israel contrasts favorably with “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

      No, the nightmarish, basket-case nation on India’s northwestern border won’t disappear or dissolve. But its persistence (despite horrendous civic unrest, Islamist fanaticism, rampant militarism, and nuclear threats to its neighbors and the rest of the world) should help persuade antagonists and skeptics that Israel will remain at least as permanent a feature on the world stage.

      

Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press –a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

Many movies offer beautiful images or beautiful performances, but very view deliver beautiful values. The new heart-tugging, crowd-pleaser “Bella” constitutes a radiant exception. Sweet, sentimental, and unabashedly pro-life, this little independent picture beat out several Oscar-nominated, star-studded competitors – including “Babel,” “Little Children,” and “The Last King of Scotland” – to win the coveted “People’s Choice Award” at he Toronto Film Festival. Nevertheless, the lack of big-name talent kept “Bella” from reaching your local multiplex – until now. The story centers on a fired waitress in New York City, spending one golden day with a moody chef who takes her out of town to meet his parents. The celebration of family, food, music, gratitude to God and the vibrant, spicy elements of Latino culture, makes “Bella” – for all its melodramatic elements – an unforgettable experience. Those who yearn for more life-affirming messages in entertainment owe it to themselves, and o our culture, to see and support this cinematic labor of love.

Bella opens across the country today, Friday, October 25th.

It's rated PG-13 for brief, disturbing images of a tragic accident, and thematic elements of pregnancy outside marriage.

Willis Carto and American Free Press

Though activists attempt to corral presidential candidates, such as Rudy Giuliani, into a specific camp, beliefs today are much more nuanced. It’s no longer a black-and-white debate.

The battle for the Republican presidential nomination might serve to clear away prevailing confusion and contradictions about public opinion on abortion. Rudy Giuliani seeks the White House by reaching out to that majority of Americans who say they are pro-choice — and anti-abortion.

To most pro-lifers, this position represents an absurd contradiction. Along with their militant counterparts on the opposite side of the abortion issue, they've reduced the controversy to a simple, black-and-white choice: You're either "pro-life" or "pro-choice," with no room for compromise. On that basis, many religious conservatives denounce Giuliani as "pro-abortion" and threaten to withhold support if he heads the GOP ticket.

Unfortunately, anger toward the former mayor distorts his actual position on abortion. Like most Americans, Giuliani takes a mixed, nuanced approach that defies easy categorizations.

   

  What’s the most important attribute for a successful politician?

 

   It’s obviously not intelligence.

 

   Many people of distinctly limited brain power get elected again and again, regardless of their undeniable and frequently embarrassing stupidity. Patty Murray, Senior Senator from the State of Washington is, for example, as dumb as rock. Remember her praise for Osama bin Laden for building non-existent day care centers? In 2004, Murray won her third term in a landslide. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy (even when his faculties haven’t been impaired by, um, good fellowship), not to mention his shockingly un-clever (and drug addicted) son, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, wouldn’t win any prizes for mental acuity. Of course, Democrats insist that President Bush also counts as an intellectually impaired dunce but his academic record (he never got expelled for cheating on a Spanish test, as did Teddy) and political successes (along with the failures) should prove them wrong.

 

   If intelligence isn’t required of a successful candidate, is it character that the politico requires? The absurdity of that contention ought to be blindingly obvious: countless politicians from both parties with no decency, substance or stature of any kind currently hold office and raise hundreds of millions of dollars for their inevitable re-elections. Those who believe that character represents a crucial asset in electoral warfare need only consider the most gifted and successful politician of his generation: William Jefferson Clinton. Whatever his supporters loved about the 42^nd President, it wasn’t moral fiber or integrity.

 

   While candidates can soar to victory without smarts or character, the one essential ingredient for any serious contender is, finally, energy: a level of intensity, drive, enthusiasm, vigor, force, that demands that voters pay attention. Every consistently successful politician in recent American history has possessed this indispensable quality --- and that’s a major problem for Fred Thompson’s current Presidential campaign.

 

    I like and respect Senator Thompson, a good man with an impressive record of serving his country. I’ve said on many occasions that I’d be proud to support him if he wins the Republican nomination – just as I’d be proud to back Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. But Thompson stands little chance of grabbing that nomination, or even winning major primaries, because of his shockingly listless personality on the campaign trail.

 

   On Wednesday, Senator Thompson spent a half hour answering friendly questions on my radio show. If you read a transcript of his remarks, they’ll look perfectly credible, articulate and astute. But if you listen to the tape of the actual interview, it’s startling to note how disengaged, bored, flaccid and tired the Senator sounds. Instead of relishing the opportunity to connect with several million listeners, Thompson came across like a guy forced to complete a necessary but onerous chore. No presidential candidate in recent history has ever succeeded with this low an energy level.

 

   I wish I could say that my show on Wednesday represented an exception in an otherwise exciting campaign. Unfortunately, the tapes of other media appearances, rallies in Iowa or South Carolina, and the last GOP debate in Dearborn, Michigan, further highlight Thompson’s energy crisis. If he hopes to re-energize his struggling campaign, the tall Tennessean must first re-energize himself.

 

  The contrast with his chief rivals for the nomination works powerfully to Thompson’s detriment. John McCain may be six years older than Thompson, but campaigns as if he qualified as a full generation younger. The Arizona Senator enjoys meeting people, goofing with the press, surprising audiences with his impertinent little jokes (remember the furor over “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb/Bomb Bomb Iran”?) and conveys an edgy, electric, sometimes even explosive energy. Rudy Giuliani similarly comes across like a passionate, operatic tough guy who, only with difficulty, manages to keep his seething emotions under control. Mitt Romney always projects a superhuman image of health, vigor and slick (sometimes too slick) self assurance, while Mike Huckabee’s learned to transmit the earthy, open-collared energy of a regular guy who’s thrilled to be part of history beyond the confines of Little Rock.

 

   No one’s won the nomination of either party in recent years without conveying this sense of excitement and edge to the crowds who come to see him or the reporters who try to interview him. President Bush, in person or on TV, may not look like the sharpest crayon in the box, but his passion and determination almost always come across: his public presentations may seem edgy and uncertain, but he seldom seems bored or exhausted. Even in their seventies, Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole communicated intensity—sunny and joyous (for the 40^th President) and dark and brooding (for the defeated candidate).

 

   On the Democratic side, there’s obviously no energy shortage: both Obama and Edwards deploy charm, charisma, and kinetic presence to infect adoring crowds with their own excitement. Hillary Clinton certainly can’t match the sizzling, tireless, seductive energy of her husband, but she’s recently proven herself vastly more adept at conveying joy, bemusement, and even friendliness through the process of campaigning, and her relentless, bulldog determination always suggested a formidable focus.

 

   In conversation with apologists for Fred Thompson’s lackadaisical campaigning so far, they insist that the right comparison for the former Senator isn’t the charismatic, naturally gregarious Reagan, but rather the shy, soft-spoken, common sense “ordinary guy’ Dwight Eisenhower. After all, he never dazzled the American people with his oratory or his fiery passions and, like Fred, he ran for the nation’s highest office as an aging, unapologetic baldy (Thompson would be our first follically challenged chief executive since Eisenhower—but also our tallest president, with a full two inches on Honest Abe). Nevertheless, Ike carried with him an aura of destiny and larger-than-life heroism due to his military exploits in World War II—an aura that excited crowds, even with lackluster speeches. Moreover, in Michael Korda’s admiring new biography of Eisenhower, he makes the point that the tightly controlled “chairman of the board” who led the Allied crusade to liberate Europe actually showed himself behind-the-scenes a twitchy, frequently nervous, explosive-tempered chain smoker when he stepped away from the public eye. Like other great generals in history, Ike communicated a sense of formidable, even devastating power, purpose and focus behind the mask of bland, Midwestern geniality.

 

Obviously, any man who has achieved as much as Fred Dalton Thompson can’t be written off as an easy-going slob, or a sleepy-eyed, mellow good ‘ol boy. From the humblest blue-collar background, he won a scholarship to a classy law school (Vanderbilt) and went on to a legendary legal career even before his two landslide wins for the US Senate. However relaxed and disinterest the Tennesseean may appear, no one follows that career trajectory without drive, ambition and great inner strength. Moreover, Thompson’s achieved considerable success as an actor, and in his movie and TV roles he easily projects the sort of energy and intensity he painfully lacks in the campaign.

 

His friends and aides must therefore insist that Senator Thompson approach his interviews and speeches and fund-raising meetings as if he were playing a part in the next Hollywood blockbuster. A good director would tell the candidate that he must now personify a hungry, driven, exciting politician with all-but-limitless ambition--- the kind of guy who, like Clinton, means to seduce every warm body in the room, male as well as female. Over the last few months, Fred’s asked supporters to indicate that they passionately want him to run; now he must display similar passion, or his campaign will inevitably fizzle.

 

A viable Thompson candidacy will strengthen the GOP and make the competition for the nomination vastly more exciting. The recent change in the primary-caucus schedule – with Iowa caucuses now set for January 3^rd, right after the holidays –makes it more urgent than ever for the Senator to reignite the race by reigniting his own public persona. The old saying suggests “you only get one chance to make a first impression,” but in Thompson’s case he needs to seize additional chances. Most Americans retain only a vague sense of the shape of the campaign to date, but in the next few weeks they’ll pay far more attention. When they do, Fred ought to try a few triple espressos, or shots of Jack Daniels, or campaigning alongside his beautiful wife, or whatever makes him seem more eager, youthful and energetic. It’s time, in short, for a wake up call: be yourself by all means but find the passion to recharge the batteries. For the sake of the country and the Thompson campaign, he’s better Fred than dead.

 

 

 

A national gathering of prominent black pastors deserves praise for confronting the AIDS crisis in the African-American community, but also merits criticism for counting on government to provide solutions.

According to the most recent statistics, blacks make up 49% of new HIV diagnoses, though only 13.5% of the overall population. Widely admired Bishop T.D. Jakes of Dallas wants to tie this epidemic to politics and to the presidential campaign of 2008. “We can hold our politicians accountable,” he says. “Now is the time for the church to give a clarion call to government that this is one of the issues high on our radar screen.”

Wouldn’t the church do better to issue that “clarion call” to its own members to alter intimate behavior, rather than relying on federal protection against a disease spread almost entirely through sex or drugs? Holding politicians “accountable” sounds like a way to let individuals feel less responsible for consequences of their own actions. 

The recent Republican Debate in Dearborn, Michigan featured a spirited exchange between front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, but over the weekend another fierce and feisty candidate joined the fray with a devastatingly effective broadside corresponding to his recent surge in the polls.

John McCain, riding his “No Surrender” tour into the very heart of the GOP competition, spoke on Saturday in Manchester, New Hampshire, and blasted Mitt Romney with a well-aimed fusillade.

McCain began his speech with a slight apology and then, as Al Gore might put it, “let ‘er rip!”:

“Thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to speak to you.

I don't usually do this but I'm going to depart for a moment from the issues I want to talk to you about today. One of the other Republican candidates made an extraordinary statement yesterday. Former Governor Romney yesterday proclaimed himself the only real Republican in this race. As we all know, when he ran for office in Massachusetts being a Republican wasn't much of a priority for him. In fact, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, he said he didn't want to return to the days of Reagan-Bush. I always thought Ronald Reagan was a real Republican.

When Governor Romney donated money to a Democratic candidate in New Hampshire, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he voted for a Democratic candidate for President, Paul Tsongas, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. When he refused to endorse the Contract with America, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans. And when he was embracing the Democratic position on many major issues of the day, I don't think he was speaking for Republicans.

So you'll understand why I'm a little perplexed when Mitt Romney now suggests that he's a better Republican than me, or that he speaks for the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

I think I've gotten to know the people of New Hampshire pretty well. I know that before I can win your vote, I have to win your respect. And to do that, you expect me to be honest with you about what I believe. You might not always agree with me on every issue, but I hope you know I'm not going to con you. The most important thing we have in this life is our self-respect. And I'm not going to trade mine for anyone's vote or for any office. I'm going to tell you what I believe and let the chips fall where they will. I'm confident New Hampshire Republicans feel the same way about your self-respect as I feel about mine.”

 

After that rousing opening, McCain rambled on about other issues, following an all-too-familiar pattern in which his campaign speeches tend to run too long. He scored important points concerning the fact that “Americans have lost trust in their government to do the essential things and to get out of their way in enjoying the freedom to make their own choices in their everyday lives. We Republicans have been slow to offer bold solutions in the areas of health care and the environment, and our silence has eroded American's trust in our party and made Democrat solutions that would do more harm than good seem attractive.”

 

He also spoke about his signature issue, national security and the war on terror, and concluded with a personal recollection about one of President Reagan’s most important speeches:

 

“In 1974, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "Shining City Upon a Hill" speech and concluded by saying:

"We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us in the little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all the stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, 'The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.'

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."

It was my privilege to hear Governor Reagan deliver that speech. I had recently been released from a long involuntary captivity and was seated as Governor Reagan's guest. His words ring true today when, once again, it falls to America to lead the world against a global threat, to remain the last best hope of man on earth.

It is a privilege beyond measure to live in a country that has sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom. I have lived a long, eventful and blessed life. I have had the good fortune to know personally a great many brave and selfless patriots who sacrificed and shed blood to defend America. But I have known none braver or better than those who do so today. They are my inspiration. And I pray to a loving God that He bless and protect them. Thank you.”

All in all, McCain’s Manchester address counted as one of the more effective stump speeches of the campaign to date – and deserved more attention than it received. Above all, he scored serious points against the Romney campaign, zinging the former Massachusetts governor not just on his famous “flip flops” but for a tendency toward slippery pandering, and frequent efforts to tell audiences whatever they want to hear, that has begun to trouble increasing numbers of the GOP faithful.

No wonder that Monday’s USA TODAY announced the results of the latest New Hampshire polls with the conclusion: “Among Republicans, Mitt Romeny has an edge that seems increasingly precarious while Arizona Sen. John McCain has rebounded to a strong third.”

A new Marist Poll shows Romney backed by 26% of likely primary votes, with Rudy Giuliani at 20%. McCain now stands at 17%, with Fred Thompson collapsing to 10%.

Moreover, some of the details of the polling provide even better news for the McCainiacs. “McCain’s support was the most firmly committed of the GOP rivals while Romney’s was the softest,” wrote USA TODAY. “More than half of McCain’s backers said they strongly supported him, compared with just over a third of Romney’s supporters.”

At age 71, John McCain is, as he admits, “as old as dirt” and he’s made innumerable enemies in the Republican Party. Nevertheless, anyone who counts the Arizona Senator out of  the running isn’t paying attention to the latest trends – or rhetoric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current Ann Coulter controversy stems from unscripted and clumsy responses to obnoxious questioning by CNBC host Donny Deutsch. When discussing her vision for a better America, she described a country where everyone would be patriotic and “Christian.” When the host bristled (inevitably and appropriately) at that ill-considered, off-hand remark, she allowed that, like other Christians, she wanted Jews someday “to be perfected.” Under subsequent attack she refused (in the best Coulter tradition) to back down. This exchange drew condemnation from nearly all of the leading Jewish organizations in the United States, but the outrage provoked by her remarks – one typical columnist, Florie Brizel called her “a poison-filled hate monger” – seems utterly inappropriate for two reasons.

First, any American Jew who doesn’t already understand that sincere Christians want the whole world ultimately to come to Christ – including us – is an ignorant fool. Yes, Christianity believes in converting people: and most of us received that memo about 2000 years ago. The proper response to the declaration that Christians want all of humanity to become Christian shouldn't be outrage or indignation; it ought to be, "Duh!" If your friends or neighbors seek to share with you the greatest gift they've ever received, it's not usually a sign that they hate you; in fact, it's very likely an indication that they love you.

Second, the Jewish people face far more serious enemies today than those who seek to share the joy and fulfilment of their faith. Millions of Muslims want to kill us, Jimmy Carter wants to smear Israel as an “apartheid state,” and Professors Walt and Mearsheimer claim that a Jewish conspiracy dominates American policy. In this context, the rage against a pro-Israel, pro-American, anti-Jihad commentator like Coulter is wildly misguided. After all, in the same conversation on CNBC she allowed that in her view of "heaven" all Democrats would be "like Joe Lieberman" (the most famous religious Jew in America) and affirmed that she believes, with the late Jerry Falwell, that Jews certainly have our own place in heaven.
 
Actually, I don't worry about Ann Coulter making the final determination about my entry into the afterlife: even though I've always considered her an ally, a kindred spirit and a personal friend. But I do worry, intensely, about the suicidal tendency of some leaders in our community to try to make enemies out of sympathetic commentators like Ann Coulter, who supports policies and values that will help to ensure Jewish survival, while giving a "pass" to open anti-Israel fanatics on the left like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, as well as senior Democrats in Congress like John Conyers, John Dingell ("there's no difference between Israel and Hezbollah"), David Obey, Nick Rahall and many more.

Actually, I dearly wish I could agree with some of the hysterical over-reaction and say that Ann Coulter reprsented the "world's most dangerous anti-Semite" -- because if that were true, it would be an indication that we are safer, more secure and with fewer enemies than at any time in our long history. Unfortunately, we have many adversaries who menace our present and future far more substantially than Christian conservatives who help to lead the ideological fight against Islamo-Nazis and anti-religious bigots.

The current film of the same title (still playing in theatres everywhere) happens to be one of the best films of 2007, so it's fascinating to review its differences and similarities with its black-and-white predecessor of exactly fifty years ago. The scripts for the two versions feature the same characters, story line and, in some cases, even identical lines of dialogue. The central character is a down-on-his-luck Arizona rancher (Van Heflin in the old version, Christian Bale in the current film) who agrees to get a dangerous outlaw onto a train to prison in return for the money he needs to save his ranch. But what's the right thing to do when that notorious robber and killer (Glenn Ford here, Russell Crowe in the new picture) offers a far more generous payment to help him escape? In both movies, the bad guy comes across as simultaneously charming, likeable, and dangerous. Glenn Ford, who could be fatally bland when playing heroes, brings just the right hint of menace and meanness to his part - though without the irresistibly seductive aura of madness and blood lust that Crowe delivers this time around. The black and white "3.10"is also tauter, tougher, more claustrophobic - with much of the crucial action playing out in a frontier hotel room, without the spectacularly choreographed, over-the-top action scenes (or troubling twists of the ending) of the James Mangold remake. In any event, watching the original film makes far more obvious the story's similarity with another black and white classic, "High Noon" - as the omnipresent clock ticks down to a fateful decision and a good man's only hopes of assistance and support peel away from him, one by one. Reviewing the old movie also makes clear that one of the odd features of the film truly does count as nothing more than a strange coincidence: its two characters both bear the names of famous Republican Senators. Dan Evans (the name given to the Heflin/Bale character) was a GOP solon from Washington State in the 1980's, and Ben Wade (the outlaw Ford/Crowe character) was a "Radical Republican" from Ohio from 1851 to 1869. The real Ben Wade came within one vote of becoming President of the United States (as President Pro Tem of the Senate) during the Andrew Johnson Impeachment crisis - but that's another (and fairly horrifying) story. In any event, the script for the original film appeared long before Dan Evans became a prominent politician, so the use of two Senatorial names for the main characters could hardly count as intentional.

The recent school shootings in Cleveland carry several important lessons. Like the previous horrors at Virginia Tech, this sad incident shows that even good schools can’t always redeem deeply troubled kids. Our emphasis on more educational spending, or small classes, or other forms of school reform can’t always make up for dysfunctional homes or student mental illness. The 14-year-old Cleveland shooter, Asa Coon, suffered on both counts and had compiled a recent record of violence, threats, suicide attempts and abuse that should have brought him to a youth prison or psychiatric hospital long before the rampage that wounded two teachers and two fellow students. As with the Virginia Tech mass murderer, it’s amazing that authorities failed to take decisive and preventive action in view of all the warning signs of menace and madness. We’ve gone much too far in placing the personal rights of terribly sick people above the welfare and safety of their colleagues and neighbors.

The so-called “DREAM Act” deserves determined opposition not because it’s confused about the nature of immigration but because it’s confused about the true nature of college.

The bill would confer legal status on hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as children, demonstrated “good moral character” during their upbringing, and now committed themselves to “giving something back” by serving their new country. The bill specifies either service in the military, or completion of at least two years of college as the kind of national service it would require. It’s absurd on the face of it, however, to classify university or community college education as a form of national service. College is a privilege, not a right or a sacrificial obligation. Every student in every institution of higher learning is subsidized by someone, usually some level of government, or alumni and corporate donations; tuition alone never covers the full cost of education. In other words, when you go to college the society is helping you, and you’re not necessarily helping the society. It’s absurd, insulting even, to equate going to classes at a university with genuine national service like devoting years to the military.

If thoughtful Republicans managed to strip away the college provisions of the DREAM Act—its name is actually an acronym for “Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors”—they might create a clean “Dream” that deserves passage. If illegal immigrants whose parents brought them here as children actually do serve the U.S. by wearing the uniform of the armed forces, and earn honorable discharges, then it makes sense that at the end of that process they should get legal status that allows them to begin the five year path to citizenship. I supported prior efforts at immigration reform because they combined rewards with meaningful penalties for those who were determined to earn legal status – and those penalties included thousands of dollars (as much as $6,500 per person) of fines, plus demonstrating knowledge of English, before you could even start the long path to citizenship. The Dream Act in its current form contains no penalties: attending college is not a penalty, nor even a contribution to society at large, but rather a contribution to your own advancement that society makes possible through its generosity. In other words, the DREAMers in Congress want to provide rewards with no penalties and no payback from the young immigrant himself. If the House and Senate fail to change the bill, it’s time to wake-up from the “Dream” and face reality: it’s a bad idea to give illegals something significant – like legal status – without requiring meaningful and costly compensation – like military service – in return.

The whining and self-pity so prevalent in today’s America now face a formidable new foe: the United Nations.  The world body released a report called “State of the Future” showing that global conditions have dramatically improved by every significant measure.

The world’s increasingly capitalist economy has developed at an unprecedented rate, and people nearly everywhere do better in terms of personal income, food availability, life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, access to health care, access to safe water and much more. At current rates of growth, the report suggests “world poverty will be cut in half between 2000 and 2015.”  

In the past, grim reports about the state of the world drew screaming headlines by predicting mass starvation or environmental catastrophe. But as Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal notes, the shockingly good news in the new UN study has been “mostly ignored” by the media, reflecting a sick, destructive addiction to gloom and doom.