Yeshiva World News

The following is by By Greg Sargent, and printed in the Washington Post:

I just got off the phone with Abraham Foxman, the Holocaust survivor who heads the Anti-Defamation League. He does not agree with the claim by some Republican 2012 presidential candidates and conservative commentators that Obama threw Israel under the bus in his Arab Spring speech yesterday.

The claim by conservatives is based on Obama’s assertion yesterday that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal must be based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps, which has been widely distorted by the right to mean Obama wants Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders. Foxman disagrees with that characterization.

“I don’t see this as the president throwing Israel under the bus,” he told me. “He’s saying with `swaps.’ It’s not 1967 borders in the abstract. It’s not an edict. It’s a recommendation of a structure for negotiations.”

Foxman said that the broader characterization of the speech as anti-Israel by some on the right is also off base, citing its insistence on Israel’s right to self-defense, its opposition to the Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and other matters.

“The speech indicated to me that this administration has come a long way in better understanding and appreciating the difficulties facing both parties, but especially Israel in trying to make peace with the Palestinians,” Foxman said.

Foxman did offer a nuance: He said he doesn’t fault Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for raising concerns about Obama’s decision to articulate the 1967 lines as American policy.

“There is a danger that the 1967 marker, which was always there but has never been stated so directly, may become this year’s settlements issue,” Foxman said. By this he means that he worries that making it central to official U.S. policy could turn it into a core make-or-break issue, just as settlements were, which could make peace tougher to attain.

But Foxman clarified that Obama’s remarks about the 1967 lines were not comparable to Obama’s call for a settlement freeze — which also angered the right — in the sense that the 1967 lines don’t represent a firm proposal. “It’s not an edict — it’s not what he did with settlements,” Foxman said.

Foxman added that all the noise over that one sentence could distract from the fact that much of the speech was positive for Israel. “He said a lot of good things,” Foxman said. “All these things were overshadowed by one phrase. And even that, he put in context.”

“I see a lot of positive,” Foxman concluded. “I see changes in American understanding.”

(Source: Washington Post)

Debating politics can sometimes get very heated, and thankfully we have freedom of speech in this wonderful country that we are fortunate to live in. But sometimes people forget that we are Yidden – Torah Observant Jews – and that everything we do, will either create a Kiddish Hashem or Chillul Hashem.

While many Jews – myself included – find the statements made on Thursday by Barack Obama to be anti-Israel, and we have the right to criticize him, some people are calling for a protest in Manhattan today (Friday), with rhetoric that is crossing the proverbial line. While of course they have the right to protest, it will be a large-scale Chillul Hashem if they in fact carry the signs they claim they will – and continue to make outlandish remarks. For example, yesterday Assemblyman Dov Hikind said “President Obama is of the same mindset as Hamas.” The idea that the President of the United State who has give billions of dollars to Israel and who supports a flawed two-state solution is like Hamas, who doesn’t even recognize Israel and seeks to wipe out the Jews, is ludicrous. In fact, while the President’s speech was wrong and offensive, he took the time to criticize Hamas and was clear that Hamas’s philosophy was not welcome. Obama said “how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?”

Or, how about this outrageous suggestion for a sign (see email below): “Barack Hussein Obama: We Wont Return To Auschwitz!”.

This slogan implies, that our President (whether you like him or not, he’s still our democratically elected President) is a Hitler.

I really hope that no one carries such a sign at today’s rally. But if they do, let them carry a disclaimer stating that they do not represent the Jewish community. Simply put, that sign is offensive to our Torah values.

In conclusion, I disagree with the President and I believe that his speech today was pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. Disagreeing is OK. Criticizing is OK. But comparing the President to Hitler or Hamas is not OK.

Editor’s note: the following press release has been emailed and circulated en-masse:

JEWISH COMMUNITY TO PROTEST AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA AT ISRAELI CONSULATE: OBAMA MOST ANTI-ISRAEL PRESIDENT EVER

-Protestors to Gather Waving Israeli Flags, Hold Signs –
 
NEW YORK, NY – A number of major Jewish organizations, including Aish Center, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), RAJE and others will gather on Friday May 20th, at Noon at the Israeli Consulate, located at 800 2nd Avenue (42nd Street) to protest President Obama’s call that Israel should retreat to 1967 borders.  Hundreds are expected to gather.
 
Obama endorsed Palestinians’ demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy is a grave danger to Israel.
 
Protestors will hold signs which read:       
          “Barack Hussein Obama: We Wont Return To Auschwitz !”
          “Obama: Danger To Israel”
          “Obama Rewards Terror”
 
This rally will feature prominent rabbis, dignitaries, and public officials.
 
“President Obama is a grave danger to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.  He is the most hostile president to Israel ever, and this move will only cause more Arab terrorism. As Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, these borders are “militarily indefensible.” Its necessary to remember what Abba Eban, when he served as Israel’s Foreign Minister said when he appeared at the United Nations following the Six Day war, in describing the fragility of Israel’s 1949-1967 map as Israel’s “Auschwitz” lines,”said Rabbi Mordechai Tokarsky, Director of RAJE (Russian American Jewish Experience).
 
ZOA President Morton A. Klein said, “President Obama has severely harmed Israel’s interests and America’s interests. Today, we are ashamed of and frightened by America’s policy regarding Israel. President Obama is the most hostile president to Israel ever.”

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

(Chaim Shapiro – YWN)

[The following Op-Ed was written by Tevi Troy]

Laura Meckler had a piece in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about Jewish donors’ warning Obama not to push Israel too hard in his Middle East speech today. If she’s right about Jewish discomfort with Obama’s Middle East policies — and I think she is — Jewish donors and voters alike will not be comforted by Obama’s speech.

There were three main problems with the address. The first is the way in which Obama explained the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It is notable that when Obama said, “Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks,” he put the Israeli action first. A plausible interpretation of this is that, in Obama’s view, Palestinians walked away as a result of Israel’s settlement activity, and the Palestinian walkaway is therefore justified.

Second is that Obama did not demand an end to Palestinian misbehavior so much as predict, in a removed way, that such behavior will not serve them well:

For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.

Compare this with Bush’s starker and more direct words on the subject in his June 24, 2002, speech:

And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.

When it comes to Israel, however, Obama returns to demand, rather than predictive, mode, saying that “Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.

Third, Obama placed few limits on his support for a two-state solution.  He also minimized Israel’s security concerns and limited Israel’s negotiating leverage by calling for a state with 1967 borders, instead of letting the parties themselves hash out the parameters. Again, compare this with the words of Bush, who rightly made American support for a Palestinian state contingent on concrete Palestinian actions:

If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine.

All of this is not accidental. Presidential speeches are written and rewritten so that they convey specific messages.

For these reasons, Obama has ample reason to worry about a poor reception when he speaks to a very pro-Israel audience at AIPAC this Sunday. In addition, Obama’s campaign goal of raising $1 billion becomes much harder if he loses major Jewish fundraisers. While Bush’s 2004 improvement in the polls among American Jews was relatively small — from 19 percent support in 2000 to 24 percent in 2004 — Bush also poached a number of significant fundraisers from the Democratic side because of his pro-Israel stance.

Finally, Obama has reason to fear a poorer showing in the overall Jewish vote in 2012. More important, though, it’s not just Jewish voters Obama needs to worry about. Polls have consistently shown that Americans in general are supportive of Israel. Jews are only 2 percent of the population, but the percentage of Israel backers who will be going to the polls in 2012 will be much higher.

Tevi Troy is a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. A former senior White House aide and deputy secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration, he also served as the White House Jewish Liaison.

The above Op-Ed was originally published NationalReview, and submitted to YWN by the author.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

The following by Michael Goodwin appeared in Sundays NY Post:

The winter of public discontent with Mayor Bloom berg has turned into the spring of white-hot anger. If he’s got any more Kool- Aid in his emergency kit, Bloomy better break it out now because the natives are decidedly restless.

Starting with the Christmas blizzard debacle, the grievances against him continue to pile up. Hardly a day goes by without a new scandal headline, yet he seems unable or unwilling to respond in ways that would move the needle.

He spent several millions on TV ads and direct mail, but it didn’t work. He fired his unpopular choice for schools chancellor, Cathie Black, but didn’t get a boost from that, either.
Most peculiar, he seems stuck in a loser narrative — that he is unpopular because he is right and everybody else is wrong. His mind is shut tight against any view except his own — bicycle lanes uber alles — even as New Yorkers believe his third term is a bust.

If he cares about his sinking fortunes, he has an odd way of showing it. In the twilight of his tenure, Bloomberg is becoming the Popeye of politicians: “I am what I am.”

He might want to rethink that approach. The top line of the Quinnipiac poll spelled trouble and the findings get worse as you dig into the numbers. A dismal 40 percent approval rating and a 49 percent disapproval count as the good news, which means there isn’t any.

A tiny 3 percent say Bloomberg’s third term is better than the first two, with 47 percent saying it’s worse. Most say he is not focusing enough on the job.

Bad as those numbers are, they are worse on his signature issue. The “education mayor,” a tag he gave himself, is becoming a parody.

By a whopping 64-25 percent, voters turn thumbs down on his management of the schools. Among New Yorkers with children in those schools, 78 percent disapprove, and only 20 percent approve.

Overall, by 57 to 23 percent, New Yorkers say his takeover of the schools has been a failure. That could put mayoral control in jeopardy for his successor, with the unions and their lawmaker puppets eager to curb City Hall’s power.

For Bloomberg, this is beyond the lame-duck danger zone — this has the makings of a collapse. Unless his attitude changes, and he is able to convince the public he is fully engaged, I don’t see how he can substantially recover.

The fundamental reason is that he and his first chancellor, Joel Klein, sold themselves as national school reformers based largely on gains in standardized test scores. But when those scores fell by 30 percent in a single day, thanks to moderately higher state standards, the “mission accomplished” claim looked hollow and, frankly, fraudulent. With 75 percent of high-school grads needing remediation when they get to CUNY community colleges, rising graduation rates are also suspect.

The budget squeeze, with his plans for 4,100 teacher layoffs, is making the public mood worse. The mayor is trying to channel that anger toward Albany, saying the cuts aren’t his fault.

But the squeeze is partly a consequence of Bloomberg’s money-to-burn approach in the first terms. His 43 percent salary hikes for teachers, along with a discredited bonus program, yielded no significant concessions and helped drive up pension costs.

READ MORE: NY POST

Do orthodox-Jews hate women? asked a national news site. “… this is as wrong as it is unethical. I don’t care what religion is involved,” declared a Washington D.C. based political analyst on her blog about the doctored photo fiasco. “Is there any difference between Hasidic Jews and the Taliban regarding women?” asked a commenter on a news site reporting the Di Tzeitung’s altered photo. “For the fundamentalists, it seems like they prefer to cover their women than demand that their men control their primal urges,” reads another one. These, of course, are just a minuscule amount of the anti-Semitic comments the photograph mess has garnered. The orthodox Jews made it into the spotlight once again – and in a bad way, an awful and horrible way. Indeed, it has created a large-scale Chillul Hashem (desecration of the Almighty’s name).

Di Tzeitung has indeed issued a statement regarding the debacle, but it hasn’t done much to make the condition any better. The orthodox Jewish community – a minority population – is humiliated and disgraced for years to come. Our lobby will be obliged to do much damage control and will have to do more to prove the world that we do not discriminate against any race or gender. Our efforts to stop Toeiva (pro-choice) legislation may now become infertile, as our image will be tarnished forever.

Orthodox Jews are not sexist. In fact, it is the Torah that gave equal rights to women long before any feminist movement was born.

The Talmud (Kiddushin 35a) states: “The verse has equated woman to man for all penalties, rulings and deaths in the Torah.” The Avudirham (Weekday Prayer, Section 3) explains that women are exempt from time-oriented commandments to safeguard marital harmony. Furthermore, Rabbi Moses Feinstein, a leading Torah authority in the 20th century, writes in his responsa (Igros Moshe OH 4:49) that the Torah often heaps more praise on women than men. He maintains that the Torah made it easier for women than men concerning the time-oriented Mitzvos because of women’s nature and their humanizing personality. Thus, they have easier access to the world-to-come than men (see Tractate Brachos 17a).

Orthodox Jews are, however, against immorality.

When “feminist” movements began springing up in the twenties, people were appalled at how the previously accepted moral principles were discarded.  They watched in horror how music changed from classical to jazz and heroes of the past were replaced with men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong and Count Basie. They shuddered when contemporary styles were introduced to the youngsters of the time, thereby symbolizing the change of generations. It was in those years that organized crime reigned and drinking became popular despite strict laws prohibiting alcohol. This drastic transformation eternally altered the public’s approach to immoral behaviors. It isn’t the Jews who changed – it is the world that changed.

Jews remain segregated and continue to guard the separation between genders. Consequently, less infidelity exists among orthodox Jews; it is for this reason that divorce rates amongst them are significantly lower than the general population and stable marriages is the norm. As a result, religious Jews refrain from frequenting secular newspapers and the general media; a picture of a woman might not cause one to sin, but it is, nevertheless, a protective guard against engaging in adultery-related activities. Refraining from looking at pictures that contain women — regardless of age and appearance — is literally the wedding-band for many religious; moreover, it is a protection that is permanent and everlasting.

However, doctored photos are a no-no. It is, truthfully, in our favor that a doctored photo should create such a commotion. Although religious Jews might feel the urge to do it for religious purposes – in a harmless way – others may use this very same tool to harm us. It was doctored photos that Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels used in order to portray Jews in a bad light. Terrorists constantly tamper with photos and videos to blame Israel for civilian deaths.

Additionally, according to Jewish law, forgery is prohibited and unethical.

It isn’t the first time that a Jewish newspaper published inaccurate, altered photos. It also wasn’t only Jewish newspapers that doctored the “iconic” photo; nevertheless, this time and this one created a ruckus. It didn’t seem to be newsworthy when Reuters altered pictures at the Lebanon War and Gaza Flotilla to portray Israel in a bad light, but it is exciting when a small Brooklyn based Yiddish newspaper doctored a photo without any bad intentions. This should serve as a reminder to religious Jews, especially those in the public eye, to remain vigilant at all times; we must constantly bear in mind that we ought to read the “fine print” to prevent a desecration of Hashem’s name.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

Throughout history, the United States of America had constantly faced challenges, and ordinary people stood up to the challenge and saved this nation. From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson along with the Founding Fathers who nurtured the young republic; their selflessness paid off with the “Era of Good Feelings.” Abraham Lincoln stood up to a divided country on the brink of civil war and improved America’s tarnished image by abolishing slavery. Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for reform in a rapidly modernizing world and enacted progressive changes. Franklin D. Roosevelt finally acknowledged Nazi genocide and acted to stop it before it was too late; the war also helped the United States climb out of the Great Depression.

Ronald Reagan understood the threat of Communism and ensured the fall of the Soviet Union and Capitalism’s adversaries.  George W. Bush led the country to the “War on Terror” after Islamic terrorists deliberately crashed commercial jets into American targets. He underscored the terror threat around the world and largely damaged terror networks and infrastructures around the world. With Osama bin Laden’s death, America has not defeated terror, and it remains a threat; nevertheless, his end confirmed America’s exceptionalism once again.

We are facing a challenge once again. Our republic is in danger, and something must be done to save it. We are facing a threat that we’ve never seen before, and we need that ordinary American to stave off this menace once again. This time it isn’t the British monarchy or the Red Army that is our enemy. Our chief antagonist isn’t a Mullah hiding in an Afghanistan cave either, neither is he a tyrant in Iraq or dictator in Libya. This time, we are facing an enemy from within; a Western civilized man in a black tie; a bureaucrat in Washington.

Bernie Madeoff warned us first, and S&P followed up: the American Government is running a Ponzi scheme that is about to explode; taking our economy along with it. We are facing a budget crisis that accumulated over the years due to massive entitlement and defense spending. It was often necessary. America had to make changes to benefit its citizens and make their lives healthy and productive. The U.S. had to defend itself against Nazism, Communism and Terrorism. Yet, the spending levels may have been necessary but it’s dangerous.

We need a president that will reform the way government spends and works, to keep essential and vital programs while eliminating unnecessary ones. One that will know how to balance the budget to maintain triple A ratings and avoid default. One that will act swiftly before interest rates will spike, the Dollar will dive and stagflation will make the 70’s look like paradise. We need an ordinary man at the helm of this nation once again, and that man is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

It was Daniels who forewarned the nation about the “new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink” and warned of a “financial Niagara” engulfing this nation. He seems to understand the ramifications of fiscal recklessness, unrestrained liberal governance and over-regulated markets, or isn’t scared to say it.

Daniels doesn’t only talk the talk but also walks the walk. “The Blade,” as he’s often called for his budget cutting, is a competent manager and policy wonk who studied the national budget habits while serving as federal budget director under George W. Bush, and one who turned Indiana’s deficit into a surplus.

Daniels has private-sector experience and knows healthcare better than anyone in the race. His executive experience in Eli Lilly and Healthy Indiana Plan initiative will make him a strong voice in repealing Obamacare, a law he called “a massive mistake.”

Yes. He might be wonky and short but, nevertheless, understands how to win a presidential election and to win over blue voters. The former Reagan Chief Political Advisor was the only Republican to win a state that went to Obama in 2008. He might be too modest and humble, but four years of arrogance proved to be worse.

The public is already sickened by the Obama rhetoric; they want a commander-in-chief not a campaigner-in-chief. Mitch Daniels possesses the “charisma of competence” and knows what to focus on. He understands that Obama’s birthplace isn’t an issue but also knows that social issues are sideshows that must be placed on the side for now. The social conservative called on the Democrats and Republicans alike to put the grave threat before them to focus on fiscal issues. However, Obama doesn’t recognize the threat and repealed DADT while instructing the DOJ to stop defending traditional marriage instead. He focused on “carnival barkers” as the staggering unemployment rate remained and spending levels increased; he has yet to release an entitlement cutting plan.

Daniels often challenged the status quo and became the pioneer for government reform around the nation to make the government fair and efficient. The first governor to challenge the Unions and strip them from collective bargaining rights was also the first to reform property tax and education. Orthodox-Jews, in particular, should admire his latest signature legislation that initiates school choice; one that will set the stage for the rest of country.

Throughout history, political parties often sought a general to run on the top of the ticket. Today, the Republican Party should nominate General Daniels as their choice for president. General Daniels wasn’t a general in the War of 1812, nor did he fight in the Civil War; he is, nevertheless, a war hero. He is the protagonist of the 21^st century’s revolutionary war.  A leader in the war to restore America’s honor, produce jobs and boost an economy. He, upon his own admission, might not have extensive foreign policy experience, but he has the experience in domestic policy. We need a general to fight for us on the front in Washington, and Daniels is the one who has previously proven to us that he can do it.

Mitch Daniels has the patriotic duty to run for president and lead the country as it braces for economic crisis. He is the only one that can enact major reforms, articulately explain the necessity to the citizens and care more about his country than his career. As The Economist stated, “He is, in short, just the kind of man to relish fixing a broken state – or country.” Even if he goes on to lose the primary or general election, his mere presence will shape the debate. His fiscal message will be heard, and candidates will have to be poised to offer solutions. Therefore, it is incumbent for Governor Daniels to step up to the plate and run for president of the United States.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached atdavehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

The flurry of international reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by the American army provides Israel with a great opportunity to demonstrate the double standards applied against it by so many in the Western world and elsewhere. All one has to do is compare the reactions of major institutions and leaders with those after the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. This leader of the Hamas terrorist organization was killed by Israel in 2004. He was directly responsible for many lethal attacks on Israeli civilians including suicide bombings.

On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters that “the death of Osama bin Laden, announced by President (Barack) Obama last night, is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism.” Yet after the killing of Sheikh Yassin, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said “I do condemn the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin and the others who died with him. Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution.”

The now-defunct UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the tragic death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in contravention of the Hague Convention IV of 1907.” At the Security Council, the US had to use its veto power to prevent condemnation of Israel.

After the bin Laden killing, the leaders of the European Council and European Commission stated that his death made the world a safer place and showed that terrorist attacks do not remain unpunished. Following the Yassin killing, then-EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana said, “This type of action does not contribute at all to create the conditions of peace. This is very, very bad news for the peace process. The policy of the European Union has been consistently condemnation of extra-judicial killing.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron congratulated President Obama on the success of the bin Laden assassination. Cameron considered it a massive step forward in the fight against extremist terrorism. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair also welcomed bin Laden’s demise.

However, the killing of Sheikh Yassin was called by the then-British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw “unacceptable” and “unjustified.” The official spokesman of then-Prime Minister Blair condemned the “unlawful attack“ and observed: “We have repeatedly made clear our opposition to Israel’s use of targeted killings and assassinations.”

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed Bin Laden’s killing as a coup in the fight against terrorism. He called President Obama, praised his determination and courage and all others who had pursued the head of al-Qaeda for 10 years. Sarkozy added that the two heads of state had agreed to continue the just and necessary fight against terrorist barbarity and those who support it.

Yet after Sheikh Yassin’s death, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman, Herve Ladsous, said, “France condemns the action taken against Sheikh Yassin, just as it has always condemned the principle of any extra-judicial execution as contrary to international law.” Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin declared that “such acts can only feed the spiral of violence.” 

READ MORE: YNET

President Obama deserves full credit for Sunday’s mission. There’s no question that it was a gutsy move for the President; the most courageous decision he has ever made. It was a make-it or break-it judgment. Had it failed, he would’ve gotten all the blame; he would’ve had to put up with Pakistani officials demanding an apology and most definitely lose re-election.

The chilling account of the operation proves the point. While the President, surrounded by high-level administration officials along with his national security team in the White House Situation Room, was watching the strike, the ambiance was tense. The aura in the room was similar to the atmosphere in the very same room on April 16, 1980 when President Carter signed off Operation Eagle Claw. They were both daring plans; one succeeded and one didn’t. Indeed, President Obama promised that he would kill Osama Bin Laden, and he fulfilled his promise.

However, credit must be given when it is due. President Obama acknowledged it when he told the American public about the demise of Bin Laden. Yet, he failed to practice it. He made sure to mention the risks that he was taking while authorizing the attack. He made sure that he mentioned the political risk he took when the mission took place at his direction.

He deserves credit for the mission but deserves absolutely no credit for his speech.

While he rightfully called for unity in such times, he didn’t take note of his own words. He decided to make it a partisan, political accomplishment. It didn’t sound like a victory speech of a nation, rather a triumphant stump speech on a campaign trail. It sounded as if it was his priority to bring terrorists to justice; as if he took the risks that others did not.

It was President Bush’s “controversial” interrogation methods that led to Bin Laden’s capture. It was also the “harsh interrogation methods” and “inhumane detention centers” that made President Bush’s ratings submerge. President Bush took the risk to lead the nation to war against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. It was his courageous and brave call that enabled Bin Laden’s death. We didn’t go to war in Afghanistan, Bush did. A President that once stated “we are not a red America, we are not a blue America, we are the United States of America,” should’ve known better.

The speech was also dispassionate and unemotional for a president announcing such a major achievement. It was egoistic, self-centered and insensitive. Also lacking was adequate thankfulness and appreciation for the armed forces and SEALs who carried out the operation. Granted, he gave them tribute, but it was merely passable and sufficient. He mentioned himself more than he mentioned these heroic individuals. He took a risk, but he took the risk to be ousted from the White House, but they risked their lives.

President Bush indeed failed to capture Bin Laden during his presidency, but he succeeded in constantly giving ample praise to those who put their lives on the line for us. He demonstrated that he can put politics and self-interests aside when claiming victory for the nation. President Obama undeniably gets the credit for Bin Laden’s downfall but should be taken to task for his dispassionate speech.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

The following Op-Ed is from Andrew Malcolm, and appears in the LA Times:

According to another one of those White House briefings of reporters designed to suck up all available credit for good news, President Obama’s homeland security advisor reveals that it was a really tense time in the air-conditioned White House as unidentified U.S. Navy SEALs closed in on the world’s most wanted man after midnight a half a world away.

“Minutes passed like days,” says John Brennan, who bravely stood with press secretary Jay Carney before reporters and TV cameras today chronicling his boss’ weekend heroics.

The heavily-armed commandos flying in a quartet of darkened Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters more than 100 miles into Pakistan were probably listening to their iPods and discussing the NFL draft.

“The concern was that bin Laden would oppose any type of capture operation,” said Obama’s Sherlock Holmes. So U.S. troops were prepared “for all contingencies.”

In fact, this weekend was such a tense time in the White House that Obama only got in nine holes of golf. But he still managed to deliver his joke script to the White House Correspondents Assn. dinner Saturday evening.

Sunday was, Brennan revealed to his eager audience, “probably one of the most anxiety-filled periods of times in the lives of the people assembled here.” Poor poor bureaucrats. Extra Tums all around. Did someone order dinner?

There may have been a little anxiety aboard those combat choppers. Who knows? We can’t hear from them. And, as every day, anxiety in the kitchens, hearts and mind of thousands of military families who put up with the terrifying uncertainty of the dangerous deeds their loved ones have volunteered to secretly do for their country.B During his 49 minute presentation Brennan did squeeze in one reference to the mission’s “very brave personnel.”

But the emphasis, with 2012 just around the calendrical corner, was on the boss’ valor. “There was nothing that confirmed that bin Laden was at that compound,” Brennan related as if such uncertainty is uncommon in war.

“And, therefore,” Brennan continued, “when President Obama was faced with the opportunity to act upon this, the president had to evaluate the strength of that information and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory.”

According to early reports of the incident, detailed here in The Ticket, 24 SEALs rappelled down ropes from hovering Chinooks in post-midnight darkness Monday Pakistan time with Osama security forces shooting at them. Brennan didn’t have much time to go into all that today, the goal is to elevate the ex-state senator to at least a one-star commander-in-chief.

Here’s something else that didn’t get much recognition in all the street celebrations or all-hail-Obama briefings:

The trail to Monday morning’s assault on Osama’s Pakistan compound began during someone else’s presidency. That previous president authorized enhanced interrogation techniques which convinced folks like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to give up, among many other things, the name of their top-secret courier, now deceased. His travels ultimately led the CIA back to Osama’s six-year-old suburban home.

(Source: LA Times)

“In a lengthily post on his Blog, Columnist Yossi Gestetner outlines how some in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), use “anti-Jewish Shtick” to smear the Orthodox Jewish and Hasidic members of the Board of Education of the East Ramapo (NY) Central School District.

Gestetner writes, “I would like to say a few words about some who ‘Kvetch’ often about the Board of Education of the East Ramapo (NY) Central School District: They are driven by hate and anti-Semitism!

“They – The director of NAACP’s mid-Hudson and Westchester regions office, and the President of the Spring Valley, NY chapter of the NAACP – work officially to fight discrimination and to protect Civil Rights, but it is likely hate that drives them to file complaints and publish negative reports against the Orthodox Jewish/Hasidic Board members who have a majority on the nine-seat School District’s BOE.

“A sample of a disgraceful anti-Jewish move by the NAACP is the Press Release the Spring Valley chapter published in the afternoon of Monday, April 18, announcing that the US Department of Education’s Civil Right Division opened an investigation against The Board in response to a complaint filed by the NAACP. The problem? Well, the Federal DOE notified the NAACP and The Board in a letter dated ten days earlier – April 8 – about the inquiry. In fact, Wilbur Aldridge, director for the mid-Hudson and Westchester regions of the NAACP, told LoHud.com, the online edition of the Journal News, that news about the investigation came “last week,” (the week of April 10), yet the NAACP produced its Press Release only on Monday the 18′th, hours before the eight-day Passover holiday kicked in. With this deliberate delay, the NAACP limited  the ability of The Board to respond to the allegations in a timely fashion, since the Board adjourned for the holiday with its majority Orthodox Jewish/Hasidic members about to fully observe – without cell phone and electronic communications means – five of the following eight days starting with Sun Set of the 18′th.

“The shameless act by the NAACP went a step further, including strongly misleading the press as to the will of the U.S. Department of Education. Wilbur Aldridge, the NAACP Mid-Hudson Director was quoted by the Journal News that “We cannot release any information as to what they’re looking at or what they’re looking for, but we do know that they have begun an investigation into the functioning of the East Ramapo School District,” and – reported LoHud – “adding that the U.S. Department of Education has asked [The NAACP] that the particulars of the investigation be withheld.”

“The above information is contrary to what the Civil Right Office wrote to the ERSCD Board in its letter informing them about the Investigation. The Letter writes, “Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this letter and related correspondence, and records upon request.” But again, the NAACP told differently to the press, likely with the goal to paint the Majority Jewish Board members in a dark light at a time when they hat limited-to-no reasonable chance to respond to the allegations.

“Indeed, the NAACP reserved to these Shtick because after reviewing their three allegations of Civil Rights Discrimination, one would see it doesn’t hold much water:

“Allegation One is that the District provides Private School placements for White, but not to non-White, disabled children. Fact: Because – in many cases – The District cannot provide fair and appropriate education to some (such as Yiddish-speaking, culturally different) students, the District therefore pays for the severely handicapped and developmentally challenged kids to enroll in private institutions that fits their needs. This service is provided to any student on a case-by-case review if so requested by the parent.

“Allegation Two in the complaint is that The District segregates students on the basis of race by providing a “white-only” kindergarten. Fact: The District has a class of six severely handicapped and developmentally challenged Jewish kids who understand each other based on language and culture, not race. In fact, The District has similar – and perhaps lager – such classes for Haitian American kids with special needs. In addition, following the Haiti earthquake, The District put together a few of classes where only Haitian American kids were placed to make it easiest possible for them in this new country.

“Allegation Three: the complaint alleges that the District fails to recruit and hire a sufficient number of noon-white teachers and district wide administrators such as assistant super attendants. Fact: 1) The current Interim Superintendent is a member from a minority group, he is Jewish. 2) Two of the five current Assistant Superintendents were hired by the Jewish-led Board, and both hires are minorities. One is an African American Woman, and the other is from Puerto Rico communities. 3) At least fifty percent of the School Principles are member from minority communities.

“All in all it is a shame that people working for The NAACP, a group out there to advance the needs of minorities, instead uses religion and race to undermine members of another minority group while using severely handicapped and developmentally challenged kids as pawns. The disgrace grows even more when considering that the NAACP Spring Valley Chapter is located in one of “New York’s most diverse villages whose Orthodox Jewish and Hasidic members shaped history eighteen months ago by making possible to elect New York State’s first Haitian American Mayor!

“The Board Members at the ERSCD are using the success of the Private School system (where 2/3 of the local students are enrolled), to enhance multiple parts of the Public School system, most notably the Special Education division. This was done while keeping tax increases to a minimum; a move away from the past and a helpful move for locals in the troubling economic times of recent years. But from local groups and individual mouth-pieces, the Board gets mostly only complaints, fights, arguments and attacks, and at last this shameful act by the NAACP.

“I hope the national NAACP will move to denounce its Spring Valley chapter and the Director of its Mid-Hudson and Westchester regions, and instruct them to work hand-in-hand with members of all communities for the good and the education of children in The District.”

Gestetner tells YWN that he is in contact with attorneys to see if he can file any sort of defamation suits against the above members of the NAACP, but Gestetner stresses that “No one on the Jewish side is looking for fights and court battles, so I hope any actions in court will not be needed.”

Today, April 17, 2011, the US national debt clock showed $14,281,988,839,404.12 in public debt. This means that with an estimated population of 310,403,719, each citizen’s share is $46,011.01. Furthermore, at the current spending rate, the debt ceiling will have to be raised by mid-May to prevent government default in early July. National debt is not good for our country, our economy and our national security. More debt can lead to staggering interest rates, send our economy down south and empower China. In the words of President Barack Obama in 2006: “Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally”. Democrats and Republicans alike are both in agreement that something must be done to curb it. Yet, they talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.

Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan was perhaps the first one that took action. He saw the threat and decided to forgo on his political wellbeing and save our country from peril. He understood the political liabilities his plans will cost him, but understood that the nation’s liabilities will cost us much more. He released his plan, hailed by many non-partisans, to curb the national debt.

The first thing an accountant learns is that assets equal liabilities plus owner’s equity. The key issue for a business person is to stay out of the red. The basic thing that any person knows is that he must have a balanced budget. Yet, the main factor for a politician is to protect the status quo; to stick his head in the sand and protect unsustainable programs. To stay away from political toxic entitlement programs which pile up debt. Bureaucracies, once created, never die; bureaucrats simply create more bureaucracies to protect failing bureaucracies.

Rep. Ryan went against the common knowledge among politicians. He decided to place a stumble block in the way of his political career to remove the debt problem. He courageously authored a master budget which would protect the unsustainable programs without creating more bureaucracies, and without sacrificing the economic growth. Yet, the President knew better. He played by his political playbook and went on the attack. In a much hyped speech, he spoke little substance as he sharpened his partisan, rhetoric attacks. He painted the GOP plan as radical and warned the seniors that they will be thrown overboard with this plan.

President Obama made a short introductory statement hailing free enterprise before underlining the importance of government programs. We are a better country because of Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security, he claimed. Thus he said, that the wealthy “can afford to give a bit more back.” These programs he said were just creating “a little credit card debt” that won’t hurt. He blamed the current debt levels on President Bush’s policies and the war on terror while failing to mention that he tripled it since.

He forgot to reveal that Ryan’s plan to simplify the tax code and create “tax breaks for the wealthy” was initially supported by himself. In his first debate with Senator McCain, then-Senator Barack Obama agreed that our taxes are way too high and proposed reducing them by closing the loopholes in the tax codes. The loopholes that have Fortune 500 companies pay no taxes at all. Under Ryan’s plan, the tax decreases that will make businesses keep the money to grow a faster economy will be paid by closing these loopholes initiated by President Obama.

The President berated the “privatization of Medicare” and warned the seniors that they will have to pay more. He failed to indicate that under Ryan’s plan, only the wealthy will have to pay from their own pocket. These people who “can afford to give a bit more back” will simply take less. He didn’t care to state the fact that this plan will curb health insurance costs – something that his Affordable Care Act didn’t do.

His plan was simply raising taxes and playing partisanship. He decided to camp on rhetoric and thought that the Americans are stupid. He knew that he didn’t have any sound plans. He understands that Ryan has the “Roadmap to America” and “The Path to Prosperity,” but figured that he, nevertheless, will use the roadmap and path to reelection instead.

He knows that raising taxes is not the solution to the problem. Raising taxes may be necessary as a last resort but shouldn’t serve as the plan to more spending. An accountant won’t simply demand the entrepreneur to place more capital in his business to balance the books; he’ll cut expenses. A businessman won’t just look for more investors to get him out of the red; he’ll slash spending and eliminate waste. A household will tighten their belts to pay their bills and buy less. We should not send more businesses and jobs overseas because of Washington’s spending habits.

The Republicans and Paul Ryan understand that many Americans are dependent on the Government. They know that it is too late to stop these programs that assist the poor. Yet, they know that rhetoric and playing political safe games won’t save it. They understand that the status quo won’t maintain those unsustainable programs. Freezing level won’t do anything to stop this overspending. They must take a hatchet and cut. They must make reforms and changes now before it’s too late and those dependent on programs will die in the streets because of its sudden end. Washington must recognize that these programs that make up two-thirds of our budget and are unsustainable, and must stop playing politics on our account. President Obama ought to stop playing politics and ensure that the programs are sustained without affecting the economic growth of our economy.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached atdavehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

The following Op-Ed appears in the Wall Street Journal:

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday-with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions-was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship-which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

***
The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

View Full Image

Bloomberg News
.Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare’s gargantuan liabilities is that it is “just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.” His own plan is to double down on the program’s price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare-which will supposedly ferret out “unnecessary spending.” Is that the same as “waste and abuse”?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won’t harm seniors’ care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan’s plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It’s hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen “to find additional savings,” whatever those might be, after a “fundamental review.” These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on “the rich.” Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthiest 2%,” conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own “series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs.” Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the “cost” of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets-and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans-most of whom are far from wealthy-were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that’s three significant tax increases-via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt “failsafe,” which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else “making government smarter, leaner and more effective.” Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting “waste and abuse.”

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors “a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.” Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President’s political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.

(Source: WSJ)

The Torah intended for the Sedorim to be children oriented. The Torah repeatedly speaks of a dialogue between the children and parents. The Hagaddah is also geared towards raising the children’s curiosity, prompting them to ask questions and having the parents respond to those questions. Pesach is all about informal Chinuch (education).
 
Many parents look forward to Pesach with a “storybook dream”. The family will all be sitting around, eager to hear the father say the Haggadah. Insightful questions will be asked. Answers will be knowledgeable and gleaned from a wide source of commentaries. The singing will be beautiful, the meal enjoyable, and everyone will act on cue.
 
To achieve the above will require the planning a number of steps. Some of them are logistical; others are attitudinal. These include:

A. Logistical
1) As difficult as it may be, the Sedorim should begin as early as possible. In our home, the Haggadahs and pillows are set before we leave for Mincha. The Sedorim begin about 15 minutes after we come home.

2)  We also Daven at a Minyan that’s “faster” than many others. These two “tricks” help us begin the Sedorim, usually, more than an hour earlier than do many of our friends. People should be reminded that the success of the Sedorim is not how late they are finished, but how long the Sedorim took and, more importantly, how much of that time was spent constructively.
 
3) In homes with young children, the parents generally know how long the children can sit together without arguing. It’s a fair assumption that during the Sedorim, the peaceful interactions will probably last longer than usual; but eventually they will end. Parents should plan the length of the Sedorim according to their children’s ability to stay captivated by the events that take place. Since our Chachomim (Rabbis) have geared the Sedorim to be a Chinuch tool, parents should make sure that their children experience as much of the Sedorim as possible. It would be a shame for the children to tire during the Sedorim because of the lateness of the hour, and miss the underlying goals of the night.
 
4) Even if the Sedorim have been planned perfectly, parents shouldn’t assume that all  of their children will react to them in the same manner. The Sedorim should be a joint effort, but not all children are team players. This becomes a particular problem when there’s a large range in the children’s ages. One child may be in H.S. and is beginning to take the Sedorim more seriously, while the siblings may be in elementary school and are looking to have fun. This type of situation is normal, and may have to be dealt with by compromising. The younger children should walk around a little during the longer D’vrei (words of) Torah, (nosh is not only acceptable during the Sedorim, but should be promoted), and the older children should not say their third D’var Torah on the same sentence. They should save it for later in the meal, or during the lunch meal.
 
B. Attitudinal
1) I strongly suggest that the D’vrei Torah focus on practical, simple, concepts, that have universal meaning for all the children and parents. It’s frustrating to listen to someone speak for five minutes, while some of the other family members feel left out, and tune out.
 
2) Parents should also remember that the Sedorim are not the time to instill values in children. They’re a time to expose them to values. If your children aren’t motivated, don’t make motivation the night’s goal. Instead, let those children walk around a little, and participate less than you would’ve liked.
 
3) The most important message to consider is that the Sedorim nights are not the time to expect children to “play the part”. Children are by nature happy, playful (in a healthy way), and inquisitive. These are three positive traits. These three traits also frustrate people who are nervous, stressed, and distracted. For such people happiness, playfulness, and inquisitiveness, is irritating and, often, infuriating. Children become “trained” to avoid their parents and play in their rooms. They are told to read something and stop making noise. They are told to find a friend or something to do. During the entire year, the parents push their children out of the room and tell them, “not now”, whenever their children want to spend time with them.
 
The question then becomes how can parents expect their children to “turn themselves on” when the parents have been “turning them off”  for the entire year? This frustrates parents (usually the fathers).
 
In addition, parents usually look forward to the Sedorim with a slightly self serving, usually subconscious, interest. They want to “feel good” about the Sedorim. Having this attitude, combined with the fact that children will find it difficult to contribute, because of the relationship built over the past year, many Sedorim become a tense time, sometimes even with bouts of screaming.
 
Even if the Sedorim aren’t as stressful as I’ve just described, they often end up like many other family interactions. Parents may feel that noise, giggling, or a loud yawn, is a distraction that takes away from the evening’s presentations. This “snowballs” into a disjointed, unpleasant, experience for everyone.
 
I’ve found that the success of the Sedorim will be as successful as the parents – childrens relationship was all year. It is during the Sedorim that parents will realize how effective or ineffective they’ve been at parenting all year. 
 
Although parents hope that the Sedorim will work out perfectly, keep in mind that they’re also supposed to be fun, relaxing, and something in which the children will enjoy participating. Parents should do their best to find a happy, effective, and enjoyable, medium.
 
The Sedorim are a time when many families have guests. Remember to treat your children as guests. Last but not least remember your spouses. They’ve a right to be tired and  appreciated. Show it to them.

Rabbi Shmuel Gluck is director of Areivim, a teen crisis intervention center. R. Gluck’s articles are widely published in the Torah Chinuch world. For previous articles or for speaking engagements you can contact R. Gluck at Areivim: www.areivim.com 845-371-2760 E-mail: areivim@juno.com.

(Rabbi Shmuel Gluck – YWN)

The budget for Fiscal Year 2011 will finally pass Congress. After a “historic deal” between the Republicans and Democrats, it is expected that Congress will pass the FY 2011 Budget to fund the government for the remainder of the year. This is truly a breakthrough. Six months into the fiscal year and we finally have a budget deal. This is a budget that the Democrats have pandered on for more than a half a year before finally agreeing to a resolution. This budget was supposed to pass back in September when the Democrats still had full control in Capitol Hill. The Democratic lawmakers pandered, punted and pointed fingers while passing a series of seven continuing resolutions until they finally settled to instate some spending cuts. They had no guts to pass another unbalanced budget with a deficit of 1.65 trillion dollars alone. They didn’t have the backbone to add more to the everlasting debt on record without Republican votes. They waited and lingered as the FY 2012 came into the horizon and a shutdown was about to occur.

The shutdown was averted in the 11^th hour. A deal secured a full annual budget to be passed along with 38.5 billion dollars in cuts from the 2010 budget (which had an estimated $1.171 trillion deficit). It wasn’t anything remarkable, as it won’t do anything significant to lower the national debt; yet, it was symbolic. It set the tone in Washington for the battles that are looming which include the FY 2012 budget and the vote on raising the debt level. As in every symbolic situation, this symbolic deal and shutdown showdown generated winners and losers. We will analyze who emerged victorious, and who lost the battle and ultimately might lose the war.

Winners:

House Speaker John Boehner: If John Boehner had a good day since he took the gavel from Nancy Pelosi, it was this past Friday. Ever since he became Speaker of the House, he faced a weary media who portrayed him as an emotionally disturbed person and one that cannot be relied on to lead the chamber. They painted him as an ineffective leader who won’t be able to unite his caucus behind his agenda and whose power will fade under the messianic leadership of President Obama. The Tea Partiers were also skeptical of his genuineness and endeavor to cut spending and support their cause.

He proved them wrong. John Boehner came out the champion of the entire fiasco. He led the fight until he emerged triumphant. He was the sheep in the room with 2-1 against his favor; yet, he knew when to threaten and at what time to put down the arms, and did so effectively. He didn’t flinch when Obama emptied his arsenal and threatened a veto, and stayed cool under pressure. He was the first one to notify the country about the deal he brokered and thereby fended off the Democrats’ rhetoric that he will have to cave into demands from the Tea Party and endorse a shutdown. He united his assembly behind his agenda and got even beyond his own expectations. He restored trust in those that were skeptical, and showed that he was willing to put up a fight and tarnish his image to protect the future of the country.

United States of America: The citizens of the United States would have been the biggest losers had a shutdown taken place. It would’ve affected their economy, their governmental services and their country. In 1995, the government shutdown cost the taxpayers over $1.25 billion. A shutdown would delay tax returns for millions, shut down national parks and recreation and essentially put the nation on hold. They were out to lose on the deal and they ultimately won.

Yet, they won even a bigger deal. They literally witnessed the salvage of the republic. A shutdown would be terrible but to continue on the same old path would be even worse. Spending money we don’t have while empowering China with our debt is far worse. Economists are already threatening a double-dip as they witness threats of inflation and rising interest rates. According to the CBO, the U.S. budget will crash by the year 2037. The unsustainable and outrageous spending abruptly had to stop just to keep this country intact. It wasn’t the strong military or social programs that made us the world’s superpower; it was the capitalism and free markets with a sustainable fiscal policy that made us the greatest country on earth. We ought to preserve that, and this deal will set the tone to do just that.

Tea Party: The group that was painted radical by the media is definitely one of the victors. The Democratic leadership in Congress wanted to demonize and place the blame for a shutdown on this group. They stood above the Reid and Schumer rhetoric and got what they wanted. They protested and congregated to stop those extreme expenditures and set the tone to put the country back on the right track. Despite liberal attempts to paint the Tea Party as extreme and unwilling to come to an agreement, they were perceived serious and willing because of this deal. They didn’t want a shutdown; they merely wanted the republic’s long-term existence.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: Rep. Paul Ryan wasn’t instrumental in getting this deal done, but he set the tone. It was his stern warnings on cable TV and his FY 2012 Budget that awakened the nation and got the Democrats to get serious. They realized that it will be tough to challenge this one man think-tank and policy wonk, and knew that they had to cave in. This deal also empowered Ryan and gave him the momentum to lead the bigger fights in the upcoming months. His “extreme” Budget will be the alternative to nothing as the Democrats have shown that they cannot lead. While it is unlikely to pass, it will further set the tone for future fiscal battles.

NPR/PBS: The “non-profit” public broadcasting companies also emerged as winners. Their government funding was supposed to be cut off under the GOP proposal was saved in the last-minute deal. Furthermore, unlike Planned Parenthood, they were also spared from a debate on the House floor where they would have to defend their policies and decisions in public hearings. This will enable them to continue their “fair” crusade against the Republicans — unrestricted.

Losers:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Harry Reid is perhaps the biggest loser on the deal. Despite acting as though he is ecstatic for the deal, he is deeply worried. He now must face irate liberals that scold this deal and must calm down the moderates who are up for reelection that will have to defend their record on votes because of the deal. He will have to brace for even bigger fights because of his resolute stance that eventually broke under pressure from the Republicans. He will have to rally his caucus to protect the baby-killing programs and ensure that they don’t defect on Obamacare. He also must gear up firm opposition to more fiscal battles that have gained impetus because of this deal.

He also became the fool of town. He famously declared that he will shut down the government in face of even one penny in cuts for baby-killing projects; yet, the federal government will cease to fund abortions in the District of Columbia, and Planned Parenthood will face scrutiny in Congress. He also had to retract on his promise never to bring up a vote on Obamacare. “I’m certainly not going to bring it up,” he stated. Well, it isn’t that certain anymore except if he wants to commit political suicide.

President Barack Obama: The President had prepared for a shutdown and waited for it to happen so that he will be the winner. He had the ideal strategy that worked for Bill Clinton, and pretended to rise above partisan politics to appear above the frame. He wanted to set himself the stage for re-election by playing adult in a dogfight. Yet, he emerged the biggest loser from all. His image was once again tarnished and he once again perceived the incompetent and disengaged image. He once again demonstrated that he isn’t a deal broker and gets failing marks when it comes to persuasive powers. It seemed as if he was once again on the sidelines as the country braced toward economic growth and prosperity.

Obamacare: The President’s signature legislature lost big-time on the deal. As it’s facing court battles and some of its provisions were repealed, it will face scrutiny once more. Only this time, it will happen in election year with more Republicans in the Senate and Democratic Senators that have previously opposed this measure. Although it is unlikely that it will be overturned, given a definite veto from the President that will follow, it will emerge largely dented and severely damaged. Already hit with the lowest public approval ever, it will dwindle even further to lower ratings as the President will have to defend it before his reelection. Negotiations can lead to the stripping of many of the bill’s provisions if not an entire repeal under a Republican president.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: The most powerful woman in the history of Congress was nowhere to be seen last week. She had no influence on a budget that she was supposed to preside over. She was non-grata as negotiations were taking place in Washington. Her stewardship led to nothing as she was left out of the talks and gave speeches around the nation instead. Her ego was broken as Washington worked without her power wielding. She must’ve felt terrible on her worst day since she handed over the gravel to John Boehner.

Senator Jim Demint: The de facto leader of the Tea Party in the Senate also lost on the deal. He was initially the one that led the struggle against Washington’s immoral behavior, but was a non-player when his comrades emerged victorious.  He couldn’t broker the deal and wasn’t able to draw his own plan to remain the effectual leader for their causes in Congress.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached atdavehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

Last week many hailed the passage of the New York State Tuition Assistance Program for rabbinical students. Many activists and community leaders hurried to claim credit for the passage of the historic bill that will shift much of the economic burden for Yeshivos. It was indeed historic; for the first time ever, rabbinical college students will be eligible to receive TAP grants. For many school-choice activists it seemed like a step in the right direction; it appeared to be a bill that will serve our community and assist our institutions. However, for many of us it looked like a step backwards; it felt as if it was a stride in the wrong direction.

President Barack Obama advocated for better education in his State of the Union. “Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids,” he exclaimed. He claimed that the United States education lags behind other competing nations, and attributed economic growth in foreign nations to better education. Indeed, David Baltimore, former President of the acclaimed Caltech University, claimed that America’s world economic stance is falling behind due to the lack of quality education.

The Jewish community needs to heed the message as well. Too many people are falling between the cracks because of inferior secular education. Far too many in our midst are unemployed or underemployed because of illiteracy. Staggering rent prices along with the expensive cost of living for orthodox-Jews is breaking us, and no end is in sight. Arrests and indictments of community members that occasionally make the news serve us as a reminder every so often, but the message isn’t taken. Yet, the latest phenomenon in many circles of the Jewish community that despises basic elementary education and sheds important secular studies to focus on more Talmudic studies continues. It is no question that our purpose is a Jewish education. But is that enough? Will we be able to support our children in spite of the inadequate education given in many Yeshivos?

Financial assistance for college and undergraduate education wasn’t created because of fairness; it was formed to give people the opportunity to strive. It is a program that was made to assist the poor and needy to achieve the American Dream, and prepare them for the future. It is an effective tool to prepare a person for the hardships in life and create more and better opportunities to get better, sustainable jobs and employment options. Rabbinical colleges didn’t receive the grants because of their cause not because of their religion. It wasn’t a discriminatory issue rather a syllabus matter.

The passage of TAP is indeed a milestone for many communities. Decades of hope, and years of tireless lobbying finally gave end results; it demonstrated that the work wasn’t in vain. Yet, is it to our favor? Is it such an achievement that we should celebrate with champagne?

Students attending rabbinical colleges with a curriculum that graduate ordained Rabbis with a future should celebrate; others should not. The thrill falls short of our expectations and doesn’t serve our needs. Financial assistance for colleges should be based on merits, and only those that graduate students with a profession or degree should deserve it. Courses should be created to prepare young men for jobs which should be paid by the financial assistance programs and it shouldn’t be used as a method to help Yeshivos survive.

School choice should be law because of equality. People should be able to choose the institution of their choice for their child’s education. Yeshivos and Hebrew schools should not have to carry the burden of raising funds for their institutions while their counterparts that often yield poorer results don’t. We, as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of the United States, should deserve equality and choice. School choice will also enforce a better curriculum for Yeshivos that are lax with general studies. It would help the institution financially while the students will achieve better. A loophole in the system shouldn’t appease us. We should demand NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to work on the behalf of his orthodox-Jewish brethren and create a bill that will serve for our benefit – not against our interests.

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached atdavehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php

On October 2, 2002, President George W. Bush and the House Leadership agreed on a joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War. It was a bipartisan resolution that called for Saddam Hussein to disarm and one that was meant to “confront a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace”. Saddam Hussein was an evil, brutal and cruel man. “The Butcher of Baghdad,” as he was known, murdered millions of his own men while torturing and imprisoning millions of others simply to hang onto power. He created havoc in the Middle East and made the world a dangerous place. He was a treacherous man whose removal made the world a safer place to live.

The reason for the Iraqi invasion was primarily based on the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he supported terrorism. As President Bush famously declared, “we must confront both terror cells and terror states, because they are different faces of the same evil”. He was joined by the House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a Democrat, who stated that “Iraq’s use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons, pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security”. The resolution eventually passed the House on a 297-133 vote and was approved in the Senate 77-23.

On the same day that the President and leaders of the House and Senate announced the debate to lead the country to war, a virtually unknown Illinois State Senator, Barack Hussein Obama, gave an anti-war speech. It was that speech that propelled him to eventually become the President of the United States. I am opposed to a dumb war, he famously declared. He claimed that the war was merely a method “to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression”. He claimed that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States … [he] can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history”.

In March of 2011 it is President Barack Obama who is leading a war versus a dictator. Muammar Qaddafi, the “mad dog of the Middle East,” has oppressed his people in the past, supported terrorism around the world and has engaged in acts that killed innocent civilians both in his country and around the world. The man who was behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, which claimed the lives of 189 Americans, is a dangerous man that makes the world an unsafe place to live in. He is indeed worthy to be removed. However, should it be done this way, and with President Obama as the commander-in-chief?

The groundwork for the invasion of Iraq took more than a year; the prelude to Operation Odyssey Dawn took days. President Bush didn’t hesitate neither did he put the lives of our troops on the line; he made crucial and disciplined choices prior to the critical decision. Obama has too. It took him weeks to turn his words “It’s time for Qaddafi to go” into action. However, he dithered, he faltered and he waited. He waited too long; he waited for the rebels to lose, making it harder for us to remove him. He made us look weak, thus causing more harm than good to our troops.

It was France that led the mission, and President Obama obliged. But unlike the Iraqi invasion which was approved by Congress, had a coalition of 40 countries and NATO, and had a president that addressed the nation to explain the purpose of the war, the military action in Libya was not approved by Congress, is detested by the majority of NATO and seems like it has no direction and purpose. The questions that linger are: Who are we fighting for? What are the plans and where is the strategy? Why did the Libyan rebels deserve military assistance while the Iranian protesters did not? And the most important question is: Who is in charge and who will ensure that Al Qaeda doesn’t take lead if Qaddafi is removed?

The war in Libya joins two other conflicts that the United States is fighting simultaneously — including Afghanistan, which seems like a losing battle. It comes at a time when the United States is still reeling from the worst recession since the Great Depression and at a time that the unemployment rate is at its highest point in decades. At this moment in time, coincidentally at the first anniversary of the passage of Obamacare, insurance premiums keep on rising and energy prices are going on to become elastic. By all means, Qaddafi poses absolutely no imminent and direct threat to the United States. He can surely be controlled until he fades away with time.

President Obama has the duty as commander-in-chief to explain to the American public why he authorized this war. He ought to explain why in 2002 – when the US intelligence believed that Iraq had WMD and was linked to Al Qaeda – he had opposed the war and why he now approves it. As President Obama rightfully said in 2002: “The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly”. President Obama has unfortunately forgotten his own words. At the worst time possible and without Congress’ approval, he hastily and blindly led us to a battle. After weeks of dithering, he decided on a non-strategy to engage in a conflict. Today, we ask President Obama: Is this the occasion of our lifetime and what is the definition of a dumb war?

Dave Hirsch is a political analyst and columnist. He can be reached at davehrsch@gmail.com

NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.

DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE POSTED ON YWN? SEND IT TO US FOR REVIEW http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/contact.php