Can Austin Go Republican? TX-25 Congressional Race Heats Up

For the first time in my lifetime, Austin (and Texas Congressional District 25) has a chance to go red. No minor feat. Not that national Republicans are putting any money into the race, although I believe they might if it's within 6 points in September (which is where I expect it to be).

Central Texas conservatives are fortunate to have a good candidate this year, a medical doctor who is running for political office for the first time out of a passionate desire to pass prosperity and liberty on to future generations. You can visit Dr. Donna Campbell's facebook page to learn more. Needless to say, she's the real deal.

Unfortunately, we have been stuck with Democrat Lloyd "Nancy's Lap" Doggett for the past 16 years, a trial lawyer turned lifelong politician. And what exactly is Lloyd's record? Since he got elected to Congress, he has helped add $8 trillion dollars to our national debt (yes, that's more than Bush and Clinton) and increased our deficit by 900% since Democrats took over Congress three and a half years ago, voting in agreement with Nancy Pelosi 98% of the time.

Doggett voted for the $900 billion dollar porkulus, for the government takeover of health care, and for cap-and-tax (which Obama's own people have admitted will add $1761 a year to the average family's energy bill.) So if you can do elementary math, and if you went to public school like me there's a chance you can't, that's at least another trillion dollars of deficit spending and who knows how much in higher taxes that we can expect in the middle of a recession should the millionaire Doggett turn out his exclusive base of Tarrytown, Hyde Park, and Travis Heights residents for one more term... but just go ahead and let him tell you he's for the little guy. Right. Kind of like Randolph and Mortimer Duke were for Eddie Murphy in Trading Places.

Actually, Democrats are for the little guy so long as they first get the chance to shrink your income, kill job opportunities, and make your existence a little more meager. Once they have established themselves as the ruling class, just so you know your proper place in the pecking order and have to depend on their entitlement schemes, well yes - then they are for the little guy. In other words, they create Big Government to make you small and your rights even smaller. Pretty neat trick, eh?

Most election cycles I would point out that we can't afford another two years of Rep. Doggett and his ultra-liberal policies. But this time we really, really can't afford another two years of Doggett, because we can barely afford President Obama. Only a Republican Congress can keep Obama in check and save his legacy, which let's face it is what they did for Bill Clinton in 1994. If I'm Obama, I'm almost rooting for this scenario. It's the only chance he has for a second term (well, that and the stubborn stupidity of Ron Paul At All Costs voters.)

Happy Birthday to Us: Facetwitch Turns One, Not Five

A year ago I started this blog with the promise of writing three posts a week. The reason I didn't promise more is I wanted to serve a role as insightful conservative commentator rather than a news breaker. In fact, because the news that "breaks" is so often broken and misinformed, I've always felt it was my responsibility to dispel rumors and reveal the truth that mainstream media and lefty blogs either willfully or ignorantly ignore.

It's been a quick year that has seen a lot of changes, but I think for the most part we have achieved our goals. While some months have had fewer posts than others, we still got to 160 (or 2.98 per week) in our first full year. And many of these were long posts with detailed analysis and entertaining juxtapositions not found anywhere else on the internet.

We don't see a large amount of web traffic here, but what we do see is significant. It's not unusual for me to look at the source of our visitors and see the House of Representatives, US Senate, FBI, and once or twice even the White House (we know it was you, Valerie Jarrett - those Google alerts give you away). Hopefully, you were researching ideas and political strategies, not adding me to some terrorist watch list. Of course, we have gained our loyal followers and commenters. Your support is most appreciated.

I leave you with the above photo, taken this weekend at the G20 Summit. There's a photo caption contest over at Hot Air, but my favorite comment came from reader keepthechange, who astutely observed:

"Even though Sarkozy is much shorter than Obama, Barack is still with his head cocked upwards. Truly amazing. His chin is pointed up, in his usual Il Duce pose, and his nose is once again in the air. His entire face is facing upwards even though the man he is addressing is shorter than him by a foot. That is not an easy feat. Only a narcissist could, and would, find that position natural and comfortable.

And this is not to mention the finger in the lecture position.

History books won’t have much to say about Obama. He’s done very little and even less to justify narcissism. But psychology texts will use him as a notable case example of certain pathologies."

Ah, the epitome of arrogance. If only it were a harmless thing.

Two Commanders, No Chief

The wrong commander resigned. That was my first thought on hearing news of the meeting between Gen. McChrystal and our Commander-in-Chief (my second thought was Joe Barton just got a lucky break). Given the story of the two men and their achievements in office, what fair-minded individual could disagree?

One of these commanders walks through the streets of Afghanistan without a flak jacket, kneels down in the mud and gets dirty with his soldiers, runs seven miles a day, and has earned the respect of his men as well as that of the elected Afghan government. The other commander has played 40 rounds of golf in a little over a year, hosted parties with Hollywood celebs and Paul McCartney, played basketball in Afghanistan, kneeled on the beach without getting dirty for photo-ops, and has lost the respect of President Karzai, not to mention his own men, one of whom he has now dismissed. But Obama thinks we need to unify behind... him?

Liberals on MS-DNC were already trying to spin President Obama's swift decision to remove McChrystal as Truman-like. Truman Capote maybe. He may have dithered for months on whether to send more soldiers to the battlefield, but this president wastes no time when it comes to personal vendettas. If Obama's thin-skinned response to hearsay and off-the-cuff comments detailed by an anti-war lefty writer in a rock n' roll magazine that features Lady Gaga on the cover is any indication, this is a low point for the presidency and the War on Terror. And perhaps Rolling Stone (though that bar is set pretty low).

Of course, President Obama has gone out of his way to eliminate the phrases War on Terror and War on Islamic Extremism to declare War on Big Oil - so long as you ignore the fact that his administration is in bed with BP and would love nothing more than to ignore the clean-up in the gulf and instead pass a highly partisan, political "solution." The battle in Afghanistan can't be won politically, there's no game-changing leftist legislation to push through the Democratic Congress whether it goes swimmingly or falls to pieces, so Obama considers it a distraction. If calling it "Overseas Contingency Operations" doesn't say I don't care in the slightest, perhaps another Fourth of July wiener roast with the "moderate" Taliban will do the trick. Or more trials for enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield. Or allowing a mosque at the site of 9/11.

I haven't read the Rolling Stone article for the same reason I haven't picked up Mad Magazine or attempted a keg stand in 15 years. Because I graduated from high school. My understanding, however, from various accounts by ninth graders who have read it is it depicts sophomoric behavior, especially some of the comments by McChrystal's aides, but nowhere does it come close to insubordination. And how could it? McChrystal and Obama support the same counterinsurgency policies, agree on the same rules of engagement, and McChrystal admits he even voted for Obama - over war hero John McCain mind you. So why the heck did he replace him? He should have given the man a medal.

The ironic thing is in picking Gen. Petraeus to take over, Obama has actually ceded more civilian power to the military. If Petraeus challenges the president's policies in Afghanistan, Obama can't exactly turn around and replace him, too. That would look erratic and ineffective. I would actually like to see Petraeus change the rules of engagement and give our soldiers a fighting chance. But mostly, I'd like win this war before the president plays another 40 rounds of golf. Or hosts Lady Gaga in the White House.

Liberal White Guilt and the Dangers of Social Justice

"I was blessed to be born a white male in an upper-middle class family and as a result, had the opportunities for success and education that many in this country do not, have not, and will not."

That's the kind of enlightened statement a modern liberal makes today to earn kudos from his peers. I won't pretend to understand it. Why feel blessed for being a white male? Should a black male or Asian female feel less blessed? What's important is that we live in a free society. We are blessed because we recognize each person's natural rights, rights endowed by God that no government or institution should infringe upon. We are blessed because we live in a meritocracy, where you succeed or fail based on the merits of your ideas and the consequences of your actions. The United States of America was set up as perhaps the first nation to recognize the importance of this.

If you want to be thankful for anything, be thankful that you live in America, where such a premium is placed on the content of your character, not class or race or religion. If you were born in many other nations or during a previous time in history, chances are you'd have your rights trampled on. Sadly, that is the history of our world, not freedom but tyranny, men ruling over men as kings, dictators, or worse. Of course, progressives are putting more and more emphasis on class and race every day, as they pursue the mythical goal of "social justice" - a frightening concept to say the least.

Justice is a definable term. We know what it means. To put the word social in front of it suggests that justice as a goal by itself is insufficient. If achieving justice fails to meet the standards of "social justice", then by such logic justice can be unjust. Since this is an absurdity, the only other conclusion one can draw is "social justice" must do something to pervert justice.

In fact, that's exactly the case. Justice is blind - the rule of law applies to each individual equally, there is no special treatment. Social justice, on the other hand, is not blind. It relies on special treatment of favored groups, social classes if you will, to have a greater weight than the rule of law. This in essence makes some individuals above the law, hardly a worthy goal or an American idea. President Obama, in nominating his candidates for the Supreme Court, has said he prefers judges who display this kind of "empathy."

If I woke up in a society ruled by an authoritarian regime, what difference would the color of my skin make? Being a white male who dissented against Communism would have obviously done me no good in Stalin's Soviet Union. Being an educated male in Cambodia would have practically guaranteed my execution by the Khamir Rouge. The desire of the oppressed is not "social justice." It's freedom from a tyrannical state. To argue for any other outcome is to argue for tribalism, which is technically a form of racism.

Protect the sovereignty of the individual and you protect every person regardless of race or religion. Our Founding Fathers understood that. So while I have never woken up thankful that I was white, I have woken up and thanked God I live in America where our natural rights are preserved and promoted.

Notice I use the word natural rights, that is those rights that aren't granted to Man by governments but that Man is born with - the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That doesn't include a right to a job or a car or health care, because a government would have to infringe upon someone else's liberties to guarantee such things. In fact, by creating rights to these products and services, we are actually establishing an all-powerful state that can seize and confiscate private property.

It's wonderful to show empathy and be empathetic. However, being empathetic is not the same thing as helping people. The goal of a society should be to help as many individuals as possible be self-sufficient, not dependent on others for handouts, whether charities, churches, or government. There's also a fine line between empathy and pity, often crossed by progressives.

I would argue that progressivism is a form of narcissism wherein the progressive, feeling morally and intellectually superior, prideful actually, feels pity for those who appear to be in "a lower class."  They then go immediately to work proving how superior they are by designing a system of dependence in which the poor, pitiful person must rely on them. This fails to advance civilization, and ultimately, it does more harm to the individual. The goal should be to teach others to improve themselves and take responsibility for their actions. There is perhaps no greater model for this than Christianity.

In summary, the path of the Left (as opposed to the traditional American path) leads to an unjust, morally bankrupt society with two classes of people - the oppressed and the oppressors. Liberal white guilt and social justice, no matter how good people's intentions, are two steps down a very dark and twisted road.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

No.


Okay. I'll expand on that. For a long period of time, most of the past forty years actually, Americans have been content to navigate our country's path one turn at a time. We arrive at each intersection, take a poll, look both ways, and at the last minute decide whether to go left or right. The problem with this navigational system is it never looks beyond the one obvious turn. The destination becomes arbitrary.

For once, it would be nice to know where we are headed. In looking at the bigger picture, two roads become apparent. The Left wants us to follow Europe. The Right wants us to stay truer to the vision of America's founders. It's not extreme, naive, or unreasonable to ask Americans to be less myopic and pick a path. But in doing so, we will surely become more divided as a nation. Whether we ultimately go Left or Right, the majority of the people will probably conform. It's only human nature to want to get along. But the more rights that are usurped by institutions on either side, the harder it becomes for the most passionate and outspoken to resolve our differences.

I write this because friends stop and ask me, "Jon, when did you become so ultra-conservative?" My answer is I didn't. I simply looked further down the road and picked the path to the destination that offered the most freedom.

Obama's Speech: Shrimp Etouffee in the Oval Office

Hoping to assure Americans that he has taken a leadership role on the BP oil spill, the president will don a bib tonight and eat a big plate of gulf coast seafood in the Oval Office complete with tartar sauce, gumbo made from veggies in Michelle's garden, and jalapeno cornbread - this according to an advance release of the president's address obtained by Facetwitch.

"Let me be clear. Jumbo shrimp is an oxymoron, Joe Biden is a complete moron, and I am not responsible for this crisis. That's why I've asked BP to open an escrow account for seafood lovers everywhere. I will also be creating a new position in my White House, a seafood czar to oversee the safety of fish and shrimp from the gulf. Bobby Thibodeaux is the former manager of a Red Lobster and a staunch environmentalist who once built explosives for the Weather Underground and believes in cap-and-trade. I am confident he will fit right in with my administration."

Later in the speech, in a rare moment of honesty, the president questions the need for the televised address in the first place:

"I honestly have no idea what you people want me to do. I've acted concerned since day one. I appointed fourteen commissions. I threatened criminal charges against BP, deflating the value of their stock by 50%. I've walked along the beach, picked up tar balls, and put off the endless stream of solutions from that Huckleberry Hound Louisiana governor. I went down there and stood in the rain. I even got seagull crap on my jacket. Now whose ass do I have to kick to get some credit?"

In all seriousness, I expect President Obama to step up the rhetoric for clean energy and increase the attacks on oil companies he would just as soon force into bankruptcy so he can bail out and run like GM. He will make it seem like we have two choices: invest in "clean energy" and tax the heck out of oil companies or continue down the road of the status quo where our environment is at risk and climate change is on the verge of bringing unparalleled disease and disaster. It's knee-jerk reactionism at its core, even if it comes two months after the accident, from a president who thinks the answer is to stop American drilling in favor of government-funded green jobs (which I'm sure can be unionized).

An American president concerned about the recovery of the gulf would keep politics out of the discussion until things stabilized rather than use a crisis to divide the country and take cheap shots at his political opponents. Then again, Obama has never seen himself as just an American president. As Mark Steyn recently pointed out, it's like he feels the job is beneath him. He's got better things to do, like impress the world. We'll see what he does tonight.

Attacking Republicans for supporting an abundant supply of affordable energy like coal and oil is much easier than taking blame for letting one of his biggest campaign donors skate on regulations to "drill, Barry, drill." I fear the actual oil spill will pale in comparison to the crisis Obama and the Democratic Congress will unleash on manufacturing and the middle class with their moratorium on drilling and overreaching, cap-and-tax response.

Maybe conservatives should have been a little quieter about the president doing nothing. Nothing from this president seems to be preferable to his involvement.

Photos: Meet the Real Gaza

Warning: some readers may find these photos shocking. They were all taken between 2008 and 2010 in Gaza. Most likely, you have never seen them before, because the international press doesn't want you to get the wrong idea about the Palestinians' plight.

Outraged by these photos, many anti-Israeli and pro-Islamic activists have pursued efforts to get aid into the country in defiance of the Israeli blockade. Here we see the lack of food currently available for Palestinians to purchase in Gazan markets.

From the Washington Post's Middle East Correspondent: “If you walk down Gaza City’s main thoroughfare – Salah al-Din Street – grocery stores are stocked wall-to-wall with everything from fresh Israeli yogurts and hummus to Cocoa Puffs. Pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid in the United States.”

Hamas has made claims that not only are their people forced into starvation by the Zionists, but they have no equipment or supplies to build housing for the Palestinian people and water supplies are threatened. Just don't ask them to explain why they are bulldozing private residences or building Olympic size swimming pools like this one, which opened earlier this year.

The people of Gaza receive hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from the U.N., the United States, and Israel, yet many activists on the Left have described the conditions of Gaza as "an open-air concentration camp."

Here are some "concentration camp victims" taking in the beach, surfing, and flying kites. These are comparisons any Holocaust survivor would find insulting. The international media has unfortunately failed to report the truth about Gaza. They have become pawns in Hamas' PR game. They advance the agenda that Hamas wants them to advance, publishing only the pictures from Gaza's poorest regions and refugee camps. But where isn't there poverty? In the same fashion, I could make Houston or any city look like a third world country if I really set my mind to it.

You remember the flotilla with all that humanitarian aid that activists desperately wanted to get to the Palestinian people? After being inspected, the majority of it, including medicine and wheelchairs, was brought by Israel to the Gaza border. Hamas rejected it.

Now that's a picture worth a thousand words. Hamas never wanted the aid, they just wanted to use the interception of the flotilla as propaganda to stir up hate against Israel. And of course, they would love the blockade terminated so they can smuggle weapons in by sea. The bad news, with the help of a complicit media, is the campaign is working.

Hamas wishes the destruction of Israel. Hamas has a long history of launching rockets and sending suicide bombers into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. Hamas has dug tunnels to smuggle in weapons used to attack Israel. Hamas has used schools and mosques to stockpile weapons, putting innocent Palestinians at risk, knowing full well that an Israeli raid on a school or mosque makes great propaganda. There is no room in my heart for these type of monsters.

Hat tip: Tom Gross Media - you will want to bookmark his detailed, informative blog on the Middle East. 

UPDATE: Palestinian president opposes lifting blockade, questions any action that would bolster Hamas.

He's Baaack! Bush, That Is

I didn't exactly think I would miss W. Sure, I voted for him in 2004. Do you remember who he was running against? Honestly, I always thought Kerry came across as a hybrid between Herman Munster and Maury Povich. Without their charisma. As far as the Bush years, I thought the first term went great. Second term, not so much although I was a big fan of the surge. Hated TARP, but it looks smarter all the time (with the exception of AIG). Needless to say, I wasn't expecting an emotional reaction to this video, but darnit if I didn't tear up a little. I guess that's what a post-American, neo-socialist, wannabe celebrity occupant in the White House will do to you - it makes the low-key Texas cowboy persona seem fresh again. It's almost enough to make somebody wonder - Is Obama a Karl Rove plant to make Bush look good?

Over-the-top exit question: Is Bush the Next Reagan? Will we watch old footage of him at Ground Zero with a lump in our throats? No doubt Republicans will welcome W with open arms at the next presidential convention. I'm predicting a five minute standing ovation. Can't wait to watch Keith Olbermunch and Richie Maddow's reaction.

Asses to Kick and Other Great Quotes in Presidential History

We can now add President Obama's words to the list of immortal quotes that will forever be remembered by historians. No, I'm not talking about "Did you plug the hole yet, daddy?" although I think that would make one heck of a catchphrase on a Friday night sitcom. Actually, given the direction of unemployment and the national debt, it could become the catchphrase of this entire presidency.

In his latest interview with Matt Lauer, our president one-upped all of his previous non-teleprompter moments, including "The police acted stupidly" and "Doctors might say hey, I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out." Those were his greatest hits, but now you can add the BP oil spill to the list. Here's what the president said:

“I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

So far most of the talkin' heads, to use the president's lingo, have focused on the vulgar language at the end... "I want to know whose ass to kick." Admittedly, it fails to ring as true and eloquent as "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" or "Ask not what your country can do for you..." as far as great quotes in presidential history. But it's worse than that. Say the line out loud. I WANT TO KNOW WHOSE ASS TO KICK! What does that remind you of? Because I'm pretty sure it's the kind of dialogue one hears when watching two MTV Real World cast members yell at each other after a night of binge drinking. Or expressed on the three ring circus that is the Jerry Springer Show. Forget Bush's cowboy mentality. This is caveman mentality. And yet that crude sentence came out of the mouth of our president during a tame sit-down press interview with a liberal pussy cat like Matt Lauer? I can only imagine what he would have said to Bret Bayer (and you can bet there would have been more bleepin bleeps.)

Still, let's not get lost in potty mouth land. There's a bigger lesson here and it would be advantageous for all of us if the president learned it before the next crisis. Americans don't want a boss or leader who points fingers when the crap hits the fan (ironically, I just used more restraint than the president). They don't want name-calling and divisiveness. They want an executive who pools resources together, communicates positively, and instills confidence in his people. Can you say that about Barack Obama's handling of this crisis? Absolutely not. Can you imagine this president during the Apollo 13 mission? We would have lost three astronauts in space while NASA sat paralyzed and Obama talked to experts to figure out "whose uranus to kick."

In times of crisis, a person who looks for the politically expedient thing to do is a coward, not a leader. A leader gets on the phone and gives a pep talk. A leader sets aside blame and looks for a way to bring everyone together. A leader wants to take responsibility. A leader surges in Iraq and succeeds while the squeemish call for retreat and cowards call it a "quagmire."

Obama hasn't even talked to the CEO of BP since this disaster took place. They should be communicating weekly, not so the president can scold BP as he suggested people wanted him to do, but so he can simply provide encouragement and boost morale. The sad fact is this administration is too ideologically driven; too anti-corporate, anti-profit, and anti-oil to see the benefits of a short term partnership.

Dennis Miller got it right during the campaign when he said about Barack Obama, "I don't notice the color of his skin. However, I do note the thinness of it." President Obama can't stand criticism. He frets and pouts about it. It consumes him so much he's got his FTC looking for ways to tax unfavorable media. He's always bringing up "the talkin' heads" and demonizing conservative news outlets. He complains like a school child about how he had to "stand in the rain." What a pity party from our Narcissist-in-Chief.  The fact that this type of thinking pervades the oval office should terrify even his most ardent supporters.

For Obama, who gets thrown under the bus is way more important than the problem the speeding bus presents. For Obama, this is a PR crisis that has to be managed with interviews and photo-ops. For the rest of us, it is an ecological disaster with huge economic implications. Ultimately, a nation in crisis just wants to be reassured. The president has failed to do that, instead trying to take advantage of the situation politically. Sadly, this White House is incapable of thinking any other way.

Photo (and Caption) of the Year

Sink Hole de Mayo.

Because it happened in Guatemala. That's bilingual humor. Thank you, I'll be here all week.

In all seriousness, my thoughts and prayers are with the Guatemalan people and my sister and her husband as they head down to provide aid with their church.

America's Choice: Stand with Israel or Allow Anarchy, War, and Genocide

Let's suppose you and your neighbor both own dogs. Your dog is well-mannered, obedient, and greets people with a wagging tail. You regularly take walks in the neighborhood without a leash and there's never been an incident. The neighbor's dog, on the other hand, has a history of aggressive behavior. Their dog has been trained to kill and on several occasions has had to be restrained from attacking.

One day you arrive home to find your backyard gate mysteriously open. Upon exploring, you find both your dog and your neighbor's dog lying next to each other badly wounded. The neighbor immediately claims that your dog attacked his dog and demands you put your dog to sleep. He tells all the neighbors this story before you have a chance to respond. What are the chances he is telling the truth? Will you put your dog to sleep to appease your neighbor? Will that solve the problem or make it worse if you get another dog? What if the rest of the neighborhood isolates and puts pressure on you?

For Israel, these questions are a reality as it tries to deal with its Muslim neighbors and their trained attack dogs - Hamas and Hezbollah. These terrorist organizations seek the destruction of Israel. They have launched over 7000 rockets across the border and sent suicide bombers to target Israeli civilians. They celebrate death and martyrdom and are funded by a Muslim authoritarian state in Iran whose leader has expressed his desire to annihilate the Jews. And what exactly is Israel's crime? Trying to protect their citizens from this violent madness.

The Muslim world would have us believe that the family pug is a vicious killer and their pit bulls are harmless rescue dogs. So when Israeli troops armed with paintball guns are forced to board ships in a flotilla whose sole purpose is to break a naval blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip - a group Israel is at war with despite repeatedly offering them land in hopes of peace - we are supposed to believe the ridiculous narrative that Israel is the attack dog.

In one corner we have a democracy where freedom flourishes. In the other, a fanatical group with terrorist ties who wishes for freedom to be diminished. So who do you suppose the U.N. will condemn? Israel of course. What else would you expect from a governing body that appointed Libya to its Human Rights Commission and Iran to the Commission on Women's Rights? Meanwhile, it took weeks to come out with a lackluster statement against North Korea for the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean vessel in what was arguably an act of war. 

Welcome to the Left's version of the new world order where up becomes down, law becomes anarchy, and the U.N. is a completely worthless body that actually legitimizes illegitimate behavior and incentivizes the act of provoking freedom-loving democracies. The word "humanitarian" has never been so defamed.

Call me old-fashioned and oh, what's the word... ethical, but I'm going to side with the people who have a long tradition of respecting the dignity of human life and go out of their way to avoid unnecessary casualties. That happens to be Israel. Should one choose to side with the Muslim "humanitarians", who sang songs about martyrdom on the boat hours before the raid and have a history of attacking civilians and arming Hamas, can there be any hope for humanity?

If we are to listen to the useful idiots in Europe who have already sabotaged their own culture with moral relativism to a lesser degree, the answer is no. Continents of cowards will be cowards. And so once again it's up to the United States to cast light on the truth and stand up for Israel's sovereignty. If they fall, we fall and if we fail, evil prevails. It's as simple as that.

It would be wise to remember that groups who resort to using human shields have no interest in protecting human rights. What happened over the weekend was one more attempt by radical Islamists to use innocent civilians as a front for the cause of isolating and overthrowing the Jewish state of Israel. Don't be fooled by the attempts of the Arab street, the Left, and the media to spin this any other way.