Not only is the “Restoring Honor” rally an effective organizational tool, but it says something much greater about the evolution of American politics. One question is: why is this mass rally organized by the “right” and not by the “left”?
Such is the depravity of today’s Obama Left, that the first reaction is a resort to the “racist” cry. Instead of asking why the Left cannot or will not mount massive protests in the streets, there is a whiny rebuke of Glenn Beck for actually pulling off something quite impressive.
Perhaps the depraved Obama Left does not know the history of the great 1963 Civil Rights March. The actual march on Washington’s name is the “March On Washington For Jobs And Freedom“. [One would think that "freedom" could be dumped by these drones and at least the call for a "jobs" march adopted by today's corrupt Obama Left.]
“The Great March On Washington”, as it later became known was the brainchild of A. Philip Randolph. Randolph was the president of the union The Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters in an age when air travel was not so ubiquitous. Together with the brilliant Bayard Rustin (a black Gay man who deserves more credit and study than he has ever received), the gentlemanly Randolph stitched together the event which the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would usurp with a speech that shook heaven and earth.
What was the purpose of the great march? Why did the great march take place?:
At Politico, we learn that little Barry is upset that people are noticing that he's unable to connect with the American people. Poor Barack, he never could connect.
That's why he ran his issue-less campaign. That's why he was an ink blot for the American people. Unable to commit or take a stand. And as that ink blot, as that blank canvas, people could see whatever they wanted to see.
Today, he's not. Today he's known and people aren't impressed. They never should have been.
Our own little Jimmy Carter of this century tricked a bunch of people with his shuck and jive and thank goodness it appears more and more that he will be a one-term president. I don't think the country could survive four more years of his giving away all our hard earned monies to corporations.
Reality, a blank canvas can become anything. But a painted canvas? In most cases, it's not even art.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
But as the respected Iraq analyst Anthony Cordesman has pointed out in a recent post for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 'The Iraq War is not over and it is not 'won'."
There have been numerous security challenges that continue to exist, and I'm sure you all saw the horrific news this morning, this suicide bombing in front of a military installation in which scores of people were killed. So Iraq, I think, as I've often said, offers no refuge for those in need of instant gratification. It requires you to stay at it. But I do believe that there's some real progress there. As we speak, major oil companies are beginning to actually put drill bits in the ground. Iraq will, I think, emerge as one of the major oil producers of the world. It will have significance for really the rest of the world. I think that part of the picture is really coming into focus and I think the Iraqis are really making some progress.
No. This has none of the complexities of the earlier call by the Iraqi government for Jewish documents. In the earlier case, the US, after the 2003 invasion, had discovered a large number of records that were kept by the Iraqi government on Jews in Iraq -- it was spying on them. They brought the records back to the US to preserve them -- they had been submerged in water when the US found them. Iraq demanded them back. The dispute was between Iraq and the US, between the occupied and the occupier. As I noted at Third, I was surprised the Israeli government did not step in on that. If they had and had made a claim on the documents, there would have been reasons to dispute claims. However, the US was the occupier and the documents were taken out of the country.
Iraq felt no need to protect the Jewish citizens from targeting by various thugs since the invasion began. The Jewish population was targeted and was wiped out either by violence or by fleeing. To now assert that they have some right to Hebrew artifacts? They have no right. Nor do they or did they ever belong to Iraq. Whose culture was it? And since when can a nation-state, developed centuries later, attempt to lay claim to the people's property?
These are not documents that the Iraqi government kept. Even now the Tourism Ministry can't state whether it was ever in the government's possession, whether it was privately owned by someone in Iraq or whether it belonged to a Jewish facility in Iraq (as many as 100,000 Jewish people were living in Iraq as late as the 1940s). These are religious artifacts and they belong to the people of that religion. The scroll is in Israel and in Israel is where it should remain. Iraq did not protect the Jewish population, it allowed it to be decimated. It has no claim or right to the scroll.
Iraq is created in 1932. The scroll predates the creation of the country by centuries. Having no Jewish population today, the fact that they would even assert a right to the scroll is rather offensive. And that's before you even wiegh into consideration the fact that Iraq's unable to keep their treasures, artifacts and museums open to the public.
Again, when the issue of the US having Iraqi government records on Jewish people arose, I did not weigh in with an opinion. That was an occupier/occupied issue and, with Israel making no claim to the records, it was a rather straight forward issue. This one's rather straight forward as well but not to Iraq's benefit.