FERGUSON - JUST TO BAD TO BE TRUE

The decision of the Grand Jury in Ferguson, Missouri arising out of the death of an unarmed black youth, shot by a white policeman, came as no surprise to the protestors gathered to hear the prosecutor’s announcement. Everyone in the crowd that was interviewed expected it. The community had precedents to go by that the Grand Jury’s finding would be that there were no grounds whatsoever to believe that Officer Wilson had even acted recklessly in killing someone, whose only possibly reason for his initial apprehension was walking in the middle of the road. In addition the protestors had the probable finding telegraphed to them prior to the announcement by leaks from the Grand Jury, declarations of a state of emergency in Missouri in conjunction with appeals for calm by the Governor of Missouri and the Mayor of St Louis and the calling out of the National Guard. They had to know what was coming and after reading this blog it will become obvious why.

Before continuing Jay H. Ell would like to make it quite clear that he is not tarring all police officers and their departments with the same brush. He has worked in a small town in Illinois for decades and the officers are part of the texture of the community and are seen positively by all and sundry. Their culture is service and they are empathetic to the needs of the less fortunate. In discussions with them they are more than aware of their responsibilities and the trust society places in them.One only has warm fuzzies in relation to them as hundreds of communities across the country must have towards their protectors. However there is an ongoing problem in some communities where the African American citizenry exhibit mistrust and suspicion to their predominantly white law enforcement agencies.

THE ANATOMY OF A BOGUS INVESTIGATION

The choreography of the whole Ferguson production - from the prosecutor refusing to lay any charge when probable cause was staring him in the face, to calling a Grand Jury and then failing to give them any lead, to blaming the press and the social media for the uproar over the whole calamity, to maintaining that as there was conflicting evidence there could not be an indictment, (conflicting evidence is what trials are supposed to resolve), to falsely implying that all the witnesses that contradicted Officer Wilson’s story had had their versions repudiated by the physical evidence, and on and on - was a disgrace and has to be indicative of an underlying culture so pervasive that even those that are a part of it are unaware as to how they appear to society in general, and the African - American community, in particular.

Obviously  a culture of service to the community is woefully lacking in Ferguson from the police force to the prosecutor's office of St Louis County, to the Governor. The fact that it was common knowledge, in the Ferguson community, that Prosecutor Robert McCulloch was biased and bigoted should have been known by the Missouri Administration and in fact it was. Governor Nixon, more than mindful of the opprobrium surrounding McCulloch stated that he was not going to ask McCulloch to withdraw as Prosecutor, but it was up to him to recuse himself. The Governor further opined, “This is a big matter. It is important we get it right.” McCulloch defiantly replied that Nixon “Should man up” and decide if he wants him to stay on the case. For an assistant County Prosecutor to tell the Governor of the State to jump in the lake, which the Head of the Great Commonwealth of Missouri then proceeded to do, he has to have some powerful backing of people who support his modus operandi.

Jay H. Ell is sure now that Governor Nixon wishes that he had “manned up” as there are nights of rioting in Missouri with damage to its economy and reputation. Investigations are pending by the Federal Government as to whether there was in fact a culture and a pattern of discrimination in Ferguson. Close on two hundred towns in the USA are holding protests - nearly all peaceful. Ferguson Missouri has become the Selma Alabama of the twenty - first century.

THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IN PROCURING AN INDICTMENT

For the uninitiated they are two ways that the prosecutor could initiate a charge.  (Even McCulloch knew that he couldn’t just toss off the death of an unarmed youth who had been shot twelve times, most of these at a distance of a one hundred and thirty feet away). In addition there were conflicting stories as to the events leading up to the teenager’s death.The choice he had was to have had public preliminary hearing in a Court of Law, which would be presided over by a Judge or a secret Grand Jury hearing, presided over by him. Either of these in the normal course of events would have lead to an indictment. Whether this was fair or not to Officer Wilson the scenario screamed out for the weighing of the facts by a trained fact finder and an assessment by a jury of his peers. In both a Grand Jury hearing and  Preliminary Hearing proceedings the prosecutor leads a minimal amount of evidence, just enough to show, “probable cause”, which means that a reasonably intelligent person believes that an accused person has committed a crime.

Grand Jury

The route which McCullough chose is normally the easiest and quickest path to indictment. Nate Silver uncovered that in 162,000 Federal cases that had a Grand Jury hearing only 11 did not lead to an indictment. A saying that has become part of folklore is attributed to former Chief Justice of New York Wachtler is that a prosecutor could persuade a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich. So in the normal course of events when the prosecutor choses the Grand Jury path to indictment he is taking the easy route. Defense attorneys have then no idea of what evidence has been led and have no opportunity to cross examine anyone. 

The bar for probable cause is very low and was articulated in clear cut terms by none other than Supreme Court Associate Justice Scalia in 1992 in the litigation - The United States versus Williams. In the Court’s majority decision he opined that, the onus was not on the grand jury to enquire why a charge should not be laid or to examine the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. This law dates back to 1778. “Thought Progress” comments that neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought of to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

All any other prosecutor would have done in the circumstances of the Michael Brown shooting would have been to lead evidence to the effect, for example, that twelves shots had been fired some from a hundred and thirty feet. That there are a number of witnesses including a friend that was with him that testified that Wilson had fired unprovoked and that he had acted in an aggressive and demeaning manner from the start.

Preliminary Hearing.

The bar for an indictment is equally low in a Preliminary Hearing however it is before a Judge. Defense attorneys prefer this as the Prosecutor presents evidence which is subject to cross examination. The defense has an opportunity to argue that the indictment should not be allowed. The defense rarely does too much as they prefer to save their arguments for the inevitable trial. 

So a prosecutor would have presented witnesses, in open court, to verify the physical evidence, such as 12 shots fired and the evidence of some of the bystanders, particularly Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, who incidentally is highly credible in front of the camera, that the Police Officer was not being threatened by Brown as the latter had already mortally wounded him.

Role of the Prosecutor.

In America, as in most English speaking countries, the role of the prosecutor is adverserial. While he is not expected to be biased or unfair in his/her presentation of evidence he is to vigorously pursue a conviction.  All the mandates to the prosecutor are for the protection of the defendant as it is not be envisaged that the prosecutor would be acting on behalf of the defense and abandoning his prosecutorial responsibility.  Nowhere, but nowhere, is the prosecutor expected to act as counsel for the defense. In fact certain legal commentators expand the prosecutor’s role of protecting the integrity of the State to taking into account the victim’s rights and advocate for him or her. 

MCCULLOUGH’S LAW

It has to be patently obvious that the Assistant Prosecutor of St. Louis County acted in complete contradiction to accepted legal practice. Whereas in a few days he could have set up this highly important matter to be adjudicated by conventional methods, instead he instituted a kangaroo court with his office acting as Judge and defense counsel with no prosecution whatsoever of Officer Wilson. If anything this was a legal lynching and a character assassination of Michael Brown. 

The Ferguson prosecutor’s office presented no indictment to argue for or against, rather they presented all the witnesses and evidence expecting the laypeople to synthesize this into a coherent legal outcome. The irresistible inference to the Grand Jury was that this was a trial to decide whether Officer Wilson was guilty or not beyond a reasonable doubt. The only problem was the police officer was not being prosecuted. Rather McCullough allowed the “target” Wilson to present hours of testimony, another unheard of exigency in a Grand Jury hearing. Wilson was not cross examined. The prosecution brought in a character witness for Officer Wilson. A procedure so bizarre for a Grand Jury that it boggles the mind. His office handed out a document stating Missouri law, that had been long reversed, which gave law officers virtue carte blanche in the use of force. It was finally replaced but with no explanation. Jay H. Ell could go on and on about the abortion and travesty of the legal process that McCullough orchestrated but that would be superflous.

All this took three months while Ferguson cooked under the pressure. Businesses complained that their bottom line was being affected as the uncertainty was keeping people off the streets. As far as the African American citizens of Ferguson were concerned, it was all designed to have a predetermined ending, a conclusion supported by several legal commentators - the non indictment of Officer Wilson.

The chaos and unprofessionalism did not only start at the prosecutors office it was evident from the word go. Michael Brown’s body lay uncovered in the street for hours. There was no chain of custody for the evidence, Wilson just threw his gun into the evidence bag. No measurements were taken of the potential homicide scene. The photograph taken of the officer showing the effects of the altercation was not taken at the police station under the normal protocol but elsewhere by a friend. All this points to an uncaring culture with no respect for the badges they hold, the society they serve and in this instance for the loss of life. 

McCULLOUGH’S HISTORY

Just in case the Governor and the citizenry of Missouri were sucking it out of thin air that the Assistant Prosecutor for St. Louis County was biased there was a common belief that he was inappropriately protective of the police. The perception dated back from the death of his father, a police officer who was a victim of a homicide perpetrated by an African American. The most celebrated example of his bias was chronicled in 2000. There two officers shot two African American suspects. They alleged that the suspects were driving a car towards them. Thirteen detectives testified at the same Grand Jury hearing. Only one detective corroborated the story in addition to the two accused themselves. The independant corroborator McCullough admitted was “totally wrong”. Among other unprofessional acts effected included McCullough reading out the arrest record of the two victims including those that did not lead  to charges. Again it was the same modus operandi, try the victims and let the “targets” uncontested narrative dominate. No indictment followed.

TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT

The media made much of the timing of the Grand Jury verdict announcement by McCullough. The Governor maintained he had nothing to do with it. The soliloquy was scheduled for well into the darkness of the winter night. Furthermore it had to be inflammatory to the angry crowd as the Assistant Prosecutor justified the actions of Officer Wilson and denigrated the deceased. If you want to avoid violence the bright light of day improves your chances. Blackness increases the opportunities for provocateurs to slip away and cause havoc, which they did. McCullough had to know that there is a very big section of the American population that are turned off by senseless, purposeless and destructive mayhem. They might judge the whole affair by this outcome. Yet he did what had never been done before, released the verdict after working hours when the Prosecutor’s office was long closed.

The consensus was this decision fitted into his behavior of showing Brown and his supporters in the worst possible light.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

* Everyone had called for peaceful protests - Brown’s parents, the organizers of the protests to the POTUS, (yes this whole incident was a very big deal), and to a large extent the outpourings of anger in 200 American cities were trouble free. 

• The Brown family were as constructive as possible calling for police to wear video cameras, a cry which has gained much traction. In Illinois, for example, one of the Police hierarchy saw merit in the suggestion as it would also record, to quote him, what the law officers face on a day to day basis and their professionalism. There is very little doubt that both the questioned and the questioners might behave differently if they knew this was all being videotaped. It is interesting to note that in the shooting, in Cleveland Ohio, by a white police officer of a twelve year old African American child who was threatening everyone with what turned out to be an airgun, was videotaped. While the family, understandably are still questioning the necessity of killing their child, there is no doubt that another major confrontation has been avoided by the release of the recording. The video obviously reassured most as there were no countrywide protests arising out of the tragic incident. If the Brown family’s wish that their son did not die in vain is translated into all potentially violent police interactions being videotaped this sad tragedy will have resulted in a major positive outcome for all concerned.

* Whatever one’s beliefs are, however much can identify with the difficult and dangerous vocation that is the lot of the police, Jay H. Ell cannot but reflect that the Brown matter should have been thrashed out in open court. Officer Wilson may have a clear conscience and even if his story is the correct one it begs the question of whether at least he was reckless in firing several shots at someone, who was a 130 feet away and whom he knew to be unarmed, because he claimed that he feared for his life. The obvious follow up  question would be, "If you believed that why did you not drive off".  In a similar but not parallel case in South Africa the Judge accepted that the Defendant Oscar Pistorius was terrified of an intruder but sentenced him to a prison term because it was reckless to fire through a closed door without ascertaining who was there. One has to respect the value of life. Pistorius too could have just walked away. 

• Had the prosecution been more thorough Officer Wilson might have had to face even graver charges. His injuries appeared minor and who knows how his story would have stood muster under a rigorous cross examination. It appears a bit of a stretch, on its face, to maintain that an armed seasoned experienced officer felt that he was no match for an unarmed teenager, “Hulk Hogan”, whom he had already wounded. Brown’s background has been exhaustively researched and nowhere was there a hint of a ferocious, aggressive and unbeatable fighter. Wilson's claim that Brown all of a sudden might have had a gun which he had failed to use to date, having already been shot twice would not withstand the cold light of day. Who knows how the defendant’s evidence might have sounded with a prosecutor who was actually trying to do his job? The key witness who was with Brown all the while, Dorian Johnson, tells a decidedly different story to that of Officer Wilson. If the court accepted Johnson’s version it would have put the law man in threat of a second degree murder conviction. It is instructive to read Johnson’s testimony online, with all its pathos. In fact to any reasonable person it would make sense that Johnson’s version was more credible than Wilson’s. For example, Johnson states that Wilson swore at them telling them to get the f.. off the road. Wilson infers that he politely asked the two of them to do so. Which beginning is more likely to have sparked of the mayhem that followed?  Brown of course is dead so we cannot hear his side of the story….

THE FALLOUT FROM OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION ORDER

As might have been predicted the Republicans have gone bonkers over Obama’s executive decision on immigration. (Blog: "Obama Guns Blazing -Faces GOP Fire"). It would be instructive to examine why their outcry has reached hysterical levels. It is not as if his edict came out of the blue. The POTUS has telegraphed his thinking on the subject since way back. It is almost two years since the Senate passed a far more comprehensive bipartisan Bill on immigration than his Executive Action encompasses. Boehner, Leader of the GOP in the House of Representatives, first reassured the Commander in Chief that he would bring it to the floor and then reneged because, at the end of the day, he had resistance from the Tea party wing of his caucus. 

As the years passed and with the 2014 election of even more Tea Party members to the House there was no way the GOP were going to act. This is coupled with the fact that McConnell, GOP leader in the Senate, has openly maintained along that the GOP agenda is just to block or eliminate Obama. The fact too that the GOP have done nothing to advance Government rather foreclosing it and refusing to finance its day to day activities adds to the reality that nothing was about to come from the GOP. And nothing did. So Obama took the plunge.

There isn’t a constitutional lawyer of any standing that has maintained that Obama hasn’t the legal right to do what he has done and there are political precedents up the ying yang for this decision. So the legal challenges to it won’t happen but the political ones will - in spades.

GOP RESPONSE

The GOP maintained that the POTUS had poisoned the well for future cooperation. This statement is farcical in relation to the facts as outlined above. The Republicans simply have done zilch on policy including immigration, as it would split the Party. In fact their policy was that Obama was beyond the pale and now they are wailing that it his action that is peventing cooperation! There is absolutely naught to make any rational being believe that the GOP were about to cooperate with the Executive. (Other than their familar meaningless protestations that bipartisanship is what they are up for). Even less so now that they control both Chambers of the legislature. However, what Obama has given them is a “justification” to carry on running against him. It worked in the 2014 midterm elections so why cannot it be a tactic forever? 

So, once again, with feeling, all the negativity will ensue. Litigation against Obama has already been initiated. Ridiculously, Boehner aimed the latter against Obama’s execution of the Affordable Care Act rather than the Immigration order, but litigation it is - so wah. Two GOP State Attorney Generals are going to go to Court with the argument that Obama is interfering with their State’s rights to control immigration - that too is likely to go nowhere. McConnell and Boehner will do what they do best - threaten Government shutdown, deny finance for the day to day running of Government and generally advance nothing legislatively. The loons will call for impeachment and the party will rant on forever. Already Ted Cruz is staking his claim to action - no ratification of any of Obama’s nominees to the administration. Childish in the extreme, he is going to punish the country by preventing the government to function but this action is a logical sequitor of the crazy strategy that the GOP has used for years now.

At its most positive the GOP will attack the process of the new disposition rather than its content. But in terms of the electoral consciousness that is game playing that will only resonate well with the home base. The legislation they may promote could be focussed to bone up border security. The border per se is less and less relevant in the immigration saga and it just won’t play in Peoria anymore.

At the end of the day the GOP is still delaying the showdown with their radical Tea Party. The longer they do so the more difficult it becomes. It is so much easier to remain in their comfort zone of attacking Obama and in the Presidential election of 2016 to attack whoever is the Democratic candidate as running for Obama’s third term. It will motivate their base but who else?

LATINO RESPONSE

The Latinos are ecstatic. This vulnerable group finally see some light at the end of the tunnel. Obama gave them the first glimpse when he lifted the specter of deportation on a million persons that had been brought to the USA as children and knew no other home. He has now relieved the daily horror for families, whose children are American citizens or have green cards, in that they may apply for temporary residency if they have resided in the US for five years. To show how broken the system is there are four million such souls who have been in the country for over five years. Another million are also temporarily pardoned. 

The Latino leadership are aware that there will be no going back. This has to be the beginning of a more comprehensive policy for the approximately eleven million illegal immigrants in the USA. On a more practical level the Latinos, who represent 10% of the electorate will be back in full force for the Democrats. The Latinos are more organized than ever before with action groups and committees and they will be registering voters and organizing to bring out the vote. In 2004 George W. Bush won 43% of their vote. Romney won 29% against Obama and guess what percentage will vote for the GOP candidate in 2016? 

The only hope for the GOP will be a Jed Bush candidacy. He is married to a Latino and hablos Spanish. Jed resonates with that community. However, he cannot shout the odds too much as he needs the base to get the nomination. Romney too had extensive credentials with the South American group. His father George was born in Mexico as he was part of a Mormon mission at the time. It all helped like a hole in the head. Firstly Romney had to play it down in the Primaries and it was too late to start in the election itself. Also Jed’s problem is his last name is Bush and it was his brother that was the spur for the formation of the Tea Party. Perhaps he should listen to his mother and but out. (Blog: "What Barbara's Enough Bushes Means").

So all things being equal Obama has given the 2016 Democratic Presidential Candidate a massive boost and the GOP had to have expected it.

THE DEMOCRATS RESPONSE

The Democrat woeses who dumped Obama in 2014 have been proved wrong. ("Blog: 2014: The Smoke and Mirrors Election"). They bought into the mantra that he was the problem. Now they have to unlearn the obvious. You run on what you believe otherwise you cannot even motivate your base. In the next two years they better re own the President otherwise they will be once again sitting with a Democratic President and legislative GOP.

The Democrats need to rally round Hillary. Hillary needs to stop being the reluctant virgin and step into the arena. She also needs to define her agenda and risk loosing some votes. The country needs leadership. Not that it is not getting it from Obama but leadership that can get votes in Congress. Hillary needs to pick Elizabeth Warren as her running mate to avoid the same old same old “politics as usual”label. (She won’t of course). But even more important she must espouse an agenda that is populist. The country has made itself clear on a host of issues that include closing the gap on wealth inequity and how about legislation to nullify Citizens United? This is not just about winning but moving this country forward and getting the politics to work as they are  supposed to. There is no better qualified candidate than her and she brings meaning to the word “twofer” with Bill. If one analyses his success it was a mixture of leadership and compromise on what was valid and reasonable.  

In this political madhouse. that has resulted in a cynicism that can only get a third of the electorate to the polls, openess is needed. Where politics has become a swearword, “We the People” need to feel that the “We” are relevant and not just voting fodder for the special interests and corporations. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY.

So the GOP purge yourself and rejoin the Universe. Dems need to stop playing safely and offer a clear agenda for the twenty - first century. One doesn’t need a pussy footy alternative from those who haven’t the guts to support the policies of their leader that they actually agree with.

EVIL - ISIS AND HAMAS, WORLD HYPOCRISY AND ANTISEMITISM

This week saw further outbursts of naked brutality and evil in the Middle East. ISIS videotaped, with much pride and fanfare the beheading of an American Citizen and several Syrian soldiers. In a second incident, two Palestinians entered a Jerusalem Synagogue, butchering and shooting worshippers. The world recoiled in horror. However, the responses from the Middle East were most revealing. There were none from any sovereign Muslim nation. Only the Palestinians commented, Tirawi and Abbas from Gaza and Hamas from the West Bank.

Abbas from Fatah had a milksop generalized condemnation of violence against civilians, rather utilizing this opportunity to be on the world stage to condemn the Israelis for invading the  Al  - Aqsa  Mosque, the provocation by the Settlers and the incitement by Israeli Cabinet Ministers. But Tawfik Tirawi  of the Fatah Central Committee outright justified the slaughter arguing that it was, “nothing but a reaction to the recent crimes of the occupation and settlers in occupied Jerusalem and across the nation”. Tirawi continued that it was a response to, “The threats of occupation and against our people and the Palestinian leadership, represented by the President, (Abbas) and will only increase our resolve in safeguarding our rights”. Abbas has not contradicted Tirawi.

So as far as the Palestinians are concerned there is no moral equivalency between the axe wielding terrorists in the synagogue and the sword wielding terrorists in the Jerusalem house of prayer. The tragedy is that the rest of the world is doing very little to disabuse them of this distortion of reality. In effect they are not taking into account the savagery of the Palestinians and their leaders support of it into their calculations on the Middle East. The world, in general is focussing on the Israeli settlements as if they are the moral equivalents of the cold blooded butchery of the innocents and terrorism in general. 

Incidentally Jay H. Ell is against these settlements as he has blogged again and again but that isn’t the point. (Blog: “Netanyahu and Maybe Obama Too - Just Don’t Get It”). Jay H. Ell is likewise more than unhappy at the lack of statesmanship displayed by Netanyahu but when he is attacked what is he supposed to do? The point is that these terrorists, as that is what they are, are being supported by the West and the rest. 

Jimmy Carter, that naive US former President, maintained that he visited Gaza after one of these “wars” and not one school was standing. What the hell did he expect if that is where the munitions and rocket launchers were? However, the mantra persists, Israel is to blame and the consensus is that the Palestinians should be given Statehood.  Statehood to be awarded to terrorists that have as an article of faith to destroy the very country that they demand should cede them back territory that the Arab world has lost in wars of that they initiated .

ISRAEL IS TO BLAME FOR THE IMPASSE

The blame is therefore totally laid at Israel’s doorstep for this seventy year impasse. Those that have waged terror and wars of aggression are the victims. Those that have used their women and children as human shields are the victims  Those that have reigned rockets on innocent civilians are the victims of war crimes. While those that have an integrated society, with one man one vote, are accused of apartheid by those who say no Jew will be allowed to live in the lands, they demand Israel hand over. Those whose religion sponsors terror, martyrdom and  a reward in heaven of innumerable virgins for suicide bombing are to be, once again, given statehood to facilitate their attacks on orthodox Rabbis. 

ABBAS AND HAMAS’S REWARD FOR TERROR -  A STATE

To connect the dots of those refuse to see -  Hamas and ISIS are related in their barbaric behavior and are two sides of the same coin. The latter is Sunni and the former is Shite. Hamas is a designated and proud terrorist organization and does nothing to have it self delisted. Hamas and Hezbollah support Assad and both are mercenaries offshoots of Iran. All four of these fascist genocidal entities have sworn the annihilation of Israel and their terrorist brethren are reeking havoc in the West. Yet the West wants to unilaterally establish another terrorist State. Russia and Asia couldn’t care less and together with a various assortment of African, South American and other countries, they cheerfully condemn Israel for not handing over territory to a people that is hell bent on its destruction. Till otherwise proved Palestine is a terrorist entity that has its sponsor Iran who want to develop a nuclear bomb and have also recently laid down a protocol for Israel’s annihilation. The world's politically correct countries join in with Iran and its surrogates in labelling Israel racist, an aggressor and a warmonger. They aid and abet those who callously call the Israelis Nazis.  

To carry on with this reductio ad absurdio logic the United Nations Assembly overwhelmingly voted Abbas, Palestinian Statehood. They did this on the basis that he controlled Gaza which he doesn’t and that he governed the West Bank which he likewise dosn’t. So for the first time in history the Assembly gave statehood to an individual who supports terrorism when he wasn’t even in full control of the terrorists and the chunk of land that he supposedly “rules”.

SHARON GAVE GAZA STATEHOOD ONLY FOR LATTER TO UNLEASH TERROR

Now in case anyone has forgotten Sharon unilaterally gave Gaza independence whereupon Hamas destroyed the elaborate infrastructure that the Israelis had left them and have utilized their autonomy to attack Israel ever since. First their stratagem was the deployment of suicide bombers where there were concentrated areas of civilians. Then to everyone’s chagrin and more world condemnation Israel put a wall to stop the bombers - Israel were trespassing on Palestinian territory. Then Hamas started raining rockets and building tunnels to murder and kidnap mainly civilians and the world yelled, “Fight fair Israel. In defending yourself you are killing more civilians accidentally than they are killing civilians on purpose. Cut it out. Hold back on knocking out the tunnels and the rockets. Don’t you know women and children are there”. After the cessation of hostilities the Israeli “war criminals” had a special investigative team tease out all the circumstances that Palestinian civilians succumbed and put into motion a number of criminal investigations.

In spite of all this the British Parliament and Sweden voted to declare Palestine a State. Spain are about to follow suit. Has the world gone mad or is there another explanation that no-one wants to acknowledge? 

MIDDLE EAST TERROR ACCOMPANIED BY WORLD WIDE ANTISEMITISM

All this is going on with a resurgence of anti -Semitism throughout the world. Everyone is not for one moment linking it with the Muslim extremism that has accompanied Muslim immigration into Western countries. More to the point the West are denying that it is linked to the question of Palestinian statehood. These countries tolerate the most absurd attacks on their own freedoms of expression by the Muslim extremists. A Danish cartoonist depicts Mohammed and there are world riots and threats of murder. Juxtapose that with the peaceful protests against the production of the Opera Klinghoffer, that glorified Palestinian terrorism, at no less than the New York Metropolitan Opera House. ( BLOG: The Death of Klinghoffer , The Opera - Art or an Abomination). College campuses hold Israeli racist days and proPalestinian rallies. One campus had stickers and posters proclaiming, “Hug a terrorist today”. Another where an Israeli supporter tried to explain he was shouted down as a child killer.  Attacking and terrorizing Jews has become a daily pastime in Europe and the beginnings have been seen in America. 

So to the accompaniment of demanding that Israel self destruct and give terrorist Palestine a State - something that they have already done in Gaza - there is a growing worldwide antisemitism. In addition in these self same countries that want to vote Palestine Statehood, Muslim extremism breeds local terrorists and terrorists for export. The crowning grace is that these extremists set up their own self governing entity with barbaric Sharia law defying local laws. 

The only saving grace is that the Muslim extremist world for the moment is not united. That saving grace is in danger as there is a fear that the West lead by Obama will cave into Iran and allow them a nuclear weapon. The latter will then slowly but surely take over the Muslim world. Initially they will have support from Russia who will ally themselves with Iran as Putin has a desire to miff the West, flex his muscles and show that he is a world power. This will end with Iran leading a world - wide caliphate. Far - fetched? Not really, why do Iran want a nuclear arsenal if all they want to do is live peacefully and happily ever after? Also ask their clerics what their ultimate aim is.

BELIEF FOR ACCEPTING THIS MADNESS

What is the rationale for all this madness? There is a belief that has been to date peddled by the Palestinians and accepted in the West that there is a distinction in the attack on Israel and the jews generally. The belief extends further to that allowing fascist Sharia law is giving a group its rights. -  that the terrorists are in the minority and have nothing to do with the culture that produced them. All this has been accepted by many well meaning people including a significant minority of jews, whose dilemma is so brilliantly portrayed in Harold Jacobson’s seminal fiction work, “The Finkler Question”. This belief was intellectually sustainable till the last decade or so when the world manifestly adapted a double standard towards Israel, epitomized by the fact that the majority, by far, of all the UN Assembly’s resolutions have been condemnations of Israel and the fact that Amnesty International has focussed almost solely on Israel’s alleged crimes against humanity. All this when there has been gross deprivations of human rights, abuse on women and children and ethnic cleansings in several continents since 1948.

The believers of this mantra then refuse to connect the dots between the spread of world wide anti Semitism, the strident Muslim extremism in Western countries, terrorism and the attacks on Israeli sovereignty. They further ignore the growth of political correctness  attacking Israel as neo Nazis and racists.

PALESTINIANS NO LONGER DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ZIONISTS AND JEWS

As time has gone by the Palestinians and their allies have been more and more careless in their separation between anti Zionism and anti Semitism. Iran and their curriculum for the “annihilation” of Israel made has it made it quite clear that it isn’t the State of Israel per se that they are against but jews in general. The immediate Past President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, speaking at annual Iranian anti Zionist event stated that a “horrible Zionist current” had been managing world affairs for about 400 years. He stated that the Zionists have been behind the world’s banking and media systems.

Ahmadinejad continued, “"They are the decision makers, to the extent that the presidential election hopefuls, of the USA, must go and kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their election victory”. Ahmadinejad added  "Liberating Palestine" would solve all the world's problems, although he did not elaborate on exactly how that might work. "Qods Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems". He said, "Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”  

So there is Iran’s line that is the Jews since way back that are the problem and that they control the world today and if you sort out the Palestinian problem you sort out jews as well.

The Palestinians too have given up the charade that it is just the Zionists that they hate and want to kill. Emboldened, with what they consider to be a political coupe, the butchering of praying jews in prayer shawls and phylacteries, the Palestinian Authority have disseminated a video justifying the holocaust. Palestinian Media Watch claimed that the Jews were expelled from Europe for being "corrupt" and bringing "tragedy" on the Continent. "Faced with the Jews' schemes, Europe could not bear their character traits, monopolies, corruption, and their control and climbing up positions in government.” 

“Going back in time, way before 1948 when the Zionists annexed Israel”, the narrator continued that, ”In 1290, King Edward I issued a decree banishing the Jews [from England]. Following him were France, Germany, Austria, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Spain and Italy. The European nations felt that they had suffered a tragedy by providing refuge for the Jews. Later the Jews obtained the Balfour Declaration, and Europe saw it as an ideal solution to get rid of them.”

So the bottom line is anti Zionism is anti Semitism. Netanyahu may be a poor Statesman but it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Muslim extremism is on the march with a fascist, totalitarian, genocidal and murderous agenda. Zionism’s alleged imperialism is the issue but the mantra is really anti Semitism. The final objective however is world domination. If you don’t believe Jay H. Ell ask the Muslim clerics and guess who runs Iran? However, Iranian extremism has a long way to go to achieve its objectives and one hopes they will be stopped in their tracks. Obama taking a tough line on Iranian nuclear ambitions would be a great beginning. 

JE ACCUSE

Firstly, the peaceful Muslim world has a responsibility to put their house into order. They are sitting on the sidelines. This is their cross to bear or should Jay H. Ell say their crescent.

Secondly, the rest of the world who have not recognized that they are dangerously close to aiding and abetting a new surge of anti Semitism. The bias shown by the UNO General Assembly and Amnesty International would be funny if it didn’t have such tragic significance.

Thirdly, the Palestinian leaders and their sponsors for making it difficult for like minded people to support justice for the average Palestinian who have been used as political footballs for seven decades. Also they are to be condemned for forcing Israel and the Jews into a laager where it becomes more and more difficult to disagree with the Israeli Government of the day as survival becomes the central focus.

OBAMA -GUNS BLAZING - FACES GOP FIRE

It hasn’t taken long and the Republicans are harping back on their lifeline for the past 6 years  - attack Obama. Everyone who wondered how long they would hold out before they would be at it again were not kept in suspense very long.  As E. J. Dione said in the Washington Post, the GOP wouldn’t be able to resist their vitriolic criticism of the Commander in Chief because it is in their DNA. There is always a rationalization as to why they should attack the POTUS. Up till now it was because Obama wanted them to govern and now it is because Obama wants to govern. The Republicans have finally decided that this is their party and they will "cry if they want to", venting their anger at the President, who instead of fading politely into the sunset has come out of the midterms with guns blazing.

Jay H. Ell believes that the GOP rage is phony as they refuse to legislate themselves because any move on the major issues would split their party. (Blog: “Midterm’s Aftermath: Iran, Israel and the Implosion of the GOP”). 

OBAMA’S TAKE

Obama has defiantly interpreted the midterm elections his way. (Blog: “2014: The Smoke and Mirrors Election”). He concedes that the electorate is disillusioned but he doesn’t interpret it similarly to the cock of the hoop Republicans or the paralyzed Democrats. He believes that two - thirds of the electorate voted with their feet by not moving them to the polls. He argues that their rationale was the gridlock of the no government GOP, not him. He apparently remains singularly unimpressed that the Republicans garnered 17 percent of the electorate to the Dems 16 percent, however many seats that translated into. So its all systems go to the drumbeat of the unmitigated fury of the GOP who are now threatening all those counterproductive actions, that they promised not to embrace, such as shutting the government and not voting money to fund it while their talk of impeachment grows louder and louder fanned on by the usual suspects and even . 

If one looks back Obama started off 2014 with a bang, (Blog: Obama Bounces Back With A Bang). He was upbeat in his State of the Union speech but it was his own party that made him bow out the midterms, ostensibly, not to hinder his party’s chances. He temporarily bought into the narrative that he was the problem. A narrative that Jay H. Ell believes was a myth. (Blog: 2014:” The Smoke and Mirrors Election”).

Obama in an interview, prior to his Asian trip, on CBS beamed that he was going to enjoy every last minute of his Presidency so sucks to everyone.

THE MEDIA’S TAKE

The media have not been slow to acknowledge the new and bold Obama. The New York Times argued that he was defying the label of a lame duck President. The Washington Post maintained that Obama, in the final years of his Presidency, wants to squeeze every last bit of opportunity to further his agenda and has acted as if he meant every bit of it. Politico argued that there was now a swagger in his step. These were some of the few comments that interpreted Obama’s offensive in a positive way.

THE NAYSAYERS.

Zachary Goldblatt, writing an opinion piece in the Washington Post, maintained that Obama’s comeback was hype. He offered that his job approval was still in the tank without looking at the disconnect between the support for his policies and the fact that his job approval rating  was still above that of Congress and eons higher than the Republicans and their leaders. Goldblatt pooh poohed Obama’s support of net neutrality maintaining it was no big deal. Goldblatt should tell that to the consumer that have voted the telecommunications companies including Verizon and Comcast as their biggest bogeymen - even worse than the IRS.

 Goldblatt downplayed the China agreement prophesying that it wasn’t enough. Well there are several fundis who have opposite opinions and he is ignoring the propaganda impact that the accord will have on other emerging nations. The immigrant executive action, he maintained, was no breakthrough as Obama had promised it a long time ago. Finally, he implied that Obama had had his turn and the Americans were looking to the Republicans to make the difference. Wah fight fare was the guist of his piece - its our turn to bat.

Goldblatt’s criticisms remind Jay H. Ell of the British Conservative Party attack on the Labour Minister, Nye Bevan, after the war. Bevan was scoffed at with the barb that, “ Any bloody fool can just build several thousand homes”. To which he retorted that he knew several bloody fools sitting across the aisle that didn’t! 

The no lesser light than GOP former Presidential candidate and House Speaker, Newt Gingrich argued that it will be the death knell of the Democratic Party if Obama acts unilaterally. He sites as a precedent Woodrow Wilson who post World War 1 founded the League of Nations, with no buy in from the Republicans who were nowhere in sight. (Well that is not strictly true as Herbert Hoover was very much around and actually resigned from the Wilson’s delegation, not because of the League of Nations issue but because he like, Keynes of the British delegation and Smuts of South Africa, for example, thought that the reparations foist on the Germans would lead to another World War. But who is Jay H. Ell to challenge Gingrich on American history?)

To get back to Wilson and the League of Nations one cannot imagine that was the issue that brought down the Democratic party in the twenties. Unless that American electorate had an unprecedented interest in International Affairs never paralleled before or since. In spite of 24 - 7 coverage on everything and anything and an internet with infinity news nobody takes any notice of the United Nations let alone the possibility of it being the central issue in two successive Presidential elections? One wonders what Gingrich has been smoking?

It would be better for Gingrich to analyze the situation in the here and now rather than rely on his faulty memory of history. The burning question is when or if the GOP are ever going to enunciate alternative policies for the central issues of the day or will they go into 2016 attacking Obama when he is not only not on the ballot but out of office. The GOP won the midterms control both houses and as yet all there has been in terms of policy statements are generalities and no specifics other than they want the Keystone pipeline project sanctioned.

Jay H. Ell will predict here and now that, whoever gets the Democratic nomination, will be vilified as running for Obama’s third term in office.

IMMIGRATION

So Obama is going for broke and is moving on issues that the body politic support him on. Now Obama has plenty of basis for this stance. In addition nothing stops the GOP from taking the initiative on immigration lets say, but they won’t. They won’t because that will split the party. So Obama has allowed them to move straight back into their comfort zone, attacking him. They will not brand him so much for what he does but for doing it. Obama has signaled that he will lift the deportation orders on 5 million Latinos that are the families of the undocumented children whom he has already reprieved. Now if the GOP so pleased they could come up with some alternative plan and put it forward as legislation or even go to Obama with it. There is no reason to believe they will. 

The immigration impasse is not new it has been going on for at least the six years. The Senate has passed a Bill that has been languishing in the House for years. Why doesn’t Boehner bring it to the floor? Obama said he would sign it. Why if Boehner doesn’t like the Senate Bill doesn’t he amend it and bring it to the floor? Why hasn’t he brought any plan to the floor or to the President for six years. The reason is obvious - it would split the GOP.

So for Obama the downside of taking a gamble by acting unilaterally is that he allows the GOP to carry on running against him. If anything is not new that stratagem is it.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND KEYSTONE

The President surprised all and sundry by making an historic accord with the Chinese on the reduction of carbon emissions. This is really a big deal as up till now the Chinese had been absolutely stoic and unbudging about the problem of climate change. Outside of shunning any conversation on human rights, climate change was the next most verboten topic. As far as Peking was concerned  attempting to coerce them into a deal on limiting fossil fuel utilization was akin to sabotaging their great march forward into being a major economic power. Apparently Obama has been working on this deal for months and kudus to his him that his sievelike administration did not leak the negotiations as they do on everything else. 

This accord is a game changer as it removes all the cover other nations have used not to go along with emissions reduction. Ahead of the 21st United Nations Framework For Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris in 2015 these two major powers entering the proceedings with a unified stance will alter the dynamic and course of the debate. This pact will go a long way in preventing dissolution and breakdown on the world thrust to save the planet from destruction. The reason for the boom or bust nature of the Paris meeting is that it had been already resolved that all nations would abide by the decision of the deliberations. The French have taken the lead in Europe aiming for a 40% reduction in green houses from 1990 by 2030 and a 60% reduction by 2040. 

The GOP response to this is to enact legislation to proceed with the Keystone Pipeline. In fact a Democrat, Mary Landrieu, who is in a tense run off struggle for the Louisiana oil rich Senate seat already has moved a motion to that effect.  Getting 60 votes for this project in the Senate is a strong possibility and it will be considered a GOP achievement. It is somewhat of a pyrrhic victory as what does the pipeline achieve for the USA? It is going to be used to pump Canadian oil to the gulf to be exported to other countries. This at a time when the world is awash with cheap energy. If a veto proof majority is attained Obama may well still symbolically send it back for a final ratification and then wait for the sad inevitable reality of a spill sooner or later. In fact nobody cares about Keystone any more even the billionaire head of Continental Resources and Romney’s energy advisor, Harold Hamm, maintains it is “irrelevant” and he “cannot see why Congress is making it relevant now”.

The Republican argument that it will produce jobs is a bit hollow as they are temporary jobs and only fifty jobs will be needed to maintain the finished project. Also the jobs cry has to be juxtaposed with them having nixed every Obama initiative to create work opportunities with infrastructure projects in the USA. 

NET NEUTRALITY

This is highly controversial area and the major communication companies are more than a bit miffed that Obama has said you cannot shortchange the ordinary computer user by making him or her a second class citizen by relegating him or her in the slow lane as a few fat cats cruise in the fast lane. He has done this by declaring the internet a utility like the telephones and therefore subject to regulation. While technically he has not the final say on this matter, the Federal Communications Commission has, his argument that Verizon and Comcast, two of the consumers biggest bogeymen, have got to be regulated resonates to a very broad base,

THE EFFECT OF THESE THREE MOVES AND OTHER  PRESIDENTIAL ORDERS

Obama in one fell swoop has pumped up three key constituencies - the left, the man in the street and the Latinos. The more the GOP oppose the Latino proclamation the further they will distance themselves from that constituency. The Latinos will not be persuaded that the fact that the “do nothing” GOP were not involved in the decision.  Nor will Romney's argument that a comprehensive solution is needed as the Latinos are tired of waiting around for the Republican Godot. 

As far as climate change is concerned the activists in the Democratic Party have been very dissatisfied, to date, with the progress made in this arena. The POTUS has reconnected with these in a dramatic fashion and will be a national and a world leader in this endeavor. With the populist move on net neutrality he has placed himself firmly back on the side of the voiceless and powerless in the big business world that they usually end up on the losing side.

These three moves must be seen in relation to his successful positions on such subjects as Ebola, Student Loans, support of Gay marriage and Increasing the pressure on ISIS. And sooner or later someone will remember that it was he who saved the motor industry and bailed the country out from brink of financial disaster. There have to be more to come that are topical hot button issues. It is pertinent to reflect, in the light of the smear that he is an imperial President, that to date Obama has used the Executive order less often than previous Presidents.

Obama by going on the offensive has taken a calculated risk and the GOP would be well advised to respond and take on the legislative initiative even if it results in a splintering of the Party or they will, as Jay H. Ell has blogged again and again, stagnate into oblivion.

The GOP thus is left on falling back on their mantra that Obama has shown, once again, that he is not into bipartisanship. No doubt this will ring true with their base but who else will be persuaded? Boehner and McConnell can rant and rave that Obama is poisoning the well but again who is going to take notice - the same 17% that voted in November? If they shut the government in anger or go as far as to make impeachment moves they may just help further to get the Democratic majority to go to the polls in 2016.

Also there is the ongoing battle on Obamacare, with the Supreme Court as a key player. The GOP abandoned it as a lost cause for the midterms but have rejuvenated the idea of repealing it again!. This tactic from a distance does not make any sense but Jay H. Ell does not think he would make a good Republican strategist. He just cannot get in sync with their long term strategy for governing America.

IRAN DEAL CAN UNDO IT ALL

Finally, there is still the 10,000 pound gorilla in the room - Iran. If Obama does a deal that is perceived to allow Iran the opportunity to build a nuclear weapon, at USA and Israeli expense, all hell will break loose. Iran is regarded by most as America’s and the free world’s most dangerous adversary, mixing messianic theocracy, totalitarian philosophy, terrorism and military expansionism with the objective of dominating first the Muslim world and then the world itself. In fact in Jay H. Ell’s opinion Iran is a potentially a far greater threat than post war Soviet Russia. This is a viewpoint that is gaining the ascendency everywhere outside of Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Iran’s sponsored terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas. So Obama can undo it all in one naive move.