It looks like once again the North Koreans are going to get away with committing an act of war against the Republic of Korea. How many ROK military personnel have to be killed by the North to warrant a military response? North Korea continues to raise the stakes because they never get any pushback.

They got away with sinking a South Korean Navy ship killing 86 sailors. That pretty much sent a signal to Kim Jong-IL that anything goes. So why not shell a South Korean village?

This is outrageous. When is the ROK going to grow a pair and respond? If North Korea’s Navy had been crippled by the South after sinking that ship it’s unlikely last night’s provocation would’ve happened.

The North kidnaps South Korean fisherman, sinks warships, detonates nuclear bombs, and shells villages with no consequences beyond a stern letter from the UN.

It’s time for the ROK and the USA to show the DPRK that we’re not f*cking around anymore. The South has a state of the art military built by the US. The North has a vintage 1950’s military that lacks enough fuel to put jets in the air. We could decimate their Navy in 24 hours.

It’s a disgrace of biblical proportions that a broken down prison state like North Korea is able to threaten anyone. In my opinion, the west has a moral obligation to force regime change in North Korea. It’s a stain on the free world that we’ve allowed the grossest human rights violations since Nazi Germany to continue unabated in North Korea.

Kim Jong-IL makes Saddam Hussein look like The Pope. Iran is Disney Land compared to North Korea. The fact that a house of horrors like the DPRK could still exist in this world in 2010 is a disgrace to humanity.

I wrote a week or so ago about the recent revelation that the left-wing Jewish group J Street was largely funded by George Soros. That revelation has kicked off a long simmering debate among competing factions within the Jewish community both here and in Israel.

J Street has an unfortunate history of being very anti-Israel. J Street condemned Israel for its Gaza offensive against Hamas calling it a “disproportionate response.” It routinely attacks AIPAC and lobbies the Obama administration to put a stop to Israeli settlements. Their list of offenses goes on and on.

As a conservative and frankly as an American I firmly support Israel. Like most Americans and nearly all conservatives I see Israel as a place that must be defended. Not only is it a place that’s sacred to both Jews and Christians, but like us the Israeli people are under constant threat from radical Islam. The Jewish State is a lone beacon of freedom and democracy in a sea of militant, repressive, barbaric Islam. Also, the Jewish people have a hard working and entrepreneurial spirit just like Americans do.

As of 2010, the tiny state of Israel ranked #2 among foreign countries with the most companies listed on US stock exchanges. That is simply amazing.

In short, we have everything in common with Jewish people and nothing in common with Muslims (regardless of Obama’s rhetoric in Cairo).

So why then is there Jewish support in America for organizations that seem to undermine Israel? Moreover, why in the heck is the Jewish community primarily Democrat?

For the answer to the second question I suggest you read Norman Podhoretz’s book “Why Are Jews Liberal?” As for the first question, I’ll try to aide in answering it here.

I’ve never understood why Jewish Americans who profess to care about Israel would support groups and politicians who clearly don’t care about Israel or are outright hostile to it.

My friend Jeff Pozmantier has written a fascinating piece over at BumpSpot on this very issue. Jeff is a Jewish American who makes regular trips to Israel and knows many of the players in the Israeli government. He’s also a liberal who strongly supports J Street.

Jeff lays out the clearest and most sensible argument I’ve read on this question. He says the battle is between “Loyalists” and “Independents” but considers both factions ultimately pro-Israel.

The Loyalists  looks outward.   They see  virtually any Jewish criticism of  an Israeli policy or action as akin to helping  countries and terrorist groups that aren’t Israel fans make their delegitimization arguments. They see “in the family” criticism making it easier for a democratic Israel to suffer unfair and unbalanced attacks from autocratic countries that severely discriminate against women, restrict freedom of speech and, in some cases, shelter terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction. Some  Loyalists see  Independent wing members as self-hating or disloyal  or both.  A tinier percentage even view  them as “capo”- like facilitators for Israel’s enemies.

However, if  the Loyalists  were  to become  more self-reflective and turn their gaze inward they would see several problems, not the least of which is generational. With  the majority of American Jews born  well after Israel reached a peace agreement with Egypt and Jordan, the point of reference between  many Pro Israel party members greatly differs. 

Loyalists tend to be older and  frame their concerns and actions against the backdrop of the Holocaust and the various wars and intifadas  many of them have directly or indirectly experienced since Israel’s founding.  (Living in  fear of Israel’s extinction does heighten one’s sensitivities.) They tend  to  view  most of the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy and (not without some historical justification)  incapable of  organizing effectively enough to actually deliver on any commitments they might make.  The Middle East  is seen as largely a zero sum game.

On the other hand,  many of the Independents  tend to be younger. They  feel less threatened and are, in their minds, safely assimilated in America.  They read in their history books and “on line” about what   many Loyalists have lived through.  Independents  tend to ask more questions and  are far less likely to offer 100% support for every Israeli policy or action.   Many Independents have experienced some portion of the Mideast conflict,  but it has been through a much different, more occluded lens.  The Palestinian narrative has more resonance for  Independents as it carries a human rights appeal that connects with their traditional Jewish  values.  They are less likely to view the Palestinian leadership as monolithic and  more likely to view  Israeli concessions on issues  (such as  settlements) in the context of peace negotiations that they feel are  in Israel’s interest just  as much as they are in the Palestinians’  interest.

So when an organization like J Street  takes a position that criticism and support for Israel are no more mutually exclusive than is criticism and support for America, the argument has great appeal. It also has great, perhaps unrecognized value:  Any hesitation to enthusiastically support Israel is removed as Independents don’t feel constrained by a fear that  a public disagreement over Israel’s tactics will be seen as anti-Israel.

I encourage everyone to click over and read Jeff’s entire piece. Even if you don’t agree with it you’ll better understand where Jewish support for organizations like J Street comes from. I routinely read Jeff’s articles because he tends to bring a point of view to Middle East issues I might not otherwise be exposed to. I recommend putting BumpSpot on your regular reading list.

Sorry for not updating yesterday, but I was out with the flu. I’m feeling better today.

Some on the right have begun a hysterical campaign to demonize video game maker Electronic Arts for their latest installment of the popular first-person shooter “Medal of Honor.” The game is set in modern day Afghanistan and puts the player right in the middle of the current conflict. I’m just glad EA finally had the balls to make a video game that’s relevant.

As an avid player of the “Medal of Honor” series I’ve grown tired of waging war against Communism. Political correctness has sadly infected the video game industry right along with every other segment of our society. We’ve been waging war against radical Islam now for close to 10 years, but in our video games we’re fighting the Russians. It’s bizarre.

Electronic Arts finally stepped up to the plate and grew a pair by setting the game in modern day Afghanistan. You get to battle against the Taliban in an incredibly realistic environment. However, both for political correctness and improved game play they added one controversial element to the game.

Players can choose to wage war as a US soldier or as a member of the Taliban. So some on the right are outraged that players can fight as the Taliban and “kill” American troops.

First of all, this is very reminiscent of the witch-hunts that took place in the 90’s over violence in video games, music, and movies. Video games and music are not the boogie men. “Medal of Honor” is not real. American troops are not being killed — it’s just a game. A very fun game.

Critics of the game like the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell, whom I respect very much, are making the same tired argument about poisoning children’s minds as they always have.

Video games are amazing technological products, but they are not “stories” like a book or a movie. Parents don’t worry about their kids reading Taliban books. I don’t know of any movies where the Taliban are the heroes. It’s only video games where children enter an imaginary (but most realistic and therefore, dangerous) world in which they are the main characters.

In a video game, every player is the author and the movie director. The game maker only sets the parameters, and lets the player finish the story. In this case, EA has created a plot in which children can be absorbed for hours in the virtual reality of killing American solders, the best and most honorable product our nation has to offer.

That argument simply doesn’t hold up. Children shouldn’t be sitting in front of the TV playing video games for hours no matter what the game. Video games should be played in moderation like anything else. But video games don’t kill people, people kill people. To suggest that children are going to become terrorists or anti-American in some way because they play “Medal of Honor” is just plain silly.

A couple of years ago “Grand Theft Auto” was a popular and controversial game. Children endlessly played a character who could shoot innocent people, rape women, and steal cars. Did this lead to an epidemic of children stealing cars and committing murder? No, of course not.

Secondly, I actually don’t think too many kids are going to want to play as the Taliban anyway. The US military has the coolest weapons, uniforms, and equipment. Politics doesn’t enter into it at all. Kids just want to blow stuff up with the coolest weapons.

Conservatism is on the rise in this country. The majority of Americans like what we’re saying about fiscal responsibility, strong national security, and freedom. Let’s not muddy the message by vilifying video game makers and other such silliness. Let’s stick to the issues.

Here’s a trailer for the game. I think you’re going to find this game particularly popular with US troops.

Here’s an article that makes you want to both laugh and cry. Laugh because it’s hard to imagine politicians could be this dumb, and cry because their stupidity is destroying America.

When it comes to killing jobs and shipping them to China nothing accomplishes it faster than the phony “Green” movement. Idiots like Sen. Barbara Boxer have spent decades dismantling California’s economy with their environmental extremism.

The election of Barack Obama took California’s job killing green crusade nationwide. Now we’re all paying the price for Al Gore’s fantasies about a warming earth.

The Washington Post is reporting on the closure of the last GE factory in the US that makes incandescent light bulbs. The 200+ workers at that plant are about to join the millions of other Americans who are out of work.

Why did this happen? Because politicians in Washington decided what kind of light bulb we should use. In 2007, a so-called “energy conservation measure” passed by Congress set standards that basically banned the manufacture of incandescent light bulbs by 2014 (a mere 4 years from now).

The politicians theorized that banning incandescent bulbs would force factories to begin making compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) instead. The end result would be that every home in America was more energy efficient whether they wanted to be or not! Ha! What a perfect plan, right?

It didn’t quite work out that way (which only comes as a surprise in DC). See, it’s much more expensive to make CFLs, because the twisted spiral glass tubes require more hand labor. What kind of hand labor do you figure would be making those bulbs? How about…union labor! What is union labor? Expensive! So if you were GE what would you do? Make them in China for a fraction of the cost? Ha, so would I.

Of course the government could interfere once again and simply force companies to make the light bulbs here, right? I’m sure unions would f*cking love that. But then increased cost of making the bulbs would be passed on to consumers causing light bulbs to become ridiculously expensive. Since the old bulbs are banned, if you’re unable to afford the pricey new light bulbs you’re going to be eating by candle light.

This is what happens when the government sticks their snout into everything. If the politicians would’ve left our f*cking light bulbs alone in 2007 those 200 workers plus thousands of others just like them would still be employed.

We need to put the brakes on the out-of-control environmental movement. Think about that when you  cast your vote this November.

Let me first say that I don’t think pastor Terry Jones should go through with his planned “Burn A Koran Day” on 9/11. In light of Gen Petraeus’s warnings I think it would be prudent to call it off. No political statement is worth further endangering the lives of our troops.

However, I think it’s important to understand the point Jones is trying to make with his Koran burning. The purpose is to show just how irrational many Muslims are. The fact that Muslim clerics are promising to actually murder Americans if the Koran is burned proves that point. People should not have to fear “inciting” Muslims. The default reaction to having your religion insulted should not be murder. Reacting in that way to perceived slights cannot be tolerated in a civil society.

The Dutch cartoonist who drew the Prophet Mohammad cartoons continues to be hunted by radical Muslims even years later. All he did was draw a cartoon and years later radical Muslims still want to kill him. In fact, just a few months ago a radical Muslim from Somalia broke into his home and went after him with an axe.

Muslims could gather up a 100,000 Bibles and make a bonfire out of them and no Christians would fly into a murderous rage. Muslims need to learn that murdering people who insult their religion is wrong and unacceptable.

Terry Jones wants to prove how violent and evil Islam is by burning the Korans and watching the reaction of Muslims around the world.

If Muslims were smart they would simply ignore the Koran burning and not react at all. Of course, that’s not going to happen. Muslims throughout the Middle East will likely become unhinged and go on a bloody rampage like they always do. Last time the Pope said something Muslims didn’t like they spent about a month rioting and rampaging through the streets of Europe and the Mideast.

It would make for an interesting science experiment if we didn’t have troops in the middle of a war.

What Terry Jones is doing is inflammatory and provocative, but Muslims need to grow up and quit acting like lunatics.

I felt like it was time for a change around here so I redesigned the site. You can expect the site to go down for “maintenance” a few more times over the coming the days as I finish up the redesign. I’m adding a new header and a few other new features so stay tuned!

-Chris Jones

Let me start by saying I’m a pro-choice Conservative. Not rabidly pro-choice, but I generally think it should be up to the woman. I do support a ban on late-term abortions and the like.

Having said that, I also have a tremendous respect for pro-life advocates. I completely understand where they’re coming. Even though I’m “pro-choice” I’m not “pro-abortion”. Unlike radical leftist groups I don’t think it’s something to be praised or encouraged. The fewer abortions we have in this country the better.

Which is why I don’t get why Tim Tebow and his family are coming under attack for the ad they plan to run during the Super Bowl. I haven’t seen the ad, but from what I understand it’s not some rabid anti-abortion ad. Tebow’s mom simply explains that doctors encouraged her to abort Tim, because they feared he would have birth defects due to the medication she was forced to take to treat a life threatening illness.

She refused and instead chose to leave it in God’s hands and hope for the best. One only needs to watch Tim Tebow play football to see how that decision turned out.

It seems like a pretty inspirational and hopeful message to me. I don’t see what the problem is. Is the left afraid it will discourage women from having abortions?

Why would you want women to have abortions?

If the ad makes women think a little bit harder about having an abortion, why is that a bad thing? It would not prevent the abortion, just maybe encourage a few extra minutes of thought.

The radical left and phony women’s groups like NOW have a sick fascination with abortions. They treat it like some kind of sick right of passage to womanhood.

This reminds me of the pro-life ad that ran during the presidential campaign about President Obama. It was one of the most powerful and inspiration ads I’ve ever seen, but radical leftist groups hated it.

I’m all about “choice” but I just don’t get why leftists are so opposed to any message that merely celebrates life.

Why is that such a threat? What are they afraid of?

Here’s Tim Tebow himself responding in a very classy way to the attacks:

-Chris Jones

Whenever a popular figure such as Tiger Woods is caught in a public scandal involving alleged marital infidelity, many people (women in particular) are quick to attack the mistresses. They are called “homewreckers,” “whores,” “sluts,” “trash,” and every other name you can think of.

Maybe the women are all of those things or maybe none of them. However, I think it is at the very least disingenuous to attack the mistresses.

The blame for what happened to Tiger Woods belongs to Tiger Woods and no one else, especially not the women he slept with.

It’s laughable when I hear female pundits sanctimoniously declare on national television that they would NEVER do such a thing. They call the mistresses “trash” and feign outrage that these women would knowingly sleep with a married father of two.

It’s easy for highly educated women with careers and fat salaries to make such declarations. If these same women woke up one morning and found themselves in their mid-20’s (or older), a high school diploma on the wall, working as a cocktail waitress — they’d be singing a different tune.

Someone in that situation being given the opportunity to sleep with a billionaire superstar athlete is like hitting the lottery. Opportunities like that are rare and should be seized upon.

Maybe said athlete is only interested in a one night stand and you’ll never see him again. But what if said athlete likes you and wants to have a relationship? What if he puts you in touch with a buddy of his that can help you launch the career you’ve always dreamed of?

Worst case scenario, the relationship becomes public and you sell your story for a $1 million dollars. Either way, you’re not a cocktail waitress anymore making $6 an hour.

The women Tiger slept with should be held least responsible. Tiger made the choice to cheat on his beautiful wife and shame his family. Those women were simply seizing an opportunity that life threw their way.

Two of the women are reportedly getting big payoffs from Tiger, at least two are selling their stories for big $$$, and we don’t know about the others (minus the two porn stars).

That means at least four of the women have dramatically changed the course of their lives for the better due to their decision to sleep with Tiger Woods.

Good for them.

-Chris Jones

Thomas Frank has an odious piece in the Wall Street Journal today slamming Glenn Beck as an ignorant “panic peddling host”. He attacks Beck for his red phone hotline to the White House and for bringing attention to the long list of radicals in the Obama administration.

Thomas doesn’t see any radical in The White House — he only sees a nutty TV host.

Here’s what Thomas says about frequent Beck target Robert McChesney:

On Monday I wrote to an old friend, Robert McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois who has been a frequent target of Mr. Beck in recent weeks for his left-wing views and also for co-founding Free Press, an advocacy group on media policy. Did Mr. McChesney get a chance to respond on the red phone or any other way? No. "He never asked me or Free Press to call the red phone," Mr. McChesney wrote me.

What he didn’t mention about his “old friend” is that Robert McChesney is the former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review. I think being associated with a publication that has a 50 year history of supporting Communism and Communist regimes qualifies as radical. I don’t think I have any Communist friends — but I could be wrong.

It’s also amusing that Thomas refers to Free Press — the organization McChesney co-founded — as simply an “advocacy group on media policy”. What he left out was that “Free Press” (a laughable name) is a big supporter of Hugo Chavez and been supportive of his media crackdown in Venezuela.

Again, sounds pretty damn radical to me.

Thomas Frank would like to gloss over the big picture Beck paints on his show, but he simply can’t.

The current administration is the most radical in American history. The people the president has surrounded himself with are the most radical in American history.

It’s only thanks to Glenn Beck that the American people are aware of the extremists who are trying to remake our country.