A few days ago, Rolling Stone released a curious listicle of the supposed "5 Most Dangerous Guns in America." National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke noticed that their list basically included nearly every gun that is legal for purchase in the United States. In response to this act of absurdity by Rolling Stone, Twitter users compiled their own "most dangerous" (or other superlative) lists.
Here are some of the funniest:
.@RollingStone's Top 10 Volumes Of Music 10: 1 9: 3 8: 4 7: 5 6: 2 5: 6 4: 8 3: 7 2: 9 1: 10 & 11 (tie)— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) July 15, 2014
@AceofSpadesHQ Deadliest forms of drowning: 3. In water 2. In soup 1. In lava— Jason Fox (@jason_fox) July 15, 2014
Rolling Stone's Top 7 most influential music types 7. Country 6. Western 5. Rhythm 4. Blues 3. Rock 2. Roll 1. Ampersand— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) July 15, 2014
The 5 most dangerous witchdoctor incantations: 1. Ooo 2. Eeee 3. Ah-ah 4. Walla-walla 5. Bing-bang— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) July 15, 2014
Also, fecal. RT @allahpundit: Most dangerous forms of matter: 3. Mineral 2. Vegetable 1. Animal— Lisa De Pasquale (@LisaDeP) July 15, 2014
MOST DANGEROUS GUNS, RANKED. 1. Guns— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) July 15, 2014
New York City tabloids and 24/7 cable TV outlets are famous for overblown, screaming headlines (think “Headless Body Found in Topless Bar”) attached to even the most innocuous news items. But even they had to take a backseat to the mainstream media outlets ballyhooing the “political earthquake” in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District on June 10.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who was rumored to become the next speaker, was soundly defeated for reelection by David Brat, a local college professor with little name recognition and even less campaign funding. Records showed that Cantor spent more money at BLT Steak than Brat put into his entire campaign.
But Brat had one major asset in his corner: talk radio. Talk hosts around the nation, most notably Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, trumpeted Brat as a David versus Goliath tea party champion. Levin suggested that Brat’s 11-point win recalled the old Sam Walton bromide that sometimes the dogs just won’t eat the dog food.
“People want a new Republican Party with fresh faces, with vigorous leadership, and they’re not getting it,” Westwood
One’s Levin stated. “The 7th District gave the status quo a real ass-kicking.”
Fresh from that contest, talk radio hosts nationwide smelled blood and turned their attention to another upstart tea party insurgent, Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel. He bested six term Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) by 1,500 votes in the GOP primary, but failed to exceed 50 percent so both headed in a GOP runoff June 24.
But this time, the GOP establishment, led by former-Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and one-time presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), coalesced around the76-year-old Cochran, and mounted a runoff campaign targeting African Americans and traditional liberal Democrats to “Save Thad.”
It worked. One heavily African-American county saw a 92percent increase in voting, and Cochran squeaked through 51percent to 49 percent. But to radio conservatives like Iowa’s Steve Deace, the victory may not be worth the price: “Cochran won because turnout statewide was up 43 percent in counties Obama received at least two-thirds of the vote in 2012. The GOP establishment turned out those voters by using race baiting robo-calls, race-baiting fliers, and aligning itself with Democrat operative James “Scooby Doo” Warren to turn out Democrats to save Cochran. In other words, they used Obama/Alinsky race-baiting tactics against their own base.”
Deace calls the GOP’s tactics “an unpardonable sin that will likely have long-term ramifications for the future of this party.”
Salem Radio Network host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher, billed on the air as “the happy conservative warrior,” nonetheless struck a more conciliatory note: “I completely understand the frustration that Tea Party conservatives have. My callers express that frustration regularly. But I believe in focusing on the GOP winning in November. Like it or not, folks like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham and Thad Cochran are the ones we’ve got now. It’s time for Republicans to be united.”
But even Gallagher offered a word of caution: “It’s also time for GOP establishment types to stop bashing the Tea Party. ”Former-GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who campaigned for McDaniel, tells Townhall Magazine, “I am disappointed that Chris McDaniel fell just short on June24. However, I am encouraged how his message energized grassroots conservative Mississippians in the face of a very tough opposition.”
Courtside Entertainment’s Laura Ingraham, who campaigned with Virginia’s Brat and clearly preferred tea party
challenger McDaniel in Mississippi, offered her own blunt assessment of the GOP runoff in the Magnolia State: “If you want to take on the Establishment, you better anticipate that they will do anything and everything to win, even race-baiting. The good news is that McDaniel won among Republican voters. The bad news is that the people of Mississippi are stuck with a man (Cochran) who can barely answer simple questions and who brags about his ability to bring home the pork.”
Levin echoed Ingraham’s defiant tone: “‘Remember Mississippi’ will be a rallying cry for conservatives for some time.
The reason: the GOP establishment used race-baiting and promoted big-government programs to encourage liberal
Democrats to vote in the GOP runoff. The robo-calls, radio ads, and mailers were hateful and grotesque, all intended to disenfranchise Republicans voters and create fear among African-Americans. An absolute disgrace.”
Nationally syndicated talk host Lars Larson traveled through a half-dozen Mississippi communities during the final days of the June runoff and made the following observation: “I sensed that voters wanted something different. But it looks as though the big money interests, fronted by Haley Barbour, were willing to pull out all the stops, spend any amount of money, and even encourage people to break the state’s election laws on cross over voting to win the day…and they did.”
Time will tell if the 2014 electoral map will be painted red or blue, or whether the results in Virginia or Mississippi were
precursors of a new Republican majority on Capitol Hill or more conflict between the GOP and the tea party. •
Yesterday, Katie wrote up Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments on ABC’s This Week, in which he suggested there was a “racial component” underlying the tea party movement. He was quick to temper his remarks, however, by adding that only “some people” in America are actuated by racism. Nevertheless, his position was clear: the United States is a racist country, and therefore President Obama has been "treated differently" (as has he) than any of his predecessors.
Not surprisingly, most Americans categorically reject this “theory.” For example, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, 61 percent of respondents said opposition to the president is “primarily” rooted in … his policies:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters think people who oppose the president’s policies do so primarily because they believe his policies are bad, not because of racism.
There can be no doubt there is a (relatively small) segment of the population, motivated by hatred and racial animus, who abhor the president because of his skin color. I will agree with Holder on that much. And thus, despite the nation’s progress on race relations over the last half-century, they are still blinded by their own bigotry and close-mindedness. This is regrettable and wrong. But it’s also worth noting that the vast, vast majority of Republicans, if they do disagree with the president on any number of issues, do so primarily on the merits.
This, of course, is something administration officials with an agenda keenly understand, but will never admit publicly.
Over at Hot Air, my colleague Noah Rothman wrote about the piece written by the Cook Report’s Amy Walter, where she describes a 2016 Democratic field without Hillary. Rothman noted that such a development would create “panic, mass desertion, rampant substance abuse, and night terrors among Democratic voters.”
As Walters and Rothman noted, the 2016 Democratic field has the potential to be very crowded – and possibly competitive – if Hillary decides to sit out 2016. All told, there will be a woman, an Africa-American, no Latino, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, and Vice President Joe Biden as the fragile frontrunner. But, let’s look at Walter’s about Warren:
There will be a woman: Of course there's Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ("most candidates don't write books unless they want to be in a national conversation"), but mentioned as often was New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was also highlighted, though not nearly as often as the other two. My thoughts: Warren will excite the base - and can raise tons of money - but Republicans would love to run against a Massachusetts liberal in 2016 (we know how well that worked out in 1988 for Dems). Though she has a much lower profile than Warren, Gillibrand has a natural fundraising base in New York City and has been building out a national fundraising structure as well. She's carved out a profile as a defender of women's rights and safety (like sexual assault in the military), but she will have need to build up her record on a broader variety of economic and international issues. And, like Clinton, she has to find a way to effectively balance her relationships with Wall Street with the populist mood of the Democratic base.
Yesterday, Sen. Warren decided to stump for West Virginia Democratic Senate candidate Natalie Tennant, who’s trailing Republican Shelly Moore Capito by ten points. Yet, while CNN noted that her reception was cool outside, the speech Warren delivered captured what Americans are thirsting for in politics: the return of neo-populism (via CNN):
In a ballroom packed with nearly 400 West Virginians, Warren was greeted like a bona fide celebrity, met with multiple standing ovations, a cascade of selfie attempts and a few shouts of “2016!”
What followed was a pugnacious and folksy speech packed with the kind of full-bodied populist rhetoric that has thrust her into 2016 presidential conversation alongside Hillary Clinton – whether she wants to be there or not.
“The way I see this, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, all those other guys on Wall Street, they’ve got plenty of folks in the United State Senate willing to work on their side,” she said, jabbing her hands into the air to make her points. “We need more people in the U.S. Senate willing to work on the side of America’s families.”
Tennant, she said, “is strong, she is independent, and she won’t let anybody roll over her.”
Warren talked about her working class upbringing in Oklahoma, telling the story of her mother taking on a minimum wage job at Sears, an effort to save their home after her ill father could no longer work. She humble-bragged about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – the “little consumer agency” she helped launch – noting that it’s already recovered $4 billion from banks and credit card companies for American customers. And she bashed Republican opposition to her student loan bill, which would have lowered interest rates but was blocked in the Senate, saying the GOP’s first priority is defending big banks.
“The Republicans say no to raising the minimum wage, they say no to equal pay for equal work, they say we have to cut Social Security in order to make our budget balanced, they say no to those pension promises,” Warren said sternly. “They say it’s more important to stand up for Wall Street than it is to stand up for families across this county. Well I tell you what. They can say it, but they are going to lose.”
Last May, Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review wrote about the nameless, faceless populist wave that’s growing in the country:
For all intents and purposes, the tea party movement is gone, following the pattern of most populist political movements in our history. Such movements generally peak after two election cycles, or they are taken over by the most extreme elements of their membership (or by unscrupulous political fundraisers); those who initially supported the movements often settle back into their party of origin, or they become independent voters who feel free to pick a person, not a party.
It is not as if the tea party's strong sentiments — curbing big government and big spending — don't still exist out there. They do. In fact, they are a big part of the basis for this new, still-unnamed wave that is building beyond Washington, D.C.
Yet many people are fed up with all the labels attached to their political beliefs, whether it is “tea party,” “Democrat” or “Republican.”
In an effort to hold on to their seats in Washington, Democrats have tried to create a populist movement by pushing gender, income, race and other divisive issues as voting triggers.
Republicans have tried to do the same thing with religion, contraception, marriage and other social issues.
But populism is a funny thing: You can't create it on command, and the kind of rage needed to foster it is sustainable for only so long before it fades.
Zito pointed out that Rep. Eric Cantor might have been a casualty of this emerging wave.
Sen. Warren isn’t a person to embrace the Tea Party sentiments that will continue to linger in this emerging populist wave. Then again, everything she talked about in West Virginia wasn’t necessarily on the fringe either.
On the minimum wage, whether we like it or not, 71% of Americans support raising it to $9 an hour. If you break it down by party affiliation, 91% of Democrats, 68% of independents, and 50% of Republicans agree, according to Gallup.
A further breakdown, which includes income, gender, geographic location, and education levels, show it’s immensely popular, with 54% of conservatives agreeing. Former 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney even voiced his support for raising the minimum wage.
Additionally, cutting Social Security isn’t popular.
But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Warren could be a dark horse in the 2016 cycle, but I doubt you’ll see her clinch the nomination in the end. Although, there are some good reasons why 2016 would be the best opportunity for Warren to mount a presidential run – and challenge Hillary if she does run.
For Republicans, we have a bunch of potential candidates of the more blue-collar vein, like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. So, while Warren might be able to deliver "pugnacious" populism, there are plenty of candidates on the GOP side who can surely embrace that mold as well.
Federal employees, like all Americans, are entitled to hold passionate political beliefs. Most executive branch federal employees, however, may not engage in certain political activities, thanks to an anti-conflict of interest principle enshrined in a federal law called the Hatch Act. To wit, President Bush requested the resignation of his GSA administrator in 2008 after the US Office of Special Counsel determined she had violated federal law by participating in a video conference with Karl Rove and sending out partisan letters. (The New York Times was scandalized at the time, though I strangely can't find their editorial calling for Kathleen Sebelius' head when OSC flagged her for a Hatch Act violation. Then again, the Times' alleged principles seem to depend entirely on which party is in power). Which brings us to the case of April Sands, an employee at the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), who struck a deal with the agency's Inspector General to avoid criminal charges related to running afoul of the Hatch Act on numerous occasions. She has openly confessed to breaching federal law as part of her effective plea bargain, but investigators were unable to probe a potential goldmine of incriminating activity: Her email. Why? You guessed it; her hard drive crashed, supposedly wiping out her email records, and resulting in the FEC recycling (i.e., destroying) the hard drive. Sounds familiar. Did I mention that Ms. Sands worked under Lois Lerner when Lerner served as the agency's Associate General Counsel for Enforcement? Lots of coincidences and similarities, no? Here's the House Oversight Committee's summary of a letter Issa and company fired off to the FEC:
“As a part of a settlement agreement with the [Office of Special Counsel], Ms. [April] Sands admitted to violating the Hatch Act by soliciting political contributions via Twitter, conducting political activity through her Twitter account, and participating in a political discussion ‘via webcam from an FEC conference room . . . while on duty,’” Issa and Jordan write in their letter. “The FEC [Office of Inspector General] sought to pursue criminal charges stemming from Ms. Sands’s solicitation of political contributions while on duty inside the FEC building. However, the FEC recycled Ms. Sands’s hard drive before the OIG was able to seize it, and therefore the OIG was unable to show that Ms. Sands’s solicitations and political activity were done from an FEC computer. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia thereafter declined criminal prosecution.” According to news reports, Ms. Sands worked for former IRS official Lois Lerner when Ms. Lerner served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Enforcement. It is unclear whether Ms. Sands ever communicated with Ms. Lerner after Ms. Lerner moved to the IRS; however, the Committee is aware that Ms. Lerner maintained communication with some former FEC colleagues. Ms. Lerner even apparently shared information protected by section 6103 of the tax code with the FEC.
This woman's job was helping to enforce election laws. Here's a sense of how this "public servant" passed her time at the office, doing a job whose salary was funded by taxpayers:
She lumps in anyone who supports the Republican platform with the birthers, then declares the whole lot her "enemy." She's also so incurious and close-minded that she can't possibly fathom how anyone who doesn't look like Rush Limbaugh could possibly hold conservative values; women, minorities and gays are to stay on the intellectual plantation, where they belong. Again, this is a woman who was paid by taxpayers to enforce election laws equitably. One wonders: Did Sands and Lerner engage in any joint activity during the targeting regime -- lambasting conservatives or conspiring to use their power to fight "enemies" on the Right? We may never know. Substantial portions of their email records have been conveniently and irretrievably lost. You may recall that Lerner was an officious, pro-government activist during her time at the FEC, and gave a presentation at Duke University in 2010 -- during which she expressed dismay over the Supreme Court's Citizens United political speech decision, and bemoaned the fact that the FEC couldn't "fix" the problem. Last week, one of her non-lost emails revealed that Lerner wanted to know if the IRS' internal instant messaging system was subject to archiving. She asked those questions in the context of telling her staff to "be cautious about what we say in emails." That missive was sent days after the Inspector General uncovered the agency's abusive targeting practices, and before the scandal went public. The Justice Department's investigation into the matter is being spearheaded by an Obama donor. I'll leave you with this clue as to how thorough it's been thus far:
No one from True The Vote, the highest profile organization targeted by the IRS in the scandal involving improper scrutiny of conservative-leaning non-profits, has been interviewed by the FBI or investigators from the Department of Justice, according to the group’s President, Catherine Engelbrecht. This stunning revelation comes just days after Attorney General Eric Holder rebuffed the suggestion that an independent investigation is needed into the growing scandal. Holder told ABC News this weekend that a special investigation was unnecessary because “career people” and FBI agents “doing a good, professional job” investigating the matter.
WMAL's interview with Mrs. Engelbrecht is here:
Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) brought a picture of her grandson to Capitol Hill today. No, she didn’t simply show it to her colleagues to beam about her newest family member – she brought the picture straight to the Senate floor to testify against the pro-abortion S. 1696, or “Women’s Health Protection Act.”
S. 1696, which has 25 Senate cosponsors (all Democrats), would override nearly all federal and state laws limiting abortion, including third-trimester bans on abortion, limits on abortion after 5 months of pregnancy, and laws against sex-selection abortion, according to the pro-life organization SBA List, which sent out an urgent email to supporters this morning.
This sweeping legislation is what brought Rep. Blackburn to testify and hold up her grandson’s ultrasound for all her colleagues to see.
“This is the wonder of science,” Blackburn said. “I could see his arms and legs, I could see him peacefully resting in his mother’s womb.”
Because Blackburn understands the humanity of the unborn, she had some strong words for the legislation being considered.
“It is broad, loosely written. It would jeopardize hundreds of laws - laws that protect both mothers and unborn children. It would render impossible efforts by states to limit abortions based on sex of the child.”
The representative then provided some statistics revealing that women support abortion restrictions. The reason, she said, is obvious.
“It is no wonder women support this – we bear life.”
Blackburn’s pro-life colleagues shared her passion, including Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), who, as a former nurse, shared that abortion harms not only the unborn child, but the mother as well:
"One to 5 percent of abortions have infections, minors are up to twice as likely to experience lacerations and short term risks, and 37 percent have the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies."
Sen. Grassley (R-IA) offered a different perspective by suggesting S. 1696 is also a states’ rights issue:
“It would allow Congress to intrude on states’ rights. This is a weak political opportunity before midterms. They’re trying to appear compassionate, yet the law disregards common sense laws aimed at stopping murderers like Kermit Gosnell. The American people won’t support it.”
Of course, a few Congress members present defended the legislation with the now tiresome “war on women” rhetoric. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), for instance, said S. 1696 was necessary to retain women’s rights:
“Since Roe v. Wade, too many states have been trying to turn back the clock on access to high quality care […] The threat is clear. Some politicians think they know better than women and their doctors. Women are more than capable of making decisions without asking legislators.”
Perhaps the most ironic part of Baldwin’s testimony was when she insisted that Congress is responsible for enforcing Constitutional rights.
Funny. She must have forgotten about the right to life.
Rep. Blackburn suggested that the bill the Senate should be considering is the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which unborn babies can feel pain.
But, Sen. Harry Reid and other Senate Democrats seem intent on spearheading an abortion agenda.
It is unlikely this bill will pass the House of Representatives, but still unnerving to see so many legislators trying to make it law.
Pro-lifers can at least be thankful to know they have courageous representatives like Marsha Blackburn fighting for the unborn.
Love him or hate him; the PAC supporting Dr. Ben Carson for president had a very successful fundraising drive in the second quarter of this year, which outpaced the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (via PRNewswire):
The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, a political action committee formed to draft Dr. Ben Carson into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, announced today that it raised more than $3.3 million in the second quarter of 2014, including more than $1 million in the month of May alone.
Since its inception in August 2013, the Committee has raised more than $7.2 million, with more than 95,000 individual donors giving an average contribution of around $48. The committee now has more than 17,000 volunteers nationwide.
Although, the former First Lady didn’t do too badly for herself, raising $2.5 million between April and June. According to the Washington Post, their second quarter drew 43,000 contributions, with the average donation being $57. Ready For Hillary has raised more than $8 million since its inception in 2013.
In case you missed it I have a new book out called Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women. In order to best present my arguments, I thought it was important for me to attend the National Organization for Women conference in Chicago last year for research purposes. I've already shown you the five Marxist books I purchased at the event (ironically they weren't giving them out for free and actually wanted money for them), but I figured it would be fun to also show you some of the bumper stickers I picked up while I was there.
Is NOW really an organization fighting on behalf of women? Or are they instead serving at the request of the big money abortion industry? You can find out more here.
This footage wasn't taken outside the Israeli embassy in Paris, mind you. It was shot at a Parisian synagogue -- a house of worship at which virtually all of the congregants, presumably, were Frenchmen (via Twitchy):
Dozens of young men protesting Israel’s actions in Gaza briefly besieged a Paris synagogue and clashed with security. At least three Jews were taken to hospital as a result of the clashes the erupted on Sunday between the protesters and young Jewish men who guarded the Synagogue de la Roquette in Paris, a witness told JTA. “The attackers splintered off an anti-Israel demonstration and advanced toward the synagogue when it was full,” Alain Azria, a French Jewish journalist who covered the event told JTA. Azria said that when the men arrived at the synagogue, located at the 11th Arrodissement near Dare de Lyon, there were only five police officers guarding the place. The police blocked the entrance to the synagogue while close to 200 congregants were inside and as the protesters chanted anti-Semitic slogans and hurled objects at the synagogue and its guards, Azria said. “They were determined to enter and the police did not have enough forces,” he said. According to Azria, the mob was kept away by men from the SPCJ Jewish security unit, the Jewish Defense League and Beitar, who engaged the attackers in what turned into a street brawl. “Thank God they were there because the protesters had murder on their minds and it took a while before police reinforcements arrived,” Azria added.
Mr. Azria says he attended another weekend rally (the ostensible purpose of which was to protest the Israeli government's actions) and heard chants of “slaughter the Jews” and “death to the Jews.” Those…aren't political slogans. As the JPost story notes, French Jews have witnessed an alarming uptick in anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts in recent days, as some anti-Israel fanatics abandon the pretense that their opposition to Israel is rooted in anything other than rank bigotry. Their quarrel isn't with the Jewish state; it's with Jews themselves. The New York Times reported in late June that thousands of French Jews are emigrating to Israel, an exodus fueled by escalating anti-Semitic violence. The piece quotes a young mother who was assaulted by a gang of Muslim girls on the iconic Champs-Élysées. Her assailants called her a "dirty Jew." Said the woman, "I love France, and this is my country, but I am disgusted now...In Israel there is an army that will protect us. Here, I can no longer see a future for my children." Heartbreaking. Perhaps these anti-pluralism, unassimilated French Muslims -- or "youths," as the media euphemism goes after destructive riots -- have been emboldened by the French government's acquiescence to so-called "no-go" zones, where officials essentially cede authority to ad hoc Islamic law. On a personal note, I just returned from Berlin, where I spent part of an afternoon at the 'Topography of Terror' museum. An outdoor display traces the history of Hilter's rise to power, which was littered with pogroms spurred by totally irrational, fervently anti-Semitic scapegoating. With that exhibit fresh in my mind, you'll forgive me for being chilled to the bone by Twitchy's avert-your-eyes round-up of tweets from the trending #HitlerWasRight hashtag. CNN's Jake Tapper drew attention to the hateful bile over the weekend:
As I mentioned yesterday, Tapper drilled a former PLO spokeswoman with tough questions on his program last week. She tried to argue that simply pointing out facts about radical Islamists' obscene death culture is a "racist" exercise. Identifying the Hamas' martyrdom obsession is "offensive," she added. And with that in mind, I give you Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri -- last heard from instructing Palestinians to risk their lives by ignoring Israeli evacuation warnings. A revealing slip of the tongue:
We are leading our people to death! Uh, actually, what I meant was, um…we're leading our people to confrontation with this occupier! Reminder: Israel unilaterally and completely pulled out of "occupied" Gaza nine years ago in a bid to appease the Palestinians. They've since been rewarded by more than 9,000 rockets fired at their civilians. I'll leave you with this charming message from an "anti-Isreal" riot in Germany, at which police were pelted with rocks:
"You Jews are beasts,” they say in Germany. In France, a synagogue is attacked. Maybe it's time to get out? http://t.co/Xr8gDGgdia— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) July 14, 2014
UPDATE - Israel unilaterally and unconditionally accepted the initial terms of an Egypt-floated ceasefire agreement. Hamas, whose ludicrous demands have been growing by the day, refused. Forty-seven rockets later, the Israelis have announced the resumption of their military campaign against the terrorist organization. But remember, this "disproportionate" conflict is Israel's fault.