Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for October, 2010

Uri Blau Returns to Israel for Questioning, Kamm Close to Plea Deal

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

In a follow-up to a story first exposed here, Haaretz investigative reporter, Uri Blau, and his source Anat Kamm, may be close to resolving their respective legal predicaments, that resulted from her transferring to him 2,000 IDF secret documents which he used to write damning reports about military abuses in Gaza and the West Bank.

After a year on the run in Europe, Blau has returned to Israel to face questioning from the police and Shabak.  I would hope for his sake that he already has an ironclad agreement with the prosecution.  Otherwise, he could be charged with anything as a result of this questioning.  My hope is that Israel will finally understand that in a democracy the press functions as a legitimate brake on abuses by the state and that Blau was serving this role and doing so admirably.

Galey Tzahal reports that Anat Kamm is close to signing a plea deal in her case as well.  A sign of the “evenhandedness” of the Israeli press can be found in the story’s description of her as “the spy soldier.”  The report only says that the deal would reduce the charges she faces, but doesn’t specify what range of punishment she may be facing.  If the deal is any greater than a two-year sentence (with her past year under house arrest included), then the State will be taking revenge against her for doing precisely the same thing IDF soldiers have done in the past with far lesser punishment (in fact I wrote here that one soldier, after giving secret documents to Blau faced confinement to base as her sole punishment).

There still is a possibility for a further miscarriage of justice here, so we’ll have to keep a close tab on this one.

NGO Forces IDF to Release Secret Memo Documenting Gaza Strangulation

Sunday, October 24th, 2010
gaza siege rules

'Mathematical calculations' govern import of basic human necessities

While Wikileaks may have the biggest national security expose of the moment, the one I’m going to report tonight on one that in the Israeli context is a close second.

Thanks immensely to Ed Mad X for alerting me to the IDF’s release of a much sought after April, 2009 memo (23 pages linked here, with the original Hebrew document here) which served as the rationale and underpinning of the Gaza siege and explained how it was interpreted and enforced.  It was in effect before the Mavi Marmara massacre (after which the siege was loosened).  Immense thanks to the unrelenting effort of the Israeli NGO, Gisha, to bring this report to the light of day.  As far as I know, this is likely its first publication in English.

Frankly, when Ed first sent me the link to his translation I thought it might be a joke, especially when I read the mathematical equations used to determine how much basic foodstuffs should be allowed into Gaza.  I had to query him a few times before I assured myself it was legit.  It’s just that crazy a document.

The IDF report is a wonder of almost Eichmanesque military-speak, obfuscation and self-justification.  If any future historian of the Occupation wishes to study how the IDF got the Occupation’s “trains” to run on time in Gaza (much like Raul Hilberg did in his study of the mundane bureaucracy of the Holocaust), they will only have to look here and study.

Here, for example, is the “mission” described:

MISSION:

# Supervision of basic products from the variety of those imported into the ‘Strip,ʼ including basic food stuffs, fuels, maintaining oversight of the quantity of these products, identifying shortage, surplus, and establishing levels of warning (ʻred-linesʼ e.m.x), dealing with the issues caused and providing concurrent information and realtime alerts to decision makers.

wolkowski gaza siege cartoon

'Put it in the B*1.5=G stack' (Eran Wolkowski/Haaretz)

Gisha’s website notes that when it first sued the state in order to expose this 2009 memo the latter denied it existed.  When that didn’t work, it conceded the memo existed but that releasing it would endanger “national security” (now, you have a chance to judge for yourself the probity of this claim).  The government has now conceded that it must release them under an FOIA legal proceeding.  However, the government continues to refuse to release the current rules governing the siege which are supposedly more lenient than the pre-Marmara rules.

Gisha notes the bizarre logic of the memo which called for a “deliberate reduction” in the level of basic necessities like fuel used to power the only operating power plant.  This in turn caused regular electrical and water outages.  Though the IDF created a “red-line warning” that would notify that a necessity was becoming inaccessible, it also permitted itself to ignore the warning.

Though international law permits goods to be restricted under siege conditions only if the specific item poses a security threat, the IDF prohibited items based on whether their public perception within Gaza was as a luxury.  This is how chocolate and paper came to be prohibited.

Though the Israeli government has indicated it would permit the rebuilding of Gaza (and the world community has insisted on this), the 2009 rules tell a wholly different story.  Building materials were only permitted by special permission, and attempts to rebuild within Gaza were viewed as a decided negative.  Israel refused transfer of goods from international relief agencies and western governments to Gaza for rebuilding schools and homes.

gaza siege memo animal feed calculation

What can one say after reading this? (&$!!)$%

The rules also indicate that they could not be released in any form to anyone unless specified.  This served the function of leaving Gaza merchants in the dark about what was on or off the list. Thus, they would never know whether they could import an item into Gaza or not, until it was impounded at the border or permitted through.  Items like cumin which were not on the permitted goods list could only be approved by special permission despite the fact that there was no security consideration in banning it.

Gisha’s director notes more oddities of the rules and their logic:

Israel banned glucose for biscuits and the fuel needed for regular supply of electricity – paralyzing normal life in Gaza and impairing the moral character of the State of Israel. I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place“.

It’s truly worthwhile reading extended passages of the document to understand the true nature of the ghoulishness of Israel’s siege and the way it is imposed and enforced.  Here the memo describes monitoring imported items in order to determine their levels of availability:

The data will be collected in the economy division, once a week, on Tuesday, and a calculation compiled of products  transferred, then added to existing inventories, and then consumed amounts will be deducted according to the models.

F.# After the calculation is performed, a draft of inventory estimates will be prepared…[and] the following data will be checked:

# 1. Upper level warning – in case inventory of one of the short shelf life products is over 21 days or long shelf life  product inventory is over 80 days.

# 2. Lower level warning – in case inventory of one of the short shelf life products is under 4 days or long shelf life product inventory is under 20 days.

# 3. Shortage - in case inventory of one of the short shelf life products is under 2 days or long shelf life product  inventory is under 5 days.

H. In case inventory of one or more products reached a ‘level of warning,’ the following actions will be taken:

1. Xxxx will verify the information with leading Palestinian merchants.

2. Xxxx will perform mathematical evaluation of the model to verify the data.

3. In case of an upper level warning, the issue will be brought up for discussion and update for a decision on policy of entering the # relevant product.

4.! In case of a lower level warning an update will be transferred, and Gaza DCO will take action to facilitate transferring the relevant product, unless it is an intentional policy of reduction. [ed., italics mine]

5. In case of shortage, the same actions as of ʻlower level warningʻ will be taken. In case it is an intentional policy of  reduction, decision makers will be presented with the consequences of shortage of the relevant product.

One wonders what warning the decision makers would be presented with: would they be warned that preventing entrance of a piece of medical equipment would cause the death of children?  Or that the categorization of milk, or hummus or any number of staples of the Palestinian diet as “superfluous” might exacerbate the already existent malnutrition among children?  Or that a shortage of fuel and hence water outages would cause women not to be able to cook properly or families to observe hygienic practices.  What type of discussion do you think happened among the decision makers when they were ‘warned’ about these red lines?

The report notes that “need” can be determined from a variety of sources but that need as defined by military headquarters supersedes them:

According to an internal procedure which incorporates headquarters work in relation to relevant security needs and demands.

In other words, the need for rice or flour or any item whatsoever can be changed according to an artificial determination by the IDF that this item corresponded to some imagined security interest.

In a section of the memo devoted to how an item is determined to be necessary or superfluous–keeping in mind that international law says the only criteria is security–this is one of the criteria:

Implications of the product’s uses (is it used for preservation, rehabilitation or development?) with emphasis of the effect its entry has on the status of the Hamas regime.

In other words, if an item may be used for preservation, rehabilitation of development of infrastructure that could benefit Hamas in any way in the eyes of the people, it will be prohibited.

In reviewing the list of permitted items for import, you come to realize that these are the only items allowed.  In other words, if an item is not on the list, it’s prohibited.  So, for example, here is the list of permitted spices:

Black pepper, soup powder, hyssop, sesame. cinnamon, anise, babuna (chamomile), sage

Sorry, cumin, basil, bay leaf, allspice, carraway, cardamon, chiles, chives, cilantro, cloves, garlic, sesame, tamarind, thyme, oregano, cayenne (here’s a list I consulted of popular Arab spices).  Not on the list.  You’re not a spice Palestinians need according to some IDF dunderhead.  And tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, toys, glassware, paint, and shoes?  You can forget about them too.  Luxuries all, or else security threats.

I’m displaying here the “mathematical model” by which the IDF determined whether it was allowing in too much of any particular item.  The very notion that not one, but hundreds of IDF soldiers occupied all (or even part) of their waking hours implementing this insane policy adds another nail to the coffin of the Occupation.  Can there be any doubt that not only is the siege immoral and illegal, but borderline insane.  Grown men actually sat in office cubicles and used calculators to determine the answers to these absurd questions.  It comes close to leaving one speechless.

Channel 1 Correspondent Confirms Ilan as Shabak Director-Designate

Friday, October 22nd, 2010
mr x

Yitzhak Ilan, coming soon to a Shabak near you: watch this space for further details

Several weeks ago, I reported here that Bibi Netanyahu had settled upon a candidate to succeed Yuval Diskin as Shabak chief.  While Israeli news sources could and still cannot report his name (they call him “Y.”), I did: Yitzhak Ilan.  Today, Channel 1‘s military correspondents, Yoav Limor confirms that Bibi shortly will name Ilan to the job.

Ilan began his career fighting the Russian mob and then moved into dealing with what’s known in Hebrew as the “Arab sector.”   There are several things that are groundbreaking (for Israel) about the director-designate:  he will be the first non-Ashkenazi in the job.  Ilan is of Georgian descent.  He is the first director to rise through the ranks as an interrogator, to the top job.  Most previous directors ran Arab spies in the field.  Limor concluded his report by calling Ilan an “excellent chess-player.”

That remains to be seen.  Since Ilan will be taking on a significant role in the national security machinery, it’s worth quoting what I wrote about his checkered past:

Ilan, as then-director of the Jewish terror unit, was responsible for the [miserable failure of the] Jack Teitel investigation.  Teitel is the American Jewish terrorist implicated in multiple anti-Palestinian acts of violence and murders who engaged in his crime spree over a decade or more.  The final straw was the bomb Teitel exploded at the home of Hebrew University Prof. Zeev Sternhell, which wounded him.  The Shabak finally caught him tacking up flyers on a Jerusalem street which bragged about the bombing…

Ilan is a veteran of the Shabak who has filled many senior roles including chief of investigations and was thought, until the sex scandal, to be likely to retire form the service.

The question really is will anything be different?  Will Ilan merely pursue the same objectives with the same brutality as his predecessor?  The answer is likely to be Yes.  The only way the Shabak will transform itself is when the State it serves demands that it do so.  The State of Israel gets the secret police it demands.  And the Shabak and operatives like Ilan are only too happy to accommodate it.

I will shortly have access to an exclusive piece of graphic documentation concerning Ilan which I can’t yet share.

Israeli Military Judge Attempts to Extort Machsom Watch for Alleged Personal Defamation

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

Despite the fact that I seem to collect many similar stories of Israeli democracy and justice gone awry, this story came close to leaving me at a loss for words.  One of the finest Israeli NGOs exposing the shocking inadequacy of Israeli military justice is Machsom Watch.  In fact, it was through a Machsom Watch report that I learned important details about the detention of Omar Said and Ameer Makhoul.  Their volunteers attend every possible hearing they can.  They act as a witness to prevent the worst miscarriages of Israeli justice or to watch the train wrecks as they unfold if you’re more of a pessimist.

the play's the thingHere is what the group’s legal observer wrote about one such hearing:

The detainee, who is forbidden contact with his attorney, is brought into the chamber.  The attorney then leaves the room.  The judge asks whether the detainee has anything he wishes to say.  He answers in the negative [and then departs]. We are left in the hall for the second half of the performance [or "play].

It seems that Israeli military judge Jordan Barak has taken deep personal offense to this characterization of his er, performance.  In fact, he was so degraded, humiliated and insulted that he wrote to Machsom Watch:

Calling the legal process I conducted a “performance,” is a defamation of the court and an insult against me as a military judge…which is liable to, nay will humilitate me in the eyes of others.  It is also liable to make me the object of hatred, ridicule and disgust, and thus shames me as a judge.  Therefore it damages my office, as military judge, which is a public position.  Therefore, I demand that you cease publication of such lashon ha-ra [a halachic form of personal "defamation"], apologize herewith for such damaging publication.  To properly ensure that I am not so damaged, I demand that you transfer to me 100,000 shekels [$25,000].

I’ve heard of judges doing wacky things before and I’m sure many have done worse, but in all the years I’ve followed justice in this country, Israel and elsewhere, I’ve never heard of a judge demanding personal damages for a single published word that was allegedly defamatory.  I’m not saying it doesn’t or hasn’t happened.  It’s just a phenomenon I find astonishing, not least that Barak intended the payment to go into his own pocket.

Barak apparently hasn’t heard of freedom of speech or the right of NGOs to defend such freedoms as they see fit regardless of how insulted judges may see it.  If I were Im Tirzu I would sign this guy up as a member.  In fact, Ronen Shoval is so litigious perhaps he might want to lend Barak the same attorney who threatened to sue Didi Remez for a couple a million shekels for besmirching its reputation.

To its credit Hagit Shlonsky, it spokesperson, responded firmly and unyieldingly to Barak’s letter:

The report was not meant as a personal attack on the judge, but rather on the process of justice itself being conducted as little better than a “performance.”  The actors sometimes change, but the roles and text always remain the same.  All the detainees are arrested on a suspicion of “endangering the security [of the state].  The actor playing the role of officer/investigator never details what is contained in the secret investigative file that rests on the table before the judge.  Occasionally, an attorney is even appointed for a detainee, but always forbidden from meeting with the client while investigations are underway.  The defense, playing its role in the performance, can ask the investigator questions.  The investigator answers every question with “the answers are found in the secret file.”  The judge concludes the proceeding by assigning the amount of days of detention or its conclusion, usually assigning fewer days than the officer has requested.

Barak, in responding to the questions of Haaretz’s Chaim Levinson, dug himself an even deeper hole.  The irony of course is totally lost on him:

I deal in very serious matters and try to conduct justice as well as possible, in the most objective way possible according to the proper standards, and to relate to all the accused as if they were in Israel [say what?].  I seek to relate to every one as he would be treated in any court in the world.  And then these women come and say the whole thing is a performance.  It hurts and pains me.

The IDF spokesperson released a patently self-evident falsehood saying that the matter had never come to its attention.

Gee, I don’t know what more that I can add to this parade of self-parody and self-delusion.  If I point out the levels of sheer ludicrousness in the judge’s statement won’t I be beating a dead horse?  Perhaps I should just let the thing speak for itself as they say in Latin.

H/t to reader, Dina Hecht.

‘Follow the Money’ of Jewish Neocons

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

I just came across this Ben Smith Politico post I missed when it came out during the J Street funding imbroglio.  It notes that, at least according to J Street, the IRS was at fault for posting publicly the names of the donors to its 501c4.  Here’s the organization’s statement:

We are also committed to protecting the privacy of our donors, which is guaranteed by law in the case of contributions to our 501(c)(4) and was egregiously violated by the Internal Revenue Service in erroneously and illegally making our donor schedule available to the public.

But there’s something here which doesn’t make sense (at least to me) and Smith notes it.  A 501c4 doesn’t have to report its donor lists to the IRS, so why did J Street?

…A politically conservative Jewish blogger, Jeff Dunetz…turned them [the donor list] up on a search for public form 990s on the Foundation Center’s database…which are the tax returns non-profit groups are required to make public. They are not, however, required to include publicly the pages listing their donors.

Personally, I’ve seen numerous 990s in which non-profits list their donors.  So blaming the IRS for this seems silly.  J Street didn’t need to include the names and it did.  Either it got bad advice from an accountant or it just bungled things.

matt brooks rjc

Matt Brooks, RJC's half-million dollar man

All of this is prologue though for some online digging of my own.  I did this because during my coverage of the Eli Lake-manufactured J Street story (especially in light of the U.S. Chamber’s massive infusion of foreign money into the current Congressional elections), I asked why journalists aren’t doing as much due diligence regarding the reports filed by right wing Jewish groups.  Unfortunately, my search didn’t bring up anything quite as explosive as George Soros’ “secret” gift, but there were a few eye-openers nonetheless.

A peek through Aipac’s 990 reveals that it raised $60-million in 2009 and $92-million on hand at that year’s end.  It paid Howard Kohr, its president, a cool $553,000.  And Richard Fishman, its executive director, $400,000 plus an unspecified “business transaction” totaling $370,000.  It also reveals transfers in the tens of millions to the American Israel Education Foundation, the Aipac arm which finances political junkets to Israel.

The Republican Jewish Coalition took in $6-million in 2009.  Of that, over $2-million went to Jamestown Associates for TV and print ads attacking Democratic candidates.  Ari Fleischer’s outfit made $120,000, a cool bit of change.  RJC paid Matt Brooks, its director, a paltry $500,000.   Some interesting names among its board of directors: Shelly Adelson, Jimmy Tisch, Bernie Marcus, Ken Mehlman, Fred Sands, Martin Selig, Mel Sembler, Ken Bialkin, Ari Fleischer, and David Frum.

The 990 form contains this hilarious RJC lie, which shows how such non-profits make a mockery of the non-profit tax code:

The coalition does not directly participate in political activities.

Yediot Publishes List of Bibi’s Campaign Donor Prospects, ‘Bibi’s Foreign Legion’

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

98% of the money donated to Bibi Netanyahu for his 2007 Likud primary campaign came from abroad.  Much of that from the U.S.  Yediot has published (this is a Hebrew excerpt from a print-only investigative piece; English summary here) a prospect-list written in Bibi’s own hand which notes the potential donor names.  What I don’t have (and would love an Israeli reader to provide) is an actual list of the donors and how much they gave, if such a thing exists.

The prospect list is eye-opening.  It divides donors into four categories.  The only ones that really concern us are 1 and 2 since few gifts came from any other group.  Here are the names by group (I’ve only included names with which I’m familiar–if you see another name on the list which is significant and I should’ve included let me know, and why):

Group 1

Sheldon Adelson
Ronald Perelman
Steve Wynn
Ron Lauder
Ira Rennert
Arnon Milchan
Motti Ganz

Group 2

Rupert Murdoch
Thomas Lee
Sumner Redstone
Robert Kraft

Yediot cynically, but aptly calls this process Bibi’s “campaign fundraising industry” and the members of the list his “foreign legion.”  This recalls the massive amounts of corporate and foreign money the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling into U.S. Congressional races thanks to our craven corporatist Supreme Court.

Also interesting are the names of the moguls Bibi downgraded as unlikely to give, which include:

David Geffen
Sam Zell
Jimmy Tisch
Leonard Lauder
Ace Greenberg
Haim Saban
Henry Kravis
Les Wexner
Steve Ballmer
Lila Safra
Carl Icahn
Eli Broad
Micki Arison
Edgar Bronfman
Donald Trump
Mort Zuckerman
Zeev Wolfson

Can we say they exhibited a modicum of due and proper caution before investing with Bibi?

Juan Williams: ‘Muslims Scare Me’

Thursday, October 21st, 2010


Juan Williams is a “liberal.” FoxNews says so. So does the N.Y. Times media correspondent. That’s why on a Fox show, Juan Williams ‘fessed up that when he sees Muslims in traditional garb it gives him the willies:

On the “O’Reilly Factor” broadcast…after Mr. O’Reilly conveyed to viewers that there was a “Muslim dilemma” in the United States, he asked Mr. Williams to explain, “Where am I going wrong?”

Mr. Williams answered, “I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right.”

Subsequently, during the segment he said:

I’m not a bigot…but when I get on a plane and see people who are in Muslim garb and I think they’re identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried, I get nervous.

Yup, apparently anyone who doesn’t dress in chinos or a Brooks Brother suit is as good as a terrorist in Juan’s World.

Thomas Jefferson respected Muslims enough to add a copy of the Koran to the Library of Congress collection, yet Juan Williams thinks anyone who dresses in a Muslim “uniform” is a bad seed.  What IS “Muslim garb” anyway?  Is it something prescribed by the Koran?  This guy is off his nut.  Does he even realize that the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world wear dress that is as varied as that worn by any other large religious group spread around the world.  What he really meant is that the turbans and robes worn by some Muslims visiting or living in this country give him the willies since these are apparently the same outfits worn by Al Qaeda.  That’s about the level of Juan Williams’ sophistication; at least as packaged for Bill O’Reilly’s air.

NPR rightfully canned his ass.  In this day and age, how can you employ someone as a journalist who admits that seeing Muslims scares him?  We do have a few Muslims who actually live in this country and are even citizens.

But the real howler is Williams’ totally self-serving response to his firing.  As I read it I half expected him to accuse NPR of a “high tech lynching:”

Mr. Williams said in an essay published Thursday on FoxNews.com that he was fired “for telling the truth.”

He continued in the essay: “Now that I no longer work for NPR let me give you my opinion. This is an outrageous violation of journalistic standards and ethics by management that has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff (I was the only black male on the air). This is evidence of one-party rule and one-sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.”

In the world of “liberal” Juan Williams, harboring racists notions about your fellow citizens and articulating them on the airwaves is what passes for “independent thought.”  Ever head of Islamophobia, Juan?  And might it be possible that Williams is being so handsomely remunerated because he reinforces the racism of his white bosses and does so in the guise of dark skin, thus making their own prejudices kosher. For his independent thought he’s been rewarded with a $2 million contract by Fox uber-boss, Roger Ailes.

A few other thoughts, which is worse–to have no Black male voice on NPR air or to have a racist Black male voice?  And I’ve got news for Williams, there are lots of other suitable Black male radio journalists NPR can hire or promote from within who are not Islamophobes.  Finally, and this again is to Juan: how many Muslims does NPR employ in as senior a role as him?  Could it be at least part of the reason for this may be that there are other editors and executives both at NPR and in the general media community who share, at least to some extent, Juan’s phobias?

Tea Party Senate Candidate Denies Separation of Church and State in Constitution

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010


Anderson Cooper played some riveting video tonight on his CNN show displaying Christine O’Donnell’s monumental ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.  When her opponent pointed out that creationism shouldn’t be taught in schools because of the constitutional princple of the separation of church and state, O’Donnell was incredulous:

“The First Amendment does?” O’Donnell asked during the Tuesday morning debate. “Let me just clarify: You’re telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?”

Coons responded by quoting the relevant text: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“That’s in the First Amendment?” a still skeptical O’Donnell replied smiling, as laughter could be heard from the crowd.

Earlier in the debate, O’Donnell flat out asked, “Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?” – a question that Coons did not appear to take seriously.

Unfortunately for O’Donnell, the Tea Party-backed candidate also stumbled over the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments when asked if she would support repealing them.

“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring my Constitution with me. Fortunately, senators don’t have to memorize the Constitution. Can you remind me of [them]?” O’Donnell said.

I watched the video of the debate and I was flabbergasted that someone so ignorant might actually be elected a U.S. senator.  It’s one thing to be corrupt or engage in sexual escapades, but quite another to know next to nothing about the nation’s foundational document when you seek to join its highest legislative body.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE