By Debbie Schlussel
One bone of contention I’ve repeatedly noted on this site is the false claim by Arabs that falafel, hummus, and other Middle-Eastern food is “Arabic” food. That’s despite the fact that, for example, hummus–the dip made from chickpeas, sesame butter (tahini or “techina” in Hebrew), olive oil, lemon, garlic, etc.–originated in what is now Israel and was invented by Jews.
In fact, Jews have been eating these dishes for centuries, longer than there has been an Islam or an Arabian empire, as I’ve pointed out. These foods are an intrinsic part of Sephardic [“Spanish”/Orientalist/Asian] Jewish culture and history. But Arabs–particularly Muslims, since Christians tend to disavow any association with being Arabic–need some invention to claim other than innovations in explosive devices and torture methods.
And while they never tire of blowing up falafel joints with Jews inside of them, they occasionally take a break from that and use falafel and other Mid-East cuisine for propaganda.

Not Arabic Food
Yes, now, those who hate Jews and Israel have resorted even to lying about Mid-Eastern food for their attacks and fraudulent public relations. Ignorant authoress Chris Fair does so in her book “Cuisines of the Axis of Evil,” and Abheek Bhattacharya did so in his review of the book in the Wall Street Journal. (With a name like Abheek Bhattacharya, I’m sure he has no agenda whatsoever.)
But Joshua Cappell of New York didn’t let them slip it past his very sharp, observant eyes. From yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, his letter to the editor is spot on and deserves further exposure.

Sephardic Jews Brought the Falafel
October 7, 2008; Page A26
In his review of Chris Fair’s “Cuisines of the Axis of Evil,” (Oct. 3), Abheek Bhattacharya says “Ms. Fair does a good job explaining how Israel’s possession of Palestinian land has made falafel, hummus and baba ganouj staples in Tel Aviv.”
Actually, the prevalence of these foods in Israel has a different basis, which tells a quite different story. These were popularized by the Sephardim, the roughly one-half of Israel’s population that was accepted as refugees to the state after they were forcibly evicted, for no reason other than that they were Jews, without compensation, from their homes and communities in the Arab states of the Mideast in which they had lived for hundred of years. Tel Aviv, which is well within Israel’s internationally recognized borders, was built by Jews on land purchased and owned by Jews.
Why is it acceptable to assume that all property in the possession of Jews must necessarily have been stolen rather than purchased? Would journalistic standards allow accepting uncritically a claim regarding any other ethnic group that they may be safely assumed to all be thieves?
Joshua Cappell
New York

Amen. Mazel Tov [Congrats!] on your excellent letter, Joshua.
Why does the Wall Street Journal allow this kind of crap to creep into cookbook reviews?
Might have something to do with one of its new owners. Or the son of another.

By Debbie Schlussel
To my Readers and Friends:
In observance of the Jewish fast day of Yom Kippur, I will be out of blog commission, tomorrow.
Yom Kippur is one of the holiest Jewish holidays, during which we fast and pray for about 25 hours to ask G-d for a good year. No food, drink, shower, TV/radio, phone, etc. the whole day, which is mostly spent at synagogue. The idea is that you are removing yourself from worldly concerns and focusing on spiritual ones, most importantly repentance for your sins.
It starts just before sundown, tonight, and ends after dark tomorrow (Thursday) night, with one sound of the shofar (ram’s horn–see explanation of shofar here).
I will put up a few more things, today, and try to have some more stuff I’ve written for my webmaster to put up tomorrow in my absence. But, in any event, G-d-willing, I will be back on Friday morning with new stuff (and movie reviews). To my Jewish friends and readers, have an easy fast and a great year. To everyone, see you very, very soon.
Thanks to the many readers who sent me i- and e-cards wishing me an easy fast and a good year. Right back at ya!

By Debbie Schlussel
It’s been well-known to me for several months that former U.S. Senator and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham–a big Hezbollah supporter, who sent $86 million of our money to the terrorist group for use in South Lebanon, and one of two Senators who refused to condemn Yasser Arafat and his homicide bombings in 1999 and 2000–is heavily involved in the McCain Presidential campaign. I know this because another person closely tied to him has a scary and prominent role in the McCain campaign–a separate column about that person is coming very soon.
But, today, in a fraudulent, whining piece of propaganda on behalf of Muslim Arabs in the Detroit Free Press, “reporter”/fabricator Kathy Gray–in the one truthful part of the article–confirms Abraham’s role in the McCain campaign. That should concern all Americans concerned with America’s policy toward terrorists, since it seems that John McCain is only concerned with Islamic terrorists in Iraq, but everywhere else (like Lebanon and Israel), not so much.

When McCain still was competing in Michigan, he enlisted former U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham and Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, both from Lebanese-Christian families, to connect with community leaders.

Spencer Abraham:
Hezbollah’s Senator is McCain Campaign Figure
That much I believe, since I know it for a fact. (Read the complete details on Abraham, the McCain surrogate.)
The McCain campaign isn’t really bothered by Hezbollah. As I noted back in April, when I first contacted the McCain campaign about Ali Jawad, McCain’s top Michigan fundraiser, Ron Weiser (who is Jewish), told me “We don’t care about the Hezbollah stuff.” That’s disturbing, especially since Weiser has twice been an Ambassador appointed by Bush, and McCain would similarly reward him.
Now you can see why I’ll be holding my nose very tightly when I vote for McCain in November. It’s only a matter of “worse” versus “worser.”
But also disturbing is the fraud in the rest of the article. Kathleen Gray–who has falsely reported and lied about facts in other stories she’s covered that involve me (she’s had personal issues with me since she covered my first race for the Michigan House in 1990: she’s a leftist and can’t bear telling the truth regarding people with whom she disagrees)–claims in her article that John McCain dumped Ali Jawad from his campaign because he’s an Arab and based on false allegations:

An Arab American fund-raiser from Dearborn was removed from his volunteer role on McCain’s finance committee after a conservative blogger claimed he had ties to terrorists, despite his denial and his history of support for Republican candidates.

As the “conservative blogger” to whom she’s referring, here are the facts, as she well knows, because she was forced to include them back in May when another Free Press reporter co-wrote a story about this with her:
Ali Jawad pleaded guilty to insurance fraud in federal court and was ordered to pay more than $250,000 in fines. He also openly praised Hezbollah in a 2002 Detroit News article and again in a May interview on Detroit radio station WJR-AM. He’s never denied it. He’s proud of it.
Ali Jawad has never been a Republican Party fundraiser, has never raised a dime for the party. The only thing he’s a fundraiser for is Hezbollah, since he was selling Hezbollah cigarettes in his gas stations and Lebanese intelligence sources say he gave several hundred thousand dollars money to a Hezbollah-allied member of the Lebanese Parliament.
Jawad hasn’t donated to Republicans, either, since 2004, and at that point he didn’t give much. He’s also a huge donor to pan-Islamist Democrats.
Read the complete details on Hezbollah agent and federally convicted insurance frauder Ali Jawad.

Detroit Free Press Fabricator Kathy Gray: In the Tank for Hezbollah & the Left
Oh, and you should also note that Ali Dagher, who is quoted in this article, makes no bones about his support for Hezbollah, hatred of Israel and Jews, and has sent me threatening e-mails. None of that is noted in this whining article. Why would any candidate want the support of someone like that? If they do, that’s a problem. Not the other way around.
So much for “reporting” by Kathy Gray. She just writes what she wants, facts be damned. And this isn’t the first time. There’s a reason I call her “Jayson Blair in a Skirt“.
Saying John McCain dumped him because he’s a Muslim and Arab is like saying Barack Obama dumped Tony Rezko because he’s an innocent Arab-American businessman.
And you wonder why the Free Press continues to lose money and lay off staffers. Here’s hoping Kathy Gray is one of the next to go. She’s not a reporter. She’s a propagandist.
***
I called Kathy Gray to ask her why she lied about Ali Jawad, when she was forced to tell the whole story back in May, when another Free Press reporter co-wrote the piece with her. She refused and hung up on me, because she knows she lied and fabricated and there’s no justification. Real professional, Kathy.
She doesn’t do her homework. She does propaganda.
A great candidate for the Janet Cooke/Jayson Blair Award for “Excellence” in (Faux) “Journalism”.

By Debbie Schlussel
In all of the news stories over the last few years about female teachers who have had sex with their male under-aged students, we constantly hear comments like “way to go” for the teen boys. Some can’t understand why these illicit relationships are a bad thing and completely improper and immoral, not to mention illegal.
Well, one of syndicated Chicago Tribune advice columnist Cheryl Lavin’s readers presents a pretty compelling reason why–in addition to the gazillion moral and psychological reasons–it just might not be a good idea:

DEAR CHERYL:
I’m 42. When I was 17, I had an affair with a 33-year-old high school teacher. It ended when I graduated and I never saw Mrs. Kelly again.

Debra LaFave: Some Couldn’t Understand
Why Relationship with “Hot” Teacher Was Bad

Recently, a young man contacted me, claiming I’m his father. He’s the right age. He learned, when Mrs. Kelly’s husband was hospitalized with kidney failure, that this man who raised him couldn’t have been his father. (He was tested as a possible donor.)
Mr. Kelly passed away and the young man, Peter, confronted his mother about his paternity. She gave him my name. Now Peter and Mrs. Kelly want me in their lives.
I now recognize that my relationship with Mrs. Kelly was abusive. She exploited her power and my immaturity. But at the time I was ashamed. Because of my shame, I never acknowledged the relationship to anyone, and I decided to save sex for marriage. My wife thought I was a virgin when we married. I never corrected her because I didn’t want to think about how much of my childhood was taken by someone I should have been able to trust.
I don’t want to have anything to do with my abuser. What does she think? That I am going to cheat on my wife with a 58-year-old who committed statutory rape? But I wonder about the boy. Peter is completely innocent in all of this, and I can understand him wanting to know me.
Maybe he doesn’t want to come to terms with the death of his father or maybe he wasn’t very close to his father and wants a do-over.
Advertisement
Click Here!
Maybe he simply wants to know his biological father. I don’t know.
I do know that if I grant Peter access to my life, it could wreak my marriage. My wife may not be able to accept that I had sex before we were married. If I had told her when we met, she would have been fine with me having a history. But it was too painful to me to discuss.
Now it’s been 25 years, and she may understandably feel betrayed. And how are my kids going to feel? We have six children, and I’m not sure how my daughter will react to finding out that she’s not my oldest child and that she has a half-sibling out there.
Maybe everyone will feel great or maybe it will destroy my family. My first concern is for my wife, then our children, and then Peter. What do you think? Keep in mind that Peter could always go directly to my wife and out me anyway.
FATHER OF SEVEN

Now, do you see why teacher-student sex isn’t such an “attaboy” endeavor?
It has long-term effects and consequences, and it ruins families and lives.

By Debbie Schlussel
Res Ipsa Loquitur (Latin for “The Thing Speaks For Itself”). And for people voting for someone based only on similar skin color, the phrase might be better updated to Racist Ipsa Loquitur:
(slight language warning)

By Debbie Schlussel
Yesterday, I warned you that Federal Judge (and Clinton appointee) Ricardo Urbina was leaning toward releasing Muslim terrorists from Guantanamo Bay onto our shores.
And as outrageous and absurd as it seems, today Judge Urbina issued the order. Welcome Al-Qaeda’s Uighur (Chinese Muslims) terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to our nation’s capital, where they will now live. No joke. This preposterous decision is serious . . . very serious:

A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to immediately release a small group of Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo Bay into the United States.

Fed Judge Ricardo Urbina Frees Qaeda Terrorists Into U.S.: HE . . .

HEARTS Them . . .

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said it would be wrong for the Bush administration to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs, since they are no longer considered enemy combatants.
The Uighurs have been in custody for almost seven years and have been cleared for release since 2004, but the government has not been able to find a country willing to take them in. . . .
Urbina called the detention unlawful saying the Constitution prohibits indefinite imprisonment without charges.
The Uighurs have been at Guantanamo Bay, a naval prison in Cuba, since the U.S. military took custody of them in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001. Efforts by the Bush administration to find a home for the detainees has been complicated by fears in many countries of diplomatic reprisals by China. . . .
On Tuesday, the Beijing government demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said the Uighurs are suspected of being members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which the United States lists as a terrorist organization.

Just so you know, Joe Biden voted to confirm this outrageous judge. I doubt Sarah Palin would ever appoint a choice like this. Since Biden brags that he takes Amtrak from DC to Delaware every night, one wonders what he thinks about his new Al-Qaeda terrorist neighbors in DC joining him on the train ride, courtesy of a judge he supported.
As Brett Winterble of Covert Radio Show points out, Hizzoner Urbina has a history of issuing loony decisions in favor of Islamic terrorists out to destroy America:
He made it easier for Islamist-funded lawyers to visit Gitmo terrorists.
He also tried to stop the U.S. government from handing over Jordanian Sunni Muslim terrorist Shawqi Omar to Iraqi authorities, after he was caught in terrorist activity in Iraq.
Remember, this is Joe Biden’s Judge.
Don’t bet on this being an issue in tonight’s McCain-Obama debate, though. No-one seems to care about America’s national security . . . until it’s too late.

By Debbie Schlussel
Every time I think the hags on ABC’s annoying anti-male yenta-fest, “The View”, can’t get any more absurd, I’m disproven.
Yesterday, Baba Wawa was upset that Sarah Palin’s baby was at the VP debate on Thursday Night.
Today, she asserted a fictional “statute of limitations” on Barack Hussein Obama’s association with terrorists, like William Ayers, who attacked the Pentagon and tried to attack the U.S. Capitol Building.
As a lawyer, I certainly don’t claim to know all of the statutes of limitation. But I never got the memo from the Federal Election Commission and Free Speech Limitation Joint Task Force that John McCain is not allowed to point out the Obama-Ayers alliance because of a “statute of limitations.”

Hags In The Tank
The quadra-headed hag-rectangle of aging “View” skankdom–Baba Wawa, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and Sherri Shepherd–all claimed that the past is irrelevant and that it’s not important that Obama associated with this anti-American terrorist.
As I heard this verbal exercise in the absurd I wondered two things:
1) If a future Presidential candidate was friends with Mohammed Atta or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will we say it’s “irrelevant” and that “there’s a statute of limitations”? There should never be a “statute of limitations” on these things. But it’s shaping up that way.
2) Didn’t I hear Joe Biden saying, “The past is prologue”, in debating Sarah Palin about the Bush past and trying to transpose it on McCain?
I guess the past is only prologue for Republicans and conservatives. But not for Democrats and liberals with terrorist buddies and a scary past who want to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Oh, and “The View” hags provided another example of their double standard for statutes of limitations. Unfunny comedienne Sherri Shepherd said that John McCain’s cheating on his first wife is far more relevant and important than Barack Hussein Obama’s tight friendship with a terrorist who targeted America.
Like I said yesterday about “The View” hags: Priorities, Schmiorities.
As usual, faux-conservative/genuine-airhead Elisabeth Hasselbeck failed to point these things out or apply any sort of solid defense. Sean Hannity’s talking points can’t do it all.
That’s why she’s on the show. Stay pretty and remain foolish.

By Debbie Schlussel
**** SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE ****
For those who think we are over-reacting about Islam being shoved down our throats in America, this Fisher-Price doll is Exhibit A to the contrary. This is why it’s so important to carefully inspect the toys to which your child is exposed.
Yup, folks, it’s official Fisher-Price is in the tank for the Religion of Pieces:

“I’m Osama Bin Laden, and I approved this doll.”
**** UPDATE: Reader Suzette writes:

Hi Debbie. I was bit skeptical at first about the Doll – but it is on the shelves here in Canada and it does indeed say “Islam is the light”. Very clearly. My friend went and bought one just so we have solid proof. Interestingly…notice the way the baby doll says “Islam” – she says it correctly with the long “laaam” rather than the way we infidels say islam with the emphasis on the “Is” and a short “lam”. We are going to test the doll on our husbands tonight – just to see what they hear without knowing what we think we hear.

What’s next–Sesame Street? Don’t be shocked, but PBS was trying to make a Muslim Sesame Street for America’s airwaves. Thankfully, they couldn’t get the funding they sought from Arabic countries. No lie. Still, Reader Mistress Dee created this:

By Debbie Schlussel
Remember when Alec Baldwin said that if George W. Bush won the White House, he’d leave the U.S.? He now says, he didn’t really say that. But he did. He just doesn’t want to go.
Now, add actor Don Cheadle to the Baldwin “I’ll Leave America, But Not Really” team. As I noted, Cheadle recently starred in the boring, moral-equivalency-for-Islamic-terrorists pic (only the latest of many), “Traitor“. Now, he’s showing us he wasn’t just acting. With more and more of these actors saying they’ll leave the country that made them gazillionaires if they don’t like the election results, I say, “Buh-Bye.” Sadly, none of them put their money where their big mouth is and buy the ticket.
From OK! Magazine, whose readers seem to agree with me:

By Debbie Schlussel
On Sunday, I posted video clips of two skits from the previous night’s “Saturday Night Live.”
One video, about the Bailout, mocked Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and–to some degree–George W. Bush. It included examples of all the irresponsible, selfish people we’re bailing out. The second video, from SNL’s prologue, was a parody of the Biden-Palin debate which, while slightly mocking Joe Biden, was overwhelmingly against Palin.
Yesterday evening, readers began e-mailing me that one of the videos no longer exists. That’s because the liberals at NBC and SNL pulled it under pressure from liberals and Congressional Democrats.

Take a quick guess which of these videos NBC pulled?
If you guessed the bailout video, you know your NBC. So, if NBC and SNL are embarrassed by their excellent portrayal of Pelosi, Frank, and “the Bailout Kids”, and are willing to now suppress it, why not be fair and do the same with the anti-Palin video? Because they’re not fair. They’re biased, and they’re liberal.
Frankly, I thought both skits were funny and I believe in openness and free speech.
So I say to NBC: Free the Bailout Video. Or, at the very least, be fair and dump the Palin-Biden debate sketch, too.
But don’t hold your breath for the Peacock Network to do so. This peacock doesn’t change its feathers.