Why Sarah Palin Supports Rand Paul

— by Benyamin Korn, founder of Jews for Sarah

While I in no way speak for Sarah Palin in any authorized capacity, Aaron Keyak raises a valid question as to why Gov. Palin should support Sen. Rand Paul, especially given his foreign policy views.

The answer is simple: Ms. Palin’s primary focus is on U.S. domestic policy, and particularly on the disastrous economic course of the Obama administration and its progressive allies of both parties, which she has described as “a bullet train to bankruptcy.”

Continued after the jump.
In Sen. Paul, like his father, Gov. Palin sees a vociferous opponent to the progressives’ massive expansion of Federal government, radically higher taxation (including Obamacare), and so-called quantative easing — which is really a euphemism for the Federal Reserve printing $85 billion a month to prop up the stock market, the real estate market and the tepid “economic recovery.” Before long, both Sen. Paul and Gov. Palin have been warning, Americans will experience a very rude awakening from such reckless economic stewardship.

As to foreign policy, there is certainly a debate going on within Republican circles, primarily over the scope and legitimacy of U.S. foreign interventions, but extending to the issue of foreign aid. Immediately following his week-long visit to Israel this January, Sen. Paul introduced legislation to block the transfer of 200 Abrams tanks and 24 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime of Mohammed Morsi. He also stated that his position on cutting foreign aid should apply first to countries (such as Pakistan and Egypt) which are hostile to the United States. And he opposed President Obama’s gift last month of $240 million to the Morsi regime (certainly a band-aid considering the collapse of Egypt’s economy following the Obama-backed ouster of Mubarak, but one which President Obama has now supplemented with the sale of 140,000 tear gas canisters to help Morsi suppress domestic unrest).

While the NJDC is right that Gov. Palin would probably disagree with any form of reduced support for Israel, the foreign aid debate has clearly not been a “wedge issue” between her and the good doctor from Kentucky, whose support for Israel is clear, despite his more libertarian views on foreign aid.

Republicans Should Call out Rand Paul

— by Aaron Keyak

Senator Rand Paul was featured on the cover of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” issue because of his expanding role in American politics as a Republican leader. Former vice presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wrote a glowing profile of Senator Paul to accompany his ranking. It is puzzling why Palin, a self professed ardent supporter of Israel, continues to whitewash members of the Paul family (she defended former Congressman Ron Paul’s Israel record on Fox News in 2012), given their obsession with cutting American aid to Israel and their dangerous views on Iran.

Continued after the jump.
Senator Paul, a member of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for cuts to Israel’s military aid at multiple points during his brief Senate career, most recently in January. When it comes to stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he was the only Senator who has consistently refused to rule out a containment strategy-placing him at odds with every single other member of the Senate as well as the Obama Administration.

It seems that Palin may think that she is helping the Republican Party and our nation by elevating Senator Paul. In reality, she is legitimizing the damaging foreign policy agenda that he represents. Republicans who care about the U.S.-Israel relationship should be calling out Senator Paul on his dangerous views, not giving him a free pass.    

Presidential Campaign Fail To Vet Their Supporters

The Obama and Romney campaigns are both being attacked today having failed to vet their list of supporters.

Meanwhile, Romney has similar problems of his own:

  • Dr. John Willke is the doctor who misinformed Rep. Todd Aiken that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” do not become pregnant because their bodies “shut down” due to the trauma. Aiken is under pressure to abandon his US Senate campaign against Claire McCaskill in Missouri for having given voice to such an ignorant, misogynistic point of view. Dr. Willke told The Telegraph that he had a private meeting with Mitt Romney at his Cincinnati home last October and that Romney thanked him for his support and told him, “we agree on almost everything.”

    The 87-year-old endorsed Mr. Romney’s bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and was one of his official campaign surrogates. “I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement,” Mr. Romney said at the time.

  • As we reported in June, the GOP selected Yossi Gestetner as their “Jewish Outreach Director” in New York. As reported by The Jewish Channel and Vos Iz Neias, “The newly appointed Director of Jewish Outreach for New York State’s Republican party has resigned from his position after just eight days in office, calling himself a distraction to the party.” The distraction? Espousing anti-Zionist positions, among others.

    As Vos Iz Neias notes,

    “According to a report by The Jewish Channel, Gestetner’s resignation came less than thirty minutes after Josh Rubin, a reporter for NY1, asked State Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox about an investigation of Gestetner by The Jewish Channel, which conducted an hour long on-camera interview with Gestetner. During that interview, Gestetner discussed several issues that may put him at odds with both the Republican party and many of New York State’s 1.6 million Jewish residents, which include his being a spokesman at a fundraiser to benefit an alleged child molester, his controversial stance on referring suspected cases of child abuse to a rabbi before alerting the authorities, his views on government assistance programs and his work for Torah True Jews Against Zionism, an anti-Israel organization that states that Zionism is contrary to Torah Judaism.”


The Romney Returns: Taxing Conversations

Mitt Romney’s taxes are dominating the political conversation this week. To cut through the noise, here are some of the highlights.

Romney is yet to release even a single complete tax return

John Marshall wrote a piece entitled Is the FBAR FUBAR?:

Through the last week of tax return follies, Mitt Romney has repeatedly stated that he’s released two years of tax returns and he’ll release no more. In fact, he’s yet to release even a single complete tax return. He filed for an extension for his 2011 returns and says he’ll release the final returns later this year when he files them. The 2010 return was actually incomplete. And what was left out points toward a question that a lot of reporters and tax experts have been wondering about but have been surprisingly reticent to discuss publicly.

Huffington Post noted yesterday that Romney never released his so-called FBAR documents [Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts], special forms required [by the United States Treasury Department] from filers who have bank accounts in other countries. But the issue actually came up in a conference call back in January. Particularly about a Swiss bank account with UBS.

In that call, Romney blind trust advisor Brad Malt was asked whether Romney had “filed any and all required FBARs in a timely fashion.” To which he responded: “The people required to file FBARs are Mrs. Romney and myself, and we have filed all FBARs.”

The campaign has yet to release those FBARs. Why they’ve gotten pressed so little on it is a bit of a mystery to me.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Back in 2009, the IRS instituted a major tax amnesty program for folks who had previously secreted money in Swiss and other offshore banks. The amnesty stemmed from a settlement the US government had reached with UBS that year. Those who came forward voluntarily in the prescribed period of time could pay their back taxes, pay their fines but avoid any criminal penalties.

In 1994, Romney criticized Kennedy for not disclosing his taxes

It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes. (Boston Globe, 4/19/1995)

*In 1968, Mitt’s father Gov. George W. Romney (R-MI) released twelve years of tax returns saying:

One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.

In 2008, Romney was being vetted as a possible running mate by Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, and Romney provides tax records going back to 1984 when he founded Bain Capital. After deliberation, McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. McCain denies that the tax returns had anything to do with rejecting Romney saying simply: “Sarah Palin was the better candidate.”

In the end, we don’t know what is hidden in these tax returns, but we know that Romney is taking a lot of political heat for defying the tradition his father began whereby Presidential candidates make a full and detailed disclosure of their tax returns.

Romney is politically astute. He knows the cost of not providing this information. As CEO of Bain Capital, he has experience avoiding risk, so I would assume that there must be something in those returns which he thinks would be more objectionable to the American people than simply refusing to disclose his returns.

What could that be….? Many voices around the internet have proposed various alternatives.


  • No taxes at all: We already know that Romney paid a 14% tax rate in 2010. Most Americans pay far more than that even though they earn far less than Romney. Perhaps Romney was able to use capital losses and various deductions and loopholes to completely eliminate his tax obligation in 2009.
  • His magical IRA: Perhaps Bain Capital undervalued assets being deposited in Romney’s IRA account in order to avoid the $30,000 annual cap. His IRA is now worth $21 million to $102 million, so something seems amiss.
  • Bain Capital: Maybe he does want people to see how much he was paid by Bain during the period he “retroactively resigned”? The SEC Filing on the right is from Bain’s February 2001 SEC filing although Romney attempts to avoid blame for some of Bain’s outsourcing activity by claiming that he left Bain in February 1999.
  • His Address: Doc Jess notes the Romney “was able to get on the Massachusetts ballot by saying he worked for Bain, and therefore had Mass residency in 2000, 2001 and 2002. But that may not be true”.
  • Off-Shore Tax Shelters: As mentioned above, any American with over $10,000 in accounts overseas must file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. Romney has yet to release a single FBAR. Perhaps he is worried that that Americans would be appaled to learn how much money he has tucked away in Bermuda, Switzerland and the Cayman Islands? Or perhaps his take returns will reveal that he taking his money off-shore in order to evade American taxes? Did he perhaps participate in the IRS’s 2009 tax amnesty program?
  • Something else: The bottom line is that only Romney (and McCain) knows what is keeping Romney from releasing his tax returns.

Video of Ann Romney and DNC ad follows the jump.
Ann Romney: We’ve give all you people need to know

DNC Advertisement: “Mitt Dancing Around The Issues.” (Note: This ad was retracted after the DNC decided not to no longer refer to Ann Romney’s horse in their advertisements.

Independents: Might 2012 be the Year of the 3rd Party Candidate?

Two-Party System— Dr. Daniel E. Loeb

The current winner take all system for U.S. Presidential elections certainly encourages a two-party system. Candidate from smaller parties do run, along with independent candidates, but their vote totals are usually a small footnote in the records of history.

Might this coming election be one of the occasions where a third-party candidate or independent candidate can make a major splash, affect the election or even win? According to Politico:

The public has had it with Washington and conventional politics. It has lost trust and respect in the conventional governing class. There is mounting evidence voters don’t see President Barack Obama or the current crop of GOP candidates as the clear and easy solution. As Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg argues, it seems likely if not inevitable an atmosphere this toxic and destabilized will produce an independent presidential candidate who could shake the political system.

Polito suggests six possible independent candidates and invites readers to nominate their own.

I see three kinds of candidates who might be motivated to run for President:

  • Far Left,
  • Right, and
  • Far Right.


Their is a heated battle for the soul of the Republican party between establishment Republicans like Mitt Romney and Jon Hunstman which represent its corporate base, and Tea party candidates with a lot of grassroots momentum behind them.

If a tea party candidate like Rick Perry,  Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain wins the Republican Nomination and the economy continues to show weakness, many experts would see an opportunity for a third-party to seize the center. One possibility is Mayor Michael Bloomberg (NY). He was a registered Democrat until he ran for Mayor of New York City in 2001 as a Republican, and has been an independent since 2007. He has a net worth of over $18 billion, so he could easily get in late and still run a self-finance (Perot-style) campaign.

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT) has had a peculiar performance at the Republican Presidential debates often criticizing the Republican party as a whole for its backwards stands on issues from global warming, evolution and homosexuality. This does not sound like a good strategy for winning the Republican nomination, but it does lay the ground for a possible third-party bid next year.

Similarly, more “moderate” candidates like Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ), Mayor Rudy Giulliani (R-NY), and Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) refused to run in a race in which they would be more moderate than the majority of Republican primary and caucus goers. Similarly, Gov. Tim Pawlenty performed anemically and had to drop out. However, they may be willing to try their luck to pick up a plurality of the vote against President Obama and a tea party candidate especially if the economy continues to show weakness.

Far Right

Mitt Romney is the current leader in the Republican primary. He is polling around 25%, has considerable money behind him and the prediction market inTrade gives him a 55.8% chance of getting the nomination. However, most Tea Party supporters can not tolerate moderate positions which Romney holds (or at least once held when he was Governor of Massachusetts). For example, some of them equate abortion to murder and consider Romney to be insufficiently pro-Life. They would consider opposing Romney to be a moral imperative and could jump behind a third-party candidate on the extreme right.

Perhaps Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is waiting for just such an opportunity. We could also see current Republican party candidates such as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) or Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) willing to jump ship and run as an independent against Romney. Other people mentioned in the past like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Donald Trump could or have considered running as an independent.

With all these possible candidates being discussed, how much of an impact will they make. Will they pass by unnoticed? Will they be kingmakers? Do they have any chance to win? Prediction market inTrade shows a 2.7% chance of a successful Presidential bid by a third-party or independent candidate, so I guess “the market has spoken”. A win by a third-party or independent candidate is not totally out of the question.

Keep your eyes and ears open. This may be an election which will make history yet again.

More after the jump.
Far Left

Some supporters of Obama in 2008 are unhappy Obama’s willingness to compromise with Republicans, but getting nothing in return. They are upset that the Defense of Marriage Act has not been repealed, the Bush tax cuts were extended, no cap has been placed on carbon emissions, we did not get a single payer health care system, and we have not pulled out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanimo.

Perennial candidate Ralph Nader will surely run again. Perhaps he will be joined by film-maker Michael Moore, or Democracy for America founder, former DNC Chairman Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT), or Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Already, Nader is planning “to run a slate of six primary “challengers” to the president, with each focusing on issues of ideological concern. The point of this initiative is not so much to displace the president as it is to move Obama and the party toward the left — an in so doing to provide the themes and the energy to excite the Democratic base and draw new voters to the polls in 2012.”

Even candidates with small amounts of support can affect to overall result of the election. For example, the “official result” of the 2000 race between Al Gore, Jr. and George W. Bush hinged on a 537 vote margin in the State of Florida. This margin was dwarfed not only by the vote count of the 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader (Green Party, 97,488 votes) but also by

  • 4th place Pat Buchanan (Reform Party, 17,484 votes),
  • 5th place Harry Browne (Libertarian, 16,415 votes),
  • 6th place John Hagelin (Natural Law/Reform Party, 2,281 votes)
  • 7th place Monica Moorehead (Workers World Party, 1,804 votes),
  • 8th place Howard Phillips (Constitution Party, 1,371 votes),
  • 9th place David McReynolds (Socialist Party USA 622 votes),
  • and even 10th place James E. Harris, Jr. (Florida Socialist Workers Party, 562 votes).

History of Third-Party and Independent Presidential Campaigns

Sometimes third-party candidates achieve stronger results. These are the candidates since the Civil War which gathered double-digit support on election day:

  • 1992: Businessman Ross Perot ran as an independent. He got 18.9% of popular vote, and came in second place in Maine (ahead of George H. W. Bush) and Utah (ahead of Bill Clinton).

  • 1968: Former Gov. George Wallace ran on the American Independent Party line. He got 13.5% of the popular vote, winning 5 states totally 46 electoral votes (AR, LA, MS, AL, GA).

  • 1924: Sen. Robert M. La Follette (WI) ran as a progressive, splitting the Democratic vote, leading to the reelection of Republican incumbant President Calvin Coolidge. He got 16.6% of the popular vote and won his home state of Wisconsin (13 electoral votes).

  • 1912: Theodore Roosevelt ran as the Bull Moose Party candidate hoping to return to the White House. He finished with 27.4% of the popular vote (winning 6 states totaling 88 EV). He bettered the incumbent William Howard Tart (23.0% of popular vote, 8 EV) but in the end he lost of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson (42.0% of popular vote, 435 EV).

  • 1860: Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) won in a 4-way race with 39.8% of the popular vote, carrying 18 states which gave him a majority in the Electoral College (180 electoral votes). John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat-KY) took 18.1% of the popular vote during 11 southern states (72 electoral votes). John Bell (Constitutional Union-TN) took 12.6% of the popular vote carrying his home state of Tennessee as well as Virginia and Kentucky (39 electoral votes). Finally, Stephen Douglas (D-IL) took 29.5% of the popular vote but only carried Missouri (and splitting New Jersey with Lincoln).

Response from Jews for Sarah

— Benyamin Korn, Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin

Regarding David Streeter’s rather shrill indictment of our ad in the Washington Jewish Week for a shabbaton featuring a public talk by Gov. Sarah Palin, in conjunction with the pro-life group Heroic Media: JewsForSarah is proud to be offering this event in conjunction with the banquet dinner of Heroic Media. Our sole reason for not describing Heroic Media’s pro-life mission in our ad for the shabbaton (a question raised originally by Politico‘s Ben Smith) — there simply was no room to do so.

It is typical of news media treatment of Gov. Palin to want to divert the conversation about her to side issues. As our ad indicates, JewsForSarah‘s main reasons for supporting her are our opposition to the “progressive” takeover of the American government, our opposition to Pres. Obama’s relentless diplomatic pressure on Israel, our support for American energy independence, and our opposition to the runaway fiscal and spending policies of Pres. Obama and the “progressive” Democrats. We support Gov. Palin because we find her to be the most effective public advocate for these positions, and the President’s most effective critic.

But since he fairly raises the question of our cooperation with a pro-life group, may I say that Mr. Streeter does an injustice simply by throwing the label “anti-choice” onto Heroic Media and their work. Anyone may visit HeroicMedia.org, where this self-description is found:

Heroic media’s mission is to reduce abortion and create a Culture of Life by connecting women facing unexpected pregnancies to life-affirming resource centers.

More after the jump.

This type of work may not be pro-abortion, but it is hard to see how it is “anti-choice.”

Now Mr. Streeter may take a certain comfort that many American Jews keep him company in the precincts of the “pro-choice” movement. And some JewsForSarah supporters agree with him, nevertheless rallying behind Gov. Palin for the reasons stated above.

But we are astonished by the silence in morally-attuned Jewish circles to the stark fact that 87,273 abortions were performed in New York City in the year 2009 (we do not have Philadelphia data), where a staggering 41% of pregnancies ended in abortion. Among African-American women in New York in that year, nearly 60% of pregnancies were ended by abortion. (New York Sun)

Moreover, in our view, the Jewish community suffers from a demographic crisis of our own, and would do well to more fully embrace a “Culture of Life.” (Perhaps even needing our own Heroic Jewish Media.)

Finally, as to Mr. Streeter’s denunciation of Gov. Palin’s “extremist position on women’s rights,” Philadelphia Jewish Voice readers are recommended to Kay Hymowitz’s excellent essay, Sarah Palin and the Battle for Feminism. If Mr. Streeter believes that orthodox, left-wing feminism still holds a monopoly on the American women’s movement, he was disproved on Nov. 4, 2010, when an unprecedented number of conservative, mostly Republican, women shattered numerous glass ceilings and entered American public office, and he is in for a rather rude awakening in November 2012.  

Jews for Palin Advertises and Sponsors anti-Choice Event with Palin

— David Streeter, Communications and Research Associate for the NJDC

As further proof of the distance between rumored 2012 Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and the vast majority of American Jews, Palin’s primary group of Jewish supporters will be co-hosting an overtly anti-choice event with Palin in Maryland this month. Curiously though, as Politico‘s Ben Smith reported, the anti-choice focus of the event is omitted from the event advertisement that was placed in Washington Jewish Week:

Sarah Palin is scheduled to speak later this month in Washington, D.C.’s Maryland suburbs at an event being promoted by her Jewish supporters.

The event is in fact a benefit for Heroic Media, an anti-abortion group, where Palin will share the stage with anti-Planned Parenthood activist Lila Rose. Abortion isn’t, traditionally, an issue of particular concern even in the Orthodox Jewish community, and the ad above, which appeared in Washington Jewish Week, makes no mention of abortion. Heroic Media’s announcement, meanwhile, makes no mention of the Jewish event.

The upcoming event is not only a demonstration of Palin’s extremist positions on women’s rights, but also an indication that even her own supporters know that her extremist positions must be masked in order to engage Jews. The event further demonstrates that the Republican Party and its leaders simply do not reflect the values and positions of the vast majority of American Jews. Worse, it demonstrates and confirms the willingness by some right-wing partisans to use misleading advertising campaigns to cover up the ever-widening gap between the GOP and American Jews.  

Deputy Speaker Danny Danon Escorts Sarah Palin on Western Wall Tour

Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Danny Danon accompanied former Alaska Governor and 2008 US Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her husband Todd on a tour of the Western Wall tunnels this evening.  The Deputy Speaker was the first Israeli public official to greet the Governor during her visit to Israel.

During the tour, the leaders discussed breaking developments in Israel and the Middle East. Danon thanked Palin for consistently supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.

Danon also requested that Palin help explain to the Obama administration and the American public that “we cannot make peace with Palestinian leaders who are unable to fight the elements of pure evil in their society, who brutally murder young children while they sleep.  Instead of pressuring Netanyahu and endangering the Israeli people – the administration should be holding the Palestinians accountable to their past commitments to fight terrorism.”  

Jews for Sarah Director debates Former NJDC Director Ira Forman

In the aftermath of Sarah Palin‘s “blood libel” remark, Rabbi Mark S. Golub moderated a debate on Shalom TV between:

They discussed former Alaska Governor and possible Republican presidential candidate Sarah and her standing in the Jewish community.

Messages in the Mayhem

Rabbi Avi Shafran

You’ll log many a mile to find someone more disapproving than I am of the anger and vilification that characterize so much of American political discourse.  But to lay the tragic January 8 shooting rampage in Tucson on the doorstep of politicians or pundits is silly, and no less incendiary itself than any firearms metaphor.  To be sure, political opponents should not be compared to Nazis or have crosshairs superimposed on their faces.  But because such things are ugly and sophomoric, not because they induce violence.  

More after the jump.
Yes, there have certainly been politically and ideologically motivated murders, but much mayhem has also been visited on public servants by actors impelled not by creed but craziness.  

And delusions were clearly the demons prodding Jared Lee Loughner.  Teachers and fellow students of the alleged Tucson killer at the community college he briefly attended were sufficiently concerned by his odd behavior, inexplicable bursts of laughter, non sequiturs and bizarre tirades to have raised alarms with the administration, which asked him to leave the school.  His philosophy professor said that Loughner’s “brains were scrambled” and that he had never once brought up politics in class.  The shrine discovered in Loughner’s backyard, complete with skull and candles, rounded out the picture of a deeply disturbed person, not some earnest observer of current events pushed over the edge by political ads.

But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t societal soul-searching to be done.  There was a time, after all, when the disgruntled, disenfranchised and demented chose to express themselves by standing on soapboxes and ranting.  Guns, knives and explosives were no less available to them than they were to the angry workers, teenage school-shooters and wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who have spilled so much innocent blood at workplaces, campuses and shopping centers in more recent years.  Why have so many citizens, whatever their emotional state, turned these days to murder to make a point?  More important: What does the turning say to America?

Any Jew who received a proper Torah education has internalized the subtle but sage concept that, although we are not prophets, we do well to seek in tragic events some message about how we might improve our behavior.

No, it isn’t, as some simpletons assume, precise cause and effect that we seek, but some message, some pointing to where we might stand to improve.  Our country would benefit these days from a similar searching of the national soul.

Even if the Tucson shooter is a nutcase, in other words, his horrible act can and should serve as an impetus for politicos, pundits and all Americans to more carefully consider our patterns of speech (and “our,” dear Democrats and Republicans alike, means “our,” not “their”).  Political epithets may not yield violence, but incivility still coarsens society.

There may, though, be another introspection-ripe place pointed to by the disregard for human life that has woven its way into American society.  

Because a subtle waning of respect for life, particularly at its beginning and end, has been evident in our society over recent years.

Well over one million abortions, for instance, take place each year nationwide.  It was recently reported that fully 41% of all pregnancies in New York City this year were “terminated.”  

American ethicists have made pronouncements about what constitutes “quality of life,” advising medical personnel when further care of patients is “futile.”  “Brain stem death,” where activity in higher parts of a brain might still be present, has become an enthusiastically embraced criterion for the removal of vital organs.  

Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer considers “the life of a newborn” to be “of less value than the life of a pig” and advocates for the euthanasia of severely disabled infants.

Asked by The New York Times in 2005 what value he thinks may disappear in the next 35 years, he responded: “the traditional view of the sanctity of human life.”

People like Jared Lee Loughner may already be ahead of that treacherous curve.

And America needs to begin blocking the road.