A group of “Arab youths” opened fire on Israelis working at a mall in Odenza, Denmark today. The Dutch Foreign Ministry believes that the attack is a retaliation for Israel’s offensive against Hamas in Gaza. Luckily, the wounds to the mall workers don’t appear to be life threatening.

Denmark, of course, has more problems than a retaliation by Arabs for a military operation in Gaza. As Ed Morrissey notes:

That might have been the proximate motivation for the gunfire, but Danes should know better than to assume that it’s only about Gaza.  The death threats against Danish newspaper editors weren’t just about a few editorial cartoons.  It’s about cultural terrorism, the advancement of Arab and Muslim interests through intimidation and attack.

Mere Rhetoric, an excellent source for such news, points to the fact that anti-Semitism is nothing new in the country. Popular protest chants include, “Jews are Allah’s enemies”. Here’s a video from one such protest outside of the Israeli embassy in Copenhagen:

Israel will get slammed by much of the international community for defending itself from a constant barrage of rocket attacks by a recognized terror groups. Let’s see how many United Nations bureaucrats spend any amount of time on the story of Arabs opening fire on innocent Israelis in a Denmark shopping mall.

Just like the Old New Deal where Roosevelt had NRA (National Recovery Act) parades through the streets of New York, Barack Obama is planning a massive PR blitz to convince Americans that his ginormous spending plan is absolutely crucial to our nation’s recovery.

Reporting from Washington — President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to lead a full-scale marketing blitz to pass the massive new stimulus package that he says is needed to revive the slumping economy and put the nation on the course he laid out during his campaign.

Obama will move to Washington this weekend, checking into a hotel with his family. In the remaining weeks of the transition, and after he is sworn in, he will use the bully pulpit to make the case for passage of a stimulus package of up to $775 billion, an aide said.

You can bank that thhe price tag isn’t as high now as it will be in the end. The original New Deal’s cost, adjusted for inflation, is estimated to be in the area of $500 billion. Result? The Great Depression extended by 7 years, according to UCLA economists. Obama’s got four, eight years max in the White House. Good luck with that.

“We’ll fan out, and this will be a public process,” Axelrod said in an interview. “We’ll make clear to people why we need to do what we’re doing, why it’s the size it is, what the individual component parts are, and why they are an important part of the equation in terms of short-term recovery.”

Basically he’ll try to fool the American people into thinking that the only way to solve this financial crisis is with massive government spending and intervention.

Even with Israel locked in an escalating battle with Hamas, Obama doesn’t want foreign policy considerations to intrude on an ambitious domestic agenda, advisors say.

“Not that anyone is unconcerned about the situation in the Middle East,” Axelrod said, “but when you’re struggling because you’ve lost your job or are concerned about losing your job, or you can’t get a loan for your business or send your kid to college, it’s pretty hard to look past that.”

As an individual, yes. But not as the Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world. It seems sort of important that, while dealing with the economy, you pay attention to the situations unfolding in the Middle East and Asia. That might, I don’t know, have some sort of impact on us. Especially when the President-elect is promising a massive build-up of Armed Forces in Afghanistan and made that promise a central point in his campaign.

Where will Blue Dog Democrats come down on this? We constantly hear from them about the size of the deficit and they’re supposedly fiscally conservative/moderate. Will they simply go along with Obama’s massive expansion of said deficit, or will they also demand time to analyze the plan and make changes?

Taking military advice offered by France is like receiving investment advice from Barney Frank: Either you’re suicidal or belong in the nuthouse. Hey, France? We’ll give you a call when Israel needs tips on how to execute a flawless unconditional surrender.

Luckily, wiser heads ended up prevailing in Jerusalem.

The Security Cabinet on Wednesday rejected a French proposal for a 48-hour suspension of the IDF offensive against Hamas to allow Paris the opportunity to mediate a cease-fire.

“We didn’t initiate the Gaza operation in order to end it while Israeli towns are still under fire, as they were before the operation,” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said deliberations that lasted the better part of the day. “Israel has shown restraint for years; she gave the truce a chance; we told ourselves ‘let’s try it,’ but Hamas violated the truce.”

Earlier, Olmert’s spokesman Mark Regev said that “Giving Hamas a respite just to regroup, rearm is a mistake. The pressure on the Hamas military machine must continue.”

What did France feel would be accomplished through a unilateral 48-hour halt to operations? Hamas isn’t willing to stop its attacks until its conditions are met, including the opening of all crossings in Gaza. Even when the terrorist group agrees to a ceasefire it doesn’t stand by it. The only thing that would be achieved would be giving Hamas the opportunity to take a breather, rearm, and prepare for more strikes against Israel. Israel has nothing to gain from that and a whole lot to lose.

Democratic leaders from Chicago to Washington are furiously condemning the appointment by Rod Blagojevich of Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate vacated by Barack Obama. Harry Reid is promising, though may not be able to Constitutionally deliver on, a blockade to prevent Burris from assuming the seat. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White is threatening to refuse to certify Burris. The lieutenant governor ripped Blago a new one for having the cajones to make an appointment after being arrested for corruption.

But, as Blagojevich himself pointed out, Illinois Democrats, or at least those in the state legislature, could’ve prevented this. First of all, both chambers are controlled by Democrats, so there’s no excuse for inaction. Impeachment proceedings appear to have stalled, while calls by the governor himself to order a special election by law were ignored. Why? Because Democratic leaders in Springfield feared losing the seat to a Republican. Instead they wanted Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn to appoint a Democrat. Except, of course, that Quinn can’t do such a thing as long as Blago is governor. Which would bring us back to the impeachment that’s gone basically nowhere.

So, in a desperate attempt to make sure the seat stayed out of Republican hands, Illinois Democrats have brought upon themselves a corrupt governor appointing a man who will have to run in two years anyway to fill the spot vacated by the President-elect. Oh well.

While the number of people filing jobless claims for the first time remains very high, last week saw that number fall by about 94,000 claims. The week prior was met with the largest number of first-time filings since 1982.

“The underlying picture is terrible for the labor market,” said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc. in New York. The initial claims figures were “distorted by some sort of breakdown in the seasonal adjustment process, with the holidays.”

Jobless claims were projected to decline to 575,000 from the prior week’s unrevised 586,000, according to the median projection of 17 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 540,000 to 585,000.

The magnitude of the drop in claims last week indicates the figures will remain volatile, likely jumping to make up for last week’s decline, the Labor spokesman said.

Certainly not good news going into a new year.

Mere Rhetoric decided to see what was going on in the loony bin and found Roseanne Barr saying something that surprises, well, absolutely no one that’s followed Barr’s moonbattery. Here’s what the noted theologian says about the Israeli state:

I said Israel will attack any boat carrying doctors and medical supplies–they have turned away the red cross already and all medical and food assistance. Israel is a NAZI state. The Jewish Soul is being tortured in Israel. The destruction of the jews in Israel has been assured with this inhuman attack on civilians in gaza. Hamas is the street gangs—this is equivilent to los angeles attacking and launching war on the people of watts to attempt to kill the bloods and the crips.

How many street gangs break a ceasefire by launching a constant barrage of rockets (not that Hamas didn’t do that during the supposed ceasefire) into another country, terrorizing and killing its residents? As for the attack on a boat, I assume she’s talking about the Israeli Navy’s ramming of the yacht Cynthia McKinney was trying to use to deliver supplies to the terrorists.

Barr is, of course, a nitwit. But not the biggest one on the left. At least she doesn’t try to canonize the officially-designated terrorist group. Lorelei Kelly of the Huffington Post holds that title, comparing Israel’s offensive against Hamas to the U.S. military attacking…the Salvation Army. Oy vey.

Via Hot Air Headlines.

A federal judge has declined to release two terrorism suspects from Guantanamo while also reaffirming the legality of the government to hold them. Good.

A U.S. judge refused to release two Guantanamo terrorism suspects on Tuesday and upheld the government’s authority to keep them, after ordering freedom last month for five prisoners whose case led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon said in two separate rulings the government had shown enough evidence to justify holding Yemeni citizen Moath Hamza Amhed Al Alwi and Tunisian Hisham Sliti as “enemy combatants” linked to al Qaeda or Taliban forces.

“Human rights” activists are up in arms and demand the immediate release of the two dangerous terrorism suspects. The ironic part being, of course, that much of the same people would blast the Bush Administration if it did release the suspects and they went on to attack the nation or its interests. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Vicki Iseman, the woman the New York Times suggested was having a romatic relationship with John McCain during the primaries, has filed suit against the paper seeking $27 million in damages. You’ll recall that the story was shabby enough that even the left, including Harold Ford, slammed it as baseless.

The 36-page complaint charges that the story implies an “unprofessional relationship” between Iseman and McCain.

Both Iseman and McCain denied any improper relationship. However, the public viewed the story as being about an affair, according to the suit, which cites the post-publication remarks of 10 different commentators across the political spectrum. In each case, their comments about the story assumed it was about an alleged affair, the lawyers noted…

The suit claims that Iseman suffered damage to her mental, emotional and physical health. The lawyers noted that she continues to work as a lobbyist in Washington, for a firm based in Arlington. They said they anticipate developing their case on damages as the matter moves forward.

The New York Times’ defense, of course, is that it never actually accused Iseman and McCain of having an affair. They merely suggested an inappropriate relationship and claimed anonymous sources who supposedly feared their relationship had turned romantic. How well did that fly? Clark Hoyt, the paper’s ombudsman, laughed the excuse in the face:

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap…

I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

Exit Question: Does the NYT actually have $27 million anymore? The paper made news not too long ago when it had to mortgage its new building to stay alive. Moves like that don’t exactly scream “tens of millions to spare”.

Bobby Rush made a point today of noting that, with Barack Obama gone, there is no longer an African American in the United States Senate. He said that he didn’t believe that Reid and other Senate Democrats would want to go on record blocking the only black man in the Senate from taking his seat. Is it racebaiting? Yep. Does he have a point? Yep.

So, Allahpundit earlier predicted that, in order to give Reid cover in his pursuit to block Ronald Burris without accusations of racism, Barack Obama would agree that Burris is a fine man but unacceptable. If Obama, the holder of the Absolute Moral Authority card of all Absolute Moral Authority cards says it, who’s to question?

Lo and behold, here comes the statement from Obama calling Burris a fine man but unacceptable:

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat,” Obama said in a statement. “I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”

Are we going to witness a Constitutional showdown? Blago’s a narcissist and, it would seem obviously, agree that the Senate can’t stop him from appointing Burris. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, amongst others, disagree entirely. The Warren court took the opinion that the only thing Burris could be stopped for is failing to meet the Constitutional requirements, all of which he appears to meet. Reid, wanting to get both Blago and his appointment off the stage, is unlikely to settle for Burris taking his place in the Senate. On to the Supreme Court, as Allah quips.

Israel is retaliating for Hamas’ constant barrage of missiles into the country. So what does Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) do? Meet with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and sit there while the lovable Assad calls for an end to Israel’s “massacre” of “unarmed Palestinian people”.

DAMASCUS (AFP) – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad called on Tuesday for Israel’s “massacres” in the Gaza Strip to stop, as he met visiting US Senator Arlen Specter, the official SANA news agency reported.

Assad “underlined the necessity for halting the Israeli massacres which are being committed against the unarmed Palestinian people, lifting the unjust siege on them and opening all the crossings permanently,” the news agency said.

The talks between Assad and the Republican senator, a regular visitor to Damascus, “dealt with the situation in the Middle East, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories,” it added.

Why would Specter travel to Damascus, home of the leader of Hamas, and give Assad a propaganda opportunity? I thoroughly doubt Specter sympathizes with Hamas and its allies, but he hasn’t proven to be the brightest crayon in the box. As Allahpundit points out, we’re talking about the same Senator who attempted to justify amnesty by saying a guy at his gym agrees with him. He’s a few pieces of cutlery short of a set.