As always, Obama's version of reality is at odds with the known facts. So why do "Progressive" Jews continue to support him?

I don't believe that any other American president has spent so much time talking to and about Jews as Obama. Yet the president isn't very well informed about Judaism or Zionism - which never stops him from forever lecturing Jews and Israelis about what is really best for them, as if he had some special insight.

He isn't very good on Islam and Moslems either, and he's positively weird on anti-Semitism.

His Orwellian instructions to avoid saying things like "radical Islam" and his frequent reference to the "Holy Koran" (with no corresponding adjective for the Christian Bible or the Torah) suggest intellectual ignorance and political/religious bias.

All this while Antisemitism is either ignored or "explained away."  Like he does with the mullahs running Iran.

This week the Senate Republicans rejected - twice - the DISCLOSE Act, Chuck Schumer's legislative counter to the Supreme Court's Citizens United verdict so hated by Democrats. 

The acronym stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections" (who dreams up these bill titles - shouldn't they be punished in some way?). Its alleged purpose is to reveal who is behind the funding which fuels our election system. 

Often in life, disclosure is a good thing.   There are few more liberating sensations than being honest.  The pressure of keeping a secret is intense, which is why the saying "getting something off your chest" expresses so well the deliverance one feels in being honest and open.

When I was a lobbyist, honesty and openness were the last things we wanted.  In fact, we went to pains to avoid disclosing vital information about our efforts. 

The Main Enemy: Islamism
Chapter VI: Islamism in Europe

The rise of Radical Islam in Europe, and especially Western Europe, is closely tied to the explosive growth of the Moslem immigrant populations in the continent.

While the efforts to establish Islamist organizations and networks, such as those of the Moslem Brotherhood under Said Ramadan (1926-1995), predated the waves of Moslem immigration in the 1960s and 1970s, it was the massive numbers of new immigrants, more often than not concentrated in compact Moslem ghettoes, that created the ideal conditions for spreading Islamist ideology.

An understanding of the radicalization problem therefore necessitates a brief discussion of the Moslem immigration and consequent population explosion phenomenon in Europe.

Well, I asked for it.  I'm the guy who chided the Chinese last week for ignoring the proverb about being careful what you wish for - then promptly proceeded to ask what you wanted the next TTP Nutshell History to be.

You folks gave me enough assignments to keep me busy until there's peace in the Middle East.

It's exciting, frankly, for it shows just how interested in the world TTPers are.  Yet where do I begin?  Here's a compendium of your requests, in no particular order:

I am so appreciative of the warm response to Sarkozy and History.  These "nutshell histories," as TTPers have dubbed them, are such a hit that I have a request.  I'd really like to hear from you as to what country or period of history should be the next nutshell.

TTPer "Leebailey," for example, in our User Forum recently made an astute observation on the consequences of the fall of the Ottoman Empire on the entire Middle East. 

Given that the Ottoman remnant of Turkey is so prominent in the news right now - a predominantly Moslem country engaged in a huge tug-of-war between secularists and Islamists - wouldn't that be a good candidate?

But the world is so large, so much of import is going on within it, and history so long, that there is a plethora of such good candidates.  So I'd like to know what you guys n' gals consider your favorites.

There's a lot to choose from.  I am really intrigued by what your choices might be.  Let me know.  Thanks...

Mohammed B., the man accused of killing Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam last week, was born and bred in the Netherlands. Known as a “relaxed, friendly and intelligent young man," a good student, a volunteer social worker, and a serious student of information technology, he came from a close family, and the death of his mother three years ago hit him very hard.

He began to devote more time to religious studies, and in the last year became increasingly fanatic. He abandoned his social work because he refused to serve alcohol, and because the foundation where he volunteered organized events where both sexes were present. He was on welfare when he killed van Gogh.

The Dutch — like every other Old European society I know — were unwilling to recognize that they had potentially lethal enemies within, and that it was necessary to impose the rules of civil behavior on everyone within their domain. The rules of political correctness made it impossible even to criticize the jihadists, never mind compel them to observe the rules of civil society. Just look at what happened the next day: An artist in Rotterdam improvised a wall fresco that consisted of an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The local imam protested, and local authorities removed the fresco.

That's what happens when a culture is relativized to the point of suicide.