More moral equivalency from J Street

Poor J Street.  They just can't help themselves.  As much as they would like to call themselves "pro-Israel," the simple fact is that any group which regards the Israelis and Palestinians as equally culpable for the lack of a peace agreement cannot reasonably call itself "pro-Israel."  Even if one hates the State of Israel (which I do NOT believe J Street does, by the way), one cannot seriously claim that the two sides share equal blame for there not being a Palestinian state yet.  I would much rather debate with someone who claims Israel is more at fault then with one who claims both sides are equally guilty.  The former might be persuaded by evidence; the latter is obviously more interested in political correctness than in discovering truth.

J Street falls into the latter category.  See this ad which they produced recently.  Here are my comments, with citations from the ad in bold:

• We feel deeply the sense of pain and anguish over the violence and insecurity wrought on Israel by Hamas through rockets and terror - Kudos to J Street for stating this.  Too many liberal/Left groups cannot bring themselves to condemn Hamas' actions as terror; J Street did.  The problem is, though, despite their claim to "feel deeply" the pain of Israel, they do not support actions which would go a long way to minimizing the terror emanating from Gaza, such as bombing strategic targets as many times as it takes until the threat is neutralized.
• We are steadfast in remaining true to the vision of Israel's founders in creating a democratic, Jewish state—a nation that upholds the highest human and Jewish values - I hope J Street is not suggesting that Israel has strayed from this vision.  Israel is a model of how to protect the rights of all its citizens, even those citizens who openly call for the dismantling of the Jewish state (see a number of Arab Members of Knesset).  Israel's actions consistently demonstrate its commitment to the dignity of all people (certainly with exceptions, but one should compare Israel to other democracies, not to a Utopian country), and its army is among the most moral in the entire world.  How many armies call in air strikes to its targets to warn them to leave the battlefield (Gaza War)?  How many armies fight in house to house, hand to hand, combat instead of just bombing the (heck) out of its enemies (Jenin)?
• The international controversy surrounding the attack on the Gaza flotilla........concern[s] us deeply - It was NOT an attack on the Gaza flotilla.  It was an action of self-defense in response to an unprovoked, merciless attack by some of the passengers on the sixth boat.  They planned to attack the IDF commandos, and had no interest in actually delivering humanitarian goods to the Gazan people.  And in the act of self-defense, nine Hamas collaborators (and that is exactly what they were; please do not fool yourself) were killed.
• ...the growing isolation of Israel concern[s] us deeply - Why?  The issue should be, was/is Israel right or wrong?  If the world supports Israel, great!  If the world opposes Israel, great!  What is important is the righteousness of Israel's cause, not whether it has "the world" 's support.  A world which condemns Israel overwhelmingly more than any other nation, including the worst human rights violators, while granting these nations spots on a human rights council or women's rights group, is not a world whose approval I wish to gain.  Period.
• ...the rhetoric and actions that feed fear and violence, emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders... - This is the giveaway.  "Emanating from both Israeli and Palestinian leaders"?!  The Israeli side consistently expresses support for a Two-State Solution, however misguided it may be, in my opinion; the Palestinians refuse to speak to the Israeli side.  Israeli schoolchildren learn a curriculum of peace and reconciliation; the PA-controlled media broadcast messages of hate, violence, and rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.  How, exactly, does an unprecedented ten-month building freeze in Judea and Samaria (from an allegedly right wing Israeli government) qualify as an action which feeds fear and violence?  Why can J Street not have the intellectual honesty to recognize that one side has consistently demonstrated its commitment to peace, while the other side consistently rejects these peace overtures?  If we cannot admit this uncomfortable truth, there will never be peace in this region.
• Od lo avda tikvateinu / We have not lost our hope - What a perversion of the words of Israel's national anthem!  Was it the hope of Israel's founders to have a Jewish and Arab state west of the Jordan?  No, they accepted the 1947 Partition Plan reluctantly.  Something was better than nothing.  But the Arabs rejected it out of hand, and tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state in its infancy (and this before even one settlement was constructed in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza!).  Ever since Israel extended its hand in peace, that Arabs have either slapped it away, or shaken it with their own hand, dripping with Jewish blood.  This last line in particular is disgusting, and belies the notion that J Street is concerned with Israel's best interests.  They either do not care about reality, or are in willful denial of it. 
  

The notion that Israel needs to be encouraged to make peace, either by the American government or by concerned Diaspora Jews, is laughable.  Israel need not prove its desire for peace anymore.  Let J Street take out ads in Arab newspapers; then there will be some glimmer of hope for peace.  Let J Street stop being a part of the problem, and start being a part of the solution.

Dutch lawmaker calls for Jordan to become Palestine

Geert Wilders, leader of a right-wing Dutch political party, is calling for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to be renamed "Palestine."  (See also Melanie Philips' article from the Spectator.)  In his view, this will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as then the Palestinians will have a homeland to go to.  Before you say, "Huh?," remember that until Winston Churchill cut off eastern Palestine from Jewish settlement and gave it to the Hashemite clan from Saudi Arabia, all of Mandate Palestine, (modern Jordan and Israel), was to be the Jewish homeland.  Today, at least 70% of the Jordanian population is Palestinian.  It is not Israel's fault that Jordan was given to the wrong people, and its security today should not be threatened because of this error.

Let me state it unequivocally: I support Geert Wilders' idea.  For those who think this is untenable, I would submit that it is no more untenable than the notion that there can reasonably be an Israeli state, and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, west of the Jordan River.  Considering that, overall, the Palestinians have not yet accepted the notion of a Jewish state anywhere west of the Jordan (see their newspaper articles and television shows at MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch), and that a majority of Israelis (I being an exception) have accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and in most of Judea and Samaria, the Two State Solution is no solution at all.  Only one side has accepted this.  There is no chance for this idea to be successful.  Yet politicians from all sides maintain that this can happen in our time.

So why not try Geert Wilders' idea?  We have had nearly seventeen years of trying to implement a Two State Solution west of the Jordan.  Let's try a Two State Solution using both sides of the Jordan.

Win by more than five goals? YOU LOSE!

An Ottawa soccer league has ruled that if a team wins by more than five goals, the team loses the game.

You read that correctly. They lose the game.

Why the rule change? So that the losing teams not feel bad about the fact that they got shellacked. Heaven forbid they actually learn how to deal with failure, to lose with dignity and class, and how to overcome adversity. In the minds of the league’s incredibly foolish leaders, the children’s self-esteem must come first.

But how dumb do they think the kids on the losing team are? Will they not notice that the leading team has stopped playing hard? Will this not be insulting to them? Of course they will notice, and of course it will be insulting. Children are not dumb. When I lived in San Antonio, I served as a referee in a youth basketball league in which the scoreboard would never show a deficit of more than twenty points, for fear of dispiriting the losing team. Do you think they did not realize they were getting slaughtered? In this league, too, every participant received a trophy (and the exact same trophy), whether they finished in first or last place. (It goes without saying that there were no playoffs.) They basically got the trophy for breathing. In all my years of playing sports, I have won two trophies. Just two. One for a 1986 relay race, and one for a 1993 high school softball championship. Those trophies mean so much to me, because I earned them. There were no handouts back then.

Is there anyone reading this who cannot figure out if this league’s organizers have liberal or conservative leanings? (Even if they are actually conservatives, which I doubt, the action taken is certainly a liberal action.) In the liberal mind, feelings rule. They must do everything in their power to ensure that children do not feel bad about anything. Never mind the fact that one grows much more from one’s setbacks than from one’s successes. Never mind the fact that a baseball player can fail 70% of the time at the plate and still earn a spot in the Hall of Fame. To the liberal, short-term feelings trump long-term development. I do not think for a moment that the average liberal consciously realizes that he is favoring short-term feelings over long-term development, but in the final analysis, this is what happens. Intentions do not matter, results do.

As an example of the short-term thinking which went into this decision, did the league consider any of the following real possibilities? I strongly doubt it:

• The Tigers are winning 6-1 over the Bears. In the last minutes of the game, the Tigers lazily kick the ball towards the Bears’ goal. The Bears’ goalkeeper moves aside, letting the ball in, and thereby “wins” the game for his team. This is fair? This makes sense?
• Late in the game, the Tigers are winning 11-1; they refused to lower their intensity. Their coach, however, wants to legally win the game. He tells them to let up a bit, and they do. Will the Bears not realize that the Tigers’ goalkeeper is not making an effort to stop their shots? Will this a) help the Bears’ self-esteem, and b) make them better soccer players, since they are scoring garbage goals? Why not save time and have the Tigers kick the ball into their own net?
• At halftime, the Tigers are winning 5-0. Knowing that another goal might “lose” them the game, they dramatically lower their intensity. They have plenty of opportunities to score, but choose to pass the ball around, instead of shooting. Late in the game, the Bears finally wake up, take advantage of the Tigers’ low intensity, and score six goals, winning the game. This is a legitimate win? The Tigers could have easily scored five more goals, and won 10-6. But due to the league’s tunnel vision, they lost.

Jewish tradition teaches, “A wise person foresees the consequences of his actions.” As a general rule, liberals do not follow this advice. They are much more concerned with perceived (not actual, but perceived) short-term gains than with near-certain long-term losses. (Who cares if mandating [mandating!] diversity in hiring puts all those from the minority group under suspicion of not being worthy of their position? Liberals feel good because more blacks, Latinos, women et al are now being hired!) While they may bristle at this notion, it is certainly better than the alternatives – either that they are incredibly naïve about the results of their actions, or that they do understand what the long-term losses will be, yet do not care. Some intellectual honesty would be refreshing.

Once again, to the liberal, feelings trump standards. Who cares if the new rules turn the league into a joke? What matters is that their children feel good about themselves.

But as I have demonstrated, even that is not going to happen anyway.

Gaza flotilla "peace activists" vs. the IDF

It is important that those of us who truly care about peace have the tools necessary to counter the undoubtedly negative press Israel is sure to receive for the Gaza flotilla.  Follow your local media to see if they report the events fairly.  Please see this link from HonestReporting.com for information about what is really going on off our coastline in Israel right now. 

Watch the videos of an Israeli soldier being beaten by a "peace activist," and how the Israel Navy offered to let the "peace activists" themselves observe the transfer of humanitarian goods to Gaza's civilian population.  We Israelis have no desire for the innocent civilians in Gaza to suffer; what we want is to prevent supplies from being stolen by Hamas and used to prepare for another deadly offensive against us.

May God protect the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces as they deal with these "peace activists."

Why there should not be a giant mosque built near Ground Zero

From the Forward of June 4, 2010:

• Mosque's plans to expand near Ground Zero spark debate
• Editorial - Faith at Ground Zero

Interesting how the editorial board attacks critics of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of seeking to "discredit all of Islam," and then the editorial board itself sweepingly attacks conservative bloggers and Tea Party activists.  We who oppose the building of the mosque, as the Forward puts it, are "bigots," because we oppose it for "unjustifiable reasons" - though the Forward fails to mention even one of those "unjustifiable reasons."  That's the way of the Left - attack and label your opponents, usually without taking the time to debate the issue at hand.

The reason why many of us oppose the building is because it is not in good taste.  Legal?  Certainly.  But it is not the right thing to do.  It is an insult to the memory of those who were slaughtered on that infamous day.  While it is true, as some of my friends have pointed out, that Muslims were also murdered that day, it was religious Muslims who perpetrated the acts.  Until there are massive Muslim demonstrations, on par with those in the wake of the Danish cartoon scandal, in which mainstream Muslim leaders declare that anyone who intentionally murders innocents goes straight to hell, and not to Paradise, there should be nothing to discuss regarding this Ground Zero mosque.  Would we accept white supremacists building a church near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City?  After all, it's their right, right?  Unlike many of our liberal fellow citizens, we conservatives also think in terms of what is right, not only in terms of what are my rights?

Secondly, why must we persist in trying to show Muslims how tolerant we are of other faiths?  Is it not high time for the Muslim community, whether in America or elsewhere in the world, to demonstrate some tolerance for those who believe differently than they?  Enough of this breast-beating; America has nothing to apologize for regarding its treatment of the members of any faith.  There is no country in the world as tolerant as America is, and we should not be ashamed to say so.

Finally, why does the Forward minimize the evil of 9-11 by calling it "a perverted act of religious zealotry"?  Why are we so afraid of the real possibility that the hijackers were not perverting Islam's teachings at all, but were actually acting in accordance with them?  Perhaps they were, perhaps they were not, but dismissing even the possibility out of hand does no good, and might lay the groundwork for the next violent act by a Muslim who is "perverting" Islam's teachings.  If Christians did what these nineteen Muslims did, having attended fundamentalist churches, and yelled, "Praise Jesus!" as they were crashing their planes, does anyone think the Forward and other liberals would be so quick to disassociate Christianity from their acts of terror?

Bus ads try to help those leaving Islam. Care to drive one of those buses?

Someone decided to sponsor bus ads saying things like, "Leaving Islam?," or, "Fatwa on your head?," or "Is your family threatening you?" in a few American cities.  Of course, the PC-police were out in force, trying to determine whether this would be deemed "offensive to Muslims."  (Read: "Will we receive death threats for this?")

Some simple questions: If the ads had said "Leaving Judaism?" or "Leaving Christianity" or "Leaving Liberalism?," would anyone have been troubled by the possibility that the ads were "offensive" to members of the above groups?  Would we have a UCLA professor mentioning the possibility of extremist groups bombing the buses?  Is there anyone reading this who would be surprised in the slightest if there were violence committed against any of the buses sporting these ads?  Does anyone who is considering leaving the above-mentioned groups need to fear for his life?

Of course, the answers to the above questions are: No, no, no, and no.  Why is that?  What is it about the oft-proclaimed "religion of peace" that gives many people pause whenever something happens which might inflame its adherents?  Could it be there is something in its essence which encourages its practitioners to threaten, and often carry out acts of, violence?

To be sure, there have been no acts of violence committed against any of these buses.  But if you were a New York City bus driver, and you had a choice of driving a bus with one of these ads, versus driving a bus with "I Love Tea Partiers" emblazoned in it (remember, you're in New York City), which one would you choose?

I thought so.

Highway 443: No less of a threat, but it matters not to B'Tselem

Back in 2000-2001, there was a number of deadly attacks on Israeli motorists on Highway 443, which links the Israeli city of Modi'in with Jerusalem.  In response, the Israel Defense Forces closed it to Palestinian traffic.  The deadly attacks ceased (though not for lack of trying).  Then, at the end of 2009, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the IDF to re-open 443 to Palestinian traffic.  Why?  Because of a lawsuit filed by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization.  They contended that maintaining the restriction on Palestinian traffic amounted to a violation of freedom of movement.

443 will re-open to Palestinian traffic this week (May 23).

B'Tselem, of course, was correct.  The prohibition did limit Palestinians' freedom of movement.  But so did the shooting attacks limit the freedom of movement of their victims.  Forever.  But to people like those at B'Tselem, the ramifications of their actions did not deter them.  Will they have to suffer the near-certain results of the road's opening?  Will their family members?  Highly unlikely.  Will the Supreme Court justices?  No.  But this ruling must have made both B'Tselem and the Supreme Court feel great about themselves, as they stood up for Palestinian human rights.

Here's the self-contradictory problem with the Supreme Court's ruling.  They gave the IDF five months to make security arrangements.  Does it not stand to reason that if you need to make such preparations for opening up a road to Palestinian traffic, that there is something inherently problematic?  Why is it not as simple as removing the roadblocks?  By giving the IDF much time for new security arrangements, the Court was tacitly acknowledging that there is a continued high risk for fresh attacks on the road.  Neither B'Tselem nor the Court claimed that the threat was any less from the Palestinians, just that their freedom of movement was being hindered.  Yet they proceeded with subjecting thousands of Israelis to potentially deadly attacks, all in the name of justice and human rights.

Was it unfair to the peaceful Palestinian villagers, who only want to get from Point A to B securely, that they were also prohibited from using 443?  Yes, it was.  But it is not like the road was closed after one attack.  There were four shooting attacks between December 2000 and August 2001, causing five fatalities.  In other words, the Palestinians had four chances.  That is more than enough.  How many deadly shooting attacks will take place before the IDF closes it again, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding?  Two?  Five?  Ten?  Do the Justices and B'Tselem even care?

I can only think of two possible rationalizations on B'Tselem and the Supreme Court's part:

1. They did not consider the real possibility that shooting attacks will resume on 443.  Granted, this possibility renders both parties incredibly naive at best, and criminally negligent at worst.  But this possibility makes them look much better than option #2.
2. They do not care.  It matters not to them that more Israelis are almost certainly going to die unnecessarily.  What is more important to them is to show the world how committed they are to their warped sense of justice and human rights.

Never mind that no Palestinian died due to the road being closed.  Inconvenienced?  Certainly.  But to remove this inconvenience, B'Tselem and the Supreme Court have practically sentenced an unknown number of innocent victims to an untimely death.  And when an attack inevitably does happen, if they even express regret, they will not change their position on the issue.  In their world, a fanciful notion of reality always trumps the actual facts on the ground.  They will sleep well, convinced they have done good for the world.

And due to the "good" they will have done, innocent Israelis will pay for it with their blood.

Is Kagan Jewish? Is she a lesbian? Who cares? What are her values?

I am sure that many Jews are just thrilled that President Obama has nominated a Jew, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, to the Supreme Court.  (She even had the first Bat Mitzvah at Lincoln Square Synagogue!)  For the record, that will make three Jews of nine justices on the Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer being the others).  The over-representation is beyond overwhelming.  Jews represent around 2% of the American population, yet are close to being 33% of the Supreme Court, an over-representation by nearly seventeen times.  (By the way, why is there no talk about this skewed diversity of the Court, from those who preach about diversity so often?  There are currently five Catholics on the Court (55%), yet Catholics represent less than 25% of the population, while Protestants, of whom there will soon be none, represent more than 50% of the population.)

For some Jews, this may be a badge of pride.  For me, however, I am ashamed that the two Jews already on the Court, and the one poised to join it, are such poor representatives of traditional Jewish values.  (I believe that modern conservatism is much closer to traditional Jewish values than modern liberalism.  I look forward to writing on this in the future.)  Admittedly, Ms. Kagan's record is far from clear.  But since we do know at the very least that she made it extremely difficult for ROTC to recruit at Harvard, in my book that's one strike against her.  Additionally, she was nominated by the most left-wing President in American history, who has made it clear he wants to leave his mark on American history.  Does anyone seriously believe he would have nominated a Center or Right person?  I realize, of course, that to most liberals, identity politics is paramount.  "Be more concerned with a person's race, gender, or class than with her values," they tell us, albeit more palatably.  "If you want someone to be concerned with what is important to you, then support someone who is of your race, gender, or class."  Or, in this case, religion.

But do Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and Solicitor General Kagan, represent my beliefs as a traditional Jew?  No, they do not.  I find I have much more in common with the values of a number of Catholic justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) than I do with the Jewish ones.  Why?  Because I am much more concerned with someone's values than with anything else about him.  Period.  He is a Jew who shares my values?  I'll support him.  She is a Muslim who shares my values?  Ditto.  He is a Red Sox-loving transgender from Jupiter who shares my values?  Ooooh, that's a bit tougher.  I'll get over the Red Sox part.  I'll support him.

Which brings us to the lesbian issue.  Writers on both sides of the aisle are debating whether or not Kagan's purported lesbianism.  I disagree with any opinion which says she must address the issue.  Why is it anyone's business what she does in the privacy of her home?  As I wrote regarding the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor, the issues of ethnic background, gender, and, in Elena Kagan's case, sexual preferences, are completely inconsequential to me.  If Elena Kagan is a lesbian, good for her.  If she is a heterosexual, good for her.  Since I assume she is a devoted liberal (Upper West Side of Manhattan upbringing, Princeton undergraduate, Harvard Law, and Oxford have a tendency to do that to you), I say, bad for the country.

I wish we could get to the point where the only issue which mattered to a candidate's fitness for higher office was his or her record, and views on important issues.  But thanks in large part to liberals, we have to deal with a candidate's/nominee's race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. 

As if any of those things tells you what a person's view is on any given subject.  To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the values, stupid."

A vote for the Temple Mount on Jerusalem Day

Today, we celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, after 19 years of division at the hands of the Jordanians.  During that time, despite assurances, no Jews were permitted to access the Western Wall, to say nothing of visiting the Temple Mount.  Since 1967, Jerusalem has been an open city, where all faiths can visit their holy places, worshiping as they see fit.

Except for the Jewish faith.

Only Jews are forbidden from praying at their holiest site, and even visiting is a complicated effort.  Can one imagine the outcry if Christians could not pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, or Muslims from al-Aqsa?  The cries would be deafening.  But it is taken for granted that Jews may not even utter the smallest prayer, let alone read from the Torah, on the Temple Mount.

It is time for this outrage to end.  למען ציון לא אחשה, ולמען ירושלים לא אשקוט.  For Zion's sake, I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not be silent.  Now is the time to make these words a reality.  Let us all stand up for Jerusalem, and sign this petition asking that the Netanyahu government designate the Temple Mount a National Heritage Site.  If Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs deserve such recognition, does the Temple Mount deserve any less?  It should not matter where one's political leanings are.  This is an issue of simple fairness, for Jews to have equal access to their holy sites, just as Christians and Muslims have to theirs.

Will this action anger the United Nations?  Will the Obama Administration express its concern, even outrage?  Undoubtedly yes, on both accounts.  But it is time for the Jewish people to stand with its head held high, ready to accept whatever criticism may be forthcoming from a world which regularly turns a blind eye to genocide and terrorist attacks, yet still finds the time to issue scathing critiques of the Jewish State's attempts to protect its citizens, and its decision to approve building apartment units.  Such a world has no credibility, and we should not care what they think anymore.

The Western Wall is special, but it is a second prize compared to the Temple Mount.  Help make the joyous shout of the paratroopers back in 1967, "The Temple Mount is in our hands!" a reality again.  We declare at every Jewish wedding that we will never forget Jerusalem.  Here is an opportunity to put those words into action.

Obama opens US coastline to drilling, wants to build nuclear reactors. Another vindication for conservatives.

If I were a liberal, I would hardly be able to control my frustration with President Obama.  Aside from his victory on health care reform, liberals have a laundry list of broken campaign promises from the President, including:

1. Withdrawing troops from Iraq - No
2. Closing down Gitmo - No
3. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - No
4. Supporting same-sex marriage - No

Well, add at least #s 5 & 6 to the list: President Obama just approved contracts to explore and drill for oil of the East Coast of the United States.  According to the New York Times, even if contracts are handed out, the drilling will not begin "for years."  This is in addition to his announcement that new nuclear reactors would be built in Georgia, pending approval.

Is this not yet another example of conservative views winning the day?  It is easy to criticize from the outside looking in, saying that if you were king of the forest, you would do A, B, or C differently.  As usual, however, liberals look at the future in rose-colored glasses.  In their world, we will get the vast majority of our energy from wind farms, solar panels, and corn.  Never mind that liberals on Martha's Vineyard opposed putting wind turbines off their coast, claiming (correctly, but hypocritically) that it would spoil their pristine views.  Never mind that wind turbines kill thousands of migrating birds each year.  Never mind that a field of solar panels is a blight on the landscape, the benefits of which are in far disproportion to the energy generated.  Never mind that the production of ethanol for vehicles uses enough corn in one year to feed 330 million people during the same amount of time, and uses an enormous amount of water.  But the liberal continues to live in his fantasy world, where the above solutions are seen as realistic.

And the conservative?  While he recognizes the importance of developing the above alternative sources of energy (to an extent), he favors a reduction in reliance on oil produced by America-hating-, freedom-suppressing-, terror-supporting regimes by.............drilling at home!  Of course, we should develop alternative sources of energy, but conservatives have been supporting this for years.  It's called "nuclear energy."  France gets approximately 80% of its energy from nuclear power; let's ask them how they dispose of the waste.

So, hats off to President Obama for this directive.  No need to acknowledge that conservatives have been advocating this for years.  We just want to see results which will benefit America.