Former UN Ambassador John Bolton on Obama, Israel and Iran.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I was a scrawny, dreamy kid. Schoolyard bullies sensed my weakness and beat the crap out of me on a pretty regular basis.

My Yeshiva of Flatbush teachers were less than useless.

“I don’t care who started the fight,” they said, “you’re both guilty.”

I was like, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Finally, a sensible and sympathetic teacher, Rabbi Teitelbaum, noticed that I was being used as a punching bag by a simian brute. The good rabbi took me aside and told me to fight back as hard as I could.

“I’m too little,” I whined.

“Don’t just give up,” he said, “make believe you’re Yehuda Maccabee.”

Well, that was inspiring.

I took Rabbi Teitelbaum’s advice and though I didn’t defeat the bully, I did manage to cause him enough pain—I practically ripped the kid’s ear off—that he never again picked on me.

Weakness invites aggression in the schoolyard and in geopolitics.

This morning, I was going to write about the unfortunate if not dangerous comments made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey regarding Israel and Iran’s nuclear program. General Dempsey, it should be noted, has been drafted as a spokesman for Obama’s reelection campiagn.  His remarks are stunning in their strategic foolishness and make clear—as if further clarification were needed—that the Obama administration is actively hostile to the Jewish State.

As I said, I was going to write about this grave situation but this morning the Wall Street Journal published an editorial that perfectly expresses Seraphic Secret’s opinions.

Is the Obama Administration more concerned that Iran may get a nuclear weapon, or that Israel may use military force to prevent Iran from doing so? The answer is the latter, judging from comments on Sunday by Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.

Appearing on CNN, General Dempsey sent precisely the wrong message if the main U.S. strategic goal is convincing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran—because Iran hasn’t decided to build a bomb, because an Israeli attack probably wouldn’t set back Iran by more than a couple of years, and because it would invite retaliation and be “destabilizing” throughout the Middle East.

“That’s the question with which we all wrestle. And the reason we think that it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” the General said, referring to a possible Iranian response to an attack. “That’s been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis. And we also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the capability—or the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.”

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran’s retaliation. It’s as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran’s rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.

The general is not a free-lancer, so his message was almost certainly guided by the White House. His remarks only make strategic sense if President Obama’s real priority is to contain Israel first—especially before the November election.

This might also explain General Dempsey’s comments that the U.S. doesn’t believe Iran’s regime has decided to build an atomic bomb and that it is a “rational” actor, like, say, the Dutch. This would be the same rational Iran that refuses to compromise on its nuclear plans despite increasingly damaging global sanctions, and the same prudent actor that has sent agents around the world to bomb Israeli and Saudi targets, allegedly including in a Washington, D.C. restaurant.

Iran doesn’t need to explode a bomb, or even declare that it has one, to win its nuclear standoff. All it needs to do is get to the brink and make everyone believe it can build a bomb when it wants to. Then the costs of deterring Iran go up exponentially, and the regime’s leverage multiplies in the Middle East and against American interests. General Dempsey’s assurances obscure that military and political reality.

Like most of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy, General Dempsey’s comments will have the effect of making war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel’s anxiety about U.S. support, especially if Mr. Obama is re-elected and he has a freer political hand. This may drive Israel’s leadership to strike sooner. Weakness invites war, and General Dempsey has helped the Administration send a message of weakness to Israel and Iran.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Okay, no Jews in this clip of William Shatner from the TV series Boston Legal. But because most liberal American Jews make believe the Second Amendment does not exist, or does not mean what it says, or believe that inanimate objects are evil, I frequently link the words Jew and Gun in the same sentence.

H/T Bookworm Room

Update: Our good friend Jake Novak, Senior Producer of the excellent Varney Report on Fox News, reminds us that Shatner is Jewish, thus “Jews and Guns” as a title is not totally random.

Legendary costume designer Orry-Kelly makes some adjustments on Marilyn Monroe's wardrobe on the set of “Some Like It Hot,” 1959.

Seraphic Secret likes to check out the latest fashions, scouting for beautiful but modest clothing. We don’t believe that women have to reveal acres of flesh in order to appear and feel attractive. In fact, the opposite. The more chaste the surface, the more mystery and depth.

This season, it’s kind of obvious that designers have been marinating in Hollywood movies. Everywhere we see ladylike silhouettes that bring to mind the irreverant slink of Jean Harlow, the confident stride of Carole Lombard, and the animal heat of Marlene Dietrich. Also making spectral appearances are Hitchcock’s tailored blondes: Tippi Hedrin, Kim Novak and Eva Marie Saint.

We’re delighted to report that scores of design houses are featuring elbow length leather gloves, a sure sign that those who make fashion are determined to revive the classic look of the proper and elegant lady who sweeps into a room—think Loretta Young—then tugs off her gloves a finger at a time before sitting down to tea.

Here are a few looks that made us sit up smile.

Ralph Lauren's collection dazzles as he brings together a 30's cloche hat with timeless tweeds appropriate for a stroll in the MGM/English countryside. The models came down the runway to the theme music from “Downton Abbey.” You could hear the crowd wondering: Will Matthew ever walk? Our response: Duh.

Ralph Lauren wants you to slay the competition in your business attire. The cloche hat is pure Norma Shearer, but the architectural suit has a definite Kim Novak in “Vertigo” vibe. The pink scarf and gloves are like icing on a wedding cake.

Victoria Beckham is best known for skin tight dresses that can only be worn by malnourished 16 year-old models from Estonia. Perhaps Victoria's Hebrew tattoos have, er, gotten under her skin. Her latest collection features dresses that would not be out of place in Orthodox Jewish enclaves like Boro Park and Pico Robertson.

Milly wants you to stride down the street with all the sunshine confidence of Audrey Hepburn in this clever but totally elegant outfit.

During the 1930's there was an entire genre of movies about powerful businesswomen who were not quite in touch with their romantic side—until Clark Gable or William Powell came along. We get the definite feeling that Douglas Hannant has been gorging on movies featuring Kay Francis, Ruth Chatterton, and Katherine Hepburn.

Seraphic Secret will lay you odds that Lyn Devon is channeling the late, great actress Suzanne Pleshette. The darts in the skirt make this 50's inspired look totally modern.

Calvin Klein goes Medieval. Monastic black dominates a silhouette so severe it feels like Hollywood's idea of a scary cool Jesuit. To wear this puppy you must possess major attitude.

Jason Wu's confident collection looks towards China for inspiration, more specifically we think Wu has been screening movies starring the great American Chinese actress Anna May Wong.

Karen and I wish all our friends and relatives an inspiring and fashionable Shabbat.

Consider this a footnote to my series: How I Married Karen.

First the song, then the story:

Click here to view the embedded video.

A few days ago I was watching a movie when suddenly, in the middle of a scene, Dusty Springfield’s “I Only Want To Be With You” kicked in over the soundtrack. So riveted was I by the tune and the memories it evoked that the dialogue simply vanished.

I was thrown back to 1964, freshman year in high school, my schoolboy crush on Karen still a burning coal in my gut. I heard this song on the radio and it perfectly expressed the helpless and hopeless love I felt for a girl who didn’t even know I was alive. Now, married to that very girl, hearing it again, so many years later and so unexpectedly evokes feelings that I thought were lost.

They are doing it because it’s good for you. They are doing it because it’s good for society. They are doing it because it’s cost effective. They are doing it because they have a degree in it. They are doing it because like Plato’s philosopher king they think long and hard about it while you selfishly make a living, support your family, worship G-d. They are doing it because they know better.

It starts in the outer ring of you life: light bulbs, toilet flushes, shower nozzles, cars, guns, then spreads to encompass the environment—first the earth is freezing, a few years later it’s global warming, then it’s climate change—and finally into your guts via government health care and food.

They are doing it—making you a slave—because you voted for Barack Obama.

A North Carolina elementary school forced a preschool student to eat cafeteria chicken nuggets for lunch on Jan. 30 after officials reportedly determined that her homemade meal wasn’t up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standards for healthfulness, according to a report from the Carolina Journal.

The newspaper reported that the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice in her packed lunch from home. That meal didn’t meet with approval from the government agent who was on site inspecting kids’ lunches that day.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Full story at Gateway Pundit.

In 2001, I wrote a film for Showtime called Brotherhood of Murder, based on a book of the same name by Tom Martinez and John Guinther. The film stars William Baldwin, Peter Gallagher and Kelly Lynch. Director Martin Bell did a superb job of translating script to screen.

“Brotherhood” is the the true story of The Order, white supremacists who murdered Jewish talk show host Alan Berg and committed several bank robberies.

Tom Martinez was an uneducated, unemployed veteran who fell in with the group but was never involved in any violence. Eventually, Tom became disillusioned and turned informer for the FBI. I spent a good deal of time talking on the phone with Tom who lives with his family under the federal witness protection program. In one of our most memorable conversations—they were all memorable, afterall Tom used to be a hard-core Jew-hater—Tom told me how Reverend Miles, an early leader of the group, convinced the budding membership that all their problems could be traced to a single source.

Here’s the scene as I wrote it and as it appears so effectively in the film:

A kindly old man, Reverend Miles, speaks to the group. His voice is soothing, his demeanor calm.

Miles: … this government no longer looks out for your interests. This is a government which looks out for quote unquote, the minorities, the disadvantaged. Now I don’t know about you, but I’m proud of being a Christian. Anything wrong with being proud of your race, your religion? Of course not. But when we say it, we’re labelled racists, hate mongers. When they say it, it’s called black pride. Why, they’re going to be teaching it in the universities before too long. I say it’s time for the white man to stand proud. I say it’s time for us to tell the Zionist Occupied Government that we won’t pay for drug addicts to get high, we won’t pay for their women to have one baby after another, and we won’t pay them not to work. We won’t do it because it is not fair. You listening to me? It’s not complicated. Say to yourself: It’s not fair.

Camera moves in on Tom’s face as he repeats the mantra.

This is a big moment in his life. He’s seen the light and he is radiant with comprehension.

In the name of fairness anything can be justified. That was the spine of the scene. And that is the spine of the left’s political philosophy. The fairness ideology is not just immoral, but it is dangerous.

A close friend, a teacher in Los Angeles Unified School District, said to me: “There’s a kid in one of my classes, bright and adorable, but with some, y’know, learning issues. I sat down and talked with him, tried to find out what was going on. Naturally, there were problems at home, the parent’s marriage sounds shaky. But this kid got all teary-eyed when he said that what was really bothering him, the thing that was really making him unhappy was lunch.”

I said: “Lunch?”

“Yeah, school lunch. The menu was changed following new rules imposed by Washington. My student said that he and most of his friends just throw away the salad and fruits and all the healthy stuff being imposed on them by these new regulations. My student was in tears as he recalled the good ol’ days—fourth grade—when he looked forward to grilled cheese sandwiches.”

“Comfort food.”

“Gone and gone.”

Last week the nation was agog with Obama’s war on Catholicism. But what most people didn’t comprehend is that it isn’t Obama’s war, it’s a war being waged by the left. Obama just leads the charge. It’s not just a war against Catholic doctrine; it’s what Obamacare is all about: the diminishment of private institutions in favor of government bureaucracies.

The left wants to restrict individual liberty and mandate government to make all the major decision in your life. In return the citizen will get free health care.

Of course, nothing is free. In rejecting free market solutions the left imposes a soft tyranny whose eventual outcome can be seen in the streets of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Which brings me to the lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for the current field of Presidential contenders. The reason we are unhappy is because not one of these men has set forth a unified vision. They talk about jobs and unemployment; they blow lots of hot air when it comes to taxes. They make nice to Israel and decry Obama’s hollowing out of the military. All well and good. But it’s not enough.

America yearns for a simple and clear Conservative vision.

That’s why when Marco Rubio speaks, we are riveted. He is passionate about American exceptionalism. Rubio understands that without free markets we become slaves to a political elite whose goal is to centralize power. Rubio is secure in his Conservative values and he doesn’t come across as a policy wonk who sleeps with a spreadsheet.

I write Hollywood movies for a living. My most successful films are always the most emotional, stories that hit the audience in the gut without trickery or melodrama.

The left sets forth a simple narrative wrapped in powerful emotions using words like fairness and justice. Never mind that this narrative as policy always fails, always leads to injustice and misery. Remember Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty? It enslaved millions of citizens as wretched dependents of the state. American society has never recovered from that folly. We still pay the price in fatherless households—one of the major sources of crime.

The Republicans will lose the next election if they insist on emphasizing the economy and allowing the left to control the narrative, to control the emotions.

When a child weeps in a Los Angeles classroom because the state has banished grilled cheese sandwiches, that is a primal emotion that can topple governments.

Seraphic Secret’s comment section has been invaded by, uh, something. We are working on repairs but this might take a few hours.The comment issues have been addressed. There was a problem with an upgrade that corrupted the database. It has been corrected.

Thank you,
InterTrip

Carmen Miranda proudly displays her collection of shoes.

Classic photos of Hollywood stars usually reinforce a particular image. Lighting, composition, body language, wardrobe and the singular architecture of the face are the ingredients that create a glamorous narrative for audiences to internalize. Clark Gable is the man’s man who doesn’t give a damn; Carole Lombard, the girl next door who will drive you crazy with her zany brand of love.

But every once in a while a picture introduces an element that defines the glamorous image in unexpected ways. In the following photos, footwear emerges as more than just a casual accessory.

Gloria Swanson, 1916, as a Mack Sennett bathing beauty. At the time, bathing slippers were the height of fashion. The dog is Teddy, the star of the movie.

Pola Negri and Charlie Chaplin, 1922. I don't know about you but my eyes are drawn to Negri's school-girlish shoes and Chaplin's spiffy spats.

Along with Chaplin and Keaton, Harold Lloyd was one of the most popular stars of silent films. His two-toned Spectator shoes are the picture of casual elegance.

Clark Gable, Carole Lombard and an unidentified friend on the golf course. Lombard's sport shoes are reminicent of Swanson's bathing slippers.

No matter how many non-dancing movies Rogers appeared in we always associate her with Fred Astaire. In this studio posed photo, her blue pumps totally sizzle reminding us of her great legacy.

Pablo Picasso and Brigitte Bardot in 1956. Bardot, the French sex symbol whose films broke the foreign film barrier in America, was never comfortable in high heels. She favored ballet flats, usually in red.

Karen and I wish all our friends and relatives a lovely and meaningful Shabbat.