I’m not Jewish, but my Scots-Irish tribe has some things in common with the Israelites: they experienced a calculated oppression that forced a great number of them to flee the land of their ancestors, settle in a hostile country and eventually overpower the locals… igniting an ethnic hatred that has poisoned a disputed country for centuries.

I’m a Cracker, as in “you mother f*ucking white cracker.”

Crackers: the over-eating, truck driving, racist, meth-using, tea bagger, predominant ethnicity of the south-eastern portion of the United States, are what is left of the Celtic people offered land by their English masters in a place that was already occupied: Northern Ireland.

The Crackers have a distinguished history. After the English, put down their dreams of independence (with the first set of laws in European history to make a language and way of life illegal)* they participated in violently taking their ethnic and linguistic brethren’s spiritual homeland: Ulster, historic seat of Irish Kings… moving in and taking over.

After a few decades of oppressing people that might have been their cousins, and looking for more land; they emigrated to America where they became the tools of the English slave-owning gentry in the colonies.

Any one who watched Alex Haley’s ROOTS in the 70’s might have noticed the Scottish accent of the foreman whipping the rebellious slave Kunta Kinte until he accepted that his “real” name was Toby.

Some of them found religion-in fact they all did: Crackers are most of the doctor-killing anti-abortion fanatics of the far right.

Religion didn’t used to be a bad thing for Crackers. One of my Scots-Irish ancestors, William Henry Drury -a very religious Cracker- preached against slavery on the basis of the Bible and then backed up his words by volunteering for the Pennsylvania artillery battalion that fought off Confederate guerilla attacks against Washington DC.- he lost his foot.

However, lately the Crackers seem to have forgotten the love part of Jesus, preferring anger and paranoia as more exciting motivators… Oppressing Mexicans in need of a job… hey we’re down with that.

So what does this have to do with Anthony Weiner? Not much, except that I think that partly because of my criticizing of Crackerness, I’ve finally found a reason to disagree with him.

He and Chuck Schumer have decided that the President Obama is being to too hard on Benyamin Netanyahu on the issue of settlements.

Weiner said this about the way Obama has been treating the Prime Minister of Israel:

“The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum…Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already.”

But lets acknowledge the fact that Netanyahu humiliated Joe Biden a few weeks ago with a poorly timed, jingoistic announcement of more East Jerusalem settlements. The White House would have to have been absolutely spineless not to take exception to that exchange.

Also, It’s kind of clear that new settlements are not the first steps on the road to peace. You have to try really, really hard to convince your self of the opposite point of view.

So I feel that Weiner and Schumer should mention the need to support Israel unconditionally, without publicly criticizing Obama for sticking up for his VP. Casting aspersions on the President’s loyalty to Israel because of the back and forth with Bibi, is wrong, and joining Crackers like Glenn Beck and Pat Buchanan in taking shots at the President… is just embarrassing.

*In 1746 to subdue the Scottish highlands, the English Parliament passed the Act of Proscription. It banned the wearing of traditional Scottish attire (i.e. kilts etc.) forbade speaking in Gaelic, outlawed Scottish music, dancing, or playing of bag pipes, which the Act said “emitted an aggressive and warlike sound.”

Finally it banned all Scots from “bearing arms.” Glenn Beck (Beck is a common Scottish surname) and his ilk use the resonance of this particular, aspect of the collective Scots-Irish ancestral memory to inflame Cracker passions about the right to use assault rifles to hunt deer.

If President Obama and Eliot Engel are at odds over one thing in particular, it’s Syria.

In the debate over Syrian diplomacy, the man who waited half a day to shake hands with President Obama at the State of the Union address, has been anything but friendly with the Prez.

Engel has sided with most Republican lawmakers (and a few Democrats) in opposing Obama’s appointment of an ambassador to Syria, whom the United States severed diplomatic relations with in 2005. In February — when Obama announced the move — Engel told the Jerusalem Post it was a “mistake.”

But the nomination process continued, essentially unhampered, until the scud news….

Here’s the deal:

• Earlier this month Israel accused Syria’s government of providing the radical Islamic group Hezbollah with scud missiles, capable of striking anywhere in Israel.
• Then, on Wednesday the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs told a House of Representatives Foreign Affairs panel that, ““If these reports are true I’d argue that Syria made a mistake. Syria has made mistakes in the past. We need to have an access to the leadership in Syria in order to voice our concerns. We need to deliver our message to [Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria] loud, clear and directly. We would like the ambassador to be conformed and placed now. I disagree that sending an ambassador is a reward.”
• On Thursday, Engel and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) introduced a resolution calling for the tightening of restrictions against Syria.
  

Engel’s statement, via UPI:

“This transfer of these highly lethal
 weapons … endangers American as well as 
Israeli lives, destabilizes the Middle East and is an existential threat 
to Israel and the independence of Lebanon,” Engel said in a statement.

He urged U.S. President Barack Obama to reconsider naming an ambassador to Syria and “enforce all existing sanctions against Syria.”

U.S. lawmakers put pressure on Syria

One of Charlie Rangel’s main advantages in his upcoming Congressional race will be the high amount of fund-raising cash he can pull in. Unfortunately he might have to spend that cash on something besides his campaign for re-election. It seems Rangel has raised $108,000 in the first quarter of 2010, but has had to spend $60,000 of it on legal fees in the first three months of the years. In total, he’s spent ab out $1.5 million in legal fees, according to opensecrets.org.

Rangel also spent $26,000 on illegal poster fines in New York City. According to the Daily News, he’s actually spent over $240,000 so far this year. In the past few elections, Rangel has raised $5 million, $2 million, and $2 million, and spent $4.2 million, $2 million, and $1.7 million, respectively. He’s still sitting on a nice campaign chest of $600,000 though he’s already spent a total of $2.6 million while only raising $1.9 million. It’s not exactly worrisome yet, but Rangel’s campaign is spending money left and right without bringing in enough. The prized bow-tie collection may even have to be sold on e-bay if things continue down this path.

One less thing to worry about, though, is State Senator Bill Perkins going up against Rangel, as he recently declared that he would be seeking re-election for his state assembly seat.

Yesterday was St. George’s Day, a European holiday devoted to the legend of St. George slaying a dragon.

So the Staten Island neighborhood of St. George decided to join in on the fun and hold an art and music fair in a local park.

Bands performed in Tompkinsville Square, a short walk from the Staten Island Ferry. Artists displayed paintings and photographs, kids did arts & crafts, tree-huggers dressed as fairies and distributed seed bombs to promote Earth Day.

All this in a park once, and intermittently still, populated by drunks, crackheads, methadone patients, and welfare recipients from the food stamp office right across the street.

Like most of New York City, crime has decreased since the Giuliani administration, and the area is relatively safer than it once was.

The St. George neighborhood, home to the Staten Island Ferry, is the Island’s northernmost point, the progressive shore: an artist enclave, a commuter haven, a place which stands as Staten Island’s best opportunity to become a vibrant and dynamic piece of New York City, instead of the insulated Jersey Shore mall-culture.

This locale, close to Manhattan and Brooklyn, is the previous city council district of now-Congressman Mike McMahon and represents a more Manhattan-centric liberalism than the rest of the boro.

The North Shore is also the home to Staten Island’s first African-American elected official as well as the first openly gay pol.

Another local politician, State Senator Diane Savino (D – SI and Brooklyn), made a passionate plea advocating gay marriage in the New York State last year.

But, again, Sen. Savino represents the North Shore, and this is the exception to the norm on the Island.

The South Shore is conservative in nature and not particularly welcome to outsiders. They would not exactly embrace the idea of an openly gay person in theory, never mind as an elected official. And if they tolerate African-Americans, they certainly don’t want them living in their gated community.

In a Slate.com piece, Jonah Weiner (a former St, George resident) tried to explain the Island’s intransigence toward the rest of the city.

Weiner likened the New York Harbor, which separates the aforementioned boroughs, to a moat that protects a majestic land from the miscreants.

What side that majestic land is on, however, depends on whom you ask, according to Weiner.

I would argue that an Islanders perception of the moat depends more upon where they live.

The North Shore is a diverse environment, a place where once-Councilmen McMahon could practice his centrist democratic ideals with apparent impunity from the Island’s more conservative, moat-friendly areas. Here, the castle is a ferry ride away.

To the Islanders on the Southern shores, in their heavily-fortified McMansions, St. George the neighborhood, like the patron saint himself, is their protective barricade against the potential ‘dragons’ that may lurk on the other side of the harbor in the dirty, graffiti-infested streets they left in the ’70s to join the kingdom of Richmond County.

While this week didn’t have any new scandals–damn–Greg Meeks’ involvement with financier schemer R. Allen Sanford has been brought back to the surface as allegations that the SEC ignored one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history for eight years.

It may be difficult to comprehend that a commission who’s mission is ” to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation” would miss out on such a large show, especially since numerous insiders and examinations by their own employees pointed out that the financial group was, perhaps, a cover for something else from as early as 1997.  And what about Mr. Madoff?  How’d they miss that one?  What could they have possibly been spending their time doing that they couldn’t have followed up on the complaints?

Oh.

Greg Meeks’ involvement with Sanford goes back to 2006, when the Congressman was allegedly contacted by Sanford to “retaliate” against a former Venezuelan employee of Sanford’s who was threatening to blow the whistle on the whole thing.  So, like any self-respecting Congressman would do, Greg Meeks paid a visit to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela (paid, allegedly, by Sanford).  A year later, the whistle blower was indicted.  And Meeks?  He was rewarded with a trip to the Caribbean funded by the Inter-American Economic Council–a non-profit created by Sanford.

I’d wondered how Greg Meeks could be so pro-bank coming from an area that was hit so hard by corporate greed and shoddy mortgages.  But now, it’s coming more into focus.  You want to run for re-election?  You need money.  You want to get a better gig down in DC?  Cash money, yo.  And as far as the trips go–I can see Meeks’ brain working to explain it.  Everybody was doing it; why should he get in on a little fun?  The thought that it would risk his career didn’t really occur to him.  Meeks, clueless and out of touch, jumped the shark.

Arizona just passed a strict new immigration legislation. The law allows police to question people about their immigration status if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

Crowley pushed for reform last summer when he, and 111 Democrats, asked President Obama to make the issue a priority.

Crowley issued no press release in response to the Arizona law. No public rebuke. No nothing.

Crowley was the first one to sign the bill last summer, and right next to his name was Luis Gutierrez, the 9-term Democrat from Illinois. Gutierrez had no problem making noise this week.

“Where is the Justice Department? Here is an injustice against the basic rights. Where is the administration of Barack Obama and his Justice department?” said Gutierrez, according to MSNBC

Gutierrez, surprisingly, was one of Obama’s first supporters – even when most hispanics were supporting Hilary Clinton – when he decided to run for President. A long-time advocate for immigration reform, Gutierrez is now threatening his own party.

“We can stay home,” Gutierrez said in an interview with The Hill. “We can say, ‘You know what? There is a third option: We can refuse to participate.’ ”

Gutierrez is not a neophyte trying to make a name for himself, but a former cab driver who’s won handily in his last few elections. And still has dramatically low fundraising numbers – he raised less than $200,000 in 2006.

His arguments for immigration reform are more for the ears of Democrats.

“It is an answer to too many years of pain —mothers separated from their children, workers exploited and undermined security at the border— all caused at the hands of a broken immigration system,” he said in a December press release.

Crowley, on the other hand, knows that many Republicans see immigrants taking up more of their tax dollars – especially after Health Care Reform. So he crafts a different argument.

“A key element of this reform is requiring all undocumented immigrants to register, go through background checks, pay taxes, and study English in order to obtain legal status and be eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship,” Crowley wrote in December.

Crowley, who must be upset about the issue, has not publicly criticized any members of his party; and most likely won’t. But Gutierrez resembles Crowley’s district neighbor, Jose Serrano, in that they’ve been in office for a long time and both are Puerto Rican. Serrano, one of the few Democrats who voted against the financial bailout and also raises little campaign money, and Gutierrez have nothing to lose. Already widely popular in their districts, going against their party will not lose them any money or future elections.

Given Crowley’s track record of seeking out leadership positions, he probably has higher aspirations and the cash to make them happen. He’s already raised $3 millionin campaign contributions, far exceeding the House average. With President Obama planning federal immigration reform legislation, Crowley will wait for the political storm-of-the-week to pass before speaking up.