| HOME | Featured Stories | October 2008 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL A FALL SCENE IN NORTHERN ISRAEL
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 31, 2008. |
|
GOLD IN THE GALILEE — A fall scene in Northern Israel This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Walking through the hills near my home earlier this week, I thought about how I find the visual clues that are the first sign of a good photo opportunity. Much of the visual hunting I do is simply honed instinct; I let my eyes wander and they come to rest at the place of greatest interest, usually a bright spot or an area with strong colors or patterns. When light and color and pattern come together, it's an easy task to merge them into a photographic whole. I stumbled onto this scene while hiking through a small forest in the
Galilee not far from Rosh Pina at the height of last fall's color
display. In the dark of the tree cover, a golden glow caught my eye
and aroused my curiosity because the colors seemed unnatural. Most of
the colors of fall are found in decaying leaves, such as the grape
vines seen in the foreground. The intense yellow of this barren field
is the result of the scattered remains of decomposing hay. Having
found the photo's subject, I climbed up a small hill to get a better
perspective and to add a strip of the orange vineyard, whose colors
provide a nice complement to the green and gold that dominate the rest
of the image.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
THE HOPE BETRAYED?
Posted by Victor Sharpe, October 31, 2008. |
|
The continuing existence of the Jewish people during the 2,000 years of the post-biblical era is surely a miracle, an enigma, and an astonishing phenomenon. For all of those long years the Jews lived in almost perpetual danger of extinction because they were stateless and at the mercy and whims from those within whichever nation they could find refuge. Despite all oppression and misery, the People of the Book, defenseless and powerless, despised and persecuted, nevertheless survived in the fiery crucibles of Christian Europe and the Muslim Arab world. The two daughter religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, though meting out horrific slaughters upon the Jews, nevertheless could not exist were it not for Judaism or Israel. And the world, be it religious or secular, has been forever touched by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Spinoza, Freud, Einstein, and by so many others who have sprung from this remarkable people. Yet another miracle occurred to the remnant of the Jewish folk who survived the Holocaust. They arose like a phoenix from what the European continent had become: one giant Jewish graveyard. They fought back against a cruel world and against incredible odds until the ancient 2,000-year-old dream of rebuilding and reconstituting the ancestral, biblical homeland in Israel became a reality. Yet with all the long and blood soaked history that the stateless Jews endured during their dispersion, there are Israeli Jews in leadership today who would give away yet more of the biblical homeland, which many of their parents and grandparents gave their lives to redeem. Binyamin Netanyahu, who is the leader of the Likud party in Israel, has stated that, "Today, in light of our abandonment of Gaza and the Hamas takeover there, it is clear to anyone who considers himself a 'State of Israel lover,' and not just a 'Land of Israel lover,' that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages." Netanyahu was Israel's Prime Minister some ten years ago and at the time was responsible for giving to the Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, the city of Hebron, one of the four holy Jewish cities — the others being Tiberias, Safed and, the jewel in the Jewish crown, Jerusalem. Netanyahu nevertheless claims that unlike his abandonment of much of the ancient Jewish city, the present leadership of Ehud Olmert, and his possible successor as Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, are obsessed with a death wish of giving even pre-1967 land to the Palestinian Authority. Indeed they seem possessed of a psychotic need to bribe an insatiable enemy with any and all Jewish land, and for what? Peace? Never in a million years will the Arabs and the Muslim world accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state or any other state for that matter if it is not Muslim and Arab. Netanyahu, for his part, responds that the real debate between him and the Left, as represented in part by Olmert and Livni, is about " ... the little Land of Israel ... We're not talking now about annexing Ramallah, but rather the fate of the Jordan Valley ... about the abandonment of areas with no Palestinian presence." Netanyahu implies that Olmert and Livni, and so many Israelis who have lost their sense of Jewish history,"... want to give away as much of ancestral Israel as possible, and we want to retain as much as possible in areas that are saturated with both historic significance and security significance for us." For those in Israel and the Diaspora who have forgotten the bloodstained pages of Jewish history during the long night of Israel's dispersal, it would be instructive for them to be reminded of the price a people pays for statelessness. Those rushing to bribe and placate the relentless hatred and aggression of the Arab world by giving to them the reclaimed Jewish birthright in its ancestral homeland — including eternal Jerusalem — should read the following words from the searing passion of their ancestors. Kalonymos ben Yehuda wrote this poem about the first Crusade which took place in 1096, and about the slaughter of the defenseless Jews in Europe. "Yea, they slay us and they smite, vex our souls with sore affright; All the closer cleave we, Lord, to Thine everlasting Word; Not a line of all their Mass, shall our lips in homage pass; Though they curse and bind and kill, the living God is with us still; We still are Thine, though limbs are torn, better death than life foresworn; The fair and young lie down to die, in witness of Thy Unity; From dying lips the accents swell, Our G-d is One, O Israel."The French scholar, Peter Abelard, wrote in 1135 about the Jews: "No nation has ever undergone such sufferings for God. Scattered among all the nations, having neither king nor secular prince, the Jews are oppressed with heavy taxes as if they must buy their lives anew every day. Except for heaven, they have no safe refuge. When they wish to travel to the nearest town, they must pay large sums of money to buy their protection of the Christian princes who, in truth, desire their death in order to sieze their inheritance. The Jews are not permitted to own fields and vineyards because there is no one to guarantee their possession." Abelard remained a lone non-Jewish voice crying in the wilderness. He himself was persecuted by the Church for his outspoken compassion towards the staeless and ever suffering Jewish communities. Ephraim of Bonn wrote in 1190 about the second Crusade: "In the year 1146 the Jewish communities were terror stricken. The monk, Rudolph, who shamefully persecuted Israel (the name often given for the Jews of the Diaspora) arose against the people of God in order, like Haman of old, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish." In 1793, Isaac D'Israeli wrote about the slaughter of the Jews of York, England, in 1190: "When Richard 1 ascended the throne, the Jews brought their tributes to honor him. Many had hastened from remote parts of England and, appearing at Westminster, the Court and the mob imagined they leagued to bewitch His Majesty. A rumor spread rapidly that the Jews were to be massacred and the populace at once murdered the devoted Jews." Sadly, news traveled north to the city of York and the townsfolk soon imitated the people of London. A cruel multitude, united with the soldiery, forced the Jewish residents to seek shelter in York Castle. The Jews held out as long as they could against the fanatical mob that by now were roused to extremes of murder and plunder. But in the end, the survivors chose to die by their own hand rather than see their loved ones slaughtered before their eyes by the mob. Just as the Church did in its canon law, Islam instituted many prohibitions against members of other religions. Some of the Islamic restrictions resembled the anti-Jewish laws imposed by the Church throughout the Christian world. The severest punishments — usually death — were meted out to any who dared question the writings and sayings of Mohammed. With the decline of the Islamic empire in the medieval period through the ascent of Christian Europe, the Muslim masses turned upon the hapless Jews who were increasingly forced to live as dhimmis (inferior and third class citizens) among them. Periodic persecutions and slaughters took place against the Jews who were forced to wear distinctive clothing, often absurd and humiliating, and live in ghettoes (mellahs) similar to those they endured in Christian Europe. Though the ever present danger of Muslim fundamentalism could break out at any time (for example the 12th century Almohads) Islamic persecutions of the Jews paled against those they suffered at the hands of the Church. However, the yearning for relief from discrimination or worse, and the desire to return to Zion and the ancestral homeland, was as compelling for the Jews in Arab lands as it was for their brethren in Europe. On August 3rd, 1492, the ancient Jewish population of Spain was driven out in the infamous Expulsion. Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled, forced to leave all that their ancestors had built in Spain over centuries, and walk in a long trail of the dispossessed to the seaports. Here are a few lines from the long poem by Emma Lazarus called, The Exodus, written in 1883: "The hoary patriarch, wrinkled as an almond shell, bows painfully upon his staff. The beautiful young mother, ivory pale, well nigh swoons beneath her burden; in her large enfolding arms nestles her sleeping babe, round her knees flock her little ones with bruised and bleeding feet. 'Mother, shall we soon be there?' Heinrich Heine wrote this poem in 1824 about Jewish suffering in Germany: "Break forth in lamentation, my agonizing song; That like a lava torrent, has boiled within me long; My song shall thrill each hearer, and none so deaf but hears; For the burden of my song, is the pain of a thousand years; It melts both gentle and simple, even hearts of stone are riven; Sets women and flowers weeping, they weep, the stars of heaven." This, from Solomon Shechter, 1903: "I remember when I came home from the religious school, bleeding and crying from the wounds inflicted upon me by the Christian boys, my father used to say: 'My child, we are in exile and we must submit to God's will.' And he made me understand that this was only a passing stage in history, as we Jews belong to Eternity, when God will comfort His people. However, my real suffering began later in life when I emigrated from Romania to so-called civilized countries and found there what I might call the higher anti-Semitism, which burns the soul though it leaves the body unhurt." Mary Antin wrote in 1911 about the horrors inflicted upon the Jews of Russia especially at Passover: "The Passover season, when we celebrated our deliverance from Egypt was the time our gentile neighbors chose to remind us that Russia was another Egypt. They made it a time of horror for the Jews. Somebody would start up that lie about murdering Christian children and the stupid peasants would get mad about it, fill themselves with vodka, and set out to murder the Jews. They attacked them with knives and clubs, and scythes and axes, killed them or tortured them, and burned their houses. This was a pogrom. Jews who escaped came with wounds on them and horrible stories of little babies torn limb from limb before their mother's eyes. People who saw such things never smiled again." In Russia, the Jews endured centuries of such pogroms. Lucien Wolfe wrote the following in 1912, titled, Under the Romanoffs: "The plaything of a heartless bureaucracy, the natural prey of all the savage elements in society, loaded with fetters in one place, and in another driven out like some wild beast, the Russian Jew finds that for him, at least, life is composed of little else than bitterness, suffering and degradation." In 1920, Nahum Sokolow wrote about the Massacres in the Ukraine: "For this cold murder of whole communities, not Heaven itself, nor all the mercy of the angels, could find palliation. There is no instance that shows so much as this, the ghastly descent of human character into primitive brutality and cannibalism. This is a deed, which in its horror and wicked purposelessness should have stunned the world." But these few examples of the many frightful persecutions and slaughters that the Jews experienced in their 2,000 year old exile are but a series of fearsome dress rehearsals before the great Destruction: the German Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. In the mid Twentieth century, perverted science and German efficiency, along with the age old evil that is Jew hatred, combined to systematically exterminate nearly all of European Jewry — reducing the world Jewish population from 18,000,000 to barely 12,000,000 in less than a decade. Now, in the first decade of the 21st century, a new Hitler is spewing the same familiar poison against the Jews, which the world has wallowed in for all the previous centuries. The Islamic Republic of Iran's Ahmadinejad is promising to murder yet another six million Jews; the Jewish population of Israel. He has declared that the Jewish state will be exterminated and is feverishly working towards that end with nuclear weapons. But it should also be understood that Ahmadinejad, speaking in late September, 2008 at the United Nations, exposed his belief that in time the United States would bow down to Iran. The megalomania of Iran's president should lie to rest any belief that what he says is just foolish posturing and babbling. A terrible mistake was made once before about a man who uttered similar rants. That man was the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. It is against the backdrop of the threats of this new Hitler of our time, and with the historical memories of the 2,000 years of unbearable suffering that the Jews experienced as stateless refugees, driven from one land only to be persecuted in another, that those Israelis who today plot to give away the one and only Jewish homeland should take note. Their foolish and prideful claims to speak for the Jewish and Israeli people in matters of security are invalid. Worse still, their betrayal and ignorance of Jewish history in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora is breathtaking in its enormity. Prime Minister Olmert, who still remains in office in a caretaker capacity, only a short while ago told his cabinet that he was willing to even give away the Jordan Valley itself to the Arabs. And rumors are rife of his desire to give away the Golan Heights, suffused as it is with immense Jewish biblical and post-biblical history. He and his supporters should be reminded of the great Zionist poem — The Watch on the Jordan. Here are a few selected lines from that epic written by N.H. Imber: "Like the crash of the thunder which splitteth asunder the flame of the cloud. On our ears ever falling, a voice is heard calling from Zion aloud. Let your spirits, desires, from the land of our sires, eternally burn. From the foe to deliver, Our own holy river. To Jordan return. "And in pride of our people we will fearlessly face the might of the world. When our trumpet is blown and our standard is flown, then set we our watch. Our watchword, The sword, of our land, and our Lord. By Jordan then set we our watch." Through heroic toil and immense sacrifice in blood, the sovereign and modern State of Israel was restored and Jewish patrimony once again brought alive in its ancestral land. Is it now to be thrown away in stages by an ignorant and fraudulent leadership who would thus consign the nation to yet another inevitable dark and tragic exile? Is it to experience once again an existence as a stateless people at the mercy of strangers? The words in Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah, the Hope, include the following: We have not lost our Hope, of two thousand years, to be a free people in our land, Land of Zion and Jerusalem. Let us hope that Israel's leaders, now and in the future, do not forget those words. Let us pray that they are reminded of the horrors of exile and, in so doing, never lose the hope of two thousand years to truly be a free and sovereign people in its own land: Zion and Jerusalem. Let us also pray that they forever resist betraying Hatikvah: The Hope. Victor Sharpe is the author of Politicide — The attempted murder of the Jewish state. This article was published 22 October 2008 by Israel Hasbara Committee — http://www.infoisrael.net |
|
A SETTLER'S REPLY TO AMERICANS FOR PEACE NOW
Posted by Steve Kramer, October 31, 2008. |
|
I read Alan Kligerman's letter to the editor of the Jewish Times (Oct. 17) with some alarm. I'm a "settler", as are my wife Michal, our two sons, and the rest of the 7,000 residents of our town, Alfe Menashe. We don't like being demonized by repeatedly being called Settlers with a capital S, as Mr. Kligerman wrote. There are about 500,000 so-called settlers living beyond the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line), who constitute 9% of the five and a half million Jewish Israelis. 200,000 live within Jerusalem city limits, 280,000 live in the West Bank, and 20,000 live in the Golan Heights. Among this large population, the firebrands number in the hundreds, a minuscule percentage — and some of those hooligans don't even live in settlements. It goes without saying that none of them are suicide bombers. Let's review where the word "settler" comes from. Communities in Israel are often called "yishuvim" in Hebrew, which comes from the verb "leshev": to sit. Yishuvim can be translated as "settlements", which makes the residents "settlers". Tel Aviv is the largest example of the hundreds of towns and cities in Israel built by settlers. But in mainstream mediaspeak about Israel, the terms settlements and settlers have been given a negative connotation. This is not the case when those terms are used in any other context, such as the settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the Dutch settlers who built New Amsterdam (later named Manhattan), or the settlers who opened the American West. What's Peace Now's beef with Jewish residents (a neutral name for Jewish settlers) anyway? Peace Now is one of several far-left Israeli-based organizations promoting Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and the removal of all Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria. It's largely funded by foreign governments like Britain, Norway, and Finland. This is from their website: "Peace Now continues to view the illegal outposts and the settlements as major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest." In addition, Peace Now believes that Jews living anywhere beyond the Green Line are attempting "to derail peace negotiations and progress towards a peace agreement". Some Jews who live beyond the Green Line do so to build a Jewish presence while others are primarily interested in a better lifestyle, but all believe that Jews have a right to live anywhere in what the League of Nations designated as the "national home for the Jewish people". Jews who live beyond the Green Line aren't opposed to having peaceful relations with the Palestinians, but they disagree that their homes are an obstacle to peace. Unlike Peace Now adherents, almost all of these Israelis think peace is unattainable, so long as Arabs continue to use terror to deny Jews the right to live independently on either side of the Green Line. Members and supporters of Peace Now, who are mostly Jewish, diligently join in Arab efforts to deny Israelis a place in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan, which are clearly disputed territories. Any reading of history — except in Muslim history books — points out that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish kingdom of Judea, while the Arabs, who ruled the area for hundreds of years, never made Jerusalem a capital of anything. Nor did the Ottoman Turks have a capital there after they usurped the Arabs in 1517 and established their control over the entire region bordering the eastern Mediterranean (Greater Syria). The Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea, which devolved from King Solomon's kingdom thousands of years ago, were located primarily in today's disputed territories. The Romans renamed the area Palestine after defeating the Jews in the 2nd-century CE. Following the Arab conquest in the 7th-century, Palestine was most commonly considered part of Greater Syria. When the British defeated the Ottoman Turks in 1917 during WWI, ending 400 years of Ottoman sovereignty, they revived the name Palestine and kept control of the area until the dissolution of the Palestine Mandate in 1948. Ever since the Jews declared the independence of Israel and fought off the six invading Arab armies, the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines have been disputed by Jews and Arabs. Lately, the Arabs have even begun to question Israel's territory within the armistice lines — that is, most of Israel — by belatedly "agreeing" to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which called for two separate states in Palestine — a larger one for the Arabs and a smaller one for the Jews, with Jerusalem to be internationalized. Peace Now folks agitate for Palestinian rights, but have little sympathy for Jewish rights. In and around Israel, Jews are fighting a continual battle to retain our independent state. The Arabs are implacable about their demand that the original hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees and their millions of descendants should settle inside Israel. Of course, this demographic flood would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. And despite protestations in English (but not in Arabic) that they're willing to live side by side in peace with Israel, the Palestinians continue to imbue their children with hatred against Jews, to glorify martyrdom against us, and to attempt to terrorize us. A logical but ignored target for Peace Now's complaints should be the Muslim states. These nations, especially the Arab ones, have little or no tolerance for Jews or other minorities in their own countries. While there is a tiny remnant of Jews in some Arab countries, they only highlight the huge expulsion of 800,000 Jews and the expropriation of their property in the two decades after 1948. Peace Now isn't interested in that or with the fact that Arab countries are Judenrein. Instead, their wrath is directed toward Israel, where 20% of the population are Arab citizens who have the democratic right to vote, attend Israeli public schools and universities, and participate in the work force. Peace Now concentrates on pressuring Israelis to further compromise "for peace", after Israel has already left Lebanon and Gaza "for peace". Because the Palestinians, as practitioners of Middle Eastern "bazaar diplomacy", will not compromise on their demands, extremists "for peace", such as Peace Now, have no one to badger except the more moderate Israelis. Israel is not "Goliath" fighting the Palestinian "David". Besides America and a few other English-speaking countries, the world lines up with the Arabs against Israel. One of the reasons for this is the huge contingent of Muslim and so-called non-aligned nations which automatically vote against Israel in the United Nations. Another reason is the Western wish to curry favor with the oil-rich Arabs. But most galling are the misguided efforts of Jews and others who are quick to condemn Israel for defending itself, and slow to recognize the growing Muslim threat to Israel and to all Western countries. Contact Steve Kramer at sjk1@jhu.edu |
|
THE WISDOM OF THE PHONE BOOK
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 31, 2008. |
|
This is from the desk of Paul Belien of the Brussels
Journal and this article is archived at
Paul Belien is the author of numerous articles, essays and books, including, most recently, A Throne in Brussels. He is the co-author — together with Lady Thatcher, Lord Tebbit, Philippe Seguin and others — Visions of Europe (Duckworth, 1994) and — with Harvard Business School's Prof. Regina Herzlinger — Consumer-Driven Health Care (Jossey-Bass, 2004). He has given lectures on European health care systems in various countries, including the U.S., Canada, Japan and Australia. |
|
One will not likely find many people in the Boston phone book who would prefer to join the foreign army than their own in the event of a war between the United States and a foreign nation. In Europe, that certainty no longer exists. Last week, my good friend David Brooks reminded us of a famous saying of the late Bill Buckley. As Buckley said, he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. There is usually more common sense, indeed wisdom, in the opinions of the common man than in the theories of intellectuals and even of professional politicians. On opening the Brussels phone book and browsing through its first 2,000 names, however, one quickly realizes that to advocate Buckley's advice in contemporary Western Europe would lead to the installation of rulers with names reminiscent of Arabian Nights, names such as Aarab, Abbas, Abdel Kader, Abdellaoui, Al Mahi, Al Maghreb El Jadid, ... The face of the old continent is changing faster than many realize and the repercussions are already being felt in Europe's elections. In many countries the Muslim vote is on the brink of tipping or has already tipped the electoral balance. Most immigration into Europe has been welfare immigration. Hence, it is no wonder that the immigrant vote favors the Left. In the Netherlands, 70% of the immigrants participated in the 2006 Dutch general elections, with over 80% of them voting for the left. In the 2005 German general elections, 94% of the Germans of immigrant (mainly Turkish) origin voted for the parties of the left — Socialists, Greens or "Post"-Communists — who gained 51.1% of the national vote. In France, a country with over 10% Muslims, their electoral clout has become so important that even the far-right Front National tries to attract part of the Muslim vote. The new generation of immigrant politicians cater for their fellow Muslims. They have little in common with the former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born immigrant who was a Muslim apostate advocating anti-islamic legislation. Ms Hirsi Ali left the Dutch parliament in 2006 and moved to the United States. The newly elected immigrant politicians, on the contrary, represent a growing and demographically young electorate that insists on asserting its Muslim identity. Their loyalties lie more with their countries of origin than with the Dutch nation, which they look upon mainly as a welfare distributing Santa Claus. In Belgium, Ergün Top, a Turkish-born Muslim politician who ran for the Senate last year, admitted that he feels more loyalty towards Turkey than towards Belgium. He told an audience of Turkish-born Belgian voters that if there ever were a war between Belgium and Turkey, he would join the Turkish army and fight Belgium. This indicates that turning the tide of Islamization in Europe will be very difficult. So here is a new statement to replace Bill Buckley's famous words: If the first 2,000 names in the phone book sound more exotic than the university's faculty staff, elections are likely to be won by the Left and Sharia law is just around the corner. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ISRAEL VS. RELIGION & ZIONISM; WHY U.S. RADAR IN NEGEV?; OBAMA PRAISED PLO BIG-WIG
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 31, 2008. |
|
ANOTHER SUPPOSED MODERATE The former Fatah leader of Gaza, Dahlan, disparages the armed uprisings against Israel, because they didn't work out well. He does not condemn their terrorism. He has incorrectly been portrayed as "moderate." (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/29). The distinction between moderates and extremists usually is false. It is a ruse, a pretext for pretending there are some jihadists with whom Israel can deal and make concessions. ANTI-JEWISH RULE IN AN ISRAELI SCHOOL Three boys in an Israeli public school wanted to don phylacteries. They found an unoccupied room in which to do it. Eventually, other children joined them. All this was voluntary. When the principal found out about it, she forbad them. She said, ""What you are doing is religious coercion and missionary incitement. There are students in this school whose parents won't have them exposed to religious characteristics." The principal did not cite any coercion. Apparently the Left talks about pluralism but does not believe in it (IMRA, 10/1). Coercion is against freedom of religion, and so is prohibition of religious practice. OPPONENTS OF WITHDRAWAL NOT HEARD MUCH Mediocre professors, subsidized from abroad, advocate withdrawal. The media mostly ignores polls against withdrawal and arguments against it (IMRA, 10/2). ACCUSED SETTLER RELEASED A man from Yitzhar was arrested and held in jail, accused of firing in the air during a demonstration against the Arab village that harbors terrorists who repeatedly raid, burn, and stab in Yitzhar. The court criticized police and prosecutors for an illegal arrest (Arutz-7, 10/3). STATE DEPT. & LAWSUITS AGAINST THE P.A. Abbas asks the State Dept. to intervene in lawsuits against the P.A. and PLO for damages from their terrorism. The State Dept. successfully got the courts to see to it that victorious victims did not collect financial awards. Lately, the Dept. has been asking Abbas, instead, to respond to the courts promptly and to settle out-of-court if he thinks he won't like the court awards (Arutz-7, 10/1). SYRIA REBUILDING NUCLEAR PLANT Funded by Iran, N. Korean scientists are building more than one nuclear facility in Syria, to replace the one Israel bombed. Syria is not cooperating with the IAEA inspectors on this (IMRA, 10/3). QUESTIONS ABOUT U.S. RADAR IN THE NEGEV The U.S. set up a permanent military base in Israel, to detect Iranian launches of missiles at Israel. The US is not feeding its findings to Israel, and not letting Israelis at the monitor. It promises to inform Israel of a missile launch. Some Israelis wonder whether the radar gives the US an ability to spy on Israel. Dr. Aaron Lerner: "It isn't clear what 'secrets' about Israel the radar would supply considering that tiny Israel is already well within range of ship- board radar systems." (IMRA, 10/3.) PROPOSED DETERRENT STRATEGY Israel can't stand a Lebanese war of attrition. Israel should respond swiftly and disproportionately. It should destroy Hizbullah's military capability and punish Syrian centers of political and supportive civilian power with damage that would take years to repair, even if it misses a few missile launchers. Force a ceasefire upon the enemy and give their rulers reason not to try again (IMRA, 10/3). I agree. However, Israel should start now to explain to the reset of the world the need for disproportionate retaliation against such aggressors. At present, the rest of the world feigns indignation at any strong Israeli retaliation as "disproportionate." Phony ethics. Disproportionate retaliation is more ethical. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (A.I.) OBSESSION WITH ISRAEL A.I. boasted that it persists in monitoring the "suffering" in Gaza, even while most of the world was preoccupied with Russian aggression against Georgia, with its human rights abuse and suffering and much greater casualties. But the ceasefire in Gaza ended most IDF involvement there, and the big news, which A.I. ignored, was intra-Gaza fighting. Having little new to report, A.I. recycled old reports. It failed to report Israel's sanctuary to Fatah refugees from Hamas. "As NGO Monitor analysis has demonstrated, the (A.I.) report lacks evidence and credibility, largely ignores the context of terrorism, exploits international legal terminology, and presents data in a highly selective and distorted manner." A.I. did not condemn Russia! During the Lebanon War, it condemned Israel daily (IMRA, 10/3). Any excuse to bash Israel. CANDIDATES MISS OPPORTUNITY TO HELP Candidates often fight rear-guard action. Sen. Kerry ran against the Vietnam War of decades earlier. Sen. Obama is running against the Iraq War that is almost over and won. As far as I know, neither current candidate seized the opportunity to save the hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown at banks without purpose. As the pro-Democrat NY Times has pointed out and earlier warned against, the Treasury Dept. offered the banks hundreds of billions, ostensibly to keep credit liquid. Instead of lending the money to keep corporations and mortgages going, or to buy failing banks to salvage what they can, the banks are hoarding the money or save it to buy thriving banks so as to expand their market. That was not the purpose. It does not help the economy. It strains and drains the Treasury to no avail. The Administration was irresponsible not to specify the condition it ostensibly lent the money for. The candidates should demand that the condition be specified, especially for the half of the funds not already lent. Here was an opportunity for Sen. McCain to have differentiated himself from Pres. Bush. The Obama campaign showed itself flexible in replying almost instantly to every barb by Clinton with a barb of its own. It also shows nimbleness in finding an excuse for everything negative coming out about Obama or his policy of the day. But it missed the opportunity to play a constructive role in correcting a Bush error, if error it be. Our governments have a way of wasting money on corporations. OBAMA PRAISED PLO BIG-WIG The L.A. Times reported having a videotape of the 2003 farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the PLO, listed as a terrorist organization. William Ayers was there. So was Sen. Obama. He praised Khalidi. Party goers condemned the US and Israel. The McCain campaign asked for the tape to be released. The newspaper claims that its source asked it not to (Arutz-7, 10/30). Why would a source give a newspaper a tape to report about, but ask it not to let the tape be screened? Doesn't make sense. Ayers and Obama, again. Obama keeps associating with enemies of our country, especially Islamists. [Then he claims to be pro-Israel.] He says don't vote for fear. McCain doesn't preach fear, but there is reason to fear Obama. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
OBAMA AND THE JEWISH DIVIDE
Posted by Barry Shaw, October 31, 2008. |
|
With just days before the US Presidential elections it appears that Barack Hussein Obama will be declared the 44th President of the United States. Gaps are narrowing in most polls and it is likely that certain swing states will be crucial in deciding the outcome of the election campaign. Pundits have expressed opinions as to the voting patterns of ethnic groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and the Jewish vote. With the sensitivity of political correctness little has been said about the power of the Arab-American vote. This is so solidly behind Obama that it rarely comes up for discussion. Some will vote for him as a reject vote against the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Others identify Obama as having a shared background and, therefore, common interests. It is not presumptive to assume that a large number of Arab-American voters choose Obama in the expectation that he will enforce a different and more favourable policy in the Middle East and the Arab world. But what of the Jewish vote? All indicators show that a large majority will go for Obama. Though they will vote for a candidate out of personal and national interests, many selected their candidate as one who will be good for Israel and help bring peace to the region. Liberal Jews express a keen opinion that Barack Obama will stand firmly with Israel, but on what is this judgment based? The enigma is that Obama's foreign policy is an empty page on to which the American electorate are writing their personal wish list. Liberal Jews are chanting the mantra that Obama 'will be good for Israel' without pointing to any convincing evidence to support that view. On the contrary, there is clear proof that Obama has politically surrounded himself with people who are radically opposed to anything that will be good for Israel. When faced with Obama's intimate contacts with characters such as Rashid Khalidi and Khalid al-Mansour, Liberal Jews dismiss this as 'mud-slinging' and irrelevant to a future Administration's policy towards the Jewish state. Even before Obama and Joe Biden enter the White House they both were two of a minority of Senators who opposed a congressional resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be named a terrorist organisation. The vote did pass, but with no credit to either the potential incoming President and Vice President. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been training and arming both Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists. Both terror organsiations have avowed, and are acting towards, the destruction of Israel. When it came to the vote neither Obama or Biden placed themselves in support of the motion. This is seen in Israel as the opening blow in the future deteriorating relationship between Israel and the United States. In America, people such as Jesse Jackson, General Tony McPeak, and Zbigniew Brzezinski are gleefully rejoicing over what they see as the impending end of the 'Zionist lobby' and Jewish influence on American foreign policy with an incoming Obama Administration. Voices in Israel express concern that the new American Administration will impose sanctions on Israel — due to Israel's settlement policy — before they will impose sanctions on Iran. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that exit polls, conducted by the non-partisan VotefromIsrael.org., of early American voters in Israel show a distinct preference for John McCain. A huge 76% of those polled said they had voted for McCain. One interesting statistic in Israel was that 46% of registered Democrats voted for McCain with only 2% of Republican going for Obama. Israel has the third largest group of American voters after Canada and Britain but the vote in Israel was strongly influenced by deep personal concerns for security and the safety of its citizens. This was a vote of no confidence in an Obama Administration when it comes to Israel. In America, the numbers of the Jewish vote is expected to be reversed with around 70% voting for Obama. This exposes a clear misunderstanding of the issues by one of the electoral groups — Americans in Israel against Jews in America. This threatens to lead to a harmful rift between the two communities should Obama foreign policy impose strictures on Israel that are perceived here as having the potential to weaken and isolate the Jewish state. The View from Here articles are written by Barry Shaw Contact him at netre@matav.net.il |
|
MANDATE AND THE MAN: RICHARD FALK AT THE U.N.
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 31, 2008. |
|
This letter was written by Hillel Neuer and published in today's
Jerusalem Post
Hillel Neuer is Executive Director, UN Watch, based in Geneva. |
|
Sir, The latest condemnation of Israel by Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967," requires some context ("UN: Israel violated Geneva Conventions," October 25). First, Falk's UN title is deliberately deceptive. The actual terms of his mandate do not address the overall "situation of human rights" in the area concerned. Rather, the Arab-controlled council decided in 1993 to investigate only "Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law." That means Hamas brutality against Israelis and Palestinians alike is entirely excluded. Falk's is the only UN mandate that is inherently one-sided, presumptive of guilt and immune from regular review. What kind of person would accept such a biased mandate? One with the moral compass to argue, as Falk did in 2002, that suicide bombings were the "only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the (Palestinian) struggle could go on." One with the political judgment to write, in a 1979 New York Times op-ed, that Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." One with the good sense to support — as Falk has done openly and repeatedly — conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2008, he told a radio interviewer that there are "a lot of grounds for suspicion" that the attacks were an inside job. In June, he called for an investigation into whether "some sort of controlled explosion from within" destroyed the Twin Towers. Finally, Falk praised "the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence" of conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, to whose 2006 book, 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Falk contributed a chapter. How tragic that in the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN's representative figures have gone from luminaries like René Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt to loonies like Richard Falk. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
Posted by Ari Bussel, October 31, 2008. |
|
Those of us immersed in the battle for public perception realize we are in the middle of a fierce war, one like no other before. It would be a mistake to try and understand today in the context of even twenty years ago, not because the communication means are vastly different, but because the enemy continuously reinvents itself. We, on the other hand, seem to lag behind. An effort by theory specialists in the academia to provide models for a systematic, empirical analysis of public diplomacy looks at processes rather than a particular point of time. For practitioners in the foreign ministry to join forces with the academics is a worthy endeavor. Apparently, a consensus exists within that Israel is in a crisis and that public diplomacy is a national asset which must be protected and utilized to its fullest potential, although neither side has the courage necessary to look at itself and admit — first and foremost to itself — that it is part of the problem. Such a lofty effort must start with a present day case study, an actual example that will provide, by its hands-on nature, a mechanism to focus the attention, define the problem and provide for practical solutions. Analysis done from a distance has its value, yet there is nothing more conducive for a real analysis to take place than a true understanding of the nature and the extent of the problem. For many years I was teaching Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). I would tell the students — many health care professionals including MDs — what they need to do and the mistakes they need to avoid. Everything was well understood until I asked the first person to practice on a mannequin. The same mistakes I warned against were repeated time and time again. When one tries to understand the influence of today's internet and the vast fields of beyond-ordinary-imagination activities it offers, one would often consult a kid. Youth at the high school level might be considered "too old." Likewise, this group of very well respected professionals and leading academicians should have invited a Dr. Daryl Temkin of the Beverly Hills-based Israel Institute to start and end the two day conference about Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century that just ended in Tel Aviv Israel. The closing remarks pointed out that nothing we do will provide an equal response to a picture of an ambulance trying to stop a tank or of a young kid raising his hands looking at the tall soldier pointing a gun at him. [The latter is also a not-so-subtle reminder of the picture of a child raising his hands with the Nazi war machine not shown but understood to be the setting.] Dr. Temkin would have started the conference by saying that to tell a lie takes a fraction of a second, to refute a lie will take so much time and effort rendering the mission close to impossible. The way to fight it is not by responding to a web of lies, trying to explain, analyze or rebuff, but be our creative, tenacious, inventive and spirited self. Dr. Temkin, unabashed, often goes to Muslim gatherings, to anti-Israel and virally-anti-West demonstrations or lectures and calmly stands up to offer a voice of reason, a single light in this darkness threatening to engulf us. Dr. Temkin represents all of us, a small light that dares to flicker — like a candle in the wind. He combines an ability of an orator, the knowledge of ancient and recent history as well as current events, the usage of the Bible and the clarity of the path he chooses. He often does so at a risk to his life. Like Dr. Temkin, student members of ZOA, American Jewish Congress, Stand With Us, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other organizations do wonders on the (US) campuses where they study. They are the soldiers on the front line, they participate in the ongoing battle for public perception. Not only do they serve as beacons of light, they have amassed personal, first hand knowledge of the war on public opinion. But Dr. Temkin was not here, nor were the Israeli representatives of any of the above or other organizations whose mission is to promote Israel, defend it and fight the war in the arena of public opinion. In war, much like in life, we must be proactive. Being reactive puts us at a disadvantage. Israel used to be smart, full of energy, daring, innovative, creative. In the area of public diplomacy Israel seems to have lost it edge and the enemy continues to gain strength and have the upper hand. Thus, when discussing Public Diplomacy, it would have behooved the researchers and practitioners to have invited those on the front line to participate. First, they could offer invaluable insight as to what is happening today on the ground. Second, they could have learned as well from history and experience amassed by the collective of those in attendance over many decades of collaborative, methodological work in their respective fields. The synergies could have been many. Recognizing "The Conflict" Other than two or three comments-in-passing, there was no mention throughout the sessions of the conference on Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century of the elements and substance of "The Conflict." Let one make no mistake — this is a group of very opinionated leaders, very well respected in their respective fields, and yet they all purposely avoided the subject as if afraid of fire. The silence was deafening. "Israel Beyond the Conflict" was the buzz-phrase used constantly. "'Branding Israel' will take us in the right direction," we were told. Branding Israel, its many achievements and all its has to offer is a marketing tool whose place is in the Ministry of Tourism. Funding has been granted and the benefits will spill over, but this is not what would make public diplomacy. Indeed, "The Conflict" is the battlefield where we should all be. We must first define to ourselves this is not a conflict but a war to destroy us in a greater war to end the Western dominance and establish Sha'aria Law in a worldwide Caliphate. Israelis have internalized this notion (as evident from the fact that so many otherwise-competing egos were gathered in one place working as a team toward a mutual goal) but are still too busy arguing with themselves if they are on the "Right" or the "Left" (or avoiding this discussion altogether). We need to face the thing we dread most: Define to ourselves who we are and what is important for us. We must first be sure we have a right to exist, that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish Homeland, a sovereign country, right in the Promised Land. Only then will we be able to fight, for we will know what it is we are fighting to achieve. Let us be very clear, it is a fight, an existential war, and we must find the thread, the tiniest of fibers which is the least — not the widest — common denominator. We are a society whose strengths are its diversity and openness and the numerous freedoms it affords. But we have gone astray due to the blinding force of the arguments and propaganda against us. For those of have not noticed, or possibly did not pay attention, the "Occupation" argument used against us has already turned into "Israel is a Nazi-regime" and the latter is gaining strength. (This is a very interesting notion on its own merits, since the same propagators of this argument deny there was ever a Holocaust although they are willing to admit the Zionists have invented it as a ruse to gain sympathy in order to claim a land not theirs.) Like fiber optics that can transmit enormous amounts of data at an amazing speed yet are hardly visible to the eye, so is this crucial understanding of who we are, what are we fighting for, and the conscientious disengagement from being the blame. Blaming ourselves for a phenomenal marketing creation of our enemies' imagination simply falls into the hands of the enemy and the trap it has set up methodologically not too many decades ago, waiting for us to walk like a lamb ready to be slaughtered. Public Diplomacy starts right here at home. The systematic evaluation of the history or our failures has its merits, but we will not find the energy to bring about the change, the single atoms that when colliding will create an atomic blast, the fiber optics infrastructure connecting us enabling communication to take place at ever increasing speeds, until we look inward and resolve our differences. Presenting a united front does not mean we given in or give up. It means we have recognized the threat and realize the way to confront it. When we realize that an "end to the Occupation" will not resolve "The Conflict," we will be able to create the tools, utilize the best technologies (many not yet invented) and fight the war for public opinion. We have no other choice. The real wakeup call is to bridge the gap that currently divides Israel over the abyss between "Right" and "Left." It is exactly the one obstacle we must overcome to be able to continue. If one thinks of an obstacle course, with the world community as spectators on the sides, one must realize these are active participants, firing at us, using live ammunition, hand grenades and other lethal weaponry. The only possibility for the soldiers under fire and under close scrutiny to succeed is to work as a team. Israel knows this but is yet to externalize and implement its knowledge. Israel has the will, conviction and ability to survive, but to have a chance to continue in this struggle, we must unite. Israel is a miracle, a blessing unto the Nations, and it is our one and only homeland. It is incumbent upon us to take the necessary steps to ensure it continued survival, its growth and prosperity. The time to reinvent ourselves is now. Reporting from Israel,
Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com |
|
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! IS THERE A MORAL BONE LEFT IN YOU?
Posted by Jonas S. Lieberman, October 31, 2008. |
|
Sent to members of the media |
|
I have written to all of you numerous times. If you look back on the e-mails that I have forwarded you, it will verify that I am genuinely concerned about the election and foremost that I am not a kook. Barack Hussein Obama the PREACHER that has bullied and intimidated and mesmerized the voters and the media, will probably be the NEXT PRESIDENT of the most powerful country in the world. And you are all letting a newspaper to withhold a video tape that could change the perspective of presidential race. The Democrats want to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine", however they only want it to work one way, for their benefit only. I find it very difficult to believe that none of you are concerned about these implications. If Obama becomes the next president this video will be destroyed and so will Freedom of Speech & Freedom of the Press. Please one of you must have a few moral bones left in your body. You will let this country elect an American hater who will give away this country to only his own people! These are facts that each of you know are true but are too scared to discuss because you will be called a racist. What about a black racist, they don't exist? WAKE UP G-D DAMN IT, WAKE UP! Is it really about race or is it really intimidation by the left? You have the power to make the truth known, a member for 20 years with a spew hating Reverend wright and he remembers nothing. Would you believe that a 20 year old growing up in the same household remembers nothing? He remembers nothing he learned in school, he remembers nothing his parents taught him? How dare you believe such a liar! HOW DARE THIS MAN LIE! When he is PRESIDENT DO YOU EXPECT HIM TO SUDDENLY TELL THE TRUTH? Do any of you realize the danger we will face from a man that is lying to all of us now and once he is president. Has John McCain ever been caught lying. From the beginning of the campaign to the present he has never deviated, he never hated the United States, he does not hate the Jews, he does not hate the black people. How far do you think John McCain would get if he was accused of any of this? And if there was anything to accuse him of the Democrats would have used it months ago! Jonas S. Lieberman
|
|
TELL THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR YOU ARE DISGUSTED BY ISRAEL'S TREATMENT
OF THE FEDERMAN FAMILY
Posted by Buddy Macy, October 31, 2008. | |
|
Dear Fellow Activists, Last Sunday morning, the Israeli Government ordered the execution of appalling actions against two Jewish families in Kiryat Arba. (Click the link to learn the details directly from one of the victims: http://www.hebron.com/english/) I urge you to send a fax (202-364-5423) and postal letter of any length, to Sallai Meridor, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. And, please forward this email to everyone on your list. Here is my letter, for your reference:
EDITOR'S NOTE: Also see David Wilder's account
below
Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com
|
|
MARXIST 'MENTOR' SOLD DRUGS WITH OBAMA
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 30, 2008. |
|
The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, World Net Daily (WND) has established. This was written by Jerome R. Corsi and it appeared in WND http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79467 Jerome Corsi is author of "The Obama Nation." |
|
HONOLULU, Hawaii — The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, WND has established. A credible source, a well-known resident of Honolulu who spoke at length with WND on condition he not be named, disclosed that Davis was the source of drugs consumed by Obama. Davis was also the author of an autobiographical novel boasting of "swinging" and sex with minors, a copy of which WND obtained from Andrew Walden, a resident of the Hawaiian island of Hilo and publisher of the Hawaii Free Press. Obama, in his autobiographical book "Dreams from My Father," discloses that he used both marijuana and cocaine as a high school student living with his grandparents in their Honolulu apartment. The source said that on more than a dozen occasions he purchased "8-balls" consisting of approximately 3.6 grams of cocaine from Davis at the hot dog stand when Obama was presen "Obama was a young kid, about 14 or 15 years old," the source told WND. "I was told his name was Barry, and there was no doubt Barry knew Davis was selling marijuana and cocaine as well as hot dogs from the stand." "Barry was also there with an older white gentleman I'm told was Stanley," the source said. "I thought Stanley was Barry's father." WND has established that Stanley was Stanley Armour Dunham, Obama's grandfather. "I bought cocaine from Davis at the hot dog stand," the source said. "The first purchase I made was in 1975. In total, I bought 14 purchases of cocaine from Davis. I bought what Davis called an '8-ball' that consisted of about 3.6 grams of cocaine. An '8-ball' cost $300." As was established in "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," Obama lived with his mother and his Indonesian Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in Jakarta from 1967 to 1970, when Obama was approximately 6 to 10 years old. Obama's mother sent him back to Hawaii alone in 1970 to live with his grandparents while she and Obama's sister, Maya, remained in Indonesia to continue living with Soetoro. Ann Dunham subsequently divorced Soetoro and returned to Hawaii to continue pursuing a master's degree in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. For a period of three years, Obama lived in what he described as "a small apartment a block away from Punahou," his high school. Obama's mother returned with Maya to Indonesia to complete her anthropology field work in Indonesia. Obama reports in his autobiography that he refused to go back to Indonesia to attend the international school there, preferring instead to remain in Hawaii and live with his grandparents in their apartment. Obama reported that his grandfather at this time had a number of black male friends who "were mostly poker and bridge partners," describing them as "neatly dressed men with hoarse voices and clothes that smelled of cigars, the kind of men for whom everything has its place and who figure they've seen enough not to waste a lot of time talking about it." Obama then reports that an exception was "a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki." The WND source confirmed this description matched Frank Marshall Davis's residence on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki. In "Unfit for Publication," the 40-page rebuttal the Obama campaign submitted to "The Obama Nation," the Obama campaign admitted for the first time, on page 9, that Frank Marshall Davis was the man Obama had identified in his autobiography as "Frank." "Unfit for Publication" says under the heading "Reality" that Obama's memoir characterized Davis as a figure from his youth who "fell short" and whose view of race was "incurable," attempting to rebut the charge in "The Obama Nation" that Davis was a mentor to Obama during Obama's teenage years at Punahou. In "Dreams from My Father," Obama admits his grandfather drank alcohol with Davis, "sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar." Obama also admits in the autobiography that his grandfather took him "downtown to one of his favorite bars, in Honolulu's red-light district." Both Walden and the WND source on Davis' drug-selling both affirmed that the bar involved was one of several then located in the largely black red-light district on Smith Street, at that time located near Honolulu's Chinatown. Obama also admits drinking whiskey with Davis, describing in his autobiography that he drove to Waikiki to visit Davis and drink whiskey with him out of plastic cups. On that evening Obama had become upset learning that a black panhandler had approached his mother and scared her at a bus stop while she was waiting to go to work. In the incident, Obama reports "reaching for the bottle, this time pouring my own," while listening to Davis explain that Obama's grandmother was "right to be scared." Davis told Obama, "She understands that black people have a reason to hate." In response, Obama said, "The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone." Obama also admitted in his autobiography that in his first two years in college at Occidental he was involved with drugs: "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it." Obama has never disclosed his source for purchasing drugs. The Telegraph of London reported in August that Davis and Stanley Dunham smoked marijuana together and that Obama was first introduced to Davis by Dunham in 1970, when Obama returned from Indonesia. Hard core The Telegraph also documented that Davis was the author of "the hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Green." WND received independent confirmation that Davis was the author of "Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet), from an established academic expert on Davis, who wished to remain anonymous. In a forward to "Sex Rebel," Davis openly discussed that he lived the life of a sexual swinger, writing: "I admit, however, that my sex syndrome may be more complex than that of many swingers and swappers." He continued to disclose, "Under certain circumstances I am bi-sexual." After enumerating various unusual and scatological sexual techniques he liked, Davis added: "I'm also a voyeur and exhibitionist. Occasionally I am mildly interested in sado-masochism." Writing as Green, Davis admitted in the foreword that he "often wished" he had two male sex organs to double his sexual pleasure: "As you see, I partake of many of the variations that our Puritans label 'perversions' — a term which to me carries moral judgment and therefore has no place in my erotic vocabulary." According to Walden, a typical passage beginning on page 274 of "Sex Rebel" describes Davis in November 1958 stalking Kapiolani Park in Waikiki. Davis, writing as Greene, "soon encounters two tourists — a Seattle couple he calls 'Dot' and 'Lloyd.'" "Lloyd brags to the complete stranger [Davis] about Dot's figure," Walden explained. "After a few minutes of small talk to establish their mutual interest in 'swinging' ... Davis then devotes almost all of Chapter 27 to a graphic and detailed description of their three-way sexual encounters over the next few days." Although "Sex Rebels" is openly discussed as autobiography, Walden notes Davis/Greene frequently changes names and identities, even though Davis/Greene confirms that "all incidents I have described here have been taken from actual experiences." Madelyn and Stanley Dunham came to Hawaii from Seattle, but there is no way in what is admittedly a fictional book to establish that "Dot" and "Lloyd" from Seattle were the Dunhams. "Sex Rebels" also describes sexual encounters the fictional Greene and his wife had with underage children of both sexes, again without any possibility of reliably identifying the children who may have been involved. Soviet activity On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating "the scope of Soviet activity in the United States," one of the McCarthy-era committees seeking to expose communists considered to be a security threat. Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then a communist. A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA. The committee singled out for criticism several articles Davis published in the "Communist Honolulu Record" that were critical of the commission. The commission also found objectionable a 1951 story Davis published, entitled "Hawaii's Plain People Fight White Supremacy," in the November 1951 issue of a New York City communist tabloid. The two African-American writers Obama mentions to give "Frank" some context both had communist connections as well. Langston Hughes and Richard Wright were the two African-American writers most identified with the Communist Party USA in the 1930s. Hughes, a prolific writer who was best known for his 1921 poem "The Negro Speaks of Rivers," told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1953 that he had been a communist sympathizer. Hughes further testified there was a period of his life when he believed in the Soviet Union's form of government and that books he authored were written to follow the communist line. Wright, best known for his 1940 novel "Native Son," was the Harlem editor of the communist newspaper Daily Worker in 1937. John Edgar Tidwell, a professor of English at the University of Kansas who produced an anthology of Davis' poems also confirms Davis joined the Communist Party. Tidwell argued Davis' radical poetry and newspaper articles "put him on a collision course" with the House Un-American Activities Committee and the FBI. In his autobiography, "Livin' the Blues," Davis himself tells of being pursued by the U.S. government, saying it did not bother him. Openly, he wrote, "I knew I would be described as a Communist, but frankly I had reached the stage where I didn't give a damn. Too many people I respected as Freedom Fighters were listed as Red for me to fear name calling." Davis wrote, "The genuine Communists I knew as well as others so labeled had one principle in common: to use any and every means to abolish racism." Davis said he wrote to give "the widest possible publicity to the many instances of racism and the dissatisfaction of Afro-American with the status quo." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
"RELIGION OF PEACE" ... BEHEADING BLACK CHRISTIANS IN AFRICA"
Posted by Michael Travis, October 30, 2008. |
|
This comes from Debbie Schlussel's website, posted yesterday |
|
Muslims persecuting, torturing, gang-raping, and murdering Black Christians in Africa is nothing new to me. My late father crusaded against this going on in Sudan for over two decades. It's a reason why there are basically almost no Christians left in Sudan. And it's also the reason, as I've noted before, that liberals — especially celebrity liberals like Oprah who refused to acknowledge Sudanese genocide against Black Christians for decades — have suddenly become vocal, in recent years, about Darfur, Sudan . . . because they care only about Black Muslims who are now being persecuted, and not the Black Christians, who were under brutal attack for decades. Here's the latest of many such "peaceful" "Religion of Peace" acts of "tolerance" 
Muslims Behead Christian Convert Mansuur Mohammed This was written by James White and it appeared October 28, 2008 on the
Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog.
NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) — Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness. Why are Alpha & Omega Ministries and a couple of foreign Christian websites the only ones covering this? Well, we know why. It shows the real Islam in action. And we can't have that. Nor can we have any condemnations from CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, ADC, MAS, and the rest of the usual suspects in the halal alphabet soup of Islamic violence's apologists throughout America. All we can hear are the chorus of chirps from Jiminy Cricket and
his cousins in the newsrooms and mosques all over America.
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
BEIT HASHALOM, HEBRON: DRAMATIC NEW EVIDENCE PROVING PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING
Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, October 30, 2008. |
|
View (Hebrew-Arabic) conversation of admission by Arab seller Beit HaShalom: The Hebron Jewish Community presents new dramatic evidence: An audio cassette which recorded the Arab admit he sold the building and renovated the property for the buyer. Yesterday the Supreme Court discussed Beit HaShalom in Hebron. The discussion focused on the question of purchase and possession. This, following presentation of a report authored by an expert, testifying for the community, which contradicted the state's claim concerning validity of the purchase documents. The judges stressed throughout the discussion that even if the building was legally purchased, it is still possible to issue an expulsion order because the building was still in the possession of the Arab seller, Rajbi. For example, the judge Procatzia said, "I am struck, by the evidence presented concerning the beginning of the process and the conclusion of the process, an issue concerning purchase." Possession, according to the judges, is expressed by the fact that the seller continued renovations in the building. Hebron claims that these renovations were implemented for them and paid for by them. However the judges did not accept this claim and informed them, at the conclusion of the discussion, that they would probably order that the Hebron residents be expelled from the building. The building would then remain empty until the question of ownership was decided in a Jerusalem District court. The Hebron community was given 24 hours to decide if they would agree to voluntarily leave the building. The ultimatum was due to expire at twelve noon today. However, the community surprised the Supreme Court and prosecution with new dramatic evidence: An audio cassette which documents the seller, Rajbi, in a friendly conversation with a friend, saying: 1. that he sold Beit HaShalom to Eiub Jabber and received the full amount for the building. Some quotes from the conversation on the cassette: Faiz Rajbi: (on the story of the building) ...by Allah I didn't know...
Attorney Nadav HaEtzni sent this material to the State and the court and pointed out that this new evidence should put an end to the argument focusing on the purchase, renovations and possession and should prove once and for all that we have evidence which is the admission of the seller himself. The cassette was transferred, together with the statement signed yesterday in Attorney HaEtzni's office by the person who recorded the conversation. Concurrently the material was transferred to some of the others involved in the case but not all, and to the court. In addition Attorney HaEtzni requested that the court order the identity of the signatory sealed and that any and all details concerning his identity be so sealed, for two reasons: 1. A suspicion that his life could be put in danger Of all of the versions Rajbi has given concerning the building (3 versions till now), this is the first one which was given in an open, heart-to-heart conversation with a friend, without any fear and this is the first one which is compatible with facts presented in the documents and the report of the criminal police identity squad (ignoring the twisted significances given by the prosecutor's office), this is the authentic version. According to this version, Rajbi implemented the renovations in the building for Eiub, as a representative of Eiub, and in return we received payment from him. If the act of renovation is an act of his own possession, as was expressed yesterday in court by the president of the Supreme Court Bainish, "your claim is that Mr. Rajbi held the building for you in the form of a contractor, and he claims that he renovated for himself" — this question has now been fully answered. As stated, this serves as admission by the person in question, and this should serve to finalize the entire case. So writes Attorney HaEtzni to the State attorney, "and in conclusion, in light of the above findings, you are hereby requested to express your agreement to halt the clarifications of the petition under your consideration, until a renewed investigation and a determination of your position concerning this order, as a result of the new admission by Rajbi."
You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of
Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il
or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760
Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone:
718 677 6886.
|
|
OBAMA AT KHALIDI BASH: ISRAELIS COMMIT "GENOCIDE", HAVE "NO GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO OCCUPY PALESTINE"
Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 30, 2008. |
|
This comes from Israel Insider
|
|
Award-winning blogger Doug Ross reports that a reliable source has provided an eyewitness account of what he saw on the videotape of the Rashid Khalidi farewell bash that the LA Times is suppressing. The paper used the tape as the basis for its watered-down story about the event and has been suppressing ever since, despite massive appeals — including an official request by the McCain campaign — to release indisputably newsworthy evidence that could inform voters about where Barack Hussein Obama really stands. The eyewitness source, who Ross calls "a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before" writes: Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis." The eyewitness' use of the word "we" suggests that he is a Times staffer. In a separate development, a European financier, cited by the Atlas Shrugs blog, has offered a $150,000 reward for provision of the tape. After four days of hemming and hawing, and trying out other excuses for the suppression, the LA Times' editor Russ Stanton came up with the following "reason": "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it." Ross retorts: "How frickin' stupid do they think we are?" Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?" Now we may know why not. At the very least, the leak of the quotes may compel the paper to release a transcript, or the Obama campaign to confirm or deny their veracity. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
SHAPES 'N THINGS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 30, 2008. |
|
|
|
EHUD BARAK: SOFT ON TERROR — TOUGH ON JEWS
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, October 30, 2008. |
|
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated this week that he will use an "iron hand" to destroy the settlers of Judea and Samaria. (Since Jews have settled the entire state of Israel, it stands to reason that Barak is using his "iron hand" against the entire nation.) Barak's disgraceful statement stands in stark contrast to the words of the great Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky who stated that the Jews must build an "iron wall" to defend themselves from the Arab enemy. In Jabotinsky's time, even the leftist, socialist anti-Jewish predecessors to Barak, Olmert, Livni, et al. cared about the Land of Israel. David Ben-Gurion went so far as to say that "no Jew has the right to give away any of the Land of Israel". While the successors to Jabotinsky remain true to our Land, the successors to Ben-Gurion only remain true to keeping their stranglehold on the levers of power. The Jews who live in Judea and Samaria are the most patriotic and nationalistic sector of the entire nation, and they are well over-represented in the Israel Defense Forces. Their simple existence in these areas that were won in the 67 War protects the lives of the rest of the Israelis, as they provide a human shield in front of the enemy. However, Barak, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, et al wish to evict 100,000 of these great Jews from their homes and hand our biblical heartland over to the Arab enemy. Barak's wish is to move Israel back to what the dovish Abba Eban called "Israel's Auschwitz borders". So now we are faced with a renewed campaign to systematically demonize those Jews who remain loyal to G-d, the Land of Israel and their fellow Jews. If the Israeli leaders can successfully show those Jews who they condescendingly call "settlers" to be the cause of all of Israel's problems, then — it is reasoned — it will be easier to destroy their communities and evict them from their homes in Judea and Samaria. Defense Minister Ehud Barak implied this week that most Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are dangerous to the state when he said that "not all Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are a threat to law and order." He also advocated using an undemocratic pre-state British law which calls for "administrative detention" against settlers who protest the destruction of their houses. Administrative detention means that a person is jailed indefinitely without hearing any charges against them, and without being able to defend themselves. While Barak is tough on Jews, he's soft on terror. As Prime Minister he was a complete failure. In 2000, Barak ordered the IDF to hurriedly retreat from Southern Lebanon. Since then, PLO and Hamas leaders look at the Barak "unilateral retreat" as the example of what "prizes" they can get from Israel for staying steadfast in their opposition to accepting any Israeli sovereignty. Barak then offered Arafat almost all of Judea and Samaria, parts of Jerusalem, and even control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem — Judaism's holiest site. A few months later, in September of 2000, Arafat turned down the offer, and commenced the new intifada with the goal of Israeli retreat from Judea and Samaria without conditions, just as Israel had left Lebanon without conditions. This war left almost 1,500 Jews dead, and thousands more maimed. As described by Moshe Feiglin, the real war in Israel is being fought between the Ehud Baraks (who consider themselves "Israelis") and the people who consider their primary identity to be Jewish. Sadly, many Jews in Israel are unaware that this is even a war and that contrary to what they are lead to believe by the Baraks, "peace" with the Arabs will only lead to more catastrophe instead of preventing their children from dying. Barak's war is much more deadly as it not only empowers the Arab enemy, but it leads to the loss of belief in the justice of our cause on the part of many Jews in Israel and worldwide. Ariel Sharon destroyed 25 Jewish towns in 2005, Ehud Olmert ordered the brutal beating of 325 Jews in Amona the next year, and now Barak destroyed the Federman home in Hebron this week. These and countless other examples show the true goals of the Israeli leadership — namely to rid Israel of its Jewish connection. In order to achieve this, The Israeli government has also been an active partner to the Arab enemies' attempts to destroy the roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. In an attempt to rewrite history and remove its own Jewish heritage, Israel allowed the Arabs to build a new mosque on the Temple Mount. Additionally, the Israeli government still refuses to allow Jews to pray there. Last week a Jew — Rabbi Yehuda Glick was even arrested because the police simply thought he was going to pray. Without a past, a people has no future. It is one of the saddest stories in all of humanity that the leaders of the Jewish people are actively trying to destroy our own unique, amazing and holy history. Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell) |
|
ACORN 'SHOCK TROOPS' TIED TO ELECTION CRIMES. FACING FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Bob Unruh and it appeared today in World
Net Daily
|
|
Facing fraud investigations, prosecutions, over aggressive 'voter registration' drives 
Acorn "shock troops" have been linked to or convicted of perjury, forgery, identity theft and election fraud in recent years, and now are facing investigation for alleged violations of federal election law in 12 states, according to a new report from Matthew Vadum, a senior editor for the Capital Research Center. Vadum, whose work with the Research Center includes studies of non-profit organizations, has released a report titled, "ACORN: Who Funds the Weather Underground's Little Brother?" documenting the troubled past and current problems facing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. The organization for which Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama at one point trained activists and to which he directed grants while aboard the management of the Woods Fund has established a reputation for doing pretty much as it pleases, the report said. "In 1995, ACORN sued the state of California seeking an exemption from the law that requires that it pay its own employees a minimum wage. ACORN, which argued that keeping its employees in poverty helps to boost their zeal to help the poor, lost," according to the report. The group, described by one critic as a "hydra" for its many interconnected boards, foundations, groups and organizations, essentially has created its own economy, with the tens of millions of dollars that are donated by foundations or paid by the government being directed to whatever cause or course of action ACORN officials deem worthy, the report said. The "30-year-old radical left-wing activist group" has taken in a minimum of $126.4 million in donations and tax dollars since 1993, the report said. That has been used for its manifesto, which states: "Enough is enough. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America's door. We will not be meek, but mighty. We will not starve on past promises, but feast on future dreams," Vadum wrote. While the election 2008 controversies over electoral fraud efforts "have been indelibly imprinted in the public consciousness," Vadum said, that work is only a "smidgen of what ACORN actually does." This year, it boasted of registering 1.3 million new voters but had to backtrack and admit only a few hundred thousand registrations actually were valid. Some of the other "activities" cited by Vadum: * Having 500 activists storm the Washington Hilton and forcing then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to cancel a speech. The report also cited ACORN's refusal to follow basic civil rights laws or pay required taxes. "Even though it supports the continued imposition of equal employment opportunity laws on the rest of America, it argued it shouldn't have to comply with those same laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had to sue ACORN to force it [to] comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," the report said. "Ironically, ACORN and its affiliates, all reliable cheerleaders for higher taxes, are longtime tax deadbeats. A search of public records found more than 200 federal, state, and local tax liens adding up to more than $3.7 million that are associated with groups that share ACORN's address on Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans," the report continued. According to the report, John Fund, a vote fraud expert, attributes ACORN's rising level of aggressiveness to its "desperation." "He argues that ACORN had to join with unions and other left-wing groups in an all-out push for an Obama victory in the hope that the scandals would all get swept under the rug," the report said. There also have been racketeering allegations about ACORN, officials said. "ACORN officials 'bill themselves as nonpartisan community organizers merely interested in giving a voice to minorities and the poor,' notes the Wall Street Journal, but that façade is fading fast," Vadum said. "In reality, the organization is 'a union-backed, multimillion-dollar outfit that uses intimidation and other tactics' to advance a 'highly partisan agenda.' Its community organizers 'are best understood as shock troops of the AFL-CIO and even the Democratic Party,'" he said. ACORN has become an issue in the 2008 presidential race because of Obama's ties to the group as well as its own admission that more than 400,000 of the 1.3 million voter registrations it claims to have collected were not valid. Obama has been trying to disassociate himself from the group. "The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs," Obama declared in one of the presidential debates. "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names," Obama said. But Obama's 1995 suit on behalf of ACORN, in which the state of Illinois was compelled to implement the federal "motor-voter" bill, was just a sampling of Obama's association. Among other involvements, Obama trained ACORN activists and while working on the board of the Woods Fund, channeled millions of dollars to ACORN. Vadum told WND ACORN had a major role in the meltdown of the stock market by lobbying for programs to loan massive amounts of money for questionable mortgages to people who probably never had the resources to repay the loans. "It is also implicated in vote fraud schemes from coast to coast," his report added. "With an FBI probe under way, millions of dollars in back taxes owing, and a racketeering lawsuit pending, it may finally have to answer for its many misdeeds," he wrote. 
Of course, with a friend in the White House, answering for misdeeds could be easier. According to the report, during the primary season, the Obama campaign paid $832,598 to an ACORN affiliate for get-out-the-vote activities, and Obama has said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it." A WND call to ACORN offices in Louisiana was referred to a "spokesman" at another office, who did not return a WND message left there. Obama also has promised to consult with ACORN even before taking office to establish priorities. In an address only a year ago, he told an ACORN forum that, "Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America." Vadum said the activities also represent the organization's foundations. He cites the socialist New Party, "which served as ACORN's electoral arm, endorsed Obama, who was one of its members, when he ran for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s." But he said ACORN's foundations can be traced to the 1962 Port Huron Statement, "a manifesto of radical students disillusioned with America." The statement was written largely by famed anti-war activist Tom Hayden, who claimed America was "hopelessly racist, militaristic, and soulless," The result was the formation of the Students for a Democratic Society, perhaps the pre-eminent group in the New Left movement in the 1960s, a group that later broke apart. One faction became the Weathermen Underground, for which Obama's friend Bill Ayers was a leader. Another leader was Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn. They were described by Vadum as "would-be mass murderers ... who would later become members of the faculties of, respectively, the University of Illinois, Chicago and the Northwestern University School of Law." In recent interviews, Ayers has shown no regret for his active radical days when he participated in several bombings, saying he only wished he could have done more. Another faction, which rejected terrorist violence, was led by Wade Rathke, who had worked as a draft resistance organizer for SDS. He believed, according to Vadum, in "welfare rights" and in 1970 founded ACORN to carry out his agenda of attacking society through ever-increasing burdens on its social systems. Not only did Ayers host a fundraiser in 1995 to launch Obama's political career, Hayden also has endorsed Obama, as have other former SDS members, including Michael and Susan Klonsky, Fred Klonsky, Carl Davidson and Marilyn Katz. Vadum told WND that the organization simply does what it wants, even to the point of ignoring ordinary laws that are binding on the rest of America. Wade Rathke, the report explained, "failed to notify policed when
he discovered in 2000 that his brother Dale, ACORN's chief financial
officer, had embezzled $948,000 from the group. Instead, Wade Rathke
engineered a cover-up for his brother and allowed him to leave the
payroll of Citizens Consulting Inc., the ACORN affiliate that handles
its financial affairs, and go to work as his $38,000 a year
'assistant' at ACORN headquarters. The missing money was disguised as
a loan to an officer of the ledgers of Citizens Consulting."
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
POLICE RELEASE SETTLER WHO INCITED AGAINST SOLDIERS
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 30. 2008. |
|
"Settler who said he hopes soldiers get harmed arrested:"
See below. The article was written by Efrat Weiss
and it appeared in Ynet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3615353,00.html The number of Arab leaders and Jewish leftists who have been arrested for cheering terrorist atrocities against Jews and suicide bombings remains zero! |
|
Shmuel Ben-Yishai released under court restrictions after police complete interrogation. Qiryat Arba resident arrested for saying he wished IDF troops 'kidnapped, slaughtered' following evacuation of illegal Hebron outpost 
The police decided to release Qiryat Arba settler Shmuel Ben-Yishai from custody on Thursday afternoon, after completing his interrogation. Ben-Yishai was arrested earlier in the day for inciting against IDF soldiers following Saturday night's evacuation of an illegal outpost in the West Bank city of Hebron. He was released to his home under court restrictions. Ben-Yishai told Army Radio after security forces cleared and then demolished the home of extreme right-wing activist Noam Federman "we hope they (soldiers) are defeated by their enemies, we hope that they all become (kidnapped soldier) Gilad Shalit, that they are all killed and that they are all slaughtered, because that's what they deserve." Ben-Yishai was summoned by police for an interrogation on Tuesday and Wednesday, but he failed to appear on both dates. Consequently, police asked the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court to issue a warrant for his arrest. A few days after making the inflammatory remarks, Ben-Yishai said his outburst was aimed only at security personnel who participated in the evacuation. In a statement published Monday the settler said, "Upon witnessing the brutality of the police officers during the evacuation, the abuse of the Federman family's women and children while the police offices were gloating, I was overcome with emotions, it was unlike anything I'd ever experienced before. "I do not have to explain what a person feels when he sees soldiers and police officers snatching babies away from his friend's mother and throwing a family out of its home," the statement read.
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
BUSH SINKS ETHICALLY; OLMERT IS TRUTH-CHALLENGED; THE UNDEMOCRATIC LEFT; ISRAEL'S RULING CLASS ANTI-SETTLER BIAS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 30, 2008. |
|
BUSH SINKS ETHICALLY Abbas visited Pres. Bush. Bush welcomed him as "my friend." (IMRA, 9/28.) Abbas is a lifelong terrorist, who still praises terrorists and whose propaganda is antisemitic and anti-US. But he is the stand-in for getting Israel to emasculate itself territorially and culturally in behalf of the common Muslim Arab enemy and so Bush can pretend that he attained something worthwhile when a phony peace treaty of appeasement is signed. WHAT OLMERT IS TRYING TO GIVE AWAY MK Netanyahu said that PM Olmert is trying to give away as much land to the enemy as possible. This includes areas of significance to Israel historically and for security. He even wants to cede areas of insignificant Arab presence. I think that includes the Jordan Valley. The last give-away was the abandonment of Gaza. Iran's proxies took it over. Whatever land Israel gives away would come under Iranian influence or control. Netanyahu learned that; Olmert has not. Netanyahu challenged the notion that existing Arab towns may develop in Judea-Samaria but Jewish ones may not. If he becomes Prime Minister, he said, he would resume settlement activity. He made a deal giving the P.A. some control in Hebron, but did not cause any Jews to be dispossessed. However, he is allowing prominent leftists into Likud. "Peace is made with an enemy," he said... but he must stop being your enemy — and even then, the negotiations must be handled with firmness. Today we have no partner who will obligate himself to take action. The other side must recognize not only Israel's existence, but also our right to exist, and must impose this recognition on his countrymen. These conditions do not currently exist..." (Arutz- 7 & IMRA, 9/29). ANOTHER FALSE DISTINCTION A false distinction used to be made between the military and the political wings of Hamas. That distinction implied that we could hope for a resolution, that not all the Hamas terrorists were the same. Now a false distinction is being made between the military and political wings of Fatah. This implies that we can make peace with the military wing, if the politicians don't launch another Intifada, as they are considering doing. If they did, the military wing would join them (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/29). INTERVIEWING OLMERT Yediot Ahronot interviewed PM Olmert more like cheerleaders than like reporters. They asked no challenging follow-up questions. Neither did they ask him about the corruption charge of triple-charging charities for the same expense. Do you think that these statements of his should have been left without challenge? He said, We must reach an agreement to withdraw from almost all of the Territories. [Why?] He admits he doesn't know what will happen in the P.A.. He doesn't believe in taking drastic risks, only risks that can bring dramatic change. [Since the Arabs haven't changed before the concessions, why should they after getting them?] He claims that reserve generals who criticize him haven't learned that controlling territory is useless, the real danger is from missiles, whose range keeps increasing. [Then get the terrorists out of the Territories and out of southern Lebanon, if not get the Arabs out of the Territories.] Israel doesn't know better than the big powers how to handle Iran, and Israel should leave the problem of Iran up to the international system. [The international system is not handling Iran. The lesson of the Holocaust is that the Jews must defend themselves.] The Lebanon war showed that classical military warfare no longer exists. More Israeli troops would have produced more Israeli casualties without different results. [He didn't let the IDF fight in the classical way. With the powerful effort that the IDF wanted, and sufficient time, Israel could have destroyed Hizbullah, freed Lebanon, and not sign a ceasefire that left border security up to a proven misfit, UNIFIL (IMRA, 9/29). Do Israel's rulers do anything that rebuts Barry Chamish's theory that they want to get Israel destroyed? ATTORNEY-GENERAL TRIES TO SLOW REGIME DOWN Attorney-General Mazuz said that PM Olmert's resignation has turned his regime into an interim government. Therefore, it should not be deciding major issues without consulting him, it should act just as a caretaker (IMRA, 9/29). Why him? Foreign Min. Livni, now head of Kadima, said she is continuing fateful negotiations. She is not pulling back. AS ISRAELI DEMOCRACY FALLS, VIOLENCE RISES? Evelyn Gordon claims that a growing minority of settlers are attacking soldiers and Arabs regularly, now. She this this is because the Left does not follow the rules of democracy and subverts popular mandates. She cites these examples of repression, none of the alleged attacks: Rabin won election by promising no negotiations, but signed Oslo in 1993. Terrorism soared, so people lobbied MKs to defeat Rabin and Oslo 2 in 1995, but Rabin illegally bought two MKs, enough to pass Oslo 2, and then got the bought majority to authorize his illegal means. Leftist MKs, journalists, academics approve overwhelmingly his conniving. A month later, violence was directed at Rabin. [It was by the Left, one of its dirty tricks Gordon forgot to mention.] Barak won in 1999, promising withdrawals, and withdrew from Lebanon [so precipitously as to put Israel into its present strategic disadvantage]. [He did not promise withdrawals. He promised security and mentioned withdrawals in such a muted way as not to impinge on people's consciousness.] Hence there was no violence. The Knesset forced new elections, which his party lost. [The election was won by Netanyahu, who promised security, but who used some obscure or ambiguous language that allowed for concessions. When he granted concessions, and his supporters were dismayed, he pointed to that deceptive language.] Promising not to withdraw, Sharon won election by a landslide. Within a year, he adopted withdrawal. As a concession, he did promise to abide by a party referendum on the proposal. He lost 60:40. He ignored his promise. He refused to hold a national referendum [after having promised that, too]. The Right protested by blocking roads. This is illegal, but when unions [and students] did it, punishment was mild. When the Right did it, police arrested many of them and jailed them for a long time. The Right has learned that the Left does not follow the rules of democracy. It may as well become violent. The Left must restore a fair political culture and put in a law requiring a big majority to alienate territory (IMRA, 9/29). The Left always has been violent and undemocratic. Israel is not a democracy. Its rulers have a defeatist, psychotic ideology. They are striving now to recycle the MKs with whom the people are disillusioned, to avoid another election. The Left almost monopolizes the media. Likud and Shas really are leftist. The Left is plotting withdrawals sure to bring a holocaust. Violence may not be efficacious, but it is not unethical. HOW TO END "HONOR KILLING" IN MUSLIM STATES If Muslims stopped thinking of derived principles of Islam as divine but saw them as fallible human deductions, they might perceive and end the horror of "honor killings" (MEFNews, 9/29). The brief's original wording was confused. Relatives "honor"-murder "loved ones," without evidence, even for minor "sins." They think differently from us. Our policy makers ought to study that. CAR BOMBING INVESTIGATED IN SYRIA Syria traced the suicide bomber to a terrorist organization and his car's entry via a "neighboring" Arab state (IMRA, 9/29). Syria can run and publicize a professional criminal investigation? Usually it just blamed Israel for intra-Muslim violence. THE ARABS ADMIT MEDIA BIAS P.A. Journalists were polled about their media's reporting on the Fatah-Hamas conflict. Most of them thought that their media is largely biased (IMRA, 9/29). Well of course they are biased. Their media is totalitarian and factional. What's the NY Times excuse? What would the Arab journalists admit their media is biased on jihad? ISRAELI RULING CLASS BIAS It happened again. An Arab shepherd was killed violently in the P.A.. Israel's ruling elite did not wait for an investigation. It immediately accused "settlers." Unnamed settlers, of whom there are hundreds of thousands. Then the leftist media, politicians, and academicians tried to link his death to the pipe bomb attack on Prof. Sternhell by an unknown assailant, whom they also assume to be right wing, even though Sternhell had enemies elsewhere [and the government plays dirty tricks in order to bring out leftist prejudice against the Right]. By accusing settlers, the fools enabled world public opinion to think less of Israel as a whole. No matter, they dislike Israel, too. They will do anything to defame the settlers, who thwart the Left's ideology of appeasement. They think that if they make concessionss to Islamo-fascists, the Islamo-fascists will be nice back to them. Guess they never heard of the Holocaust.] An autopsy was made. The shepherd had picked up a stray grenade. It exploded. No crime, no criminals. Just defamation. I'm waiting for the Left's apology. Usually the Left does not apologize. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
ARCHEOLOGISTS FIND HEBREW TEXT IN ANCIENT TOWN
Posted by Avodah, October 30, 2008. |
|
This comes from the International Herald Tribune
|
|
An Israeli archaeologist digging at a hilltop south of Jerusalem believes a ceramic shard found in the ruins of an ancient town bears the oldest Hebrew inscription ever discovered, a find that could provide an important glimpse into the culture and language of the Holy Land at the time of the Bible. The five lines of faded characters written 3,000 years ago, and the ruins of the fortified settlement where they were found, are indications that a powerful Israelite kingdom existed at the time of the Old Testament's King David, says Yossi Garfinkel, the Hebrew University archaeologist in charge of the new dig at Hirbet Qeiyafa. Other scholars are hesitant to embrace Garfinkel's interpretation of the finds, made public on Thursday. The discoveries are already being wielded in a vigorous and ongoing argument over whether the Bible's account of events and geography is meant to be taken literally. Hirbet Qeiyafa sits near the modern Israeli city of Beit Shemesh in the Judean foothills, an area that was once the frontier between the hill-dwelling Israelites and their enemies, the coastal Philistines. The site overlooks the Elah Valley, said to be the scene of the slingshot showdown between David and the Philistine giant Goliath, and lies near the ruins of Goliath's hometown in the Philistine metropolis of Gath. A teenage volunteer found the curved pottery shard, 6 inches by 6 inches (15 centimeters by 15 centimeters), in July near the stairs and stone washtub of an excavated home. It was later discovered to bear five lines of characters known as proto-Canaanite, a precursor of the Hebrew alphabet. Carbon-14 analysis of burnt olive pits found in the same layer of the site dated them to between 1,000 and 975 B.C., the same time as the Biblical golden age of David's rule in Jerusalem. Scholars have identified other, smaller Hebrew fragments from the 10th century B.C., but the script, which Garfinkel suggests might be part of a letter, predates the next significant Hebrew inscription by between 100 and 200 years. History's best-known Hebrew texts, the Dead Sea scrolls, were penned on parchment beginning 850 years later. The shard is now kept in a university safe while philologists translate it, a task expected to take months. But several words have already been tentatively identified, including ones meaning "judge," "slave" and "king." The Israelites were not the only ones using proto-Canaanite characters, and other scholars suggest it is difficult — perhaps impossible — to conclude the text is Hebrew and not a related tongue spoken in the area at the time. Garfinkel bases his identification on a three-letter verb from the inscription meaning "to do," a word he said existed only in Hebrew. "That leads us to believe that this is Hebrew, and that this is the oldest Hebrew inscription that has been found," he said. Other prominent Biblical archaeologists warned against jumping to conclusions. Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was "very important," as it is the longest proto-Canaanite text ever found. But he suggested that calling the text Hebrew might be going too far. "It's proto-Canaanite," he said. "The differentiation between the scripts, and between the languages themselves in that period, remains unclear." Some scholars and archeologists argue that the Bible's account of David's time inflates his importance and that of his kingdom, and is essentially myth, perhaps rooted in a shred of fact. But if Garfinkel's claim is borne out, it would bolster the case for the Bible's accuracy by indicating the Israelites could record events as they happened, transmitting the history that was later written down in the Old Testament several hundred years later. It also would mean that the settlement — a fortified town with a 30-foot-wide (10-meter-wide) monumental gate, a central fortress and a wall running 770 yards (700 meters) in circumference — was probably inhabited by Israelites. The finds have not yet established who the residents were, says Aren Maier, a Bar Ilan University archaeologist who is digging at nearby Gath. It will become more clear if, for example, evidence of the local diet is found, he said: Excavations have shown that Philistines ate dogs and pigs, while Israelites did not. The nature of the ceramic shards found at the site suggest residents might have been neither Israelites nor Philistines but members of a third, forgotten people, he said. If the inscription is Hebrew, it would indicate a connection to the Israelites and make the text "one of the most important texts, without a doubt, in the corpus of Hebrew inscriptions," Maier said. But it has great importance whatever the language turns out to be, he added. Saar Ganor, an Israel Antiquities Authority ranger, noticed the unusual scale of the walls while patrolling the area in 2003. Three years later he interested Garfinkel, and after a preliminary dig they began work in earnest this summer. They have excavated only 4 percent of the six-acre settlement so far. Archaeology has turned up only scant finds from David's time in the early 10th century B.C., leading some scholars to suggest his kingdom may have been little more than a small chiefdom or that he might not have existed at all. Garfinkel believes building fortifications like those at Hirbet Qeiyafa could not have been a local initiative: The walls would have required moving 200,000 tons of stone, a task too big for the 500 or so people who lived there. Instead, it would have required an organized kingdom like the one the Bible says David ruled. Modern Zionism has traditionally seen archaeology as a way of strengthening the Jewish claim to Israel and regarded David's kingdom as the glorious ancestor of the new Jewish state. So finding evidence of his rule has importance beyond its interest to scholars. The dig is partially funded by Foundation Stone, a Jewish educational organization, which hopes to bring volunteers to work there as a way of teaching them a national and historical lesson. "When I stand here, I understand that I'm on the front lines of the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines," said Rabbi Barnea Levi Selavan, the group's director. "I open my Bible and read about David and Goliath, and I understand that I'm in the Biblical context." While the site could be useful to scholars, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University urged adhering to the strict boundaries of science. Finkelstein, who has not visited the dig but attended a presentation of the findings, warned against what he said was a "revival in the belief that what's written in the Bible is accurate like a newspaper." That style of archaeology was favored by 19th century European diggers who trolled the Holy Land for physical traces of Biblical stories, their motivation and methods more romantic than scientific. "This can be seen as part of this phenomenon," Finkelstein said. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
MCCAIN GAVE FUNDS TO GROUP CO-FOUNDED BY KHALIDI
Posted by M. Sliwa Public Relations, October 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in WorldNetDaily http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79441 |
|
But this organization is pro-Western, while Obama supported the professor's anti-Israel efforts JERUSALEM — Sen. John McCain chaired an organization that granted substantial funding to a Palestinian research group co-chaired by Mideast professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel and apologist for Palestinian terror. The report — first carried by the Huffington Post website — comes amid harsh criticism from McCain's campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for his personal and financial ties to Khalidi. The website documented how in the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several documented grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda." In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. JERUSALEM — Sen. John McCain chaired an organization that granted substantial funding to a Palestinian research group co-chaired by Mideast professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel and apologist for Palestinian terror. The report — first carried by the Huffington Post website — comes amid harsh criticism from McCain's campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for his personal and financial ties to Khalidi. The website documented how in the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several documented grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi. Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel. Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda." In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama. A 1998 tax filing published by the Huffington Post found the McCain-led IRI group granted $448,873 to the CPRS. Also in 1993, seven months after McCain became IRI's chairman, his group funded several extensive CPRS studies, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes." The CPRS, which bills itself as an independent Palestinian think tank, was founded in 1993 by seven Palestinian activists, including Khalidi and Khalil Shakaki, who for a time was a visiting professor at several U.S. universities. Khalidi several years later terminated his involvement with the organization while Shakaki became CPRS chairman. The group has conducted scores of polls that drew the ire of the Palestinian leadership, including in 1993 when it was tasked by McCain's group. One 1993 poll reviewed by WND showed most Palestinians were not fully confident in the fairness of elections that then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had pledged to hold. Another 1993 survey found most Palestinians wanted independent Arafat opposition groups to have more ability to freely express themselves. A number of other polls showed the Palestinians were unhappy with their leaders. A particularly dramatic recent poll that contradicted years of Palestinian claims showed the vast majority of Arabs living in so-called refugee camps would accept compensation instead of "returning" to Israel. This issue is particularly visceral since the Khalidi organization funded by Obama's nonprofit took the opposition position. While Obama served on the Woods Fund with Ayers, the group in 2001 provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities." The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948. According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands — some Palestinians claim over 1 million — Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory. Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded. The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom." Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding. A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?" That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction. The AAAN reportedly sponsored a farewell dinner for Khalidi in 2003, when he was leaving his post at the University of Chicago for a new teaching position at Columbia University. Obama attended the event and reportedly offered a glowing testimonial for Khalidi amid multiple anti-Israel speeches. An article last April in the Los Angeles Times documents how at the Khalidi farewell dinner one young Palestinian American recited a poem in Obama's presence that accused the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticized U.S. support of Israel. Another speaker, who reportedly talked while Obama was present, compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, the Times reported. Obama himself said his talks with the Khalidis served as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. ... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." In the piece, the L.A. Times reported it obtained a copy a videotape of the dinner, but it has refused to release the video, stating it was obtained by a source who asked that it not be made public. McCain's campaign had accused the Times of intentionally suppressing the video. "A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb. Obama and Khalidi closely tied Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel. He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state. He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism. While McCain's known association with Khalidi apparently is limited to helping fund the CPRC, Obama has close ties to the professor. According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004. Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi. Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor radio show, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama. "I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated. Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause." Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians." In 2001 and 2002 the Woods Fund provided the grants to Khalidi's wife's anti-Israel group. Obama borrowed phrase from Khalidi? In May, WND noted Obama termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a "constant sore" in an interview just five days after Khalidi wrote an opinion piece in the Nation magazine in which he called the "Palestinian question" a "running sore." In his piece, "Palestine: Liberation Deferred," Khalidi suggests Israel carried out "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians; writes Western powers backed Israel's establishment due to guilt of the Holocaust; laments the Palestinian Authority's stated acceptance of a Palestinian state "only" in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem; and argues Israel should be dissolved and instead a bi-national, cantonal system should be set up in which Jews and Arabs reside. Contact M. Sliwa Public Relations at media@msliwa.com |
|
A POEM ON THE OCCASION OF THE RETIREMENT OF YOSSI BEILIN FROM POLITICS
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 29, 2008. |
|
In honor of the retirement of Yossi Beilin from treason, er, I mean, from his political career, I thought the time apt for reprinting this: |
|
THE BRAT WITH NO HAT
The sun did not shine. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
ORATORY — OR HYPNOTIC INDUCTION?
Posted by Avodah, October 29, 2008. |
|
This is an article that was published October 25, 2008 by the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., A Voice for Private Physicians
Since 1943 |
|
Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.? A fundamental tool of "conversational hypnosis" is pacing and leading — a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener's critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey. In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases "that's why I stand here tonight," "now is the time," and "this moment" 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as "and," "as," "because," or "that is why." For example, "we need change" (who could disagree?)...and...that is why I will be your next President." Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: "Sixteen months have passed (paused)...Thousands (pause) of miles...(pause)...Millions of voices...." Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion. Hand gestures can be used as hypnotic anchors, or to aid in hypnotic command implantation. They can be difficult to distinguish from innocent gestures used for emphasis. Obama, however, uses some gestures extraordinarily often and for very specific words such as "believe" and "chose." His characteristic thumb-and-forefinger gesture looks like a hand holding a pencil — as if you were in a voting booth. The gesture of pointing sends the subconscious message that a person in authority is giving a command. Obama actually said at one time: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'" You will not choose to vote for Barack: you will "have to." It is not a logical choice, but rather one directed by a mystical (subconscious) force. What purpose would a politician have for making such a statement? Obama used it only once. Perhaps he stopped either because he realized it was too obvious or because Hillary Clinton and John McCain ridiculed him for it. Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation. Unlike other presidential logos, one looks through it, not at it. It might just be the letter "O," but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists. Obama is clearly having a powerful effect on people, especially young people and highly educated people—both considered to be especially susceptible to hypnosis. It is also interesting that many Jews are supporting a candidate who is endorsed by Hamas, Farakhan, Khalidi, and Iran. While some believe that hypnosis is not real, others believe that it is very powerful, and very dangerous in the wrong hands. Dr. Erickson, father of modern hypnosis, was adamant that his techniques should only be used by physicians. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Leyra v. Denno that a confession obtained using hypnosis could not be used against the suspect in court. A 66-page, extensively footnoted but unsigned article "An
Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His
Speeches" is available at:
The discussion should have broad applicability in analyzing political speech in general. Comments by those with knowledge of hypnotic techniques are especially welcome. Additional information: * Is Obama Constitutionally qualified to serve as President? Interview with Democratic lawyer Philip J. Berg, who has filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: DOES THIS MATTER?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 29, 2008. |
|
To me it matters a lot: It's being reported that French president Nicholas Sarkozy thinks Obama's position on Iran is "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content." Sarkozy hasn't said so publicly, only in closed forum, but as these things go, his words have been carried and are being reported here in Israel, notably by Haaretz. Sarkozy is no right-winger, and the fact that he's this disturbed carries weight. At least in private forum, if reports are accurate, he's mincing no words. This ought, at very least, to give serious pause. According to the senior Israeli source cited by Haaretz,
Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members
of [the united front against Iran] and open a direct dialogue with
Iran without preconditions. Sarkozy met with Obama in July and
expressed disappointment that Obama's policies on Iran were "not
crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open." Apparently
Sarkozy advisors who participated in meetings came away with the same
impression.
(I will add here, by the way, that Haaretz is a far left paper, undoubtedly with an Obama tilt, and would never carry something like this for anti-Obama propaganda value.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Some foolish policies can be rectified after the fact. A tax plan isn't working? It's possible to present a new tax plan. But where Iran is concerned, there may be no way to rectify a bad move, and that bad move might be disastrous. It thus seems to me essential to be confident that Obama's got what it takes before voting him into office. I confess readily enough on a person level that my concern about this is keeping me up at night. If this information about Sarkozy also puts knots of fear in your stomach, share his words with others, please! The American people need to understand the implications of Obama's positions. ~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, an enormous amount of material comes into my in-box with regard to Obama. Much I pass by because it feels too "far out" even if perhaps it is true. I aim to be taken seriously. But there is much that merits serious consideration. Michael Freund has just done a piece entitled: "Look Who's Rooting for Obama." It begins: "What do Iran's ayatollahs, Hamas terrorists, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have in common? They are all pulling for Barack Obama to win the US presidential election. When Israel's disparate foes manage to rally behind a single candidate, it should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about the Jewish state." Assuring his readers that this is not simply Republican "scaremongering," he provides evidence for each name he cites. For example, Freund reports that "Last week, Ali Larijani, the hard-line speaker of the Iranian parliament, told a press conference in Bahrain, that 'we re leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational.'" More flexible?
~~~~~~~~~~ Lastly here I cite Daniel Pipes, who is director of the Middle East Forum — and very much an academic and a serious man. He has just done a piece in Front Page Magazine entitled, "Would Obama Pass a Standard Security Clearance?" After detailing Obama's connection with a host of unsavory individuals with a distinctly anti-American bias, Pipes concludes: "...Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 01834F74-53EA-4A20-BA9B-F9F845F663D2 ~~~~~~~~~~ On now to politics here in Israel... The date that seems to be coalescing as the one for our national elections is February 10, although this is not written in stone. Apparently, the Knesset is not going to be dissolved yet. It has been reported that some members of Labor suggested that Labor and Kadima join forces before the election in the hopes of garnering jointly more seats than Likud. Makes sense that this would come from Labor, which is expected to take a major hit in the elections. Kadima has rejected the bid. ~~~~~~~~~~ I'd like to share the highlights of opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu's speech in the Knesset yesterday. He says a government he headed would support: — Defensible borders with the Jordan River as Israel's eastern border. ~~~~~~~~~~ These are major long-term positions with vast ramifications. For example, he's looking, I would say, at some autonomy for the Palestinians that falls short of a full state (that's what he once told me he favored when I questioned him on this) and some cooperation or federation of the Palestinian autonomous enclaves with Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in Judea and Samaria. The Jordan River as our eastern border rules out a Palestinian state. Dear G-d, he should really mean it, stand by it, and win soundly so that he has the opportunity to show us what he can do. That's asking a lot, but it beats by many-fold what we've got now. There is solid reason to believe that the coalition negotiations between Kadima and Shas collapsed because Shas was demanding a promise that there will be no negotiations on Jerusalem, and Tzipi said she could not promise this. Her position is premised on moving in the direction of dividing Jerusalem, which is why chief PA negotiator Ahmed Qurei says he trusts her. ~~~~~~~~~~ MK Yossi Beilin, former head of the left wing Meretz, has announced that he is retiring from politics and going into business. ~~~~~~~~~~ A court decision today I thought I'd never see: right-wing activists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel have been granted permission to hold a protest march with Israeli flags (and nothing other than flags) in the Israeli Arab city of Umm El-Fahm, in the north, which is the stronghold of the more radical northern branch of the Islamic Movement of Israel. Said Marzel: "We will teach democracy to the Arabs of Umm el-Fahm, and we will mainly teach them that in this country it is permissible to march with Israeli flags everywhere." The march, which will take place after November 11 municipal elections; even though permission was given to march in the center of the city, it will be done in the suburbs. Fully do I understand the motivation for this. The Islamic Movement of Israel is blatantly anti-Israel. One gets very weary of the attempts of these Israeli citizens to build their own enclaves from within which they seek to undermine the State of Israel. Just recently the Islamic Movement's office was shut down because of Hamas affiliations. And yet I recognize that those marching in Umm el-Fahm will be taking their lives in their hands. Said the Islamic Movement attorney: "...the Arab sector will not bear responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be." ~~~~~~~~~~ Earlier this week, IDF personnel at the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza found military fatigues intended for a Hamas terror operation hidden among humanitarian supplies on a truck that Israel had given permission to pass. Unfortunately, such stunts are not unusual. While Palestinians rant at us for not allowing sufficient supplies into Gaza (a fallacious charge), they make use of our gestures for their purposes. Similar to this is the issue of concrete, which UNRWA insisted it needed in Gaza some while ago, in order to do construction of schools or whatever. Some of it has found its way (what a surprise!) into Hamas hands and is being used now for building rocket bunkers, Hezbollah-style. ~~~~~~~~~~ With all of the worrisome happenings we face these days, it was a pleasure this morning to actually hear some good news. This was from Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)and director of the Jewish Virtual Library, including on-line Myths and Facts. (It pays to see and utilize this at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org:80/.) Dr. Bard, speaking at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, described successful efforts at combating ignorance about Israel and anti-Israel bias (often promoted by Saudi Arabia, which endows chairs in Middle Eastern studies). Some 27 chairs in major US universities are now endowed for Israeli studies, and in other universities visiting Israeli professors are teaching. All of this is making a difference in the university climate. Incredibly, on many campuses there are no classes on Israel offered at all. The attempt is to not only deal honestly with the political and defense issues, but to show Israel as a proud and well-rounded nation in which we foster literature and dance and much more. ~~~~~~~~~~ Other good news: It's pouring as I write this. The second day of rain we've had. This is no small matter in this drought-ridden country, and it seems we're beginning the rainy season vigorously. This is a bracha, a blessing. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SOLDIERS WERE TRICKED INTO GUARDING KIRYAT ARBA DESTRUCTION
Posted by Hillel Fendel, October 29, 2008. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) How did it happen that yeshiva students in the Givati Brigade took part in the military operation to destroy the Federman-Tor farm and homes three nights ago? Very simple: Senior security commanders lied to them and told them they were participating in a mission to help catch a terrorist. Ro'i Sharon, reporter for the Maariv daily newspaper, revealed that it was feared that the young soldiers would refuse to take part in the mission if they knew it was not military but rather one of destroying Jewish homes. A member of Hevron's emergency alert team, which generally works closely with the army, was quoted as saying: "This creates mistrust between echelons in the military framework, and is liable to cost human life. In the next security incident, the residents won't believe the security forces, and the soldiers won't believe their commanders." "It is sad that for the purpose of destroying two Jewish homes, they cause such harm to the delicate security relations here," the man said. Border Guard officials confirmed that the soldiers had been tricked. "The sensitivity of the incident required us to maintain high secrecy," a Border Guard source told Maariv. The incident in question was the bulldozing of two Jewish homes in Kiryat Arba in the middle of the night, in which the occupants of the two buildings were given five and zero minutes, respectively, to get dressed and pack some belongings. The forces arrived in three rings: Special black-uniformed Yassam policemen in the inner ring, doing the actual destruction, including breaking windows, hitting the occupants (at least one woman and some children), throwing and trampling books and clothing, and bulldozing the buildings; policemen to protect them and ensure that Jewish neighbors not come close; and soldiers at street intersections to prevent Jews from entering the area. The soldiers were some 40 yeshiva hesder soldiers whose job it was to man the entrances to the area. They told residents who wished to enter the area to fight the destruction that a terrorist had been sighted in the area. In some cases, they had to fight with Jews who tried to enter despite the warnings. Thanks to the soldiers' work, the Federman and Tor homes were practically empty of Jews, and their destruction proceeded without interruption. One soldier told reporter Sharon afterwards, "I still cannot believe that I had a part in this eviction. I am a soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, not a policeman, and there is no reason that they should take me on missions that have nothing to do with protecting Jews. I almost cried when I found out." Though the Border Guard confirmed the deception, the IDF claimed that a terrorist had in fact been sighted near the Machpelah Cave, some three kilometers away. Hevron's Jews said they received no word of any such incident. Brief Description of the Violent Eviction and Razing The destruction, as described by Hevron spokesman David Wilder, happened like this: "The troops broke the home's windows and climbed in through them. They quickly made their way to the children's bedrooms where they shook awake the kids, dragged them from their beds, beating some of them, and forcefully expelling them from their home, still in pajamas. Some of the kids went via the door; others via the window... Once everyone was out, the bulldozer started plowing down the houses and other structures on the property. It didn't take too much time, as the families were not allowed to remove any of their belongings. Down came the houses, on top of everything that was inside." Noam Federman, owner of one of the two homes flattened by the police forces, told IsraelNationalNews on Wednesday morning, "The rebuilding is continuing. The army arrived with a small force last night and tried to close off the area with concrete blocks, but they did not succeed... Right now there are dozens of people continuing to work on clearing the spot and rebuilding — if only to have some shelter for the chickens, horses and other animals of our farm. Interesting, I didn't hear anyone from the Animal Rights Society protesting or offering to help..." "We, too, are fortunate that only 'bricks and stones' were damaged — and with G-d's help we will rebuild them!" "We are now collecting money for several projects: To rebuild something in which a family can live, to replace the equipment that was wantonly destroyed, and to help us live day-to-day; even the money that we had in our home has not been found as of yet..." Federman has successfully sued the police on several occasions for their harrassment of him. He said that in this case, there was a legal order for the home's destruction, "but not with all the property in it, and not to purposefully destroy our computer, refrigerator, washing machine, cameras, and the like. I plan to sue the police for that, when the time comes." "But all in all, we are fortunate that none of us were hurt; we are all healthy and whole. I feel like King David, who was told that he could not construct the Holy Temple — but the reason was not, as many people think, because he had killed in war, but because he had been so successful in war that G-d said that a Holy Temple built by him would be invincible, and that if G-d had to punish Israel, He would have to harm the Jews themselves. Instead, the Holy Temple was built by someone else, and when it came time for punishment, the Temple itself was destroyed, while the Jewish People themselves were left relatively safe. We, too, are fortunate that only 'bricks and stones' were damaged — and with G-d's help we will rebuild them!" See photos of the destruction
at http://www.hebron.org.il/hebrew/gallery.php?id=319&thumbs=1
and a video at
http://www.hebron.com/english/show.php?id=105
View an interview with 12-year-old Oved Federman and with his mother
Elisheva, both in Hebrew, at
To help The Jewish Community of Hebron rebuild, you can contribute
directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat
Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone:
972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave.,
Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.
Hillel Fendel is senior new editor at Arutz-7. This article
appeared today in Arutz Sheva |
|
PALESTINIANS CLAIM TO BE JEWISH, SAY MUSLIMS FORCED THEM TO CONVERT
Posted by Dan Calic, October 29, 2008. |
|
This was written by Nadav Shragai and it appeared today in
Haaretz
|
|
Four Palestinians from the Hebron Hills contacted a group of rabbis on Tuesday and claimed to be the descendents of Jews who were forced to convert to Islam. The Palestinians were accompanied by Zvi Mesini, a researcher who wrote a book on the subject and assisted them in learning more about Judaism. According to the Palestinians, their families had removed mezuzahs from their doors in order to avoid harassment by their neighbors. One of the Palestinians said he kept a tefillin he received from his father's uncle and another told the rabbis that his family had once secretly lit candles on the Sabbath and for Hanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights. Mesini told the rabbis, members of a group called the New Sanhedrin, that he believes hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are descended from Jews. "Such evidence renders the conflict redundant," Mesini said. "It proves that Judea and Samaria belongs to both the recognized Jews and the unrecognized Jews." Mesini accused authorities of being indifferent to his findings. The New Sanhedrin is known as a right-wing organization that claims to be the rightful successors of the supreme Jewish court of antiquity. Its goal is to create a state based upon Jewish law that will replace the current State of Israel. Contact Dan Calic at calic@comcast.net |
|
FLEETING FREEDOM: THE INDECENT ASSAULT ON BROADCASTERS
Posted by Don Watkins, October 29, 2008. |
|
The fleeting expletive case before the Supreme Court is about more than broadcasters' ability to air dirty words — it's about whether "community standards" should be allowed to override free speech. |
|
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments Nov. 4 in the so-called fleeting expletive case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, it's clear that much more hinges on its outcome than broadcasters' ability to air dirty words. The FCC has had the power to fine broadcasters for "indecent" speech for decades. But following Janet Jackson's infamous Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction in 2004, the government declared all-out war on indecency. Congress increased the maximum penalty per infraction tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000; the FCC started issuing fines left and right; and Congressman James Sensenbrenner went so far as to recommend jail time for broadcasters who violated "indecency" guidelines. At the same time, the FCC began issuing fines for fleeting expletives. Suddenly a star's offhand comment on live TV could cost broadcasters hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the midst of all this, one question never got answered: just what is "indecency"? The Supreme Court had defined it as speech that "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities and organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards." But which Americans count (and don't count) as part of the community? Why are they king? And how are broadcasters to divine their supposedly shared standards? In response to these unanswerable questions, the FCC issued a hodgepodge of rulings in specific cases and told broadcasters, in effect, "You figure it out." Multiple uses of expletives in Martin Scorsese's PBS documentary The Blues? Indecent, said the FCC. Multiple uses of those same expletives in the movie Saving Private Ryan? Not indecent. Suggestion of teenage sexual activity on CBS's Without a Trace? Indecent. Graphic discussion of teen sexual practices on Oprah? Not indecent. Bono's use of the "F-word" during the 2003 Golden Globe awards? Even the FCC wasn't sure about that one. Initially it said the word was not indecent, but later changed its mind and started handing out the fleeting expletive fines at issue in FCC v. Fox Television. So what is a broadcaster to do? Engage in self-censorship, cutting any material that regulators might declare indecent. Defenders of the war on indecency admit that the FCC's regulations are murky. But without such restrictions, they say, Americans will be helpless against the stream of offensive programming pumped into their homes: either we allow the government to wield arbitrary power over broadcasters, or we give broadcasters arbitrary power to subject us to filth. What this argument ignores is that broadcasters' power is not arbitrary. They must earn their market by offering programming Americans choose to consume. We choose to buy a TV (or not). We choose to pay for cable (or not). We choose which channels we and our children watch. Broadcasters can't force us to watch offensive programming any more than an author can force us to read an offensive book. This is the meaning of free speech: people have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive — and we remain free to listen or not. We don't have to abide by the opinions, prejudices, and errors of our neighbors, but can judge for ourselves whether something is true or false, art or trash, insightful or indecent. But once the government becomes the enforcer of "community standards," no speech is safe. How long until, say, the Bible Belt declares that the theory of evolution is offensive, corrupts young minds, undermines community values, and must be suppressed? This question is not academic. Bolstered by the indecency precedent, efforts are already underway to regulate "excessively violent" broadcasts. And if the government can suppress speech "the community" allegedly deems offensive, then why can't it force broadcasters to engage in speech "the community" allegedly regards as good? In fact, it already does so: Univision was recently fined $24 million for failing to air a sufficient amount of educational children's programming. On the anti-indecency movement's premises, judging the value of programming is not the prerogative of broadcasters, who decide what to air, or viewers, who decide what to watch — it's the prerogative of "the community" (and its self-appointed spokesmen). This is what is at stake in FCC v. Fox Television. The question is not whether fleeting expletives are indecent, an issue that individuals have a First Amendment right to decide for themselves. It's whether the Constitution grants government the power to trample on freedom of speech, using non-objective laws to dictate what we can say and hear on the airwaves. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to respond with an emphatic "No!" Anything less would be indecent. Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand — best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism. |
|
OBAMA'S NEFARIOUS FRIENDS AND ADVISORS
Posted by Janet Lehr, October 29, 2008. |
|
Sadly, BHO has misguided, perfectly respectable (many Jewish) friends and advisors, But The Worst Friends Easily trump the pack: Brzezinski, Lake, Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, Auchi... Brzezinski as been disseminating vitriol about Israel for three
decades and recently publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer study
which concluded that US policy towards Israel was the result of Jewish
pressure and inconsistent with American interests. More recently
Brzezinski called for the US to initiate dialogue with Hamas,
described Israel's action in the Second Lebanon War as a killing
campaign against civilian hostages [(the hostages being Lebanese
caught in the battles). During the Carter years, "Just north of Pakistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski funded, armed and created the Taliban — headed by bin Laden — to offset expected aggression by Soviet forces into Afghanistan in 1979 while Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter — proving directly the U.S. link to bin Laden." "Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group — a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet." Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also on Obama's foreign policy team. Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. Mark recently co-wrote an op-ed advocating that America forge ties with Iran. Mika, his daughter is co-host of MSNBC's morning show, the most biased, pro-Obama, show on TV. It's wise that Obama has kept Brzezinski out of the limelight before the election. Anthony Lake is stupid, venal and/or self serving. He does not deserve a place in US Foreign policy. Please read the following: Anthony Lake and China-Gate along with Enron were all facilitated by Obama's choice for planning foreign and military policy. None of these deals, Enron, Hughes, or Loral, could have happened without the approval and assistance of Anthony Lake. Below is an article written by Charles R. Smith and entitled "Meet
Anthony Lake, Obama'S Choice For Designing Us Foreign And Military
Policies". It appeared yesterday as a Washington Post Blog |
|
How about a poor choice for his top national security advisor? Ex-Clinton National Security chief Anthony Lake. Lake is currently charged with drawing up Obama's future foreign and military policies. Yet, Lake has a long history of repeated errors, dangerous mistakes, and poor judgement. Lake was once nominated to head the CIA but withdrew only days before hearings were to start on Capitol Hill. Lake cited bitter-infighting over his record as National Security adviser as the sole reason for his withdrawal. Lake is well documented in helping Enron win an exclusive energy deal with Mozambique. Allegedly, Lake strong-armed the Mozambique government into accepting Enron's bid for the vast Pande gas fields by shutting off humanitarian aid and threatening the president of Mozambique. While ending food aid for starving African children in a vile effort for an Enron contract may not effect the African-American support for Lake's boss, it certainly should give cannon fire to his opponents who cite that Obama says one thing but does another behind closed doors. The blood thirsty support for the now defunct Enron by Lake should at least give voters cause to wonder about Obama. Still, national security folks can take great joy in the efforts put forth by Anthony Lake during the Clinton years. Lake oversaw the largest sell out of the century by working with Hughes. In 1995, Tony Lake, received a letter from then-CEO of Hughes, C. Michael Armstrong. "The USG [U.S. government] does not require congressional approval to remove commercial satellites from the United States Munitions List (USML), which is under State Department jurisdiction, and placing them on the Commerce Control List (CCL), which is under Commerce Department jurisdiction," wrote Armstrong. "It is my understanding that State has resisted vigorously Commerce attempts to do just that. For the national good, this situation must change. A commercial communications satellite is not a defense item. State Department control of satellites is not required for national security. Continued State Department control is damaging to the U.S. satellite industry and is not warranted." The Hughes document concluded that control over the export of advanced U.S. satellite technology should be moved to the Commerce Department. Apparently Lake agreed and Clinton signed off on the transfer. The U.S. technology sent to China included the entire list of items sought by Hughes: anti-jam capability, advanced antennas, cross links, baseband processing, encryption devices, radiation hardening, and perigee kick motors. Of course, all of these items were developed for military applications and China simply could not resist, sending all this technology into the development of nuclear warheads now aimed at America. Moreover, Armstrong's contention that "a commercial communications satellite is not a defense item" is simply false. In fact, Hughes executives admitted that the satellites sold to China were military items. Ironically, the admission came when the company tried to sell Asiasat-3, a former Chinese satellite, to the U.S. military. Asiasat-3 was placed into an incorrect orbit by a Russian Proton booster rocket launched from Baikonur in 1997. In 1998, space insurance companies paid off the satellite loss and transferred ownership to Hughes. AsiaSat-3, a "commercial" satellite sold to China, was more than just a $220 million piece of orbiting junk. Hughes recovered the satellite, using a special lunar orbit technique to bring it back into a useable position around the earth. Hughes then offered the recovered ex-Chinese satellite to the U.S. Navy for military purposes. Mark J. Schwene, Hughes Global Services vice president, was quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology making the offer. Another secret 1996 White House memo to Lake shows that Loral requested that President Clinton sign a waiver for a satellite export at the same time that Loral was under investigation by the FBI for sending advanced satellite technology to China without a waiver. According to the July 1, 1996 action memo for Presidential National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, "In mid-June, Globalstar's parent company, Loral requested that we temporarily delay evaluation of their request for a national interest waiver for this project. The company has now asked us to resume processing of their application, and State has confirmed its support for approval of the license." "The Dept. of State, with the concurrence of the Departments of Commerce and Defense and the Officer of Science and Technology Policy, recommends that the President report to Congress that it is in the national interest to waive the Tiananmen Square sanctions in order to allow the licensing of communications satellites and related equipment for export to China," states the memo. In July 1996, President Clinton followed Lake's recommendation and signed the waiver for Loral. Clinton's waiver gave Loral enough cover to claim that any previous transfers of advanced missile technology were approved. The result was that the FBI had to close the investigation. When the Chinagate scandal broke, Loral went down in flames, cited for a long list of illegal exports to the Chinese military. The result was that Loral went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and to this day it is struggling to survive. In addition, Hughes was charged with 123 counts of violating national security. Hughes pleaded no contest to the 123 charges filed by the U.S. State Department, paid a record fine and then was sold outright to Boeing. None of these deals, Enron, Hughes, or Loral, could have happened without the approval of Anthony Lake. Lake was not only in the loop — he made the loop happen. Today, Lake is drawing up Senator Obama's national security policies. One can only wonder why Obama keeps Lake on as his national security adviser unless to cut him loose now would prove to be a major scandal. Unmentioned during the last stage of the contest but surely relevant are Wright, Faharakan, Soros. Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com |
|
OBAMA'S 'CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE'
Posted by Avodah, October 29, 2008. |
|
This is from Little Green Footballs
Among the many promises and pledges in Barack Obama's multi-million dollar infomercial, one statement really stood out: he announced that he will "rebuild the military." But somehow, at the same time, he's planning a "civilian national security force" that is as powerful and well-funded as the US military: Obama outlines plan for national service. "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." The Department of Defense's current base budget is close to $500 billion. So if he meant that promise, he plans on a total defense budget of about a trillion dollars. What exactly is Obama planning to do with a "civilian force" with such an astronomical level of funding? Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ALIYA GETS A STEP UP
Posted by Shaul Ceder, October 29, 2008. |
|
This was written by Ruth Eglash and it comes from the
October 27, 2008 Jerusalem Post
|
|
Tehillah Hessler can count on the fingers of one hand the disasters she experienced since moving here three months ago. "It took us about two months to get our son, Yisrael, finally settled in a suitable school," she recounts. "And we've been traipsing across town to try to sort out our driving licenses, which was quite a challenge, but apart from that it's been pretty smooth." Originally from Cleveland, Hessler, who now resides in Ma'aleh Adumim, has encountered only in small doses the classic Israeli bureaucracy that so infuriated previous immigrants. "We have an aliya coordinator in Ma'aleh Adumim," says Hessler, who came with her husband Michael and Yisrael, but left five grown children behind. "Between her and Nefesh B'Nefesh [which facilitated the family's aliya] the bureaucracy has been cut to a minimum." With the exception of the Education Ministry, which the aliya coordinator tackled on their behalf, the family's interaction with the other government offices has been fairly straightforward. "We went to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry to fill out our paperwork so that we could receive our aliya benefits. The people there spoke to us in English, they were very helpful and we were out of there in 15 minutes," she recalls. "I was very impressed with the Immigrant Absorption Ministry's service," says former Australian Paul Vesely, who is currently studying at Ulpan Etzion. "The first time I went there, I had to lie my way in, because apparently you need an appointment, but once I was inside the people were very helpful and explained everything I needed to do in English." According to Vesely, who lives at the Young Judaea-run Mercaz Hamagshimim in Jerusalem, "I was given a contact in the ministry who said I could call her if I had any questions or problems during my aliya process. So far I have not needed to get in touch with her." Both Hessler's and Vesely's hassle-free immigration procedures are a far cry from anyone who arrived in the country up until about five years ago. Of course, Nefesh B'Nefesh has certainly streamlined the process, and the dwindling numbers of olim from communities in distress, such as the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, has also served to ease the pressure on the Immigrant Absorption Ministry, the Jewish Agency for Israel and other immigrant services. However, according to aliya experts and the official line from the ministry, this ease of starting up a new life here is part of a concerted effort by the government to iron out the kinks in the process and make those first few months memorable for reasons outside of the impossible bureaucracy. "THERE has been a change in our office over the past two years," says ministry Director-General Erez Halfon, who took over in September 2006. "We obviously want to do our best for all new immigrants, but we also know that certain groups already receive a lot of support and enrichment programs from the government. "English-speaking olim are a little bit different, in most cases they are not as needy, and we want to try to tailor our services to suit each group." Among the changes that have benefited Anglo olim is the ministry's recent success in repealing a 2003 regulation that had forced new immigrants to declare all their earnings and assets abroad to the Income Tax Authority, a move that all aliya experts claim will entice more Western immigrants. In addition, the ministry is in the process of increasing the number of native English-speakers in its offices, especially in cities where there are large numbers of Anglos, such as Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Modi'in and Ra'anana. There has also been an easing of the process for professional retraining or licensing. The ministry has also been happy to outsource its work to organizations such as Nefesh B'Nefesh, which since last November has received one-third of its funding from it. Halfon also talks about a push for community-based aliya. "Over the past few years more than 1,600 new English-speaking olim have arrived in Jerusalem and we see that as a core aliya," he says. "Because of that we have increased the services here for new olim, providing a special ulpan for both children and the adults and offering cultural programs and even a kindergarten in their native language." These changes notwithstanding, Halfon talks about the ministry's outlook for the future. Refusing to go into too much detail, he hints at a new program currently being developed to encourage aliya from South Africa, where there are more than 60,000 people eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return, and a flexible aliya program in which young families and students can spend a year investigating their prospects here. Halfon insists that all these plans and programs mark a sharp change in policy, which in the past urged all new immigrants to join the "melting pot" and just get on with life the Israeli way. "Today we see that every community has its own specific needs, and we want to be able to give them the tools to succeed here," he states.
ACCORDING to aliya experts, Halfon's assertions are not just the talk of a smooth politician. The changeover in the government's taxation policy for new immigrants was two years and much haranguing in the making, say various English-speaking aliya facilitators who helped the ministry to draft the change. "It is a huge benefit for new immigrants," says one expert. "The whole process today is hugely different to how it was in the past. Even the basket of aliya benefits was just a dream when I made aliya in 1975. It only existed for those who came from countries of distress." Part of the changes, he claims, come from improved technology enabling those about to make aliya to be processed in their native country and have much of the fine details of their immigration worked out beforehand. "Anyone who arrives today can go straight to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry's office in the airport and receive their ID card and immigration ID before they even pick up their luggage," he says. "All that's left for the immigrant to do is to go to the ministry's offices to give them their new bank account details and to receive a voucher for ulpan."
BUT FOR Shira Friedman, who arrived from Melbourne in February, the sabras' initially prickly approach was not the problem. "It was just disorganized," she complains, as she begins to describe how it took her several months and numerous visits to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry before she was even assigned to a suitable ulpan program. "I just would have appreciated some kind of aliya counselor to help me coordinate the visits to each office and to guide me on what to do next." She finally managed to secure a place at a pre-university ulpan through the Student Authority. "I was living in Beit Canada, which was an excellent place to live and I was supposed to participate in the ulpan there," she recalls. "However, every time I went to ask the head of the ulpan if I could take the entrance test, she told me that it was not available yet. I believe they just did not have a suitable level for me." Giving up on the classes at Beit Canada, Friedman tried to get some answers from the Immigrant Absorption Ministry about alternative Hebrew classes. She made the required appointment to meet with an aliya counselor, but when she arrived she was told that she only had 10 minutes. "It was very frustrating and certainly not enough time to have all my questions answered," she says, adding that she pretty much had to navigate her own way through the Interior Ministry and track down details for driver's license registration. "I found out most of what I needed to know from other new immigrants. The ironic thing was that I was the most informed of all my friends because I my sister made aliya a few years ago." For Max and Chantal Castiel, who arrived from Los Angeles with the help of Nefesh B'Nefesh a year ago, the bumpy transition to their new life was somewhat different, but no less unsettling. "Nefesh representatives were certainly there to help us with certain information and advice," admits Max, whose four children range in age from two to 15. "However, they were not hands-on in a practical way." He says that "in terms of getting all our rights in order, that was fairly smooth"; however, both he and Chantal are still struggling to find employment. "I'm not exactly sure what the role of the Immigrant Absorption Ministry is, but I think it needs to be much more active in the lives of new immigrants during their first year in Israel," he says, adding that he participated in a recent private seminar to aid job seekers which was extremely helpful. "Among the thousands of new immigrants that we help every year, there are always going to be those who end up falling through the cracks," says Halfon, pointing out that aliya counselors are usually assigned to new olim. He believes that in the future contact between the counselors, who are meant to be in touch with the immigrants for up to a year and a half, will be via e-mail and other programs on the Internet. "We have to change our procedures to tailor them to preferences of the English-speaking community who like to use Facebook and other social networking tools."
WHILE day-to-day contact certainly seems to be on Halfon's agenda, Danny Oberman, executive vice president of Israel operations for Nefesh B'Nefesh, says the ministry's role in the lives of English-speaking immigrants is also significant on a macro level. "We work very closely with the ministry advising it on issues concerning Anglo olim," he says. "I believe the fact that it decided to outsource work to us shows that it recognizes that Western olim need slightly different handling than other groups." In addition, Oberman sees the ministry's role as one that will lobby for immigrant rights in government circles and points again to the changes in the taxation laws, which now allow new immigrants the right not to declare holdings or assets abroad for their first 10 years in the country. "Halfon is in a tough position; he is constantly faced with changing ministers," Oberman says, referring to the recent changeover from Ya'acov Edri to Eli Aflafo. Another authoritative source on aliya also points to recent changes in the procedure for returning minors and returning Israelis, both reforms that have happened in the last year or so. "Returning minors account for roughly 25 percent of new immigrants from North America," he says. "These are usually children of former immigrants or Israelis, who did not grow up here but want to make aliya. In the past, the Jewish Agency for Israel could not guarantee these people their aliya basket benefits. That could only be done when they arrived here and presented themselves at the Immigrant Absorption Ministry. We managed to convince the government that these people also needed to feel a degree of certainty that they would get the help they needed and not leave it all to chance when they arrived." The ministry agreed to make the change. Over the past year, the ministry has decided to take on the task of helping former citizens who live abroad to return. It has managed to find a way around the huge health tax imposed on returning Israelis and offer a basket of benefits competitive to the basic aliya package. Of course, the source adds, even with all the efforts made over the past few years to improve the aliya service, "there is still always room for improvement. There has to be much more follow-up with individual immigrants and the ministry's customer services needs somewhat of an overall to make staffers friendlier and more helpful." Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
RABBIS FOR OBAMA EXPOSED AS FRONT GROUP FOR RADICAL HAMAS APPEASEMENT SUPPORTERS
Posted by Sultan Knish, October 29, 2008. |
|
When Rabbis for Obama was announced with great fanfare it was meant to reassure worried Jewish voters. The 300 Rabbis who signed on to the letter which stated that Barack Obama had "longstanding, stalwart support for Israel" and claimed that "Senator Obama is in the best position to restore faith in America as a leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel." But when you mix Obama and clergy together, the one thing you can count on is that they'll be left wing radicals who are anti-American and anti-Israel... and the Rabbis for Obama signers don't disappoint. In fact a better name for "Rabbis for Obama" would be "Rabbis for Hamas". Does that sound like I'm exagerating, not at all. Because there is a surprising amount of overlap between the Rabbis who joined up with Rabbis for Obama and the Rabbis who signed the infamous Brit Tzedek V'Shalom letter urging Bush to keep an open mind on Hamas for the purposes of "constructive engagement" with the new Hamas government. How much overlap? Five of the Vice Chairs of Rabbis for Obama were among the Hamas Rabbis, as well as 133 of the signatories to the Rabbis for Obama letter. That's nearly half the membership of Rabbis for Obama who signed on to a letter calling for Bush to keep an open door for dealings with Hamas. (see below for a full list) Since then Brit Tzedek V'Shalom has authored a second letter to whoever wins the Presidential election that repeatedly condemns Israel for fighting terrorism, e.g. ("In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon flatly rejected President Bush's demands that a massive Israeli military operation on the West Bank be suspended "as quickly as possible"), takes the Palestinian Arab side on the negotiations ("The Palestinians rejected Olmert's offer as soon as it was made public as it did not adequately address most of the issues that are most important to the Palestinians") and once again calls for recognizing and dealing with Hamas; The fact that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip is undeniably problematic, however; any agreement Abbas achieves with Israel will only be successful if the majority of the Palestinian people stand behind it. If the nation is, in fact, split into two geographical and ideological camps, this won't be possible... However, some members of the Hamas leadership have indicated a certain openness to a peace deal with Israel; they would accept an agreement, if approved in a national referendum... Bottom line, for peace talks to succeed, the U.S. will also have to work to close the gap between Fatah, the movement headed by Abbas, and Hamas. This time around three more of the Vice Chairs of Rabbis for Obama as well as many other Rabbis for Obama members signed on to the second Brit Tzedek V'Shalom pro-Hamas letter. The original letter by the Hamas Rabbis was a project of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom aka Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, an extremist left wing group, which has condemned Israeli action against Hamas, defended the ISM terrorist solidarity group and coordinated pro-terrorist propaganda with figures involved in terrorism. And Brit Tzedek V'Shalom is funded by the same far left daddies too. Here's a sample. The group gets financial support from other anti-American and anti-Zionist organizations, too, including Noam Chomsky's Resist, Inc. and the Ford Foundation. he board of Noam Chomsky's group is littered with admitted socialists, anti-Zionist activists, and even includes Yasir Arafat's former economic adviser Leila Farsakh. The New York-based Ford Foundation supports far-ranging efforts in globalization, internationalism and other internationalist leftist programs. Founded by industrialist Henry Ford, an admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler, the Ford Foundation today continues to display anti-Jewish bias. Ford funded anti-Jewish agitprop at the UN conference in Durban and supports Al Mezan, ISM, New Israel Fund, and other anti-Zionist groups. Rabbi John Friedman who chairs the Rabbinic Cabinet of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and who was one of the Hamas Rabbis, is also one of the Obama Rabbis. And when you begin to examine the signatories to Brit V'Tzedek's letters and the list of Rabbinic board members for Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and Rabbis for Obama you come away with the impression that Rabbis for Obama is nothing more than a front for Brit V'Tzedek. And a left wing group that calls for dealing with Hamas and which is funded by extremist groups that include figures such as Noam Chomsky, is in the worst possible position to reassure Jews that Obama meets their standard for protecting Israel and America's security. Not when that group itself is far too friendly with terrorists and blatantly hostile to Israel and America. Two of the Hamas Rabbis even appear front and center on the Rabbis for Obama testimonials section, a limited list of a handful of Rabbis influential in the group. Both of their endorsements for Obama carry coded statements calling for pressure on Israel and appeasement for terrorism. Rabbi Richard Levy (Los Angeles, CA) "I believe this country needs to return to a policy of respect for other nations, to pursue energetically all opportunities for peace in the Middle East and around the world." Rabbi Elliot Dorff (Los Angeles, CA) "He has pursued the wrong war that is responsible for thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of Americans maimed physically or psychologically — and now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they never used to be... Obama, by contrast, offers us intelligence, caring, individual rights, well-thought-out programs for improvement in education and health care — and, yes, wise and firm support for Israel and for peace in the Middle East." Besides being a terrorist dupe, Rabbi Elliot Dorff is additionally an idiot who's under the impression that the Taliban are now in Iraq. And over several months none of the wise men of Rabbis for Obama have noticed anything wrong either. Additionally prominent names among Rabbis for Obama include Rabbi Rolando Matalon who is on the Rabbinic board of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom, is also on the board of the radical left wing New Israel Fund and Americans for Peace Now. There is Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama and an Honorary Board member of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom, who is personally acquainted with Obama and wrote a widely reproduced article "My Neighbor, Barack". Somewhat less famously Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf is a left wing Anti-Israel radical who during the 2006 Second Lebanon War who served as the "Rabbinic Ally" for a letter condemning Israel's self-defense "We urge the Union to likewise condemn the Israeli Defense Force's killing of unarmed Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, as well as its premeditated targeting of civilian infrastructure, which has put additional lives at risk and hampered relief efforts." There's Rabbi Elliot Dorff who is a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama, a signatory to both the Hamas letters and on the board of J Street, which successfully sabotaged the Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, and has made it its mission to insure that no military action will be taken against Iran. There are hundreds of signatures of left wing Anti-Israel figures just like these there and they form the tapestry of both the Hamas letters and Rabbis for Obama. Rabbis for Obama claims to reassure Jewish voters about Obama's commitment to Israel, but that reassurance is coming from extremists who champion legitimizing Hamas and condemn and abuse Israel at every turn. Their voices make it clear once again what Obama and his supporters really stand for when it comes to Israel. (A final note, these people may call themselves Rabbis but they're liberal clergy who rarely hold any actual belief in G-d or the Bible. Some like Rabbi Rachel Cowan are not actually Jews. Many are simply left wing figures who find a Rabbinical title convenient.) [Below is the list of names overlapping between the Hamas letter and Rabbis for Obama. Draw your own conclusions as to whether there's any real difference between Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and Rabbis for Obama.] Vice Chairs Rabbi Laura Geller, Los Angeles, CA
133 Members
Rabbi Ron Segal (Atlanta, GA)
Sultan Knish blogs at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ |
|
PETER WALLSTEN'S ORIGINAL STORY IN APRIL OF OBAMA AND KHALIDI AT ARAB CELEBRATION
Posted by NCUL, October 29, 2008. |
|
"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama"
CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York. A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years. And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say. Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed. At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace." One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology." Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House. "I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions. "That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said." Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy. Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations. "Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod. Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view." Looking for clues But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute. And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view. Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence. Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight. Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment. Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid." The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University. Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms. Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East. Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say. Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified. "In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist." In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community. In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia. He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. Still, many of Khalidi's opinions are troubling to pro-Israel activists, such as his defense of Palestinians' right to resist Israeli occupation and his critique of U.S. policy as biased toward Israel. While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors. At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said. The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times. Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter. In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections. Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians. "He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that." Ties with Israel Even as he won support in Chicago's Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel. In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues." In 2002, as a rash of suicide bombings struck Israel, Obama sought out a Jewish colleague in the state Senate and asked whether he could sign onto a measure calling on Palestinian leaders to denounce violence. "He came to me and said, 'I want to have my name next to yours,' " said his former state Senate colleague Ira Silverstein, an observant Jew. As a presidential candidate, Obama has won support from such prominent Chicago Jewish leaders as Penny Pritzker, a member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and who is now his campaign finance chair, and from Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas. One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama's outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright. "In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that's what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League. peter.wallsten@latimes.com |
|
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 29, 2008. |
|
FACTS & FANTASIES Some Arabs attacked Jews near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron (IMRA, 9/27). Such attacks and attacks on the soldiers guarding the Cave occur almost daily (Arutz-7, 9/28). It was just for being non-Muslim. The fact is that the Muslim Arabs are intolerant and violent. The fantasy is that Jews initiate attacks on Arabs. (Occasionally a paid, Israeli government provocateur attacks Arabs in the name of the Jews, so that the Jews seem worse than previous defamtion or the government gets a pretext for giving the Arabs another concession.) On the Internet, the constant and fabricated and distorted messages defaming Israel and the Jewish people encourage Muslim attacks. It doesn't help that despite so many such attacks, the media still depicts the Jews as the violent ones and the US government still paints Islam as a religion of peace. There isn't much evidence, in the face of all its war-mongering, or peaceful intent there. QUARTET TRYING TO DICTATE TO ISRAEL Commenting on Israel-P.A. negotiations, the Quartet "noted the significance of this process and the importance of confidentiality in order to preserve its integrity." What it means is that Israeli democracy be damned, the government need not reveal its negotiating points to the people, that may be about to elect a new government to deal with Arab-Israel relations. Vote in the dark. Again, "The Quartet underlined its commitment to the irreversibility of the negotiations." This means that a new government may not declare the previous [crooked and treasonous] regime to have offered too much (IMRA, 9/27). Now what was that Pres. Bush said about the US spreading democracy? His State Dept. and the EU does what they can to squelch democracy in Israel and to maintain and expand the terrorist dictatorship over the P.A.. The EU does it largely by financing subversive organizations in Israel, pretending to favor human rights. U.S. IMPROVES ISRAELI ANTI-MISSILE DEFENSE The US is installing advanced radar in Israel. It would enable Israel to fire ant-missile missiles a few minutes sooner at rockets coming from Iran (IMRA, 9/27). That's nice. Unfortunately, Iran might find other ways to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Perhaps the enemy would fire tens of thousands of rockets at about the same time, overwhelming the anti-missile defense. ISRAELI POLICE: CRIME & TERRORISM Israel's police chief has transferred some forces from anti-terrorism to crime-fighting. He seeks to destroy the crime organizations and to stop criminal enterprises and big businesses from controlling legitimate business and subverting government agencies to commit large-scale corruption. He considers that corruption a national threat. He accused Cabinet Ministers who were investigated of using their positions to impugn the police outside of trial (IMRA, 9/28). ISRAELI LEFT'S NOTION OF DEMOCRACY When Rabin was assassinated, the "...Left in Israel insisted then that anyone who had disagreed with Rabin's Oslo initiative was collectively guilty of his murder. The Leftist theory of jurisprudence insisted that every Israeli non-leftist was collectively guilty of murder unless he or she could be proven innocent... The episode demonstrated how shallow is the understanding of and commitment to democracy in large swaths of the Israeli political arena." The attack on Prof Sternhell is being used to condemn without evidence the whole Right. Sternhell had other enemies besides the Right. [MK Netanyahu condemns both political violence and wholesale defamation (IMRA, 9/29) The views of Sternhell, who sympathizes with Muslim terrorism, remain odious. The attempt to smear the whole Right does not excuse the Far Left's treason. Suppose a follower of Meir Kahane did it. Consider decriminalizing the Kahane movement. "The Kahanists and ONLY the Kahanists have been criminalized in Israel, banned, denied freedom of speech, and declared racists and terrorists. Yet not a single far-Leftist "Post Zionist" nor a single Arab fascist or Stalinist group has been similarly criminalized and none were officially declared "racists," even when calling for mass murder of Jews or denying the Holocaust." Sometimes repressed people turn to violence." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/28.) ISRAEL TRAINED CHINESE POLICE Israeli police trained Chinese police in how to handle terrorist attacks during the Olympics and also mass civil demonstrations (IMRA, 9/28). China's police themselves are terrorist. Mass civil demonstrations there might be for good causes. I think Israel should not have helped China. Let Israel do better against terrorist attacks against civilians and its soldiers in Judea-Samaria. There are very few arrests of Muslim attackers there, little resort to guns. GAZA ARABS CAMPAIGN FOR OBAMA Using free Internet telephone, they randomly call Americans to persuade them to vote for Obama. They believe he will not stand by Israel (Arutz-7, 10/28). Do they know something that Democratic voters don't? B'Tselem is no human rights organization but part of the inhumane war on Israel. Although the minor media have exposed it, the biased major media quote it. FINANCIAL CRISIS, THE "SURGE," THE MIDEAST None of the usual liberal critics had letters in Commentary disputing Joshua Muravchik's prior evidence of Obama being a radical and covering it up. The current issue led off with John Steele Gordon's history of modern financial disasters. He shows that politicians of both parties deliberately eased protective regulations. Now the Party outside the Presidency tries to blame solely the President and in general terms. (If they understood the issue, or thought we would, they would cite specifics.) Perhaps he will offer Congress a solution. Then Peter Webner analyzed the "surge" in Iraq. He shows that liberals were mistaken about it when it was proposed, as it was being tried and making progress, and even after the additional troops were withdrawn after having accomplished their purpose. Instead of celebrating our country's success and drawing a lesson about capabilities and remedies, Democrats continued to oppose the surge. They did not want to admit having been wrong; they were stuck in their rut of hating Pres. Bush. Lest we become complacent, Amir Taheri has a memo to the incoming President about the Mideast. Originally, the West tried to keep foreign rivals out of the Mideast. Then trouble originated within the Mideast. The West then sought stability. By supporting existing governments, instability accelerated. Bush switched to supporting democracy. Democracy became the subject of great debate in the Mideast. Mr. Taheri cites a number of steps towards democracy. I think he has exaggerated the importance of some of them; they may be formalities meant to give the appearance of democracy; the Arabs are old hands at this. He failed to note that Bush withdrew that policy. He wrote only of elections, which should be the last step to democracy, preceded by a free press and other institutions. Some of the countries having free elections are infiltrated by Iranian sleeper cells. The US has great challenges ahead, he writes. Why not also the EU? PALIN VS. BIDEN Sen. Biden's campaigns get significant funds from lobbyists supporting the government of Iran. Biden encourages them and talks about harmonizing with Iran. He criticized Pres. Bush for calling Iran a part of the evil axis. By contrast, Gov. Palin's speech, the one that Democrats successfully stifled, said that Iran must be stopped (Jewish Political Chronicle, Fall 2008). I prefer Palin to Biden on foreign policy. His loyalty may have been bought. She makes more sense than he does. OBAMA VS. MCCAIN The Jewish Political Chronicle compared their statements on several aspects of the Arab-Israel conflict (Op. Cit.). Obama was more theoretical, less supportive, suspiciously vague, and evasive, McCain more down to earth and forthright. [Conclusion: Obama has no credibility, but no politician can be trusted much.] Both said that they would let the [appeasement-minded] government of Israel make its own decisions. McCain trusts that government to shepherd its own interests. [It hasn't done that in years, didn't he notice?] McCain had said that negotiations with the P.A. are important and he would monitor them. His advisor now says they aren't important like other issues. [Which is it?] Obama would have a special envoy, suggesting Tony Blair [known for his pro-Arab position]. Obama said that "Jordan has gone a long way" to find an "accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures..." [Jordan's people largely support the Islamists and don't tolerate Israel.] Obama said, "I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously." McCain asked how can he be an honest broker to the Arabs replied by affirming the special relationship with Israel but said he'd be happy to partner with Fatah if they were committed to peace (Ibid.) What is the "spirit" of agreements? Why should Israel abide by agreements made by Quisling regimes under US pressure in behalf of Arabs who abide by none of them? Obama would be dangerous for Israel. McCain was critical of the National Intelligence Estimate that undermined action against Iran. [Good for him!] He said EU banks are shoring up Iran. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
OBAMA DONOR ORDERED BIG BROTHER PROBE OF JOE THE PLUMBER
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 29, 2008. |
|
As William R. Mann has written "It is a very telling story about the charged atmosphere in which we live. It seems that some government genius in Toledo decided to check "Joe the Plumber" for license, wants, and warrants some short time after he had asked Barack Obama an embarrassing question. Is this the kind of "transformation" that Obama and his supporters represent? Is this the kind of America we want? Are these simply the actions of an overzealous bureaucrat trying to impress his/her Boss? Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, or Franco's Spain [if you prefer] were full of these kinds of "helpful" bureaucrats. Joe Wurzelburger was just a guy in a Toledo suburb asking a question. Obama answered it with revealing honesty in an unguarded moment. Is this what happens when you complain about Obama in Ohio these days? For the state and local government to check up on this Joe seems rather like Police State kind of behavior... in of all places, Toledo Ohio! This is where I grew up, for crying out loud! |
|
State agency director authorizes child-support check on senator's critic Following the third presidential debate, a state agency director and maximum donor to the Barack Obama presidential campaign immediately authorized a government background check of Joe the Plumber's child-support records. Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a $2,300 contributor to the Obama campaign, permitted state employees to conduct a check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the Columbus Dispatch reported. Now Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles is seeking to determine whether at least four probes on state computers were legal. Jones-Kelley denies the Support Enforcement Tracking System search was politically motivated and claims the check was ordered to verify that Wurzelbacher was not behind on child-support payments. While the state agency director would not share information about Joe the Plumber's record with the Dispatch, Wurzelbacher reportedly lives with his 13-year-old boy, and it is uncertain whether he has ever been ordered to pay child support. Jones-Kelley said such background checks are not unusual. "Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look," she said. "Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way." Ohio's Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland told the Dispatch his appointee, Jones-Kelly, did not authorize the check for political purposes. "Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee," his press secretary told the paper. Name searches on Joe the Plumber were also conducted at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, where his registration and driving records were pulled. The State Highway Patrol has seized a government computer at the Ohio Department of Insurance as evidence. A separate search was conducted in the Toledo Police Department's criminal database. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
PLO ACKNOWLEDGES: STILL AT WAR WITH ISRAEL
Posted by Dave Nathan, October 28, 2008. |
|
This was written by Daniel Pipes and is archived at
|
|
Yasir Arafat may have shaken Yitzhak Rabin's hand in 1993 and signed solemn declarations about ending the war to eliminate Israel, but late last month, in a New York City courtroom, the Palestine Liberation Organization formally confirmed that it still sees terrorism against Israelis as legitimate acts of war. The lawsuit, Sokolow v The Palestine Liberation Organization, brought by the intrepid David Strachman, alleges that the PLO carried out two machine-gun and five bombing attacks in the Jerusalem area between January 2001 and February 2004. The plaintiffs allege, in the words of U.S. District Judge George Daniels, that the PLO did so "intending to terrorize, intimidate, and coerce the civilian population of Israel into acquiescing to defendants' political goals and demands, and to influence the policy of the United States and Israeli governments in favor of accepting defendants' political goals and demands." The attacks killed 33 and wounded many more, some of them U.S. citizens; the victims and their families are seeking up to US$3 billion in damages from the PLO. To this, the PLO, represented in part by none other than the appalling Ramsey Clark (who in a distant age, 1967-69, was attorney general of the United States), replied that the attacks were acts of war rather than terrorism. As Daniels summarizes the PLO argument: "defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because this action is premised on acts of war, which is barred under the ATA [Antiterrorism Act of 1991], and further is based on conduct which does not meet the statutory definition of 'international terrorism'." This response is noteworthy for two reasons: (1) Fifteen years after Oslo supposedly ended the state of war, four years after Mahmoud Abbas took over and supposedly improved on Arafat's abysmal record, the PLO publicly maintains it remains at war with Israel. (2) The PLO argues, even in the context of an American law court, that blatant, cruel, inhumane, and atrocious acts of murder constitute legitimate acts of warfare. Judge Daniels rightly slammed the PLO's argument: "the Court finds that the attacks, as alleged to have occurred in the amended complaint, do not constitute acts of war nor do they, as a matter of law, fall outside the statutory definition of 'international terrorism'." He went on to point out that civilians, not soldiers were the intended victims of these assaults: There has been no showing that the situs of the attacks were in any combat or militarized zone, or were otherwise targeted at military or governmental personnel or interests. Rather, plaintiffs allege that the attacks were intentionally targeted at the civilian population. They were purportedly carried out at locations where non-combatants citizens would be known to congregate, such as in the cafeteria on the Hebrew University campus and on a commercial passenger bus. Daniels went on, rising to an eloquence not frequently heard in district court decisions: Additionally, the use of bombs, under such circumstances, is indicative of an intent to cause far-reaching devastation upon the masses. The "benefit" of such weaponry is its merciless capability of indiscriminately killing and maiming untold numbers in heavily populated civilian areas. Such claimed violent attacks upon non-combatant civilians, who were allegedly simply going about their everyday lives, do not constitute acts of war. That the PLO justifies "merciless capability of indiscriminately killing and maiming untold numbers" suggests it remains the terrorist organization it has always been since its founding in 1964. When will the diplomatic bright lights in Jerusalem and Washington figure this out? Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com |
|
ISRAEL COURT REMANDS JEWISH DISSIDENT TO COMMUNITY ARREST AMID GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWN ON SETTLERS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 28, 2008. |
|
This is from www.Israeljustice.com and was posted October 5, 2008 |
|
KFAR SABA — An Israeli court ordered a Jewish 'dissident', charged with assaulting a police officer, to be held under community arrest and post a bond of $1,145 until the start of her trial, as part of a government crackdown on Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Kfar Saba Magistrate David Gadol rejected the demand by the police prosecution that Daniella Weiss, former mayor of the Jewish community of Kedumim, be remanded in custody until the end of judicial proceedings. [OUTRAGEOUS in this writer's opinion.EW] "You have until Oct. 12 to investigate her," Gadol admonished police prosecutor Shir Laufer, who said she would appeal the decision. "After Oct. 12 [the start of the trial], she [Weiss] will be free on bail." Weiss was arrested outside her home in Kedumim on Oct. 2, following the destruction of the nearby Jewish outpost of Shvut Ami. The police prosecutor's office rushed through an indictment on charges of assaulting a police officer and interfering with the police. "In the passed few weeks I have noticed that the attitude of the police and the army towards the settlers became much tougher, even brutal," Weiss said. "As far as my arrest was concerned, I noticed a very aggressive approach [on the part of the police]. While I was being interrogated, Samaria Police Commander Albert Ohayun flung open the door and aggressively threatened me. 'Don't worry. It's not just you we are going to take care of. We are going to arrest your husband as well.'" The arrests of Weiss, 62, her 57 year-old former aide Shoshana Shilo and six others, followed the evacuation and destruction by security forces of the two temporary structures at Shvut Ami outpost, established last year by the Land of Israel Faithful group. After the evacuation, police said settlers torched fields near the Palestinian village of Kadum. Police said they saw a car driving away from the blaze, which they then found parked near Weiss's home. According to police, when officers approached the home, Weiss and Shilo came out of the house and attempted to stop police from coming inside. Police then raided the Weiss home and arrested two suspects inside as well as Weiss's husband, Amnon, who was later released. Shilo, who said she had worked with Weiss for 11 years when Weiss was mayor, said she heard about the destruction of Shvut Ami and came to help. "They [police] were dragging her [Weiss] on the ground," Shilo said. "They pushed her and pulled off her head covering and pulled up her shirt. I asked for female police officers but they just mocked me." Weiss said that at least 10 policemen raided her home on Oct. 2 without a search warrant and arrested two suspects. "They burst into my home, flying passed my daughter who just gave birth two weeks ago and arrested my husband," Weiss said. "I understand that if they had pursued the suspects from the scene, then they could enter my home without a search warrant but this was not the case. They entered illegally." Weiss said that Samaria Police Chief Detective Gil Desher, who was dressed in civilian clothes, flashed his identification tag in front of her face and asked for permission to search the house when he was interrogating her after her arrest but when she refused, he told her that they had arrested people in her home. "It's so aggressive," Weiss said. "Last night police raided a Yeshiva high school [Yeshivat Dorshei Yechudecha] in the Jewish community of Yitzhar, known for its dissident community. They came in the middle of the night, turned everything upside down and made 15 year-olds stand with their faces towards the wall." Over the passed few months, the Israel Army has launched an offensive against Jewish dissidents in the West Bank. Military sources said the army's Central Command has been ordered to dismantle unauthorized Jewish outposts and arrest organizers in the West Bank. The sources said the military has assessed that Jewish opponents of the government would try to accelerate construction and settlement amid the expected departure of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "They [the police] have a license to act above the law," Weiss said. "The general atmosphere from the government and the ministry of defense is to go ahead with putting an end to the settlers' activities, especially to crush their spirit, especially with the new outposts." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
WHY WOULD THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSIST OBAMA BY ENABLING FOREIGN MONEY
TO FLOW TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN?
Posted by Emanuel A Winston, October 28, 2008. |
|
If you had any doubt before about Israel's current, retired but still standing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima gang adopting the methods of totalitarian government like the Soviet Union, put your doubts away. This horribly corrupt and unjust government is an incurable cancer that is metastasizing and spreading poison every day. Olmert, the Leftist tyrant gives the orders and his hand-picked thugs, seeded into the valiant, upstanding Israeli Police and IDF — as well as the Courts click their heels and say the equivalent of: "Yes, Sir!" |
|
Let's start from some time back? A few years? We all recall the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) Report published December 3, 2007, which created a false impression to the effect that Iran had ceased all efforts to produce nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons. Later information leaked out that the State Department had transferred three of its employees into various U.S. Intelligence Services to manipulate actual intelligence to their point of view. Some would call this a "rolling coup d'etat" as the State Department and certain powerful individuals moved to take control of government policy as a "shadow government". This could turn the American people into a Third World population working for new masters. This is not the first time the American public has been manipulated and fleeced by a "shadow government" run by self-serving controllers. Recall the Savings and Loan Crash and Bailout of the mid and late 1980s under James Baker III as Secretary of Treasury? For the record, 1,169 savings and loans in the United States failed. Texas, the epi-center, had the most failures, 237. In 2000, the FDIC said that the S&L disaster cost taxpayers some $124 billion. But that sum does not reflect the entire bill. In order to pay for the S&L bailout, the federal government sold bonds. By the time those bonds are finally retired in 2020 or so, the total cost of the S&L mess will likely be some $300 billion. Secretary of Treasury James Baker, took no action on the emerging savings & loan crisis. Today's current Crash may be the result of the oil manipulation between the multi-national oil companies and the Muslim and Arab oil nations — with 'we, the people' paying for this swindle. All of this is overseen by the U.S. State Department and Washington. The eventual cost to American tax-payers will be astronomical and is, as yet, hidden.
THE MIS-INFORMATION BY THE 2007 NIE REPORT WAS EXPOSED by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. The manipulated NIE Report was designed to stop President Bush from ordering an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities which are now scattered throughout Iran's countryside. Later the head of the CIA apologized for the Report and its erroneous information but, nevertheless, the well-planned insider propaganda halted any American plans to destroy Iran's burgeoning nuclear facilities. The Leftist Media crawled all over the false NIE Report, practically cheering what turned out to be a phony Report. The State Department wasn't the only participant, as several top ranking officers of the American military were quietly relieved of duty for their participation in the false NIE Report.
British and Israeli Intelligence were furious over this planted mis-information that Iran had ceased its operations when, in fact, they had actually accelerated production of their fissile nuclear material. One could consult with Senator Joe Biden as to why, over the years, he has always leaned toward Iran in his voting and deliberations among his colleagues.
WHY DOES THIS COLLABORATION BY STATE AND OTHER INTEL/MILITARY AGENCIES WANT A PACIFIST like Barack Obama for President? They knew they could not appeal to or trust John McCain and Sarah Palin to go along with the plan to stop a preventative invasion against Iran's nuclear facilities. Compromising America's security or that of our ally, Israel, is a betrayal of a greater magnitude. Barack Obama, given his history of "hanging around the neighborhood" with self-declared anarchists and generally considered far Left-of-Center, could be easily guided by the likes of Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski to not either pre-emptively attack Iran as necessary or mount a second strike even after Iran attacked any American city or interest. Obama has said he would rather talk than act. But first, Obama needed to be made President and that would cost huge sums. That meant he could not opt to take limited official Government funding as did John McCain. Obama needed far larger funds and that could not come from primarily normal contributions. It needed to come from deep, deep pockets — like those in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, the Gulf Oil States. But, those campaign contributions could not come to Obama in huge traceable gifts, thereby calling attention from government agencies for illegal funding. The money had to be split into very small sums — like $200 per gift through millions of new donors. Of course, Obama's fund raisers refused to release those names to check their origins as McCain chose to do. Other U.S. gifts to Obama in excess of legal limitations which were caught by outside observers, were generally returned — in part — but, even then — not all and not always. Who knew about this massive cash flow officially, unofficially or merely by well-founded rumors in the Intel community? The State Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA and any number of our 16 Intelligence Agencies knew. But, just as no one stopped the false NIE Reports which caused the loss of American resolve to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons' capability, no one stopped the buying of America by the huge, global campaign contributions. The Scam was that high up. Buying a Presidential Election would be a well kept secret not unlike "the magic bullet" and "the shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas". Was the fix in? It was puzzling when $150 Million Dollars came into Obama's campaign in one month — not to mention the already accumulated "windfall" of close to $450 Million Dollars raised before. The $150 Million Dollars influx in September led to a grand total of $600 Million Dollars for Obama to spend, snowing the American public to cover his record and propagate his rhetoric. Generally, that kind of money floats around drug cartels or oil deals between the Arab Muslim countries and the multinational oil companies. Clearly, if Iran (and Iran's oil) were to be protected — along with its future potential for oil contracts, Obama would be a better, even vital, choice as a malleable President than a stubborn, experienced military man like McCain.
IF THE PRESIDENCY WAS TO BE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE MULTI-NATIONALS AND OIL COUNTRIES, they needed a President like Obama — a stooge. The "controllers" also needed a replacement VP who was known to be more than accommodating to Iran and, thus: Joe Biden. The Media never really questioned this extraordinary cash flow but, instead expressed happy astonishment that a Left Liberal was receiving such approval by way of donations. Of course, no one in government stepped in and said: "Wait a minute". No State Department, no FBI, no CIA, no Justice Department, no Intel Agencies, no watchdog Media....No Nothing! IF Obama's money is coming primarily from the Middle East, then this is a matter of National Security at its highest level — because America is in hock, in thrall, in debt to the tune of Billions of Dollars of deficit — and rising. Clearly, the elections should be put on an extraordinary hold until these unusual questions hanging over Obama's head are answered. A breach of security of this magnitude cannot be covered over or considered trivial just because the plotters need deniability.
WE ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING WAS SERIOUSLY WRONG WHEN Obama refused to produce an original birth certificate that could prove he was a natural-born American as required for a Presidential Candidate under Constitutional law. A suit was filed in federal court Philadelphia, requiring Obama to produce his birth certificate but, the Courts dragged their feet, seeming not to want to force the production of such evidence of American birth. Obama is presently visiting Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother. Would you be surprised if he comes back with a Hawaiian birth certificate which, like counterfeit money, has been skillfully aged? Both the Judge and Obama, could go to prison if they colluded to insure the matter would not be adjudicated before the elections on November 4th. Because the suit was filed in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell, as well as the Attorney General of the Justice Department should have been all over this matter — as a matter of America's national security. If we have a President loyal to the Saudis and other foreign supporters for funding his election win and under the control of the State Department and those who fabricated the false NIE Report, then the matter of treason must be raised. The elections must be delayed while the investigation of Obama's riches from foreign contributions is implemented. This is vital to America's future as a free nation. We in these United States cannot exist as a Democratic country under a "Shadow Government" even if it is controlled by past and/or present State Department plotters. ### Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
THE FENCE, REVISITED
Posted by Jack L., October 28, 2008. | |
|
This was written by Moshe Arens and it appeared today in
Haaretz
| |
|
Is it out of habit or mental lassitude that we continue to build the fence, which was begun many years ago? It continues on its weary way, meter by meter, costing billions, causing anguish to many, damaging private property, keeping the High Court of Justice occupied with the complaints it arouses, stirring demonstrations against it, and keeping the Israel Defense Forces busy. Does anyone still remember what the original purpose was of this physical obstacle, hundreds of kilometers long, stringing across the country? Who is taking a second look to see whether it really serves its intended purpose? Many of us prefer to forget those terrible days when Palestinian suicide bombers were roaming through our cities and murdering Israeli citizens daily. It was in those stressful days that the cry went out: "Keep them out! Build a fence, no matter what it costs! The fence around the Gaza Strip works, and we need a fence like it around Judea and Samaria!" Then-Shin Bet head Avi Dichter said we needed such a fence, and Haim Ramon accused those who opposed it of being dinosaurs prepared to endanger human lives for the sake of their outworn ideologies. No politician could withstand this pressure. A human life is worth everything, and if it took hundreds of kilometers of fence to save one, so be it. Besides, this fence was supposed to separate Israelis from Palestinians once and for all. So this humongous, unprecedented project began, and it has continued on its not-so-merry way, winding over hill and dale, ever since. Palestinian terrorism from Judea and Samaria has in the meantime been defeated, our streets and buses have become safe again, but the fence project seems to have assumed a life of its own. Billions are still being spent, our beautiful country is being defaced, great anguish is being caused to tens of thousands living in the vicinity of the fence, and it is high time that we ask ourselves whether this fence serves any useful purpose. Is it the fence, far from completed, that is keeping terrorism out of our cities, or is it the presence of the IDF in Judea and Samaria? There is good reason to believe that it was the IDF's entry into Judea and Samaria, after the Park Hotel massacre in Netanya on the night of the 2002 seder, that largely ended the terror, and that the IDF's continued presence in Judea and Samaria is still Israel's primary defense. Without that presence, surrendering to terrorism would be striking cities in central Israel. If that is the case, the fence is worse than useless. It is no more than the product of momentary hysteria and a Maginot-line mentality that seized some of our politicians, who deluded themselves into thinking that terrorism could be "fenced out." But what happens when the IDF's presence in Judea and Samaria is no longer necessary? Will we need the fence then, and should we therefore continue building it for that eventuality? That hardly seems a reasonable course of action. The IDF will not withdraw from the area until the danger of Palestinian terror has passed, and then no fence will be necessary. Continuing to build the fence is a waste of time and money, and only breeds anger and hostility. In this case, the fence does not make for good neighbors. But some will argue that the fence around the Gaza Strip works. Well, hardly. The terrorists have found ways of outwitting our politicians. Terror is coming over and under the fence. That fence did not stop the Qassam and Katyusha rockets from raining on Israel's citizens in the south. The fence did not keep the Olmert government from finally this terror and agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza. And the same thing will happen if the IDF withdraws from Judea and Samaria before the terrorists there finally have been uprooted. The fence will not keep terror away. If not controlled on the ground, it will return to Israel's cities — it will come over and under the fence. Some of us want the fence not in order to keep terrorists out, but to keep Jews in.[emphasis added] Or, in other words, in order to keep Jews out of Judea and Samaria ("the occupied territories"). But that will not work. The British tried to keep Jews out when they blockaded Mandate Palestine's shores and pursued the MacDonald White Paper policy to prevent Jews from purchasing land here. It didn't work. Nor will the fence. The time has come to take a good look at this outlandish project. Does it make any sense to continue building it? And maybe we should begin considering dismantling what has already been built. Do our politicians have the courage to admit they made a mistake?
Contact Jack L by email at yakovdov1@yahoo.com |
|
EHUD BARAK'S DODO BOLSHEVISM
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2008. |
|
One of the more amusing developments in pre-election Israel is the sudden adoption of the slogan "piggish capitalism." Most of Israel's chattering classes still dream of seeing a bolshevik system of state planning of the economy imposed upon what is already a Scandinavian style welfare state in Israel. The dodo bird, the new Labor Party join-mascot, alongside the lemming. Things escalated when airhead Shelly Yachimovitz, a backbencher from the Labor Party, started tossing out comments about how "piggish capitalism" was what had to be suppressed. Shelly, whose qualifications for sitting in the Knesset were that she had hosted a chat show on a state-owned radio station, claimed that the crashing stock markets prove that capitalism is dead and that the new enlightened era of bolshevik planning will rescue the planet. Never mind that capitalism is the only system capable of generating any wealth at all that ordinary people can have at risk in the stock market in the first place. It was a bit amusing, but the only paper that told off Silly Shelly was Haaretz, whose business section is the most free-market medium in Israel. Now Ehud Barak, the fella who single-handedly rained 4000 Katyusha
rockets down on northern Israel when he ordered the cowardly
unilateral capitulation to the Hezbollah in 2000, has picked up the
nonsense term from Little Shelly. Barak yesterday also spoke out
against piggish capitalism, although in the news report in the
English Haaretz they prettify what Barak said and call it "greedy
capitalism" of the "Right"
So now Barak, who is heading the Israeli Labor Party, is getting about 10% of the support of the public in pre-election polls. He is trying to save his McClellenist backside by pouting against "Piggish Capitalism." In other words, Barak is now the national champion of Dodo Bolshevism. You may recall that the Dodo bird became extinct because it was too stupid to respond or defend itself when it was being stalked by other animals seeking to devour it. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
This was published as a Arutz-Sheva blog item
|
|
ISRAELI P.R. ABSENT, AS HOLOCAUST LOOMS; COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF JEWS; DEMOCRAT MYTH ABOUT DE-REGULATION
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 28, 2008. |
|
CONTAINING IRAN US policy is to contain Iran. Unfortunately, US forces in the region are tied down in combat, sometimes with proxies of Iran. US bases increasingly are subject to foreign control or confiscated. The states there are no match for Iran (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 9/25). Iran is containing the US. AHMADINEJAD APPLAUDED FOR THREATENING GENOCIDE At the UNO, Pres. Ahmadinejad vowed to destroy Israel, as a public service to Europe, which he claims Israel manipulates. [Did Israel manipulate them into favoring the Arabs?] The speech was applauded warmly. [Some organization, the UNO, that our liberals suggest the US get more in line with!] The government of Israel didn't respond and won't. Its UNO ambassador doesn't take Iran seriously. She rationalizes that the UNO leaders merely were polite to Ahmadinejad. She says her job is to correct false impressions her people have about it and to defend Israel in the UNO. [The UNO always been anti-Israel. Even the partition resolution would have led to an untenable state.] The ambassador's line follows Foreign Min. Livni's. Livni tells Israelis that the UNO, the EU, and the Palestinian Arabs are friends of Israel and that such foreign powers will protect Israel. Livni is trying to become Prime Minister without having to face a contested election [and who became party head by crooked means, and whose policy destabilizes the region]. She claims to be the right person for the job and who would provide continuity and therefore stability. She answers Iran only by urging diplomats not to let Iran onto the Security Council. She doesn't think Iran is a big problem for Israel. She thinks the biggest problem is not handing Israeli territory to Palestinian Arabs and giving them a state they don't want. She doesn't know or admit that they want Israel. When she claimed to have made progress towards that urgent goal, the P.A. negotiator treated her contemptuously and threatened war. She didn't respond. Her sense of urgency gives the Arabs the impression that Israel is desperate or collapsing. They are right. Israel's ruling elite has collapsed morally (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/26). ISRAELI PUBLIC RELATIONS SUPERFICIAL Israel urges its media to show that Israel has girls in bikinis, is high tech, and is good for homosexuals. The Left defames Israel on policy matters, creating indignation, without government opposition. The Left accuses Israel of imposing "humiliating" security measures against P.A. Arabs, and makes unworkable [and unjust] demands that Israel "give peace a chance" and withdraw from all land acquired in 1948 and bring in the vengeful Arab families that fled (IMRA, 9/25). HAMAS & FATAH USE SAME HATE-TV Both repeatedly use the same film clip that denies there were ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem. Archeological and historical evidence and the findings of Muslim scholars affirm that there were. (So does the Christian Testament.) The film also incites fear and hatred against Israel by claiming that it seeks to destroy the Muslim mosque on the Temple Mount. It calls for another Saladdin, who once conquered Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 9/26). Slandering the Jews as seeking to destroy the mosque is an old, demagogic, Muslim tactic there. The Muslim people never have caught on to their constant manipulation by unscrupulous leaders. Nor have the Jewish people and their government versed their own people in this kind of Jewish history. Neither has the government of Israel worked to bring an understanding of this bigotry to the rest of the world. Instead, the government pretends that Fatah is moderate. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF JEWS IN SAMARIA The local IDF commander stopped providing army escorts and permission for Jews to visit Joseph's tomb. His explanation — he was punishing them because the leaders of the town of Yitzhar did not reprimand the men there who raided the Arab village that harbors terrorists who burned Yitzhar's crops, burned a house down, and stabbed a boy. The Jewish pilgrims consider the commander's ban more than collective punishment but irrelevant and therefore nasty. The real question is, why didn't the Army protect Yitzhar, itself (Arutz-7, 9/26). WHAT TO MAKE OF BOMBING OF ISRAELI LEFTIST? Extreme anti-Israeli Prof. Sternhall was injured by a pipe bomb. Nearby was found a leaflet offering a bounty for killing members of Peace Now. Police immediately suspected right-wingers. The Left again tarred the Right and melodramatically lamented this threat to democracy. Haaretz quoted only a right-wing extremist, who denied complicity but did not condemn the attack. Dr. Aaron Lerner thinks that there may have been someone on the Right so stupid as to have set the bomb. The result offset complaints about real police oppression of Jews, in Hebron. The Right should have been more sophisticated about this and condemned the attack as unproductive, the way Abbas does about terrorism. They should point out that it hurts their reputation. Dr. Lerner does not think that this was a police dirty trick (IMRA, 9/26). I do. The police uttered a conclusion too fast. The leaflet was too convenient. How can someone pay a million shekels for murder, without getting caught? HAMAS & FATAH USE SAME HATE-TV Both repeatedly use the same film clip that denies there were ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem. Archeological and historical evidence and the findings of Muslim scholars affirm that there were. (So does the Christian Testament.) The film also incites fear and hatred against Israel by claiming that it seeks to destroy the Muslim mosque on the Temple Mount. It calls for another Saladdin, who once conquered Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 9/26). Slandering the Jews as seeking to destroy the mosque is an old, demagogic, Muslim tactic there. The Muslim people never have caught on to their constant manipulation by unscrupulous leaders. Nor have the Jewish people and their government versed their own people in this kind of Jewish history. Neither has the government of Israel worked to bring an understanding of this bigotry to the rest of the world. Instead, the government pretends that Fatah is moderate. COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT OF JEWS IN SAMARIA The local IDF commander stopped providing army escorts and permission for Jews to visit Joseph's tomb. His explanation — he was punishing them because the leaders of the town of Yitzhar did not reprimand the men there who raided the Arab village that harbors terrorists who burned Yitzhar's crops, burned a house down, and stabbed a boy. The Jewish pilgrims consider the commander's ban more than collective punishment but irrelevant and therefore nasty. The real question is, why didn't the Army protect Yitzhar, itself (Arutz-7, 9/26). WHAT TO MAKE OF BOMBING OF ISRAELI LEFTIST? Extreme anti-Israeli Prof. Sternhall was injured by a pipe bomb. Nearby was found a leaflet offering a bounty for killing members of Peace Now. Police immediately suspected right-wingers. The Left again tarred the Right and melodramatically lamented this threat to democracy. Haaretz quoted only a right-wing extremist, who denied complicity but did not condemn the attack. Dr. Aaron Lerner thinks that there may have been someone on the Right so stupid as to have set the bomb. The result offset complaints about real police oppression of Jews, in Hebron. The Right should have been more sophisticated about this and condemned the attack as unproductive, the way Abbas does about terrorism. They should point out that it hurts their reputation. Dr. Lerner does not think that this was a police dirty trick (IMRA, 9/26). I do. The police uttered a conclusion too fast. The leaflet was too convenient. How can someone pay a million shekels for murder, without getting caught? DEMOCRAT MYTH ABOUT DE-REGULATION Democrats claim that de-regulation allowed the financial crisis to erupt, though they don't seem able to specify which de-regulation. McCain pointed out that some regulation remained. It was legislated by Congress. Supposedly humanitarian, it required mortgages to be given to people of inadequate means. That started the crisis. Elimination of one significant piece of regulation may have facilitated the crisis. The separation of banking from other industries ended a certain prudence that one industry exerted towards the other. I opposed that de-regulation. It went through, because in America, legislation is put over by lobbies, not by thought. As for other regulation, nothing stopped Congress from introducing a few, simple but critical rules, such as reasonable requirements that investors not buy on high margin. Congress didn't. Now it blames the Bush administration for the whole problem. Maybe just put a sign over lenders' offices, A fool and his money are soon parted." The crisis came by surprise. It took a long time to be understood. The cry that de-regulation created the whole problem makes no sense. What regulations would the government foolish enough to have encouraged sub-prime lending in the first place, have imposed before new business structures were formed and before it knew there was a problem? By government, one must include the Senate Banking Committee, on which Democrats have a majority. It has taken months for partial solutions to be devised even after the crisis struck. Will new regulations be wise or will they reflect special interests? Government usually fouls up. An argument by the NY Times sounds logical, but is specious. The Times pointed out that the regulation encouraging easy-to-get mortgages was enacted a few years before most of the sub-prime mortgages were distributed. There often is a lag in time and circumstances for a baleful law to take its toll. First, people need time to catch on. Second, the era of prosperity gave people the impression of being unending. Third, the real estate boom raised hope and roused customers. Already used to buying on credit, people felt they could take out equity loans buoyed by a rising market. They didn' t question their getting something for nothing. Fourth, the mortgage lenders devised the bundling method, whose lack of transparency and ease of corrupting rating services was not recognized, not by the Administration and not by its critics. After the crisis became apparent, the critics became very smart. They complain that Pres. Bush didn't stop the sub-priming. Where had they been? They were enjoying the apparent prosperity while, as part of their election campaign, they were dishonestly complaining that the economy was poor when unemployment and inflation were at record lows. Since the NY Times can be dishonest about that, be skeptical of whatever else they claim. This was written before the current Commentary magazine explained the history of financial regulation, which confirms what I reckoned. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
OBAMA: CONSTITUTION IS 'DEEPLY FLAWED'
Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008. |
|
This was written by David A. Patten and it appeared
yesterday on
Fox News
|
|
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having "deep flaws" during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country's Founding Fathers had "an enormous blind spot" when they wrote it. Obama also remarked that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Obama's statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago's WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled "Slavery and the Constitution." The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America. Obama's remarks came toward the end of a somewhat professorial, academic discussion on the Constitution and the evolution of Civil Rights. The panelists were discussing the compromise struck by the Founding Fathers to avoid a direct confrontation over slavery, as well as the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War. Those amendments outlawed slavery, required "equal protection" under the law, and stated that African-Americans must be provided the right to vote. Prior to Obama's statement, Richard R. John, a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that slavery had been a significant issue for the Founding Fathers. But it was not, John stated, a matter of central importance to them. John said it was easy to second-guess America's Founding Fathers for establishing a government that allowed slavery to continue. "I think it's easy to be very hard on the Founders, and to be very hard on our governing institutions," John said. "But I just wish we'd think about what the alternatives were, what the practical alternatives [were], and not some possible, counterfactual dreams we might have." At that point, the moderator of the program, Gretchen Helfrich, turned to Obama. "Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?" "I-I-I think it's a remarkable document — " he began haltingly. "Which one?" Helfrich interjected. "The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments," he replied. "But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time. "African-Americans were not — first of all they weren't African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a 'nagging problem' in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth. "And in that sense," Obama continued, "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Obama did not elaborate on the "fundamental flaw" that persists. Conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh pounced on Obama's remarks during his Monday radio program. "Good Lord, ladies and gentlemen! I don't see how he can take the oath of office, which is this: 'I do solemly swear, or affirm, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Said Limbaugh, "He has rejected the Constitution." Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE SACRIFICE OF TRUTH TO POWER
Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008. |
|
This was written
Melanie Phillips, and it appeared October 26, 2008 in The Spectator
|
|
What's happening in this terrifying, Orwellian US presidential race is the flip side of the madness that's been on display since 9/11 itself, when swathes of the UK population decided that 'America had it coming to it' because it supported Israel, and that George W Bush was the most dangerous man on the planet. After the Iraq war started this irrationality swelled into pathological proportions on both sides of the Atlantic, when the 'Bush lied, people died' narrative fuelled a hatred of Bush and 'the neocons' exceeded in its hallucinatory and murderous venom only by the truly deranged way in which the media and intelligentsia systematically either ignored evidence that did not fit this narrative or, even more astoundingly, reported it in such a way that it delivered the opposite of what was actually happening or being said. In this way not only has history been rewritten, not only have Britain and America been to a greater or lesser extent turned against themselves and demoralised by the propaganda of their mortal enemies recycled as truth by our fifth-column Big Media, but they have been incited to an ugly and dangerous level of irrationality, hatred and hysteria which history tells us presages the twilight of freedom. It is that media class which, in refusing to tell the public what it needs to know about Barack Obama, may now finally install in the White House the man who personifies the repudiation of the American power and western values that the media and left-wing intelligentsia (of which the media is the mouthpiece) have themselves spared no effort to destroy these past seven years Michael Malone protests: What I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.... So much indeed. That's why, as Mark Steyn observes, the media has had a feeding frenzy over Sarah Palin's clothes allowance while all but ignoring the evidence of criminal fundraising for the Obama campaign being facilitated by the Obama campaign : The gentleman who started the ball rolling made four donations under the names 'John Galt', 'Saddam Hussein', 'Osama bin Laden', and 'William Ayers', all using the same credit card number. He wrote this morning to say that all four donations have been charged to his card and the money has now left his account. Again, it's worth pointing out: in order to enable the most basic card fraud of all — multiple names using a single credit card number — the Obama campaign had to manually disable all the default security checks provided by their merchant processor. Now look at this. Back in April, the LA Times ran this story reporting on the going-away party for Rashid Khalidi, Obama's close friend, who justifies Palestinian violence against Israel and who was leaving for a job in New York. Khalidi is a deeply troubling individual, a former PLO operative and close friend of unreprentant former Weatherman terrorist William Ayers. As I have reported before, in 2000 Khalidi and his wife Mona held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, an Arab group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago when Obama was on the fund's board of directors. Obama has said that his many talks with the Khalidis had been consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table, but around this entire world.' The LA Times reported: During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, 'then you will never see a day of peace.' One speaker likened 'Zionist settlers on the West Bank' to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been 'blinded by ideology.' The paper reported that not only had Obama been present at the party but had praised Khalidi — and it actually had obtained a videotape of the whole event. Yet it has refused to make this video public — even though it would be of great interest, to put it mildly, to see who else was there. Indeed, as the now defunct New York Sun reported: In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers (my emphasis).As Gateway Pundit comments: It's hard to imagine that the LA Times would hold onto a video of Sarah Palin praising an antisemitic radical and former PLO operative...But, that is today's mainstream media. But now look at what happens when the media does begin to do its job properly. As the Orlando Sentinel reported: WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the 'spreading the wealth' comment. 'Are you joking?' said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. 'No,' West said. West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over. 'I don't know who's writing your questions,' Biden shot back. Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign cancelled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife. In that interview, Biden also flatly denied that the Obama campaign was funding corrupt Acorn to deliver voter registration. But as the Investor's Business Daily has reported, it did — and then tried to hide it: Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for 'advance work.') At NRO Mark Levin identifies a terrifying historical echo when he shudders that, such is the tide of irrationality running in this campaign, the American public appears to be falling under the cult-like spell of an authoritarian demagogue. He is surely correct. For all Obama's laid-back, attractive appearance this election is being fought in an atmosphere of menace. Menace in the way ACORN is intimidating voters into multiple registrations. Menace in the way criminal donations to the Obama campaign have been institutionalised. Menace in the serial lies being told by Obama, Biden and the campaign rebuttal team. Menace in the way the few remaining proper journalists such as Stanley Kurtz are finding sources of information shut down and themselves shut out when they attempt to probe Obama's deeply dubious associations. Menace in the smears and hysterical abuse directed at anyone who questions The One. Menace in the threat of violence if Obama doesn't win. Menace in the pre-emptive smear that the only thing that could bring about an Obama defeat is the inherent racism of the American voters — a smear that potentially identifies all those who vote against him as public enemies. Over the past seven years, the media has created the Big Lie that America is the biggest rogue state in the world, with Israel its proxy. Now it is ensuring that a man who will act on that very premise to crush America and destroy Israel will be placed in the White House to do so. It is not just that the west's Big Media can no longer be trusted. It has become the most important weapon in the arsenal of the enemies of the free world. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
TAX RETURNS SHOW OBAMA'S EDUCATION GROUPS FUNDED CONTROVERSIAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE '90S
Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008. |
|
Barack Obama's boards gave tens of thousands to ACORN and more than $1 million to racially charged organizations, a study of tax returns shows. This was written by Maxim Lott and it appeared yesterday on Fox News. |
|
The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows. In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states. The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear — it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form. It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground. Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network — which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society — and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic. The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding. When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups — partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network. It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing." But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge: "Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads. Click here to see the application. Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative's original application when going through Annenberg's archives. Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative's parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, "I don't want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election.... I don't want to compromise the position." Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the "consciousness raising session ... received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session." But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing. "The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture." In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape. "We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist," Carruthers said. Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum. He selected the articles for the "African-American Baseline Essays" published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution. An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties "pathetic." "This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com. "The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar." But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office — one of 18 around the country — was giving money. "If you read Ayers' proposal to Annenberg, it doesn't sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers' education writings, they are very radical indeed," Kurtz said. "Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings." The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999. Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project. But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations. "If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, 'Hey, the majority of funding didn't go to supremacist groups' — that wouldn't even cut the ice," Kurtz said. "I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups," Kurtz said. "We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals."
Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PROFESSOR WALDEN IN THE SERVICE OF ISRAEL-DEMONIZATION
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2008. |
|
1. By now, everyone knows about the infamous "Mohammed a-Dura" incident. This was the event in which a French television crew staged a fake death of a Palestinian boy, pretending to be shot by Israeli gunfire in a firefight with terrorists, dying in his father's lap like a Palestinian Pieta figure taken down from the cross. He became the overnight symbol of Palestinian "martyrdom," a child gunned down by Israel. The Iranians made him a state icon and Arab students at Israeli universities display him in their pro-terrorism campus activities. Of course, in the sense that it was all fake, a-Dura really WAS indeed the appropriate symbol for Palestinian "martyrdom." The entire a-Dura Gaza incident was staged and faked by the France
2 television crew, as the media later proved and as a French court
officially declared. Among those helping to expose the lies was a
young French Jew named Phillippe Karsenty. He was then sued by the
French TV station for "libel' but eventually won in court.
This did not stop the usual Jewish leftists from denouncing Karsenty. Leftist Larry Derfner from the Jerusalem Post said that Karsenty and people like him are mentally ill and are equivalent to the 911 "deniers," those who say the US government itself blew up the WTC buildings. Derfner did not issue an apology after the French court declared Karsenty was entirely correct. By now, numerous excellent articles have exposed the whole story.
In French, the best may be this:
But there is one aspect of the case that has NOT been widely
exposed. That is the collaboration by Prof. Raphael Walden with the
French television station's fraud and cover-up. Walden is a
far-leftist anti-Zionist medical doctor with specialty in surgery, at
Tel Hashomer hospital. He is active in the pro-terror anti-Israel
propaganda group "Doctors for Human Rights," a group once run by
anti-Semite Neve Gordon and which does not believe that Jews should be
entitled to any human rights. He is also the son-in-law of Shimon
Peres and often described in the press as Shimon Peres' personal
physician. He signs all the usual leftist proclamations
Ben-Dror Yemini this week described the role of Walden in the French forgery in his weekly column (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/801/996.html). Walden prepared a professional medical report that backed the lies and fabrications of the French TV station and the attempt to "prove" the Arab propaganda version of the a-Dura shooting, based on the injuries to a-Dura's father. Only problem is that the good doctor never examined the a-Dura father and based his expert conclusions on some paperwork he got from a Jordanian office. A different Israeli doctor who DID examine the poppa, Dr. Yehuda David, discovered that all the injuries the father was claiming to have suffered when his son was pretending to be shot were in fact injuries from at least 8 years earlier. More about Walden's toadying for the French TV station and his
attempt to defend the lies about the a-Dura "killing" can be read
here, by an Arab propaganda news service:
2. One of the more amusing developments in pre-election Israel is the sudden adoption of the slogan "piggish capitalism." Most of Israel's chattering classes still dream of seeing a bolshevik system of state planning of the economy imposed upon what is already a Scandinavian style welfare state in Israel. Things escalated when airhead Shelly Yachimovitz, a backbencher from the Labor Party, started tossing out comments about how "piggish capitalism" was what had to be suppressed. Shelly, whose qualifications for sitting in the Knesset were that she had hosted a chat show on a state-owned radio station, claimed that the crashing stock markets prove that capitalism is dead and that the new enlightened era of bolshevik planning will rescue the planet. Never mind that capitalism is the only system capable of generating any wealth at all that ordinary people can have at risk in the stock market in the first place. It was a bit amusing, but the only paper that told off Ssilly Shelly was Haaretz, whose business section is the most free-market medium in Israel. Now Ehud Barak, the fella who single-handedly rained 4000 Katyusha
rockets down on northern Israel when he ordered the cowardly
unilateral capitulation to the Hezbollah in 2000, has picked up the
nonsense term from Little Shelly. Barak yesterday also spoke out
against piggish capitalism, although in the news report in the English
Haaretz they prettify what Barak said and call it "greedy
capitalism" of the "Right" So now Barak, who is heading the Israeli Labor Party, is getting
about 10% of the support of the public in pre-election polls. He is
trying to save his McClellenist backside by pouting against "Piggish
Capitalism." In other words, Barak is now the national champion of
Dodo Bolshevism. You may recall that the Dodo bird became extinct
because it was too stupid to respond or defend itself when it was
being stalked by other animals seeking to devour it. It joins the
lemming as the new Labor Party co-mascot. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
DENIAL RUNS THROUGH AMERICAN JEWRY
Posted by GWY, October 28, 2008. |
|
This was written by Mona Charen and it appeared today in
Jewish World Review
|
|
From the Palestinian Authority Daily: "Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama..." Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of "refugee camps"? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it? I've heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday's fashions. That's quite a leap of faith. Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama's case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. The Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama's remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University's shame is a subject for another column.) Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you'd expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a "racist" and "apartheid" state, and professes to believe in a "one-state" solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that "one" state to come into existence? The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls. Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat. At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his "many talks" with the Khalidis. Perhaps that's where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots ... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table" but around "this entire world." Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to "avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." And don't forget hope! Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a "lifetime achievement" award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of "genocide" against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years. Someone is making a big mistake — and it isn't Abu Jayyab.
Editor's Note: Of added interest — Jayab's home sure
doesn't look like the tent with sand flooring that we've been taught
is the sorry home of the Arab refugees.
Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com
|
|
KOSOVO: LOST TO SERBIA AND TO THE WEST
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 28, 2008. |
|
This was written by John Laughland and it appeared in the
Brussels Journal
|
|
A few days spent in Belgrade feels like an age. Although I have been here more times than I can remember (albeit not for five years or so) the country remains almost insuperably foreign. There is something radically different about the Balkans, with respect to the rest of Europe, and there are few more quintessentially Balkan states than Serbia. Where else, for instance, would you meet a man with the wonderful name of Slobodan Despot who smiles and hands you a copy of "The Road to Revolution" by Thomas Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber? Mr. Despot is a publisher previously worked for a conservative pro-Serb publishing house in Paris and the other titles in his own list now include a consolidated calendar of Orthodox and Western saints, and the memoirs of a woman who opened a sex shop in Paris in the early 1970s. And where else would you find yourself on a sofa sipping wine and talking to a civilised young professor of medicine who was himself ethnically cleansed from his home town of Urosevac in Kosovo in June 1999, as NATO guards transported Albanian guerrillas in their Hummers across the province to commit their vicious and systematic arson, murder and rape? Where else — especially in Europe — would you meet a monk whose 25 parishioners (in one of the main towns of Kosovo) have to run the gauntlet every Sunday in order to avoid getting killed on the way to Mass? All these things happened to me — and much more — in the space of a very short stay last week. Ever since the United Nations took over Kosovo in 1999, indeed, the province's endemic corruption has exploded, as I was able to confirm by talking to two American policemen who work for the international administration there. "Every level of society is corrupt," one of them said. "Every single aspect of the society is criminal." This is largely because the Kosovo Liberation Army, the US-backed Contra-style guerrilla force which runs the province and which controls the government, the army and the police, is also notorious for its role as a powerful organisation running drugs, guns and sex slaves to Western Europe. If organised crime is a way of life in Kosovo, so is the systematic destruction of churches: more than 150 churches and monasteries have been blown up on the UN's watch in the last nine years, as Albanians seek not only to expel all Serbs from the province but also to eradicate any physical record of their ever having been their in the first place. Kosovo, one should never forget, is the original heartland of medieval Serbia, the Serbs having migrated North to Belgrade and the Pannonian plane beyond as a result of the Turkish invasions. Images of an angry mob pulling down crosses and stamping on them, such as were filmed on 17 March 2004, have not been seen since the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; just under a century later they are now, once again, part of Europe's present. In spite of these atrocities, which include the pogrom conducted against Serbs in March 2004 — a killing spree which went largely unreported in the West and which is now completely forgotten about — the European Union and the United States have pushed Kosovo to proclaim its own independence unilaterally, even though international law clearly forbids such a step. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Quebec's right unilaterally to secede from Canada, on the grounds that the inhabitants of Quebec had full civil and political rights within Canada. Since Kosovo has been governed by the UN since 1999, their proclamation of independence now can only mean that they did not have full political and civil rights under that administration — the very body thrust onto Serbia by the "international community" in the name of human rights and democracy. In the remaining months of this year, the Western powers (the EU and the US) will try to finesse a way of transferring power from the UN administration to one run by the European Union. The main obstacle comes from Russia which has a veto in the UN Security Council, the only body which can relinquish authority over the province. For the time being, the Belgrade government says that it opposes EULEX because EULEX was created as a vehicle for the independence of Kosovo, and Russia has said it will support Serbia. In private, however, Serb ministers admit that they will do anything to get into the EU, including accepting the amputation of 15% of their state territory. However the circle is squared, the likely fudge of authority between the EU and the UN will cause what little government there is in Kosovo to break down completely. As one of the American policemen said to me, "How can you arrest someone if the lines of authority are unclear?" This unclarity will of course again further benefit the gangsters, pimps and drug-runners who currently constitute the government of Kosovo, and who have been the West's allies since 1998. Kosovo is therefore now decisively lost to the Serbs, and therefore to Christian civilisation. A war waged in the name of human rights in 1999 has led to nothing less than genocide — the wholesale eradication both of the Serb population of Kosovo since then (the few remaining Serbs live in ghettos) and of the historical memory of that population. In 1999, to justify the attack on Yugoslavia, the US State Department published a document called "Erasing History" which documented the alleged genocide against the Albanians. Now we know that the bulk of that document was war propaganda, its claims unproven despite years spent trying to prove them at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. Yet "erasing history" is precisely what the Albanians have done in Kosovo since NATO occupied the province, and on its watch. They have also erased democracy, human rights, and all the basic tenets of common human decency. The history of the last ten years in Kosovo is nothing but tragedy and hypocrisy blended into one — a true death of the West and all it stands for. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
A GREEN NEGEV
Posted by Ari Bussel, October 27, 2008. |
|
Sitting at Lehavim-Rahat train station at eight O'clock in the morning, in the middle of the desert, I was reminded of the story about a lawyer who died and was given a choice between Heaven and Hell. He asked for two days to observe before making up his mind. In Heaven he saw men in black, Rabbis and Clergymen, sitting and studying Holy Scriptures. In Hell he saw green pastures, grass and trees, and chose to go there. It did not quite reconcile with the image he had of Hell — fire and misery, torture and unpleasantness. This was indeed once the case, it was explained to him, until the Israelis moved in. Lehavim, a town just outside Beer Sheva — the capital of the Negev, is a community of single family homes. The streets names of the first phase are flowers. This is the "old section." The second, newer phase has street names of birds, all alphabetized. City planning at its best: Lehavim is a mini "Beverly Hills" in the middle of the desert, only with home values about one tenth. It was originally built along with other satellite neighboring towns surrounding Beer Sheva to strengthen the city. At that time, people had to be incentivized to move here. Lehavim is now a flourishing suburb where home values have skyrocketed. A main contributor to this development was the opening of a train station just outside the town. It is less than an hour's ride by train — with only two stops — to Tel Aviv, so many high-tech employees work at the center in Israel and live in a very upscale neighborhood where the kids roam safely and freely, the air quality is outstanding, a place to which so many of us would yearn to retire. Much like in many other municipalities throughout Israel today, weeks before an upcoming local election, Lehavim is "under construction." Roads are being improved, trees planted, buildings painted. A city of 1,700 families in the midst of an election. The banners on people's yards are enormous, some calling for the reelection of the current mayor, other proposing change. Here is a place that should receive delegations from Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and other cities to observe and later implement some of the most advanced systems of environmental sustainability. Along the paths of the trees, shrubbery and grass there are miles of purple plastic hoses, long and thin, and signs warning: Reclaimed water. Be warned — do not drink! Lehavim is a city in the desert, where the shade offered by the trees creates microclimates which cause a breeze, making it nice and comfortable even when it is searing hot outside. There is a center for recycling: paper, plastic bottles, hazardous materials, used clothing, etc. And people drive there, on the way to drop the kids for a swimming lesson, class or the local Scouts, with huge plastic bags of things that otherwise would be thrown to the trash: Live by example and educate the kids. Everything else is sorted right at home (rather than rely on post-recycling). I am used to a single trash can, here I found a complex made of four parts, each for different type of "trash." What a wonderful experiment that teaches the meaning of environmental sustainability, right from the most harsh of conditions — the desert. This "paradise" is not without its problems. The area is surrounded by Bedouin. Once a completely nomad society that wondered through the Arabian Peninsula, many have now chosen to live a stationary life (tent-structures with a new car nearby). A man can have many wives. Multiple kids with each wife guarantee a steady income from the State. The money often is not used for the kids, and Israel is now considering reallocation of funds: Once the monthly allotment grew exponentially from the third child onward. Now it is meant to be a straight multiplication (i.e. each child entitles the father to X NIS per month, so four children would generate four times X and not more). There is extreme poverty and illiteracy among the Bedouin. They often marry within the extended families, so there are diseases more common than would be found elsewhere. Their main occupation: theft and offering "protection." They are expert liars where it is impossible to detect — even with a lie detector — if they are telling the truth or not anymore. Progress is fought against. An activist recently recognized by Israel for her work to advance the conditions of the Bedouin had her car or home set on fire. The Bedouin were once loyal to Israel. Many served in special units of Israel Defense Forces for there are very few who can follow traces and track progress in the ever changing desert. It is said that even drug trade was allowed or tolerated by Israel, as it benefited Israel by providing much needed intelligence information. More recently, Al Quaeda and other forms of Muslim extremism found their way to within the Bedouin society. Many do not serve, and loyalties seem to shift. Some of the routes thru the Arabian Peninsula now serve for passage of ammunition, sophisticated weaponry and trained personnel coming from Iran and elsewhere. There is no need for "smuggling," it is more or less free passage to an area that is otherwise portrayed to be "under siege." The Bedouin have become a threat from within: On the one hand they feed from Israel, yet they start biting into the same hand, most viscously at times. Let us remember the Bedouin population of the south, as we will return to it as I continue my journeys throughout Israel. Through the train windows the scenery outside is of the end of summer — everything is beige-brown, earth, almost dust. Then, all too often and in the least expected places, green areas — tree groves, vineyards, green fields, agriculture in the middle of the desert, even a beehive cluster. Unbelievable miracles happen in Israel — now thirsty for rain in this coming Fall and Winter — where a desert is turned green and the unimaginable becomes reality. Reporting from this unique land, I remain, With deep friendship, Ari Bussel
Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com |
|
ROLL OUT THE BARRELS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 27, 2008. |
|
|
|
NETANYAHU: JERUSALEM IS NOT UP FOR NEGOTIATION
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 27, 2008. |
|
This was written
by Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondent. It appeared today at
|
|
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu declared Monday, at the opening of the Knesset's winter session, that Israel must not negotiate over the division of Jerusalem or the absorption of Palestinian refugees. Netanyahu, who in the last two years has been the clear front-runner in polls which asked prospective voters their choice for prime minister, spoke just after President Shimon Peres announced that Israel was headed for early election. Netanyahu told Knesset that if he becomes prime minister, he will seek peace with the surrounding Arab countries, but said Israel must not give up Golan Heights, large parts of the West Bank or any of Jerusalem. Peres, formally setting into motion procedures for a national ballot, told the Knesset after consultations with political parties that there was no chance of reaching a deal now to form a new coalition government. "This is the time for Israel's Knesset and political system to do some deep soul-searching," he urged lawmakers. "It is never too late to fix mistakes." Following Peres' announcement, Knesset has up to three weeks to dissolve itself and set an election date, widely expected to be scheduled for January or February. "In the coming days, Israel will be entering into a decisive electoral period. This is the first and immediate test set before you — the choice of the people," he said. As the polticial system enters these elections, said the president, lawmakers must remain focus on Israel's strength in the face of its enemies. "Israel must stand strong and if sentenced to fight, must be able to be victorious over every enemy that comes our way," he said. Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in his remarks to the Knesset, just after Peres' announcement, that he appreciated Livni's efforts to form a coalition and regretted the political circumstances that had made it impossible. He added that he intended to remain committed as premier until the elections and to carry it out "with the same responsibility, care and professionalism with which I have acted until now." Shas chief brands Livni allies 'racist, phony, condescending' In an unprecedented attack on Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's team in coalition talks, Eli Yishai, chairman of the ultra-Orthodox Sephardi Shas party, Monday branded the members of the team "phony, racist and condescending." Yishai was speaking to his party faction ahead of the Monday afternoon opening of the Knesset's winter session, likely to be cut short by the early elections. The Shas leader's remarks came in response to Kadima official's characterization of the ultra-Orthodox party's demands as "extortion." "It's interesting that they didn't call the Labor Party, which received NIS 1.5 billion under the coalition agreement,m extortionists," Yishai told the Shas MKs. "We are speaking here of racism and condescension." Yishai went on to voice thanks to Kadima, saying that its actions would only expand Shas' Knesset strength in the coming election. "If he who helps ailing children is called an extortionist, then I am an extortionist," Yishai said, adding that the Kadima attacks would "boomerang on the attackers." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
THE ANTI HUMAN 'PALESTINIAN' ARABS USE OF 'HUMAN RIGHTS' ORGANIZATIONS
Posted by American, October 27, 2008. |
|
One of the propaganda tools the Arab "Palestinians" have been using to further its goals of eradicating the mostly non-Muslim / non-Arab entity Israel, was/is the use of international "human rights" organizations. The demonization of Israel that dares to fight for its survival as a 'bad guy' has been since the 1970's well oil-ed by Saudi Arabia and other filthy rich Arab tycoons that never seem to have an iota of sympathy for the Arab 'Palestinian' brethren and their situation, instead they rather shed its billions to destructive anti Israel propaganda. Using the image of a "weak" people vs a "mighty" Israel, they have psychologically gained the upper hand, as it looks pretty convincing and even more convenient for an Amnesty or HRW personnel to side with the supposed "victim". Even though the real source of Arab 'Palestinian' misery, which was always largely due to its 1) mass corruption, 2) oppression, stepping all over human rights of its people & 3) culture of hatred of Israel substituting for all "love" for its own population. HRW does not disclose its private donors identity, one can only imagine the Arab oil lobby connection here. Israel as a whole and Israelis are always edgy from Arab attackers, ever since 1920's massacres on the Jews in Israel/Palestine. As Israel is and always was under threat upon its existence, it mobilizes force, understandably, to the gullible eye it might look like the goliath is Israel, when it's never the case in reality. An inhumane Arab bomber hiding under its kids' shoulders presents a far greater danger than the restrained Israeli hesitating to fire if a non-combatant is able to get hurt, this explains why the casualties are not in the thousands each time humane Israel conducts an anti terror-war operation. The famous fact of terrorizing journalists by Arab "Palestinians" have forced all that are in [or all those wishing to gain access to] their area to be biased. And so, Arabs, as the real Goliath, masked as poor-poor people have been managing the HRW organizations to report in a total Arabist way, condemning Israel based on unreliable sources, hardly condemning the Arabs for their constant real human rights abuse upon it's kids and on Israeli victims of Arab terror. The NGO Monitor article January 15, 2005 points out that"The Human
Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch 2005 Annual Report
Israeli-Palestinian Section" Lacks Credibility and Reflects Political
Bias.
Google HRW and NGO Watch to read about the NGO Watch monitoring
of HRW and reporting on their bias and double standards.
The NGO Monitor's 2007 Report on HRW
The following analysis demonstrates that HRW's own activities related to Israel continue to fall short of this basic standard of universality Summary: * Analysis of Human Rights Watch's use of the rhetoric of international law and other terminology shows continued double standards and misleading or false claims. The Red Cross Ambulance Incident: HRW issued dramatic pictures purportedly of damage to a Red Cross
ambulance by a Israeli missile. When it was shown that the dramatic
picture of damaged Red Cross ambulance was a hoax Angela Bertz in her article "Amnesty is a Travesty" in Arutz-7
One would have thought that after so many heinous acts, Amnesty International, which claims to be "Protecting Human Rights Around the World", would have issued 16 reports condemning each and every one of these terrible acts of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, AI issued only one report and even though it pertained to the Park Hotel slaughter, the heading "Deliberate Killing of Civilians is Never Justified" was pretty benign and totally belied the atrocity of this appalling act. The three short paragraphs was almost non-committal. While apparently recognizing the massacre as "a grave breach of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law", Amnesty then refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization, but made a pathetic plea to "armed Palestinian groups" to cease killing civilians. Volokh Conspiracy The NGO report, February 23, 2003 called
"An Analysis of Amnesty International's Reporting of Human Rights
Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict"
The report does not make use of the latest research on what happened in Jenin (accepted by the UN, the vast majority of the international press and governments) and does not define its terms when talking about international law. Amnesty secretary-general Irene Khan has been quoted on numerous occasions talking of 'war crimes'... To sprinkle the vocabulary of 'war crimes' in reports is misleading and reveals an ideological bias... HRW's and AI's partisanship has become one-sided pro-Palestinian
advocacy rather than a neutral monitoring of human rights abuse. It
has not resulted in a better life for their Palestinian clients. This
essay entitled "Gaza Anomalies Blow PCP's Circuits: Result — The
Sounds of Silence" was posted August 4, 2008 on the Augean
Stables website A few friends of mine went to a party in Jerusalem that was primarily made up Anglophone reporters, people who work for NGOs and UN agencies. What amazed them was the pervasive sense of the people they met and spoke with that Israel was the greatest human rights violator in the world and that the dismantling of Israel would be a great step forward for global human rights. |
|
TO GENOCIDE OR NOT TO GENOCIDE?
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, October 27, 2008. |
|
In the world there exist two types of countries: those that have committed genocides and the ethnic-cleansing of minorities in the last 100 years and those that have not. The question is whether or not it has been better from a historical and modern perspective, and even a moral perspective, to commit genocide or not. Judging by the way in which the former genocidaires have been treated by the international community, by leftist activists and by the academy one can only judge that it has been better to commit genocide and those countries that have not done so have lost out in a variety of ways. Those people who have been the victims of genocide have lost out the most for they have not only been victims but they have also then become, according to the modern western narrative, the 'new Nazis'. Let us consider just a few cases. The Jews suffered the Holocaust, but today's Jewish state is considered a Nazi country by those progressive voices in the West. Europeans and westerners volunteer throughout the Palestinian territories. Yet their ancestors never volunteered to help Jews. Their moral judgement is clear: the Jews are the Nazis. The actual Nazi country, Germany, todays sends millions of Euros in donations to various 'human rights' organizations that condemn Israel as 'fascist' and 'apartheid' and compare its policies to those of Nazi Germany. Germans volunteer in organizations that help build homes for Palestinians. Yet Germans did not rebuild the homes of the Jews who were destroyed in Europe. Today's Germany is a model European democracy, a wealthy country full of technology and industry. Yet its victims are today 'Nazis'. Other countries in Europe are no different. The children of French members of the Vichy regime are today able to pose as progressive leftistis and journey to help Palestinians or burn the Israeli flag at their campuses in France. But the irony of Israel protrayed as a 'Nazi' country by good western wealthy leftist intellectuals and Germany portrayed as a model country is not the only example of where those who commit the genocide have been rewarded while the victims have been termed the 'new Nazis'. The Serbs were, after the Jews and Russians, the main victims of the Nazis. Ten percent of their people were murdered. And yet today Serbia is the pariah and Germany is at the heart of the EU. Serbia must beg to join even as Germans serve in Bosnia and Albania and help continue the ethnic-cleansing of Serbs that was begun by the German allied Ustace Croatian regime. Croatia, a Nazi ally who was the only country in Europe to run its own concentration camp and murder it own Jews without SS help, is a European tourist destination and a 'good' country. It is wealthy and clean and celebrated internationally. Yet the victims of its home grown Nazi Ustache regime, the Serbs, are not only considered 'the new Nazis', but it is Serbs who sit in the dock at the European run International Court of Justice. In the 1990s the Croats continued their cleansing and murder of Serbs throughout Croatia, reducing them to a mere 2% of the population from some 20%, while the West, including Germany and former collaborationist regimes, helped them. Thus the former Nazis helped continue their legacy of murder and all the while the press and academics and 'good leftists' termed the Serbs the 'new Nazis'. Had Serbis chosen differently in 1941 and sided with the Nazis they would have been better off today. But its not the only example. Turkey committed the Armenian Genocide. Today Armenia is a small poor landlocked country whose women are sold as sex slaves in Turkey and across the Middle East and Europe. Turkey, the genocidal regime, is a modern western state who may be granted entrance to the EU. It is in Nato. It is wealthy and considered a 'good' country. To even mention the Armenian genocide in Turkey is illegal, let alone to question the fate of the Ponitc Greeks or the other Greek minorities destroyed in 1922 when Turkey expelled them in the 'population exchange'. Yet Turkey has not stopped there. After its invasion of Cyrpus in the 1970s it cleansed the Greek inhabitants of its part of that island and settled Turks in their place. And today the EU and leftist Cypriots back a plan to allow the Turks to return to Greek Cyprus but not trhe Greeks to return to their former homes. In Rhodes, Crete and other Greek islands the memory of the Turks is preserved in their minarets and mosques and small Muslim communities remain. Yet in places such as Smyrna (Izmir) the Greek churches are gone and their crosses destroyed. Yet in Rhodes a Swedish politician is present researching 'human rights' for the local Muslim community which has recently been allowed to raise a giant minaret above the old city's skyline, a minaret that not coincidentally towers over the local Greek-Orthodox church (just as in Ottoman times when it was illegal for a Christian structure to be taller than a Muslim minaret). Leftist researchers such as Ruth Mandel have been convinced by the Turkish lobby in the U.S which supports pro-Turkish scholarship in the U.S to term the Greeks an 'invented' people whose identity only exists 'against the Turkish Other.' The genocidal regime becomes the positive 'other' and those that were colonized, the Greeks, are said to have no culture. So those who cleansed the Greeks are wealthy and clean and the Greeks must build mosques for them, while in Turkey there is no reciprocal action of preserving the Christian heritage of Anatolia. Everywhere in the world it has been the same. The Cambodian genocidaires were never prosecuted and they were in fact supported by western leftists who claimed the gneocide had been inflated by 'right wing anti-communists.' In Rwanda during the 1994 genocide the French and the world press was tricked the world for months into beleiving that it was the French allied Hutus who were the victims rather than the perpetrators. Westerners, unable to distinguish one black tribe from another, despite their obvious differences, simply believed the reports. Only later when the UN troops under French guidance were actually encouraged to intervene to prevent a 'Tutsi genocide of Hutus' did they realize it was 800,000 Tutsis who had been murdered, rather than the other way around. The Hutu genocidaires escaped to the Congo where the UN settled them in refugee camps. They were allowed to rearm and subsequently started another mini-genocide against Tutsi tribesmen in the Congo. When those Tutsis subsequently formed their own army under General Nkunda the International Court of Justice in Europe and the UN accused him of 'war crimes.' The big Hutu leaders were allowed to settle in the West, in Europe and in the USA. Meanwhile in Rwanda the UN and France has attempted to accuse the Tutusi leadership and its president Paul Kagame of 'war crimes' during the genocide. Not one Hutu has ever been put on trial by the West. During the Indian partition of 1948 the Pakistani Muslims cleansed all the Hindus and Sikhs from what is now Pakistan. Yet India allowed millions of Muslims to remain so that they now form 20% of India. Today all the human rights organizations and other NGOs such as Minority Rights International only care about the Muslims in India. They are said to be poor and discriminated against. In Pakistan there are no Hindus to discriminate against because they are all gone. In Singapore one must also read about discrimination against the Malay Muslim minority, yet in neighbouring Malaysia the Chinese minority suffers official discrimination under the country's 'Malays First' law which gives the majority preference in jobs and education. No NGO or human rights organization has ever voiced any interest in this. The world and its victims have learned the hard way, it is always better to genocide than to be genocided. It is better to cleanse than to be cleansed. The world community appears to voice its opposition to genocide and ethnic-cleansing and 'war crimes'. But history shows us something different. Every country that has successfully done away with its minorities has suceeded in the end in becoming wealthy and accepted. Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries that suppress non-Muslims and in one case won't even allow them to drive on certain roads or construct houses of worship, are darlings of the international community with sympathizers throughout the world, especially at the highest levels of western educational institutions. Their ideologies of Islamism are widely loved in the west with philosophers such as the late Michael Faucault embracing them and modern oped writers such as Bradley Burston declaring 'this year, this Jew is supporting Jihad'. Of course this Jihad is positive, it is an 'inner struggle' and one that does not permit the "murder of women, children or the elderly." Of course it does permit their enslavement and the murder of the men, but no matter. It is better to Jihad than not to Jihad. It is better to be Islamist Iran than those who oppose Islamist Iran. It is better to be Saudi than to be those who are the victims of Saudi. It is better to be Turkey than Armenia and Croatia than Serbia, at least if one measures 'better' by wealth, tourism and international acceptance and historical narrative. The European, whose ancestors collaborated, tells the Serbs to forget the 14th century and join the 21st. But can they join the 21st before they receive an apology for what was done to them in the 20th. No. The message is always: forget the past. Europeans want us to forget the past, because it is one filled with their misdeeds. They want a present where the Jews and Serbs are the 'Nazis' and a German or Frenchmen or Englishwoman can be a Protest Tourist in Hebron helping with the Palestinian olive harvest. Every nation and people should learn from history. Genocide is preferable. Jihad is preferable. Minorities are the shackles around a nation's neck. They are forever used to condemn the nation. Those countries that successfully did away with their minorities, as almost all Muslim countries have done, are more successful, wealthy, and loved in the international arena. For those that say 'never again' and 'now we have learned from our past' one must only look to Sudan for the evidence of this lie. Here is a nation where the genocide continues. And yet the world does nothing. Sudan is widely loved in its region. It is even invited to help with such conferences as the Durban conference against racism and invited to join the UN Human Rights Council. Is it better to be Sudan or Israel? Sudan receives the oil revenues and as the Economist informs us, the per capita income of Arab Khartoum is quite high. Europeans even go their to volunteer, not to help the black victims of the genocide, but to give the wealthy Arabs a free education. Has a European ever volunteered in Israel to help a victim of terror? Except for those few reviled European evangelicals, those 'kooks', No. One can learn from this story that the pragmatic thing to do is to always be the first to genocide, the first to cleanse. One should have collaborated with the Nazis, those nations that did so are today ten times wealthier today than those that did not. Those that did are members of the EU, those that resisted are not. The western academy tells us today to join the Jihad. But morally we know that the blood of the Nazis and their European collaborators can never be removed. The blood of the Jihad never comes off. The soul of the nations that engage in such behavoir can never be cleansed: secularism soon follows and with it low birth rates and decline of civilization. The victory of Nazism is only temporary. It has resulted in the creation of 'New Jews' in Europe, the Muslim immigrants who raise minarets above European cities. The genocider wants us to forget history. Of course. Those descendants of SS officers would prefer we concentrate on destroyed Palestinian homes rather than the former Jewish homes that their families today reside in. Is it a coincidence that all the victims of Nazism have become the 'new Nazis'. Surely not. What is more perverse than for the Nazi to transfer the guilt to his victims, turning them into the perpetrators? But the evidence that this model of liberalism and secularism, this model of genocide does not work, is the Muslim immigration to Europe. For in seeking to transform the victims into the Nazis and the Nazis into respectible members of modern society the Europeans have inadvertently made themselves wealthy and their victims poor, but now that promises to backfire as that wealth has attracted other genocidaires, the best experts at genocide: Islamism and Jihad. So the best thing for Armenia, Serbia and Israel and other victims, such as the Hindus, to do is to watch as the two genocidal peoples work things out among themselves. They say 'forget the past'. But they are deep in the past and it is catching up day by day. Those Europeans who see the actual history and see the Jews, Serbs and Armenians as victims, are the same ones who see the threat of Islamism and are the same ones who see the evils of Nazism and collaboration. But those Europeans are few, just as it was only a few who saw that the Tutsis were the victims and the Hutus the murders. To remove the scourge of collaboration with genocide, the first thing is to remove the UN and the ICJ, two organizations who collaborated with genocide and were built on its gas chambers. Removing these shackles, placed around humanity, may not be possible, for it goes hand in hand with removing the dictatotrship of moral relativism and 'human rights' (which always seems to support the murder of people or nationalism and terrorism) activists and 'anti-racism' (which, in the case of the Durban conference, is usually racist) activists that plague society. Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This essay appeared on his website October 21, 2008. |
|
ALL ROADS LEAD TO JERUSALEM
Posted by Eleazar ben Yair, October 27, 2008. |
|
Caroline Glick writes on the centrality of
Jerusalem.The article appeared today in the
Jerusalem Post
Contact Caroline Glick by email at caroline@carolineglick.com |
|
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's failure to form a government proved that all roads do in fact lead to Jerusalem. It was the issue of Jerusalem that deadlocked and ultimately scuttled Livni's coalition negotiations with Shas, which demanded that she pledge not to negotiate the partition of the city with the Palestinians. Livni refused to make such a pledge. And so the negotiations failed and new elections will soon be called. In refusing to agree to Shas's demand, Livni made clear that partitioning the city — that is, giving the Palestinians sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the Arab neighborhoods — is so central to her preferred foreign policy that she could not budge on the issue despite her obvious desire to take up residence in the Prime Minister's Office. Moreover, it showed that she believes that the bulk of her potential voters hail from the post-Zionist Left. To win their support, she had to make clear that she is one of them. In making Jerusalem, rather than welfare payments the wedge issue in their negotiations with Livni, Shas's leaders demonstrated their recognition of the fact that defending Israeli sovereignty over the capital city is more important to their voters than increasing welfare. Had they entered a Livni government without securing a pledge to defend Jerusalem, Shas would have been hard pressed to compete with the Likud in the coming elections. Due to the centrality of Jerusalem in Livni's failed negotiations with Shas, it is apparent that maintaining or ending sovereignty over united Jerusalem will be the central issue of the coming elections. If the Left can convince a sufficient number of voters that a united Jerusalem is a drain on the country's resources or that it is impossible to enforce Israeli law among an increasingly lawless and irredentist Arab population, then it will have a fighting chance of winning the elections. If the Right is able to demonstrate that the problems that afflict
Jerusalem are little different from those suffered by mixed
Jewish-Arab cities throughout the country and are a consequence of
government and municipal mismanagement and are therefore manageable,
then it will win the elections.
TODAY THE problems that Jerusalem faces stem from its unique demographic character, municipal mismanagement and the clear if previously unstated intention of successive leftist governments to eventually withdraw from the Temple Mount and from the city's Arab neighborhoods. Jerusalem's ranking today as the poorest city in the country redounds to the fact that that the majority of its residents are Arab and haredi. These two sectors by and large do not work and do not pay municipal taxes. As a consequence, the municipal tax burden falls on the plurality of Jerusalemites who work and pay taxes — mainly religious Zionists and non-observant Jews. Due to the unfair tax burden, recent years have seen a steady stream of the city's productive residents migrating to surrounding communities where the tax burden is more evenly distributed and municipal services are consequently better. Beyond the chronic problem of under-collection of taxes, Jerusalem suffers from problems of lawlessness among its Arab residents not unlike the problems that affect all cities with mixed Jewish and Arab populations. This Arab lawlessness is facilitated on a national level by the government's refusal to order the police and the State Attorney's Office to enforce and apply the law equally to Arab citizens. Jerusalem also suffers from unique problems with lawlessness and underdevelopment. These problems have been created by successive governments that have silently encouraged the partition of the city by both enabling the PA to field militiamen in the city's Arab neighborhoods and discouraging and indeed prohibiting Jewish building in areas the government foresees being transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. These manufactured problems have retarded development and expansion plans. They have also artificially raised housing prices for the city's Jewish residents. One of the chief responsibilities of Palestinian militia that operate in the city has been to enforce the PA's anti-Semitic law which defines the sale of land to Jews as a capital offense. Since 1994, dozens of Arab Jerusalemites have been executed by these men and their Fatah masters in Ramallah and Jericho for the "crime" of selling land to Jews. The government has made little effort to prosecute the offenders. Since 2004, when prime minister Ariel Sharon forced internal security minister Uzi Landau to resign due to Landau's opposition to Sharon's sharp turn to the left, the police have not been ordered to rein in the activities of the militia. Largely as a consequence of this state of affairs, Jews are prevented from living in half of the city. The scarcity of housing options for Jews is what has caused an artificial increase in housing prices that has compelled young families to migrate out of the city. Another factor contributing to the scarcity of land for Jewish building is the government's refusal to permit the building of new neighborhoods in areas like E-1 near Mount Scopus. Commerce is stifled, among other reasons, because the government has refrained from ordering the IDF to reassert control over Atarot municipal airport and industrial zone after the Palestinians began murdering businessmen, shooting passing motorists and threatening air traffic in 2000. In essence, as the building of the separation fence within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries shows clearly, the government has been effectively enacting the partition of the city for the past several years without ever acknowledging this fact. The government's effective support for partition is perhaps nowhere more
obvious than on the Temple Mount. There, the Islamic Wakf not only incites
for jihad with impunity, it is also systematically destroying the remains of
the Second Temple with impunity. The abject abandonment of Judaism's
holiest
site by successive governments has facilitated not only the radicalization
of Jerusalem Arabs from surrounding neighborhoods, like Silwan, it has also
emboldened global jihadists to believe that Jerusalem — and Israel with it —
will soon fall into their hands.
IN LIGHT of these difficult realities, it is a relief that Jerusalemites are likely to elect Nir Barkat as their new mayor on November 11. While the mayor of Jerusalem has only a limited capacity to solve the unique, politically-driven maladies endangering the city, he does have considerable power to solve the problems that are similar to those impacting other cities nationwide. He can compel residents to pay their municipal taxes. He can enforce building codes. And he can use his power and influence to facilitate new building while improving municipal infrastructure to encourage economic growth and population expansion. Barkat is a 48-year-old Jerusalemite. He served as a company commander in the paratroopers, and then went on to make a fortune in the hi-tech sector. In 1999, he and his wife became active philanthropists supporting various Zionist educational causes related to the city. In 2003 he retired from his business ventures to run for mayor. His party, Yerushalayim Tatzliah (Jerusalem will succeed), won 43 percent of the vote. Barkat has served for five years as the head of the opposition in the city council. In 2005, he joined Kadima. Last year, he broke with Kadima when he discovered that the government was conducting negotiations on the partition of Jerusalem with Fatah leaders. Emerging as a staunch defender of the city's unity, he was one of the prominent leaders of the national opposition movement which arose to demand that the government end its negotiations on the issue. As a mayoral candidate, Barkat has assembled a candidates list for his party comprised of members of the Likud, the Gil Pensioners Party, the Green Party and Labor. They have committed themselves to a common platform pledged to defend and facilitate continued Israeli sovereignty over the entire city. In a recent conversation, Barkat explained to me that enforcing law and order in the Arab neighborhoods while encouraging local, non-jihadist neighborhood councils to take a leadership role in their communities is one of his primary goals. "Today we have a crazy situation in which the number of municipal inspectors assigned to a neighborhood is inversely proportional to the degree of building code violations. We have four times more municipal inspectors assigned to Jewish neighborhoods than to Arab neighborhoods which have four times more building violations.[emphasis added] I will reverse this situation as mayor." Barkat also intends to push hard to build a new neighborhood for young people in E-1. To date, building in E-1 has been blocked by the government which as bowed to US pressure not to build in the strategically critical area that connects Jerusalem to Ma'aleh Adumim. Barkat also intends to encourage economic growth in the city by developing its tourist sector. He correctly identifies projects like the City of David as sites with massive tourist potential. He believes that the proper way to achieve his goal of bringing 10 million tourists a year is to develop tourist attractions that link the Old City to surrounding areas like Gush Etzion. Barkat has a vision of setting up a council of metropolitan Jerusalem that will involve the heads of the Jewish communities around the city in its overall development plans. This he believes will encourage business growth and lead to more rational long-term urban planning and infrastructure development. Barkat's headquarters bustle with campaign workers. Most of them are in their early 20s. They hail from both non-observant and national religious backgrounds. Their enthusiasm for his candidacy is a product of his chairmanship of the non-profit Ruah Hadasha (new spirit) organization that helps students find post-university job opportunities in Jerusalem and encourages student involvement in the city. Yakir Segev, who founded and directs Ruah Hadasha, is one of the senior members of Barkat's party. There is no guarantee, of course, that Barkat will be able to succeed in contending with the daunting challenges facing the city. But there is no doubt that if elected, he will bring a new integrity and commitment to the office and a welcome vision for Jerusalem that is both attractive and eminently achievable. Indeed, it is the success of Barkat's vision that will put paid the notion that united Jerusalem is ungovernable. If as the polls indicate, Barkat wins the mayoral race in two weeks, the overwhelming majority of Israelis who are committed to safeguarding Israeli sovereignty over the eternal capital of the Jewish people will find a formidable ally in city hall. Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it |
|
OBAMA ADVISOR PRAISES IRAN
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), October 27, 2008. |
|
Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday's Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress. By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned — a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe. Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban — a Sunni extremist group — hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs. Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed — as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores. The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace — under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various "carrots" offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away. What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is — and has long been — designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?). That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning. We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out. Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy. This was written by Ed Lasky news editor for American Thinker. It appeared today in Family Security Mattershttp://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1585/pub_detail.asp The original article has live links to additional material. |
|
HIGHLIGHTS OF HAMAS CHARTER & OBAMA'S SANCTION
Posted by Dan Calic, October 27, 2008. |
|
Many people are of the belief the best way to resolve the conflict should include negotiations with Hamas and land concessions by Israel. This presumes Hamas is willing to [1] agree to negotiations, [2] accept territorial concessions by Israel and [3] recognize the right of Israel to exist. Below are excerpts from the Hamas Charter. I would invite anyone who believes negotiations designed to bring about a land for peace settlement pay particular attention to the sections of the Hamas charter that are enclosed in double stars and square brackets ([** ... **]). If you've never actually read the Hamas charter, hopefully now you may realize the futility of a negotiated settlement with this terrorist organization, which is uncompromisingly committed to liquidate the Jewish people from every inch of the land of Israel. The Hamas Charter,
"The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)", 18 August
1988 is available as a MidEast Web Historical Document at
HAMAS CHARTER Article Eight: [**Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes**] Strategies of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Palestine Is Isalmic aqf: Article Eleven: [**The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.** Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day? **This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.**] Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences: Article Thirteen: [**Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.** Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know." **Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question.**] Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. ** These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?** "But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow — verse 120). [**There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.**] Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith: "The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation." The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty: Article Fifteen: [**The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.**] To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers. This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: "Only now have the Crusades ended." General Guru stood at Salah el-Din's grave and said: "We have returned, O Salah el-Din." Imperialism has helped towards the strengthening of ideological invasion, deepening, and still does, its roots. All this has paved the way towards the loss of Palestine. [**It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.**] Palestine contains Islamic holy sites. In it there is al- Aqsa Mosque which is bound to the great Mosque in Mecca in an inseparable bond as long as heaven and earth speak of Isra` (Mohammed's midnight journey to the seven heavens) and Mi'raj (Mohammed's ascension to the seven heavens from Jerusalem). "The bond of one day for the sake of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it. The place of one's whip in Paradise is far better than the world and whatever there is on it. A worshipper's going and coming in the service of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it." (As related by al-Bukhari, Moslem, al-Tarmdhi and Ibn Maja). [**"I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).**] And now take a look at a quote from Barrack Obama in a NY Times interview: The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." "Legitimate claims??!!" Would a true friend of Israel say such a thing ? Contact Dan Calic at calic@comcast.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: DAYS OF TURMOIL
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 27, 2008. |
|
Well, President Peres has told the Knesset, which is beginning its winter session, that we will be going to elections. Part of the process down the road will involve dissolving the current Knesset. Several factions are urging that elections proceed as speedily as possible, for the nation's sake. Analysts project a two-way contest between Livni and Netanyahu, with Barak of Labor falling so far behind as to be pretty much out of the picture — which is a good place for him. For the first time, polls have been released that show Livni ahead of Netanyahu by 2 or 3 seats. I figure that this is a result of her claiming the high ground in refusing to cave to Shas's demands. It is not necessarily a stable figure.; there's no such thing as a stable predictive figure three months before an election. But I guess it won't be a shoo-in for Netanyahu, which is how it seemed for some time. ~~~~~~~~~~ Olmert made a statement to the Knesset in the course of this discussion: "The threats on the security of the people of Israel will not wait for political procedures. [Concern about] terror cannot be postponed because some of us are busy with the election process." He's right. Responses to terror, actions to protect national security, may be necessary between now and the time his successor takes over. But this doesn't provide him with the latitude to continue negotiations with the PA. ~~~~~~~~~~ Actually, because of the political uncertainty Abbas has cancelled a meeting with Olmert that had been scheduled. Whether it will be rescheduled is not clear. It shouldn't be. The PA is terribly unhappy about the current state of affairs and the likelihood that the Israeli elections will make progress in the "peace" process impossible. What a shame... What they are most worried about is the possibility that Livni might lose the elections: "If Netanyahu becomes the next prime minister, we will have to declare the peace process dead." Fact is, Abbas is about to face enormous political turmoil come January in terms of his fight with Hamas regarding when his term ends. He's in no shape to advance "peace" either. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, Home Front Commander Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan, addressing a National Security Institute conference, said that Israel faces greater threat of missile attacks down the road. "In the next five years, our enemies may fire 200-300 tons of explosive's worth in rockets on Israel." During the Second Lebanon War the rockets fired at Israel amounted to 30 tons of explosives. Golan was reassuring, however: "The numbers may seem high but this isn't a catastrophe in waiting. We are more than capable of handling it." Let's pray so, as it's not simply a matter of more explosives, but also more sophisticated and accurate equipment. The conference was told that Home Front readiness is being revolutionized. But I have another thought, another concern: Are we going to sit here and wait for those explosives to start flying — from Hezbollah or from Hamas? Will there be no pre-emptive actions, even though we know full well that arsenals are being strengthened?? ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, Defense Minister Barak complained to the head of UNIFIL regarding the continuing smuggling of arms by Hezbollah over the Syrian border. A whole lot of good this will do. Declaring that the IDF has been watching the situation closely and has seen the strengthening of Hezbollah (a re-arming the UNIFIL says they see no evidence of), Barak protested that, "The repeated violation of 1701 could lead us to upset of the delicate balance that exists in Lebanon..." I confess: I have no idea what "delicate balance" Barak has in mind. Hezbollah already has the upper hand, as far as I can see. ~~~~~~~~~~ A US Special Forces operation moved about 4 to 5 miles inside Syria yesterday, as part of an action to secure the Syrian border with Iraq, via which about 90% of foreign fighters — as well as cash for Al Qaida and weapons — enter Iraq. Eight people were killed in the helicopter raid, including, according to a US official cited by Fox News, the main target of the operation, the Al Qaida coordinator of foreign fighters stationed in Syria. Good move. The Syrians, who have not been particularly cooperative with regard to sealing their border (any more than they seal their border with Lebanon), are decidedly not happy. ~~~~~~~~~~ This past Shabbat, close to 600 PA special forces troops, US-trained, were deployed in Hevron. This is ostensibly to give the PA a stronger hand in combating Hamas, as Hevron is a Hamas stronghold. But this follows the deployment of PA troops some months earlier, first in Nablus (Shechem) and then in Jenin. And there is great unease in some quarters here in Israel that this is part of a process of turning Judea and Samaria over to PA security, one step at a time, as a prelude to pushing out Jewish settlement. It remains to be seen how the forces in Hevron will conduct themselves. In Nablus and Jenin it was reported that they helped restore calm on the streets and did things such as arrest car thieves, but did not actively take on Hamas — this was left for the IDF to handle. A first operation of some sort, that rounded up "criminals and Hamas loyalists" is being reported in the media. ~~~~~~~~~~ For a number of reasons, the beleaguered Jewish community of Hevron fiercely protested this move, which could have been stopped by the IDF. Terrorists have on numerous occasions been incorporated into the PA security forces, and thus there is no reason to trust them. The PA-controlled area around the Jewish area of Hevron includes high points from which it is possible for snipers to shoot at Jews. This is not idle speculation, as this is what happened in 2001 to 10-month old Shalhevet Pass, who was deliberately shot dead by a sniper standing on a hill near the Avraham Aveinu neighborhood and aiming directly at her head. ~~~~~~~~~~ What is more, the speculation that the deployment of these forces is a prelude to pushing out Jewish settlement gained considerable traction in the small hours of Sunday morning as Israeli forces (police, army and more) demolished the home of Noam Federman and his family: The Federman farm is located outside of Kiryat Arba, not far from Hevron. Noam, his wife Elisheva, and their nine children, had lived in a house there for two years. In the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, they were awaked without prior warning and removed forcibly from their house — which was totally demolished with contents inside. The reason given: It was "illegally constructed." One is struck by the difference between this action and the deferential treatment afforded by the government to the families of terrorists who are resident in eastern Jerusalem — treatment that makes Israeli officials move only very reluctantly with regard to demolishing their homes. It is Jewish Israelis, the "settlers," the residents of Judea and Samaria, who have become the enemy, the roadblock to official intentions to accommodate the Palestinians. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the farm, as the home was being demolished, some few of the Jews present (for the word went out and people gathered) made injudicious remarks regarding the IDF. Apologies have since been offered for what was said, but a great deal is being made of this. I would offer here the words of Hevron spokesman David Wilder: "There is a saying in Hebrew that a person should not be held responsible for his words when his loved ones are still lying dead in front of him. That is how I relate to the...remarks [made]. The expulsion from Gush Katif and Northern Samaria are all still much too fresh and the fate of those expelled still hurting much too much. It is no secret that this administration has plans to implement further expulsions..." ~~~~~~~~~~ Arutz Sheva reports that the municipality of Kiryat Arba has decided officially to rebuild the home that was demolished on the Federman farm, using city equipment and calling upon Jews across Israel to help. It is felt important that the site not be permitted to remain desolate of a Jewish presence. The Jews of Judea and Samaria are tired of being the scapegoats and tired of the treatment accorded them, and they are angry. It is my own opinion that their resolve and their courage will be the salvation of our nation. ~~~~~~~~~~ A stunning analysis of the Obama campaign — "The Obama Temptation" by Mark R. Levin — has come to my attention. Says Levin: "...I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places...even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical...[people with] significant public policy and real world experiences...find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
COMMEMORATION OF MUNICH MASSACRE "MAY OFFEND MUSLIMS"
Posted by Simon McIlwaine, October 27, 2008. | |
|
This is an excerpt from
Specialist advice is being given to Scotland Yard on how to reduce tensions between police and Muslims during the London Olympics because of growing concerns about the Games clashing with the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the day, The Times has learnt.
Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk |
|
OBAMA CAMP LASHES OUT AT FOX NEWS OVER COVERAGE OF 2001 RADIO INTERVIEW
Posted by NCUL, October 27, 2008. | |
|
In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income. This is an article from www.FOXNews.com | |
|
Barack Obama's campaign is firing back against criticism over a seven-year-old radio interview in which Obama discussed wealth redistribution, specifically blaming FOX News for drawing attention to the issue. In the interview, conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001 while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama discusses the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights decisions. The unearthed conversations gave fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda. But Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Monday accused FOX News of pushing a "fake news controversy" to further an agenda. Though FOX News played the audio tape for its viewers and did not just recap Republican criticism, Burton suggested FOX News was conspiring with the McCain campaign and the Drudge Report, which posted the material on its Web site. "This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of FOX News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months," Burton said in a written statement Monday. "In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all." In a heated interview later on FOX News, Burton accused the channel of giving McCain advertising "for free every single day," and trying to "continually trump up these fake controversies and have folks on to talk about things that don't have anything to do with the issues that are important to the American people." "This was indeed an issue that has been driven by the FOX News Channel," Burton said. "And so this notion that somehow FOX News has been fair on these points, it just does not hold up to the reality of sort of the coverage that it's been getting. And I think ... it is rarely so crystal clear when FOX News in and of itself is driving its own specific agenda helping John McCain frankly more than John McCain sometimes helps himself." However, the 2001 interview evoked recent questioning by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth. In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal. Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change. "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend. "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted. "And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted. "And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said. Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut." "Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said. "And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.
John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House. "Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. "Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued. National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed. "It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said. "You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time." In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending. "Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said. Obama Bombshell: 'Redistribution of Wealth' Audio Uncovered
|
|
EVERYDAY JIHAD — A BOOK REVIEW
Posted by Tsvi November, October 27, 2008. |
|
Rougier, Bernard
Everyday Jihad focuses on the constantly growing power of various Islamic fundamentalist groups active in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. The camps are officially run by UNRWA, the UN's single purpose agency charged with assisting Palestinian refugees. UNRWA, created in 1951, operates the camps and also provides educational and health care services to residents. The fact that UNRWA's budget is heavily dependent on US taxpayers is not mentioned by the author who estimates that there are over 300,000 Palestinians in Lebanon and their camps enjoy extraterritorial status. Lebanese authority is not exercised over the camps and the Lebanese army does not go in unless threatened by armed insurgents, significant numbers of whom live in the camps. Palestinians are legally barred from most occupations in Lebanon but can get work permits for menial jobs. In the 1950s the Palestinian Christians were granted citizenship and equal rights but the vast majority of Palestinians are Sunni Moslems who do not enjoy equal access to amenities and facilities in the country. This text is a political anthropological survey/description of the interaction of the numerous forces competing with one another to lead the Palestinians. The activists involved are profoundly influenced by current turmoil throughout the Islamic world and also strive to play an important role in fundamentalist expansion in Lebanon, the Middle East, the Moslem world and beyond. Rougier conducted his research primarily in the two largest camps of Ain al-Helweh near Beirut and Nahr al-Barid north of Tripoli over a four year period through the auspices of CEMAM (Centre d'Etude sur le monde Arabe) in Geneva and CERMOC (Centre d'Etude et de Recherché sur le moyen-Orient Contemp) in Beirut. What I found so fascinating about this survey is the large number of organizations at work and sometimes at war with one another. To call the Lebanese political configuration that Rougier describes in detail as complicated is a gross understatement. Therefore, I will try to simply list the actors and their orientation toward other militants, established governments, political parties, divergent ideologies and their perceived enemies (i.e. Israel, the US, Christianity and the West in general). We can begin with the proto-state PLO which is a secular nationalist movement that consists of several fighting groups, the most influential being Fatah. Both the PLO (as a roof organization) and Fatah are split into two camps; those who support the Oslo process and negotiating with Israel and those who object to it. The latter see Arafat, his successor Abu Mazzen and the negotiators as traitors. Other groups such as the PFLP and the DFLP compete with Fatah in carrying out terror attacks euphemistically referred to as "resistance". However, the secular nationalists have, for the most part, been superseded by Hamas which is the Palestinian equivalent of the Moslem Brotherhood founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood, now active in many Arab countries, is essentially a political movement that wants to replace secular Arab governments that imitate the despised West with Islamic regimes (not unlike the one in Iran) that will rule according to the Koran and Shari'a law. Most observers think that Hamas has supplanted Fatah and the PLO. Hamas considers all of Palestine (i.e. Israel) holy Moslem land and, therefore, non-negotiable. Hamas is not a member of the PLO but did win the last (2006) PA (Palestinian Authority) elections and has taken over (2007) the Gaza strip by force. Since the 1980s, as a consequence of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the success of the Islamic guerrillas who drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Islamic radicals are now well-entrenched in Pakistan and the Palestinian camps in Lebanon as well. Over the past two decades fundamentalists, some of whom fought and/or studied in Afghanistan or Peshawar, have taken over the camps. They have replaced the PLO and Hamas and now dominate Palestinian thinking and orientation. The fundamentalists have weakened nationalistic ambitions and encourage transnational jihad instead. These Salafists (all men because women are excluded from their masculine, religious milieu) want to re-create the original Moslem community Mohammad set up in 7th century Arabia. These radicals refuse to participate in modern political institutions or processes. Their only legitimate constitution is the Koran and the values that guided the Prophet and his followers. Western political thinking about freedom, democracy, man-made legislation and political institutions are rejected outright. Consequently, these Salafists also oppose Hamas and the Moslem Brotherhood because they (Hamas and the Brotherhood) willingly take part in elections and agree to work within the frame of secular governments. In addition, the Salafists follow the battles being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Algeria, Somalia and elsewhere. They even volunteer to go on jihad to fight infidels wherever they may be. Some Palestinian Salafist groups are funded by Iran while others are supported by Saudi Arabia. Libya's Muammar also contributes to seminars that teach Salafi principles. Money is also raised in Arab communities abroad. Two Lebanese Salafist organizations, Jama'a Islamiyya and al-Ahbash (literally 'Ethiopians') are more "moderate" and work openly in Lebanese society. But Usbat al-Ansar (Partisans' League) and al-Haraka al-Islamiya al Mujahida (Combatant Islamic Movement) operate clandestently in the camps and are violent. They attack churches, night clubs, liquor stores and Lebanese government agencies including the police and army. They wage holy war against what they call 'the enemies of Islam' of which there are many. However, these Salafists do not attack Syrian representatives or installations. Bashar al-Asad's regime, even though it is a secular Ba'thist/socialist dictatorship and far from Islam, is not criticized openly. The Syrians maintain a pervading omnipresence in Lebanon. Their intelligence service (Mukhabara) has offices in strategic locations and seems to know everything. Even before the start of Lebanon's civil war in 1976 (which Rougier believes was incited by the PLO), the Syrians dominated Lebanese politics. In fact, Syria has until now considered Lebanon to be part of Syria. [In October 2008 I read that the Syrians and Lebanese have decided to establish diplomatic relations for the first time.] The Syrians have their own Palestine liberation organization, al-Saika and over the decades have consistently opposed the PLO. Rougier does not, however, analyze the conflicts of interests between these two parties. The Syrians are very good at manipulating the many antagonistic groups extant in Lebanon. During the civil war (1976-1990) they supported the Christian militias against the Palestinians. More recently, the Syrians have aligned themselves with Iran and provide extensive military support to Hizbullah which, in effect, has control over southern Lebanon. Like the Iranians, Hizbullah is Shi'ite. Indeed, the Shi'ites are the largest of Lebanon's forty officially recognized confessional groups. It is the Shi'ite Hizbullah that carries out attacks on Israel and does not allow Palestinian (Sunni) units to operate in its territory. The Lebanese army is essentially impotent and, at any rate, is now largely Shi'ite because many Maronite Christians, especially from tension-filled Tripoli, have emigrated westward. [I read somewhere that more Lebanese live outside the country than in it.] Rougier notes that Bashar al-Asad and the ruling clique in Syria belong to the Alawite sect which is related to the Shi'ite branch of Islam. This helps explain Asad's friendship with Iran. The Sunni-Shi'ite mutual disgust and distrust is played out in Lebanon whereas in Syria itself the Syrian Liberation Party (Hizb al-Tahrir), a Moslem Brotherhood group is outlawed; its revolt was brutally crushed in Hama in 1982. Membership in this organization carries the death penalty. But the Syrians have no problem backing Sunni groups in Lebanon if this serves their interests. Other ethnic forces that have an impact on Lebanese life and politics include the Druze, moderate (i.e. modern, non-jihadi) Sunnis, the various Christian churches and foreign governments too. Both the US and France support secular moderates (Christian and Sunni Moslem alike) while the Druze led by Walid Jumblatt (a dedicated socialist) are currently sidelined. It is the Iranians working through Hizbullah who now seem to have gained the upper hand in Lebanese affairs. The UN's UNIFIL peace keeping force in south Lebanon is ineffective because it patrols only in open areas and not in the towns and villages where Hizbullah has installed its rockets and weaponry. The UN soldiers are, naturally enough, interested in their monthly pay checks and returning safely home to their families in France and Italy. The Syrians, Salafists, Hizbullah, Palestinians and other 'activists' don't hesitate to assassinate competitors, all of whom are united only in their hatred of Jews and Israel. To my surprise, Rougier's concluding remarks blame Israel for most, if not all, of Lebanon's problems. It is the Israelis, in the author's opinion, who refuse to make peace with the Palestinians. He claims that Israel can solve the Palestinian problem and thus alleviate Lebanon's torment. This unfounded conclusion contradicts everything the writer has carefully documented. Over some 260 pages, Rougier meticulously describes all the radical jihadi terror organizations and their uncompromising Moslem fanaticism, Syrian, Saudi and Iranian machinations and manipulations as well as the Sunni-Shi'ite mutual hatred. None of these murderous forces are found guilty of anything so the author plays it politically safe and puts the blame on Israel. Contact Tsvi November at tsvinov@gmail.com |
|
IF YOU MUST VOTE FOR OBAMA; OBAMA'S NUMEROUS ISLAMIST CONNECTIONS; BIDEN DISQUALIFIES OBAMA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2008. |
|
PUT LIMITS ON BLOOMBERG SKULLDUGGERY The NY Times endorsed Mayor Bloomberg's bid for a third term. It contends that the people, who like him, should have another opportunity to vote for him. It admits that the people twice voted to limit him and others to their two terms in New York, and still prefer such limits. He pledged to accept their decision. Now he is reneging. Just another demagogue, undeserving of office? The Times also admits that Bloomberg drafted recipients of his charity to endorse his bid (10/23). Would the charities risk his withholding future donations, if they didn't? He is corrupt. Should he be arrested and imprisoned for it? He originally was a Democrat, bought the GOP nomination, spurned Republicans, and then called himself independent. He has a secret taxpayer slush fund, to buy support. He let contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars without public bidding. When public outcry forced public another bid, it was double what Bloomberg would have accepted. All his big projects failed. How competent was he, whose pretext for a third term is that we need him to shepherd our funds through this financial crisis that he left us in bad shape for? Then there is his constant, false claim of educational achievement. He used statistical deceit. Also, he paid principals for favorable results; they ordered cheating. Some columnists exposed the misuse of statistics, but he continues to claim improvement that federal tests prove do not exist. He mostly has been anti-environment. Like our other mayors, he has no long-range plan for sustainable trash and sewage disposal, from which we could recycle energy. He tried to set up a Madrassa! What upholds his reputation? Even if he were honest and competent, it would not justify overturning referenda. IF YOU MUST VOTE FOR OBAMA Start taking anti-radiation pills. (While he talks with Iran.) THE EPITOME OF NAIVETE Israeli leaders are considering whether they can trust Assad to keep the peace if they sacrifice a part of their country and homeland that now affords Israel a secure border and a third of its water. Can they trust him to end his alliance with Iran? Probably he would demand US arms, the way Egypt did. Egypt now has a powerful air force and ground force and a navy stronger than Israel's. Imagine if Syria were armed likewise? Then together with Egypt, Syria could realize the Islamic dream of conquering Israel, that they tried before. Those Israeli leaders are the epitome of naivete. They may cause Israel's conquest. OBAMA'S NUMEROUS ISLAMIST CONNECTIONS The Democrats have been covering up (several) key questions about candidate Obama, including his connections to Islam and its radicals. Former Sec. Colin Powell just lied about Obama always having been a Christian. There was enough evidence before to disprove that. It just came out that Obama was registered in his school in Indonesia as a Muslim. How did Obama pay for Harvard Law School? Former Manhattan Borough Pres. Percy Sutton said that Khalid al-Mansour raised money for the it. Al-Mansour was an advisor to Saudi Prince al-Walid Bin Talal, the biggest donor to CAIR, listed by the US as an unindicted co-conspirator in Hamas fund-raising. Al-Mansour has Islamist views, such as denying Sudan sponsorship of slavery and claims that the Jews have no tie to Jerusalem. Al-Mansour and Obama deny Sutton's allegation. Kenneth Gamble cut the ribbon in his building in Philadelphia, serving as an Obama headquarters. Gamble buys Philadelphia real estate to carve out a Muslims-only residential area in that city. (That not only means discrimination and segregation, it also allows Muslims to indoctrinate against American society.) Gamble has links to Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Alliance In N. America, one of whose leaders is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. Obama's first Muslim outreach coordinator had to resign when he was discovered (by the campaign or outsiders?) to have served on the board of the Saudi-sponsored N. American Islamic Trust with another unindicted co-conspirator and has ties to CAIR and to another unindicted co-conspirator, the United Islamic Society of N. America. As soon as appointed, Obama's second Muslim outreach coordinator met with a group of Muslims that included some notorious proponents of terrorism. Obama's Chicago associate, Rezko, was a partner for almost 30 years with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of the Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. Rezko says he gave that family millions of dollars. Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright, had belonged to the Nation of Islam and mor than once praised the current leader, Louis Farrakhan as a giant and great among black religious figures. How fit is Obama to serve as our commander-in-chief? He couldn't pass a security check (Daniel Pipes, #874, 10/23). The NY Times editorial of 10/24 endorsing Obama denounced claims that Obama is a Muslim as lies. But the editorial wasn't just opinion, it lied or exaggerated the facts. It ignored the above. BIDEN DISQUALIFIES OBAMA America's enemies are pleased with Obama's candidacy. Sen. Biden warned that if Obama is elected, our enemies will test him right away. They will generate a crisis. It won't be apparent initially that we are in the right. Campaign sympathizers rationalized that all new presidents are tested. Not true. Eisenhower was not. Reagan was appeased by Iran. This means that the enemies will test Obama because they consider him naïve and weak. Biden doesn't have much faith in Obama, because he thinks Obama would let it become a crisis and won't know how to show we are right. The world will see him as a failure. Obama is weak. He said he would meet with the head of Iran without pre-conditions [though, he modified his remark, after criticism, as he always does, leaving discerning observers wondering which is the real Obma]. Iran said it wouldn't meet with him, without pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions are to end support for Israel and remove US troops from the Mideast [so Iran can take over]. Obama said he would remove US troops from Iraq, before we can consolidate victory there. [His chief foreign policy advisor, Byrzezinsky, is anti-Israel.] Iran expects Obama to cave in, and offered Obama a rationale for doing so by asserting that Iran would attack Israel but not the US. [Would Obama believe Iran?] Iran favors Obama's election because it considers him more "flexible and rational." [That is, it considers him irrational and therefore flaccid.] So does Jesse Jackson, who expects Obama to end "Zionist control" of US foreign policy. What does Obama do to disabuse Iran of their expectations? Nothing. He rejects the use of force, claiming that the US hasn't the means. [It can bomb the nuclear plants and other military facilities]. If the US lacks the means, would he boost US military power? No, he wants to reduce it. He'd cut anti-missile defense and nuclear weaponry (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 10/24) just when the enemy is building missiles and nuclear weapons. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
A LETTER TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Posted by Jenny Grigg, October 27, 2008. |
|
I don't know who Mark Gregg is but this is too well written not to pass along. |
|
Dear Mr. Obama, It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg. I am a 50 something conservative white male. I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention. I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you. I believe my opinion is shared by many people. While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you. 1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska's quagmire of political scandals. Which way is it, Barack? Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer? 2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate. This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation. I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help. I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand. However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country. Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended Ivy League universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes. This troubles me more than you know. She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world. 3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so. This bothers me. I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards. You should heed the words of Winston Churchill : 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.' If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch. 4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?' Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond? I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people. 5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy. I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' 6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified. This scares the hell out of me. You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed? Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me. 7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters. I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do. The way I see it: When we see who your supporters and allies are/have been, we should seriously examine our own consciences and vote accordingly. In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me. I cannot vote for you. It is not because of your skin color.
Respectfully,
Contact Jenny Grigg at jennygrigg@gmail.com |
|
ATTACK ON FAMILY WITH 9 CHILDREN BY OLMERT THUGS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 26, 2008. |
|
Israel's current Prime Minister, (resigned but still present as PM), Ehud Olmert and his Kadima thugs ordered the pathologically twisted Yassam troops to violently attack a family with 9 children, including a months-old baby, break their windows, throw them outside in their pajamas and bulldoze their home — which has been standing for at least 10 years. This violent attack by Jews against Jews prove that Olmert is merely a dictatorial tyrant who is dedicated to physically attacking Jews who live productively in the territories of Judea and Samaria. Olmert seems to have used the propaganda accusing the settlers of being the provocateurs. The famous psychiatrist Carl Jung analyzed this phenomenon by pointing out that aggressors often justify their own aggression by claiming their intended victims were preparing to attack the aggressor. The Olmert government had his Yassam troopers storm into the sleeping home of Elisheva and Noam Federman and their 9 children. Olmert and Yassam have been building up to a major attack against the pioneering settlers by brainwashing the people with false accusations (about once a week) so the government can mount a full scale war against the Jews in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem. No Jew will be safe once the Yassam thugs are fully unleashed to destroy, beat, trample and falsely arrest — as they did in Amona. Adolph Hitler started his dehumanizing campaign with his brown shirts before he deployed his Gestapo. Josef Stalin used his KGB, along with ruthless Russian troops to evacuate villages of Jews, many of whom were deported to the Gulag. Is that why Jews returned to their ancient homeland in Israel? So that dictatorial un-Jews could attack their fellow Jews to accommodate the Arabists of the Bush, Rice and Baker mind-set who are bribing America and Israeli hating Saudis, with the full cooperation of the thuggish regime of Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres regime. The article below was written by Hillel Fendel, senior new
editor at Arutz-7 and it appeared today
|
|
Jews who saw the "wanton and cruel destruction" in Kiryat Arba this past midnight cursed perpetrators, while media and government attack the victims. The events of the night in Kiryat Arba, in brief: Special Yassam anti-riot forces arrive at 1:30 AM to destroy family home in unauthorized Kiryat Arba outpost — breaking windows over sleeping children, punching mother and children, destroying property, throwing books, yelling, and separating baby from mother in the process. Hysterical eyewitnesses are recorded cursing perpetrators of destruction. Radio and internet sites headline reports with news of the eyewitnesses' "incitement." Government convenes, condemns Kiryat Arba residents; Prime Minister Olmert says, "We are sick of this verbal incitement which leads to violence. I expect to hear from the Defense Minister and Justice Minister what is to be done against these people." Elisheva Federman, who experienced the brunt of the police violence in her home this past night, told Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen what happened: "As on every Saturday night, we go to sleep late. At 1:25 AM, I received a call from friends who said that they heard that security forces are on their way over to us, and they fear that they intend to destroy our farm. It was strange; there had been no prior warning, so we hesitated to call friends for help. While we were deciding, we hear dogs outside. I look outside and I see a 'black river' [of Yassam forces] streaming towards our house." At that point, Elisheva asked her 12-year-old son to take his two little brothers, aged 6 and 8, who were very scared, to the closest houses in nearby Kiryat Arba, and to ask the neighbors to have the children's grandmother come and help with the little children. Elisheva wished to leave, but the children insist on remaining, so she decides to remain with them and with her months-old baby. Elisheva and the children stay in an inner room, leaving the door open just enough for them to watch their house being turned into a pile of ruins. "I saw the Yassamnikim breaking cabinets, throwing stuff around, breaking beds, throwing books and clothing and everything else onto the floor. After they finished their destruction, the only thing left was the room we were in. They forcefully took us out, while hitting us and using extreme violence. I heard them giving each other coded instructions, and suddenly I found myself with my hands twisted behind me, and within seconds, my head was turned backward. They hit me and the children systematically. I am now totally bruised up, but nothing in my body was broken — and the same with the children. I am not sure if my daughter's hand was not broken." The police car in which Elisheva was riding broke down, and after a 90-minute delay, they finally arrived at a nearby police station. "I had nothing with me — not baby formula, not diapers, not clothes." At 4 AM, she was released and taken back to what had been her home. "I looked through the ruins, and somehow found my car keys; they hadn't destroyed the car." She drove to her sister's home, and later in the morning returned to the ruins: "I tried to rummage through the destruction to find clothes and coats and other things for the children. 18 years of marriage are buried in the ruins..." The general media reported on the "evacuation of an illegal outpost in Kiryat Arba," omitting the details described above — but highlighted the angry words of two of the Jews who saw the destruction. A man was heard saying that he hopes the perpetrators of the destruction fall or are captured in battle. Agent-Provocateur? The speaker has not been identified, and many people close to the Yesha (Judea and Samaria) settlement enterprise surmised that he might be an agent-provocateur, sent to stir up public opinion against the Jewish pioneers. Alternatively, some have said that he was speaking out of frustration, and that these sentiments are not representative of the populace of Yesha. Politicians were quick to respond to the media reports and issued sharp condemnations of the residents of Judea and Samaria. Cabinet ministers said that the "inciters" must be put behind bars. Prime Minister Olmert related to the incident at the beginning of the Sunday morning Cabinet meeting, discussing not the apparently illegal destruction, but the angry words expressed afterwards: "This morning in Hevron, there were calls for security forces to be harmed. I have instructed the Ministers of Defense and Public Security to take action against this. We are sick of all this violence, verbal violence that brings to physical violence... I expect to hear from the Defense Minister and Justice Minister what is to be done against these people... Whoever expresses himself that way must be put in jail." Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said, "I am disgusted by the incitement expressed by extremist elements in the territories against IDF soldiers and security forces. We will act firmly to uproot this phenomenon. I call on the Attorney General and Israel Police to use all necessary means to deal with this." Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, "I want to emphasize the gravity of the words and actions of the extreme right-wing in the territories. I am of the opinion that the punishments in this matter are too soft, and the law enforcement and legal bodies must [rectify this]." Yesha Council head Danny Dayan and MK Aryeh Eldad also condemned the remarks. Dayan said, "I have many complaints against the security forces and against the Government of Israel for their activity in Hevron over the weekend, but this does not in the least cancel out the gravity of the words that were said afterwards." Media: Ignoring the Real News One Kiryat Arba resident said, "Instead of dealing with the destruction of a home, the media concentrates on a couple of crazies... Instead of interviewing Elisheva Federman about how her children were thrown out of their home in the middle of the night and their house destroyed, they look for an extremist speaking against the IDF." Journalists and cameramen were not permitted to enter the site of the destruction until around 7 AM. MK Uri Ariel had sharp words against this decision: "It is not coincidental that when journalists are not allowed in, complaints of severe police violence, unauthorized evictions, and acts of cruelty by the forces start streaming in." Ariel said that Defense Minister Barak must find out who was responsible for this decision and to ensure that journalists are allowed everywhere unless there are clear security needs otherwise. What now for the Federmans? "We will return and build it again. This is our land, and we believe with our entire essence that G-d wants us to be there. We will return at any cost, even if we have to live in a tent." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
US ATTACKS SYRIA, NINE KILLED NEAR IRAQI BORDER
Posted by Avodah, October 26, 2008. |
|
This was written
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128087 |
|
Two to four United States helicopters attacked Syria, near the Iraqi border, Sunday evening, killing at least nine people. The site was near the target Israel bombed last year. Foreign media reported that residents in the village of Al-Sukkariya, approximately 300 miles northeast of Damascus and about 10 miles inside Syrian territory and near the main border crossing from Syria into Iraq. Syrian government news agencies confirmed the attack, and a private Syrian television channel reported that nine men died and 14 were wounded. Two of the helicopters reportedly landed in the village, where eight American soldiers jumped out and carried out the operation. The soldiers quickly returned to the helicopters, and all of the craft left the scene. It was the first time the U.S. has attacked on Syrian land. American military spokesperson Sergeant Brooke Murphy said officials are investigating the report. The targets reportedly were construction workers and were civilians, including five people from one family, local residents reported to news agencies. Terrorists have used the nearby border crossing to transport weapons, money and guerillas to help Sunni opposition to the Iraqi government, backed by the U.S. The Bush administration has charged Syria with not preventing Al Qaeda terrorists from infiltrating into Iraq. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: WELL, OK!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 26, 2008. |
|
Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima party, informed President Peres late this afternoon that she could not form a coalition. Theoretically, Peres has the latitude to pick another faction head to see if someone else can put together a government. But this won't happen...we're going to elections. The talk now is that they would be held in about three months. This is not the absolute answer to all of our problems, but in my opinion it's a very necessary step in the right direction. It's a sort of cleaning house that would not have taken place if Kadima had continued in power — especially as there seems to have been some "funny business" with regard to how Livni won the recent Kadima primary. As I indicated recently, unless there's some great change in the situation, Likud, headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, is likely to garner the most mandates (seats) next time, with Netanyahu putting together a coalition. We're going to have to watch this play out. ~~~~~~~~~~ The down side of what's going to happen now is that Olmert (who's been extraordinarily quiet of late) gets to stay as head of the caretaker government until those elections take place. It must be hoped that he does a minimum of damage in that time. ~~~~~~~~~~ Shin Bet and the IDF have released the information that they foiled a plan by Hamas to kidnap soldiers last month. When Jamal Abu Duabeh of Rafah infiltrated into Israel from the Sinai recently he was caught. Under interrogation he admitted he had been sent as part of a plan to anaesthetize Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. He had been trained and financed by Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Israeli navy has announced deployment of a new sophisticated missile defense system that protects ships from missiles all 360 degrees around the ship. ~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel R. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, and Charles S. Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, are co-chairmen of the Bipartisan Policy Center's national security task force on Iran. They recently wrote a piece on the need for a strong policy on Iran that is the most encouraging thing I've heard in a long time. Seems not everyone is asleep at the wheel. They call for much stricter sanctions as the only way that a diplomatic solution might be possible. This requires building alliances for genuine international cooperation. "The U.S. military," they say, "is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure — probably with more decisive results than the Iranian leadership realizes." This should be the solution of last resort. However..."both to increase our leverage over Iran and to prepare for a military strike, if one were required, the next president will need to begin building up military assets in the region from day one." The encouraging news: "These principles are all supported unanimously by a politically diverse task force that was assembled by the Bipartisan Policy Center. The group, which includes former senior Democratic and Republican officials, retired four-star generals and admirals, and experts in nuclear proliferation and energy markets, offers a clear path for constructing an enduring, bipartisan consensus behind an effective U.S. policy on Iran." Now if the people in power would just pay attention. ~~~~~~~~~~ In less than three weeks, there will be mayoral elections in Jerusalem. Palestinian Authority's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, has issued a fatwa (a religious injunction) forbidding Arabs in Jerusalem from voting in this election. ~~~~~~~~~~ Late in June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued his latest report on the implementation of Resolution 1701. It discussed Israeli claims that Hezbollah was rebuilding in the south of Lebanon, but said that while UNIFIL had investigated, they found "no evidence of new military infrastructure in the area of operations." Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, has a pretty good idea as to how this could be so: "UNIFIL does not conduct patrols, establish checkpoints or maintain a presence of any kind within the towns and villages south of the Litani [River]. Indeed, the UN forces have little unmediated security-related contact of any kind with the population of the area. "Thus, while UNIFIL, according to its own figures, carries out around 400 foot, vehicle and air patrols in each 24-hour period, these take place exclusively along recognized patrol paths and in rural areas. UN forces maintain no independent checkpoints and are involved in a minimum of joint checkpoints with the LAF [Lebanese army] ... "...given the physical absence of UN forces from any of the areas where evidence of Hezbollah infrastructure-building has emerged [in built-up areas], it is not surprising that UNIFIL reports 'no evidence' that such activity is taking place. "In general, the two sides appear to do their best to stay out of each other's way." Charming state of affairs, is it not? This alone is enough reason to not want Livni to head the government: the "diplomatic solution" to end the War in Lebanon, which she pushed as a great victory, is what led to these arrangements. ~~~~~~~~~~ The fact that the stockpiling of arms is being done in populated, built-up areas should be noted. This will make going after them much harder, and if we accidentally hit civilians in the process, Hezbollah will garner a PR victory, something it knows very well. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile, Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin reported today at a Cabinet meeting that Syria's relationship with Hezbollah is strengthening: "Hezbollah operatives are working from within Syria. The Syrians are loosening all restraints, and [are irresponsibly giving] Hezbollah access to almost all of their strategic capabilities. "Currently, Assad is continuing to open up its warehouses to Hezbollah." Said Yadlin, Syria was "turning into the arms granary" for Hezbollah. What was it Olmert said about negotiations with the Syrians turning them from terrorism? ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to end with an unusual article about Obama that appeared in this past Friday's Jerusalem Post, done by an Israeli journalist who came to Chicago to interview Jews who know/knew Obama. This article must be read in its entirety, and it's long. It starts fairly positively. But as you read you see that the Jews who like Obama are extremely left wing. In fact, one rabbi who had a relationship with him expresses disappointment that Obama has not been true to his far left positions but has moved more centrist — but, said the rabbi, he understands that Obama has to do this to win. This echoes precisely what I have felt regarding Obama's tendency to say one thing and mean another. There is one quote from a resident of Obama's neighborhood that says
it all: "Now it's like he wants to hug and kiss Israel every five
minutes. That's completely not the Barack I had as a neighbor. That
started this year when he was trying to get elected."
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE JEWS, PALIN, AND LIBERAL POLITICS
Posted by LEL, October 26, 2008. |
|
This was written by Abraham H. Miller, who is an
emeritus professor of political science, and a former
counter-terrorist consultant to the National Institute of Justice.
|
|
Prior to his conversion to Judaism, my friend went to see his rabbi, who explained to him the obligations and responsibilities of becoming Jewish. My friend said he could within reason to do what the rabbi asked of him, but then my friend looked very seriously at the rabbi and said, "Rabbi, there is one thing I will never be able to do." The rabbi looked at him with concern and asked, "What's that?" To which my friend responded, "I could never become a Democrat." The affinity between being a Democrat and being Jewish is taken as axiomatic. In the ethnic classic, Beyond the Melting Pot, authors Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan remind us that American Jews long ago acquired the social status of Episcopalians, but still manage to vote like Puerto Ricans. But what most Jews don't know is it wasn't always that way. It was the ascendance of Franklin Roosevelt and the historic realigning election of 1932 that brought Jews, and Eastern European ethnics, into the Democratic fold. The coalition Roosevelt built was reinforced in the Kennedy and Johnson years by a concern for civil rights and the attempts to eliminate poverty. Jews perceived the expansion of civil rights as the expansion of rights for all Americans. For Jews, the obligation to the poor was part of their religious heritage of tzedaka, the duty to give charity, which had been transformed into a cultural and political heritage among secular Jews. But the homogeneity of Jewish partisanship began to seriously fracture during the Carter administration. Carter clearly had a Jewish problem, one underscored not simply by his zealous commitment to the Palestinian cause, but one unobtrusively and poignantly revealed by his statement that there were too many Jews on the proposed board of the Holocaust Museum. The rise of Ronald Reagan brought a significant number of Jews and fellow Eastern European ethnics into the Republican camp. This phenomenon is remarkably described by historian Samuel G. Freedman's The Inheritance, a book that could easily have described my own family's generational journey from Roosevelt to Reagan. The transformation of civil rights from equal opportunity to equal result also forced Jews to confront a new political reality. While the Protestant elite had enforced quotas so as to restrict Jewish enrollment in Ivy League Schools, the liberal elite now did the same thing through a newspeak of quotas masquerading as goals. If some were underrepresented, then others were overrepresented. And everyone knew who the overrepresented were. The joke on campus quickly became how an affirmative-action officer would have dealt with the Manhattan project by firing the disproportionate representation of Jewish nuclear physicists, replacing them with unqualified minorities, and the consequent results for civilization. As the far-left supported Middle East regimes that oppressed women, that had no idea of the meaning of civil liberties, and that encouraged the martyrdom of those who blew themselves up along with innocents; Jewish leftists, like so many lemmings, also embraced these sentiments. Their liberal co-religionists were incapable of going that far, but given the dissonance caused by the leftist model of the Middle East, liberal Jews often became super critical of Israel. Congregations refused to sponsor pro-Israel movies, arguing they were one-sided, while bending over backwards to invite speakers with ties to the far left who were little more than Palestinian propagandists. Liberal Jewish congregations followed the far-left by developing a moral equivalence between those who fired rockets into civilian crowds and those who used military force to prevent that firing. "Violence is violence," became the mantra of liberal rabbis. "Oh, there has been violence and tragedy on both sides," a local rabbi dismissively said to a colleague of mine during an interview. In Northern California where I now live, I am told that after 09/11 some of the rabbis gave sermons during the high holidays criticizing fundamentalists Christians, as if it were they, and not the followers of radical Islam, who boarded those ill-fated airplanes. Jews of my acquaintance speak mindlessly of their fear of "Christian Jihadists," an appellation that is not simply offensive, but one that betrays both a pathetic and palpable stupidity. Have you ever seen a Christian blow up himself and others in the name of Jesus and then be anointed as a martyr by prominent ministers, priests and theologians? The left's embrace of mass murderers in the name of self-determination caused leftist Jews to also embrace these murderers, even though the people being killed were also Jews. And as Christian Zionists became strong supporters of Israel, leftist Jews found an even stronger reason to severe their ties with Israel. The term, "Christian Jihadists." evolved, courtesy of journalist Thomas Friedman, into an equally stupid term, "American Hizbullah." This was bandied about not only in leftist Jewish circles, but also among liberal Jews, as if it were a mark of erudition rather than one of ugly stupidity. The left has now created a prismatic world where all politics is merely a variation of the same phenomenon, just at slightly different points along the same continuum. Moral equivalence is now the left's new objective reality. Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists are consequently morally equivalent, however nonsensical and illogical such juxtaposition turns out to be. It is not surprising to see leftist Jews in the forefront of the radical Palestinian movement. These Jews need to demonstrate their leftist purity, because their psychological identities as well as their social networks are based on a rigid adherence to the leftist creed. This embrace of ideology in the absence of self interest is what Hannah Arendt so brilliantly described in The Origins of Totalitarianism as the mindset that is the vital foundation for totalitarian mass movements. Leftist Jews have a new target for their outrage, Sarah Palin, another fundamentalist Christian who supports Israel. Among Sarah Palin's sins are that she shoots wolves and protects the unborn, to which Israeli literary figure Naomi Ragen has responded, would leftist Jews like her better if she shot children and nurtured wolf cubs? It is also not surprising that in response to the pressure of leftist Jews, the pusillanimous leaders of Jewish organizations, whose sympathies incline toward the left, disinvited Palin from speaking at a Jewish organization rally, held outside the United Nations (September 23, 2008), protesting Iran's quixotic, genocidal President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Caroline Glick notes in the Jerusalem Post of September 23, 2008, these leaders decided that it is more important to put Barack Obama in the White House than to stand up to the man who promises the world a Second Holocaust. And if one looks at the backgrounds of some of these leaders, they reveal a menage of self-loathing Jews who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Arabs and against Israel at critical moments that threatened Israel's very survival. While the Palin controversy rages in the Jewish community, I have received numerous anti-Palin emails from liberal Jewish women: several even asked me to contribute money to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name, as a slap in the face to Palin's pro-life politics. As Iran pursues its nuclear program touted as the new Final Solution, the most critical issue on the minds of these liberal Jewish women is one that puts the deaths of the unborn ahead of the lives of six million Israeli Jews already delivered from the womb. With attitudes like these, Jews need not fear the Islamic Jihadists and the Ahmadinejads of the world; Jews only need to fear the real enemy of the Jewish people — their co-religionists who are incapable of seeing the world from any vantage point other than one that is permanently and mindlessly anchored at the left end of the political spectrum. Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
AN OPEN LETTER TO NATHAN DIAMENT OF THE OU
Posted by Buddy Macy, October 26, 2008. | |
|
Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
AN APPETITIE TO DESTROY
Posted by David Wilder, October 26, 2008. |
|
Last night at just after one o'clock my cell phone rang. When the phone rings at 1:00 in the morning, at least in my house, something is wrong. Orit Struck was on the other end, apologizing for waking me up and then informing me that hundreds, if not more troops, — police, soldiers, the riot squad, etc. were on their way to the Federman farm, located just off the road between Kiryat Arba proper and the Givat Harsina (Ramat Mamre) neighborhood, just about five minutes outside of Hebron. Their goal: to destroy the farm. The homes on the Federman property have been there for over ten years. Noam and Elisheva have lived there for the past two years. Every once in a while the war drums start sounding, with rumors of an impending expulsion from the land, which the government says is 'illegally settled.' Most times, it's just noise. Tonight it looked like the real thing. 
I was out of the house within about ten minutes. But when I arrived at Ma'arat HaMachpela, on the only road to Kiryat Arba, I found it blocked by Border police and metal gates in the middle of the street. They motioned to me that the road was closed and that I should leave. I pulled out my press card, which in Israel is the closest thing to a magic wand, and presented it to the officer in charge. He took it and made a call on his walkie-talkie. A minute later he came back and returned the card. And told me to leave. "But I'm a journalist," I claimed. He looked at me, said "I know, but you can't go," and walked away. I requested numerous times, as did others, a warrant declaring the area to be a 'closed military zone.' Sometimes they responded, 'there's a warrant, it will eventually get here,' and other times, 'there is no warrant.' Others were told, 'there's a military operation going on — you have to stay here for your own good, so you won't be in danger.' Some were told, 'there's an armed terrorist in the Kasbah — we have soldiers looking for him. It's dangerous for you to be here. Go home!' The truth was that all roads leading to the Federman farm had been sealed off. The troops didn't want the enemy to have any reserves assisting them. At about 1:30 the two homes on the Federman farm were forcibly invaded. Sinai Tur and his wife Rivka were told that they had seven minutes to get out. The Federman family didn't have such luxury. The troops broke the home's windows and climbed in through them. They quickly made their way to the children's bedrooms where they shook awake the kids, dragged them from their beds, beating some of them, and forcefully expelling them from their home, still in pajamas. Some of the kids went via the door; others via through the window. Noam was immediately arrested, being suspected of planning to 'blow the forces up with gas balloons.' His daughter Isca, 16 1/2 years old, was also arrested for some unknown reason. 
Once everyone was out, the bulldozer started plowing down the houses and other structures on the property. It didn't take too much time, as the families were not allowed to remove any of their belongings. Down came the houses, on top of everything that was inside. By 3:30 or so, it was over. The families were left homeless and propertyless. As Elisheva Federman put it: "they wouldn't let me take my children's books or belongings or mementos. Eighteen years of marriage, nine children — everything we had, gone." For no apparent reason, except pure hate. Hate for Jews living in Judea and Samaria; hate for Jews living in the Hebron — Kiryat Arba region; and an extra special hate for Noam and Elisheva Federman, who epitomize love for Eretz Yisrael. 
The Israeli government, in particular Defense Minister Ehud Barak, (who is searching for political brownie points to assist him in the now upcoming election) and Generals Gaddi Shamni and Noam Tibon (who is an expert in destroying houses — he commanded the forces that destroyed the home of Livnat Uzeri, whose husband Nati had been, only months earlier, killed by terrorists in their home,) is intent on making life as difficult as possible for Jews in Yesha and in the Hebron region in particular. Late this afternoon a large group of people began work to rebuild the Federman farm. A short time ago an appropriate response was issued by the ruling junta: A warrant was received informing that at ten o'clock tonight the entire area would be declared a 'closed military zone,' that cement blocks would be placed there surrounding the property, and security forces would remain there to insure that the area remained sterile (i.e. Judenrein). Earlier today journalists interviewing me did not seem so interested in the destruction of the property or the expulsion of the families. Rather they seemed intent on asking/attacking me as a result of remarks made by people at the site of the devastation. Those comments ostensibly called for the death of IDF soldiers, and the 'wiping out of their names,' and that they should all 'be like Gilad Shalit.' 
There is a saying in Hebrew that a person should not be held responsible for his words when his loved ones are still lying dead in front of him. That is how I relate to the above-quoted remarks. The expulsion from Gush Katif and Northern Samaria are all still much to fresh and the fate of those expelled still hurting much too much. It is no secret that this administration has plans to implement further expulsions, be they in the Hebron area, or Binyamin and the Shomron. There is a feeling in the air — a sensation reminiscent of the Rabin-Peres days following signing of the cursed Oslo Accords, when 'settlers' were unofficially declared 'enemies of the state' and were so appropriately treated. The IDF and other security forces are an integral element necessary for Israel's survival. But they cannot and must not be taken advantage of to batter the very people they are supposed to protect and defend. I don't believe that anyone has any plans to begin a civil war, but the comments, as extreme as they are, seem to represent the growing frustration level amongst many Israelis. I see them, not as an active threat, rather as the mercury on a thermometer climbing higher and higher, much too fast. Perhaps those making decisions in the current government should realize that what they refuse to do to Arab terrorists and their families they are all too willing to do to their own Jewish citizens, who have not murdered anyone. And it seems, with an appetite. An appetite to destroy. See:
More photos of the destruction
The Hebron Fund Dinner — November 17, in NYC — Details at
hebronfund.com or 718-677-6886
David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron.
You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of
Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il
or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760
Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone:
718 677 6886.
|
|
THE EVIL UMPIRE
Posted by Boris Celser, October 26, 2008. |
|
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he
does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss,
the abyss will gaze back into you. — Friedrich Nietzsche
According to CNN this week, "Britain's highest court on Wednesday
dashed the hopes of Chagos Islanders seeking to return to the Indian
Ocean homeland they lost when Diego Garcia was leased to the U.S. for
an air base ... The islanders were evacuated, mainly to Mauritius,
between 1967 and 1973 ... Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was
"appropriate on this day that I should repeat the government's regret
at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the
1960s and 1970s and at the hardship that followed for some of them.
"We do not seek to justify those actions and do not seek to excuse the
conduct of an earlier generation," Miliband added."
Well, the British did it, and the Americans benefited. Of course,
the Chagossians are not Palestinians, and no UN body is pushing for
their return. They were expelled from their homes just after the
"Palestinian nation" was invented. On the one hand, the weak gets no
right of return. On the other hand, the strong must surrender their
rights and homes, forced by the strongest. Who stays, who goes, who
returns, it is all a matter of muscles, combined with the right
psychology of guilt applied on the weakest among the strong.
If George Bush indeed offered the Golan to Syria, then in all
likelihood we have a November/08 — January/09 surprise in the cards.
This implies full cooperation from the lame duck Prime Minister of
Israel, who, along with others, seems prepared to give the Jewish
people a parting gift they will not soon forget. After all, how come
Ahmadinejad of Iran gets an ovation at the UN when he calls for Israel'
s destruction, but the same thing happens when foreign leaders come to
the Knesset and call for the division of Jerusalem?
If America is the Soviet Union of the Western Hemisphere, at least most of the hemisphere has learned how to deal with the problem, and so have the Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, and others. Apparently the "Great Satan" only has the "Little Satan" left to rape, and the latter is more than willing, so technically it is not even rape.
What must the Cubans be thinking as they look at how America treats one of their closest allies? Cuba is still boycotted by the US, because it did not say "uncle" like so many others. It dared resist, while being only a few miles away. It is not a democracy, but it has caused far less harm than the old Soviet Union did, and China, Russia, and the Muslim world still do. But it must be taught a lesson, now or later. America likes to make the rules.
The Cubans must be scared, wondering if they're next. All that is needed is for a US Secretary of State to go to the UN's Security Council with secret photos "proving" Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons are hidden in the island. Either that or they can say they've found a few leftover nukes from the Khrushchev era. America's 50-year boycott of Cuba is even more shameful than promising to move its embassy to Jerusalem.
The late Jeane Kirkpatrick, former US ambassador to the UN, was
known as pro-Israel, and was liked and respected by Israeli and
American Jews for that reason. However, she was also the same person
who defended US policy in direct support of, in her own words,
"authoritarian" military dictatorships in Latin America and
elsewhere, as preferable to "totalitarianism" (meaning the Soviet
Union and its Communist allies"). One wonders if being tortured and
killed in an authoritarian jail is really better than suffering the
same fate in a totalitarian one. Did she ask the victims' families?
Is it also a surprise that so many Jews and gentiles in those former
authoritarian countries don't like American policies and totally
mistrust its designs on Israel? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama or
McCain, in the end is always more of the same. The nooze is tightening
around Israel's neck.
Those calling Israel a "banana republic" should be aware that
banana republics don't surrender any land, let alone their capital.
One could, by analogy, call Israel these days a "sabra republic".
Does it sound pejorative and unfair to this tough fruit and to this
tough people? Then it is time those residing there stand up and join
forces with the minority living east and west of the "Green Line"
who actually understand what is about to happen if America has its
way.
As the country's borders move towards the sea from the river, the
definition of who is a settler also changes. The pressure to surrender
to Israeli Arabs' demands, the pressure of millions of "Palestinians"
"returning" to be stuck near Jordan the river instead of in Jordan
the country will strangle Israel. "Just Do It" will mean more to
them than just a slogan by a more famous Jordan.
Let's call a spade a spade. If Israel is going to become a virtual
US colony, and many Jews in the world were never interested in living
in America, why should they move to this colony, unless forced by
external circumstances? They don't wear Israeli or American hats. If
Gaza, the Golan, Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem go, then only
Arabs in those places will be able to say: "We can see America from
our homes".
And if the nukes ever came, the territories surrendered might
actually escape the devastation, but no Jews would be there or be
allowed in. Furthermore, the real America is not the one that would
have been hit. Uncle Sam x Allah would be sorted out ... eventually.
If there was an evil empire, then there is also an evil umpire. Jewish Americans in the Holy Land who believe in the land of Israel had better realize what millions elsewhere have experienced with the US. It is their turn now. They can resist it by giving their powerful fellow Jewish Americans also living in Israel, but supporting the anti-Israel and pro-Arab policies of the US State Dept., an unequivocal message: "Yankee go home!"
Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net
|
|
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 25, 2008. |
|
A picture is worth a thousand words! Above is a map of the Middle East bearing a Kafkaesque epithet, compliments of your web site Think Israel. Jewish Israel, indeed, is but two tenths of one percent the size of her surrounding Muslim neighbors. Could anyone in his right mind view this map objectively and still believe the miniscule state of Israel is an occupier of Arab land? In fact, considering the fact that neighboring Jordan, that less than imposing state to the right of Israel, yet about four times as large as Israel, should be part of the Jewish homeland per the Balfour Declaration scribed in the 1920s promising Jews all of Palestine, an agreement fecklessly dishonored by Brits in charge of land distribution giving 80% of that land away to greedy Muslim Arabs as if they needed more land, one might reasonably wonder if Arabs in fact occupy Jewish land contrary to the current skewed mind-sets of most folks. How for example could former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, erstwhile leader of Israel's most formidable ally, a highly intelligent individual, have the chutzpah to presume Israel occupies Arab land and further assert that Israel is an apartheid state, when Jews are obviously squeezed into an almost invisible portion of the Middle East per any viewpoint, when Jews merely attempt to dwell on additional land rightly secured in 1967 as a consequence of vanquishing hostile Arabs attempting to destroy their incredibly small state, when Jews allow Arabs to remain on such land culturally intact knowing Arabs would not be so kind if the situation were reversed? Doesn't Carter as well as his supporters acknowledge their own nation conquered its Southwest, including California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, indeed virtually took that land from Mexico in the 1800s as part of America's 'manifest destiny', would never consider giving that land back to Mexico, yet never would be designated an occupier let alone an apartheid state if native Americans on reservations were also factored into that equation? Hmmm! More ominously but not unexpectedly Nicholas Kristof's op ed piece, published in the 10/22/2008 edition of the New York Times, describing how Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy improves America's tarnished world image, suggests much of that world, especially Muslim world, knows "a cabal of white bankers and Jews who use police with fire hoses to repress blacks" control his heretofore despised nation. Kristof asserts an Obama candidacy however "triggers severe cognitive dissonance" thus, according to one expert "makes them (presumably Muslims) receptive to a new paradigm for the U.S.", yet we may infer not Jews. I suppose those 'repressive' Jews, at least previously in charge of America, were unable to stifle the opinion of a renown Israel bashing ex-president; an overlooked fact by those anti-American anti-Semitic morons. Then again, what can one expect from a world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that can't or refuses to recognize the implications of a map. Jews and the Jewish homeland always seem to be in the cross hairs of worldwide indignation despite, according to census figures at the turn of century 21, contributing merely 13.3 million folks worldwide, of which about 5 million live in Israel, to a planetary population of over 6 billion, or about .22 % of the total. Consider that Muslims contribute over 1 billion adherents, about 20% of the world's total population, almost 100 times more folks than Jews, is it logical to presume that Jews wield so much power, control the world's most influential nation, occupy and in effect abuse so many Muslims in the Middle East within an area the size of a thimble? Amazing! Yet, even the Wall Street Journal, now owned by the Murdoch family, a conservative newspaper one might assume would consistently portray a pro-Israel perspective, on 09/19/2008 publishes an essay by the Holocaust revisionist Mahmoud Abbas, spewing slimy 'make nice' rhetoric, promoting his anti-Israeli mantra alluding to "continued settlement expansion and land confiscation in the West Bank", fodder for normally you would think pro-Israel readers to ponder. Say it isn't so Rupert! Are you or perhaps your family members also seduced by the Arab smoothie; are you or perhaps your family members also in bed with Arafat's long time understudy like so many other pro-Palestinian puppets? Might we send you a map of the Middle East to refresh your memory and jolt your senses? Might we suggest Jews in that hostile region of the world have only one place to freely 'hang their hats', wield any influence, a sliver of an oasis less than the size of your own vast empire!?! Few if any sovereign nations in the history of the world voluntarily ceded land to another nation in exchange for any promise of peace; in effect the analogue of paying protection money? Few if any sovereign nations in the history of the world have been told by the rest of the world to so cede land secured as a result of winning a defensive war of survival? Yet the Jewish homeland, already contracted by 80% in violation of a binding declaration, is expected by much of the rest of the world to comply with that request. Furthermore, such complicity to extortion by Israeli leaders, no doubt a feckless act of betrayal to future generations, if consummated would leave Israel vulnerable to terrorist attacks, would liken Israel to a weakened wounded animal in the eyes of drooling jihadist buzzards yearning to finish the job, yearning to annihilate a naïve nation knowing the complicit West would scratch its collective head, not unlike the way those nations behave even when genocidal acts are committed in places like Darfur. Unless and until Israel is treated with true respect by global
leaders there is absolutely no reason for the Jewish homeland to
negotiate with Arab representatives like Abbas or anyone else bearing
a worldwide stamp of approval! Unless and until a monstrous map of the
Middle East drapes the wall of any conference room, clearly visible to
all those present, substantially influencing any rational agenda for
those participating in any serious discussion pertaining to peace in
the Middle East, clearly outlining a Palestinian state within the
boundaries of what should be Israel but alas remains the kingdom of
Jordan, Israeli negotiators need not attend!
Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant.
He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He
writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion,
no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at
larose@snip.net
|
|
OBAMANOMICS
Posted by Amil Imani, October 25, 2008. |
|
Obama's economic plan is a recipe for long-lasting disaster. Keep in mind that wrecking anything, as opposed to building things, requires very little time and effort. Obama's plan is deceptively attractive, while in reality it is a huge wrecking ball that will capsize the already listing ship of our economy. Here is a partial list of reasons why. Judge for yourself. Obama is proposing a trillion dollars in new spending. Where is he going to get the money, given the government's present huge budget deficit? From the filthy rich and blood-sucking corporations, that's where, he says. A terrific vote-getting scheme. But will it work? Obama doesn't tell you that in the present world money is like water. It flows to the lowest ground. And the lowest ground for money is found in places where it can make more money — not locations where it is seriously tapped by government. For example, Ireland where the corporate income tax rate is 12.5% and not the United States, which has the second highest rate in the world. As it is, one of the biggest reasons that many corporations set up their businesses abroad is the high cost of doing business here at home. Hence, a great many jobs are lost to overseas enterprises. Obama doesn't tell you that rich people didn't get to be rich by being stupid. The minute they hear him talk about "spreading the wealth around", they shift their money to safe havens where Obama can't get to it. Like those hedge funds run by George Soros and other big Democrat donors. Obama doesn't tell you that much of the money invested in this country is from non-Americans, who do so not because they are philanthropists but because they believe in the American genius and our creative hard-working people who know how to produce wealth. Once they see Obama the taxman, they sell their holdings and move their money to safer havens. The result is that American company shares drop in value, companies won't be able to raise cash to do product development, so they will shut down their research departments and layoff workers. Or, they simply move their entire operation, or parts of it, abroad. The American economic genius is based on the principle of empowering people at all levels to succeed financially through their own efforts. The government must empower all individuals to succeed and not to take money from the successful and spread it around. Keep in mind that the really rich, both Americans and foreigners, have the smarts and resources to escape Obama's net. The ones that get caught in Obama's net are tens of millions of small shareholders such as retirees who depend on annuities to live. These folks suddenly find themselves strapped. With Obamanomics, pension funds of states, universities, other institutions, and individuals will suffer a major blow. During the present economic crises, retirement funds upon which the livelihood of millions depends have taken a two trillion dollar hit. Obama's plan undermines the most powerful motive for wealth production: incentives. It is the incentive that makes a person work hard to provide for his own and his family's living, and secure his financial future. Society after society has tried and failed the economic solution of "spreading the wealth around." It doesn't work. All it does is discourage hard work and reward sloth. It is suicidal to buy into that failed policy, and that's exactly where Obama aims to take us. And in this dangerous scheme, he will have the House and Senate on his side. The Democratic Party has drifted so far to the left that it can hardly heed economic reason. Just this past Monday, Barney Frank, the head of the Banking Committee, the same person who brought us the sub-prime rate and the housing fiasco, seeing Obama at the helm, crooned, "there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road." It is shortsighted and even dangerous to lose our cool in the face of present problems by placing our full trust in a charismatic inexperienced man who promises a great deal that he will certainly fail to deliver. Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy
activist residing in the United States of America, speaking out for
the struggling people of his native land, Iran. Contact him at
amil_imani@yahoo.com and visit his website: http://www.amilimani.com/
this was published on American Thinker
|
|
THE FIGHT AT NA-A-LIN
Posted by Ari Bussel, October 25, 2008. |
|
Israel's National News on the hour, Friday, 3PM: "Occupied territories. Palestinians in Na-a-lin demonstrating against the Wall. Members of Im Tirzu movement were present to support the IDF troops." 3:30PM, Bus number 5 in Tel Aviv passing through Dizingoff Street. High end fashion boutiques and jewelry stores, mostly closed for the day. Cafés and restaurants still bustling with life, a few blocks' walking distance from the Mediterranean. I get off the bus and wonder through these streets of Old Tel Aviv, where apartment prices are so high that either businesses turn the old apartments into offices or young people share these apartments, a cash-cow for the owners who inherited them. A feeling of an approaching Shabbat: The sun started its descend, people resting at home. A strange, wonderful feeling engulfing me. I am now walking from the old Central Bus Station toward the new. As I approach, there is a park of sorts, a multitude of Ethiopians sitting on the grass. Just across the street foreign workers are at an internet store, talking with their relatives in China, Philippines and elsewhere. I see poverty, a feeling of slums, a disconnect between communities sharing the same city. The last train left before 3PM, the last buses shortly thereafter. The only available public transportation option: a service-taxi of ten people, going to a particular destination. A driver stands outside and asks each of the passerby: Rehovot? Rishon? (two cities to the South of Tel Aviv) It did not take more than a few minutes for the taxi to fill up. It is also the last ride for the driver. He too wants to go home for Shabbat. It seems to me those enjoying the approaching Saturday are completely disconnected from what is happening on the ground. They know, but they do not want to know. They do not justify their Government's action, do not show any support for the IDF; they are passionate objectors, concentrating on the pleasantness of the moment. Many believe Israel should continue its path of concessions to an enemy which wants its destruction. Those approaching 18 are often busy finding ways to avoid service. The IDF is not a foreign entity in the body of Israel. It is the sum total of all its citizens, who serve every year in reserve duty, who send their children at 18 to pay their debt to the country. The army's obligation is to protect the way of life of its citizens. The soldiers of the IDF are the security blanket for those in Tel Aviv — enabling the residents to return from the sea, sit at a café, wonder between stores-for-those-who-have without a second thought of the war raging on near by. A bird's flight above, one passes the "green line." The "Occupied Territories" were not annexed to Israel, technically they are under military rule. Not too many years ago, an accord was reached which divided the area to "A," B' and "C." Next to Upper Modein, a large Israeli city of some forty thousand, there is an Arab village, Na-a-lin. Each is in a separate enclave of its own, separated by hills with olive trees. It is said the palestinians took the symbolism of the trees for their war propaganda, ate the olives as a side dish and barbequed the white dove. A security post in the middle of the road forces cars to a complete stop. Two beautiful young women soldiers, smiling with blue eyes, wearing a vest reading "Military Police," greet the drivers. Behind them are other fellow soldiers. They are there to try to prevent terrorists en route to carry homicide bombing assignments or driving cars full of explosives intended to inflict death, maim people, disrupt the false sense of security there in Tel Aviv, a short car drive away. Just hours ago, a group of some 50 students showed up to support these soldiers. They brought Israeli flags, candies for the soldiers and large placards "The People are with the IDF." One student, Eyal, who usually works with youth, brought a guitar with him and is playing and singing. Once every other week they come to show support. Each takes time off work and pays $8 for the organized bus ride. They spend half a day, at times risking their lives, to support those soldiers who are expected to do their job and yet get no support whatsoever from those "back at home," just miles away. They are a group of young idealists, full of energy and love of country. They are a rare exception among the general secular population. Not moments later, the hills are swarming with "anarchists," predominantly foreign visitors who cling to the far left and instigate trouble. They encourage the Arabs to engage in a violent struggle, to oppose the "occupation." They run to the hills like a gang, many covering their faces, using slings to throw stones at the opposite hill- directing best they can against the students of Im Tirzu. Make no mistake, the stones' velocity is sufficient to severely maim or even kill a person — a weapon like any other. The "anarchists" presence there is trouble, orchestrated for live broadcast. As the situation escalates, members of the Border Police start firing tear gas. The wind blows uphill, back toward our direction, and there is a strange sense hitting me. Eyal shouts "DO NOT TOUCH YOUR EYES." He did so just in time. I take deep breaths. The gas penetrates inside with a strange taste. My eyes start watering. The AP reporter next to me — apparently experienced in these demonstrations — says the tear gas is very light. It is my first experience. I see the slings movement from the other side, thinking for a second "we are safe, it would not hit." Milliseconds later three stones hit within a few feet away. I look around me-women and Ethiopians are an integral part of the force. I think of all the attacks against Israel the Apartheid state and a I laugh to myself, tears still running from my eyes: Right here on the front line one finds women and men, black and white, all equally at risk. A huge palestinian flag is raised. The gangsters from the other side of the hills shout insults, in Hebrew. I turn around — construction workers are just behind the police, continuing their work. Three men stand and comment about the events. I eye them with interest and ask: Are you Jewish or Muslim? They hesitate for a second and answer: Muslim. I am surprised. They are on the Jewish / Israeli side, so I ask — where does your loyalty lie? Where would you rather be? They, like most of the villagers on the other side, prefer to be under the Israeli "occupation," earn a decent living, work and raise their families, receive medical treatment in Israel. The "anarchists" are the ones who do not let the locals — Israelis and Arabs alike — live in peace. There is no Wall here, not even "The Fence." The anarchists are here to stir trouble. The event unfolding in front of my eyes is made for the media. A palestinian ambulance is called to the scene to complete the décor. The blinking lights serve well against the backdrop of the huge flag and the olive trees. The IDF major is prohibited to talk with the media, but a spokesperson is not present. The soldiers, in the meantime, finished answering every question asked of them. Absurdity rules: Israel is helping its enemies and adding fuel to the fire by allowing the filming of scenes against it, made-for-international-audience, to take place from within the soldiers and police force. How can the message resonate if the reporters are those who decide on the message rather than factually report the events? Not an hour passes and Israel's national radio reports about the events: The pictures of the mighty Israeli war machine applied against the peace-loving, struggling palestinians exercising their right to protest against the "Wall," all shot from within the mighty Occupier Forces. There is no one to blame but ourselves. This is not a game, nor does one wanting to protest have the right to use weapons. The media should not be allowed to the area, if for no other reason than their own safety and security. Briefings should be done by the relevant spokespersons, and the message should be unified, clear: For what is Israel fighting? What are the facts on the ground? What are the reasons? What is the planned course of action? Israel is at the forefront of a struggle for its continued existence. If it does not wake up and do so quickly, there will be little for which to fight, little to save and protect. Acco, a city north of Haifa, would not be considered by anyone other than Hamas and Hizbollah as "Occupied Territories," and even from there the Israeli and international media report from the same very one-sided position. This is the subject of my next report about the start of the Third Intifada in Acco, Israel. As you journey with me through these Postcards from Israel, let us remember what is special about this Jewish Homeland, a country from which life, sciences, technology, literature and advances that benefit society the world over emanate. Let us pray for Israel's strength from within and courage to continue its fight for existence. With deep friendship, I remain, Ari Bussel
Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com |
|
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Posted by GWY, October 25, 2008. |
|
[Editor's note: Several versions of this are circulating widely on the internet. Author unknown. One thing seems true: people who vote for Obama won't be able to claim they didn't know what he planned to do.] |
|
Notice to All Employees......just in case. As of November 5, 2008, IF President Obama is officially elected to office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness: 1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake." 2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours. 3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us. 4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all." 5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic." 6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free foodstamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!! 7. Good news you will get a $1000 rebate that will help cover the cost of all your new freebees; oh but before you spend it, remember you have now just had your 2001 tax cut eliminated so if you make $30,000 per year you now have to pay $1650 more in taxes so you owe the government $650 — sorry ....did you misunderstand what Obama said before the election? 8. You will be happy to know that you now get new and improved health medical care coverage from your employer unfortunately since your employer has to pay for this somehow under the new government mandate we will have to eliminate 10% of all jobs and freeze wages for the next year...and you thought a minimal tax of Medicare and health care benefits proposed by that McCain character was for real... well your taxes will go up only 2% to pay for the government sponsored programs for those people that are not as fortunate as you and don't go to work... remember "REDISTRIBUTION" is the new word for CHANGE !!!! 9. If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink why in the hell you voted the way you did on November 4th. Tough luck I guess — go live in Australia. The Management (e.g. The Government) Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
RETRACING THE NAZI BOOK THEFT: GERMAN LIBRARIES HOLD THOUSANDS OF LOOTED VOLUMES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 25, 2008. |
|
This was written by Michael Sontheimer and it published in Der Spiegel
|
|
Hundreds of thousands of book stolen by the Nazis are still in German libraries. A few librarians are acting like detectives, searching for the books and hoping to return them to the former owners or their families. However, many libraries have shown little interest in the troubling legacy tucked away on their shelves. Book, books, nothing but books. Detlef Bockenkamm is walking along a long shelf in the storage room at Berlin's Central and Regional Library. Suddenly he stops and says: "This is where we have the Accession J collection." The letter J refers to Jews. The curator has collected more than 1,000 books here, enough to stretch almost 40 meters (130 feet) if they were lined up next to each other. Bockenkamm and a colleague combed through old documents, checked files and studied records documenting the receipt of books. They eventually discovered that these volumes were stored at the City Pawn Office in Berlin in the spring of 1943. The records indicate that the city library purchased "more than 40,000 volumes from the private libraries of evacuated Jews" through this office. And, this being Germany, the librarians maintained meticulous record books to keep track of their purchases — even though parts of the German capital were already in ruins. As always, preserving order was paramount. The librarians signed each volume and gave it an accession number, beginning with the letter J. Bockenkamm even found children's books marked with the letter J. One was titled "For Our Youth: A Book of Entertainment for Israelite Boys and Girls." The book contained the handwritten dedication: "For my dear Wolfgang Lachmann, in friendship, Chanuka 5698, December 1937." Bockenkamm has been unable to find out what happened to the boy. But he did manage to trace the former owner of a book titled "The Rose of Sharon — Stories and Poems for Older Jewish Youth." A rabbi gave the book, bound in green linen, to a young girl from Berlin, in recognition of her "diligence and good conduct" in religious school. The girl's name was Adele Hoffnung, and she was deported to Minsk on Nov. 14, 1941. Adele did not survive the Holocaust. For Bockenkamm, the bureaucratic, administratively correct implementation of the great Nazi book theft was "disgustingly sleazy." But he also derives satisfaction from the fact that he is now able to prepare an exhibition on the Nazi looted books for the Berlin Central and Regional Library. Every larger German library still has hundreds of these books in its inventory, books snatched up by the men of the SS and SA, as well as ordinary soldiers, both in Germany and in other European countries occupied by the German armed forces, the Wehrmacht, during World War II. No one knows how many stolen books are still on the shelves in German libraries today, although experts, like historian Görz Aly, estimate that there are at least one million. These silent witnesses of Nazi crimes are not as spectacular as the stolen paintings that have become the subject of bitter restitution battles waged in full view of the public. The books, after all, are not Picassos worth millions in the art market. Nevertheless, Germany's Federal Commissioner for Culture Bernd Neumann believes that museum employees and librarians have an obligation "to devote particular attention to the search for those cultural goods that were stolen or extorted from the victims of Nazi barbarism." Neumann points out that, more than just "material value," what is at issue here is "the invaluable emotional importance that these objects have when it comes to remembering the fates of individuals and families." For decades, libraries asked no questions about the origins of the books that were added to their inventories during the Nazi era. Many librarians approached the issue "sluggishly and reluctantly," says Salomon Korn, the vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. To this day, many libraries have not systematically searched for stolen books in their inventories. 'A Fundamental Task for Libraries' The Lower Saxony State and University Library, in the city of Göttingen, is proud of its state-of-the-art robotic scanner. It is a pioneer nationwide when it comes to digitization. But despite its seeming progressiveness, the library seems to have less of an interest in the past. It was an intern who at the end of last year first peered into the dusty accession books from the World War II years. What Arno Barnert found were deliveries from the Wehrmacht's "loot warehouses" in Göttingen. He found accessions from the Polish cities of Krakow and Poznan, the Polish consulate in Leipzig and a high school in the Dutch town of Enschede. Books once owned by the Viennese Goethe expert Friedrich Fischl, who was deported in 1941 and murdered in the ghetto of Lodz, Poland, were recorded as a "purchase." Barnert notified the library management. A few days later, the intern received a visit from the library director, who advised the young man not to make the Nazi loot the subject of his thesis. Barnert was told that if he did decide to do so, he would not be making any friends and would not exactly be improving his prospects of getting a job. He might even be seen as a whistleblower, the director said. But Barnert continued his search. "Documenting the paths and histories of books that were acquired in the Nazi period is a fundamental task for libraries, a question of ethics," he says. In February, Barnert began collaborating with Frank Möbus, a Göttingen specialist in German studies who was in the process of preparing an exhibit about book burning. Möbus found documents in the city archives proving that in March 1933, members of the SA, together with police officers, confiscated 890 books from a communist bookseller in Göttingen. Some of the books went to the National Library in Berlin and some to the University Library in Göttingen. Möbus notified the administration of the University of Göttingen, which decided to conduct a search for Nazi loot in the library as part of a research project. Ironically, intern Barnert was forced to listen to his supervisor loudly accuse him of having ignored the proper channels. The proper channels have always been dear to German bureaucrats, and they were observed by German librarians, who documented the stolen books even amidst the chaos of World War II. The records show, for instance, that the Prussian State Library passed on stolen books to 31 university libraries. The book thieves' initial goal was to develop and expand libraries and, as the war raged on, to replace inventories that had been destroyed. A number of organizations took part in the hunt for books. They included the intelligence service of the SS, the Gestapo and the staff of Alfred Rosenberg, the "Führer's Commissioner for the Supervision of the Entire Intellectual and Ideological Training and Education of the Nazi Party." Jews were not the only ones to fall victim to the Nazi book thieves. Berlin curator Bockenkamm found three books stamped "Karl Marx House, Trier." A call to the western German city of Trier revealed that the books had been sent to Berlin for an exhibition in the early 1930s and were never returned. Employees at the Duchess Anna Amalia Library in the eastern city of Weimar identified 440 books that were once in workers' libraries founded by Social Democrats and labor unions. There were about 2,500 of these libraries, with more than one million books altogether. Most of them went missing and were probably destroyed. The book thieves were able to expand their range of operations considerably after the war began. German occupiers in Eastern Europe raided 375 archives, 957 libraries, 402 museums and 531 research and educational institutions. They were also active in France, as the odyssey of sheet music once owned by the pianist Arthur Rubinstein shows. The history of the copies and prints of these works of various composers, some with personal dedications, mirrors the catastrophes of the 20th century. Rubinstein, who was born in the Polish city of Lodz and immigrated to Paris, fled to the United States in the fall of 1939. When the Wehrmacht occupied the French capital in June 1940, members of the "Reich Director Rosenberg Task Force" confiscated his sheet music and had it sent to the German Reich's intelligence headquarters in Berlin. In 1945, members of the Red Army confiscated the music and took it to the Soviet Union. When the music was sent to East Germany in the 1950s as part of a program to return German cultural assets, it ended up in the music department of the National Library in East Berlin, where no one recognized its value and it eventually gathered dust. It was only in 2003, 21 years after Rubinstein's death, that librarians conducting research in Moscow's Glinka Museum discovered who the former owner of the music was. Two-and-a-half years ago, representatives of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation handed over the music to Rubinstein's children in New York. Such finds and returns are the exception. Indeed, most stolen books are still undiscovered. Because libraries are constantly passing on duplicate copies to other libraries and exchanging books, the books stolen by the Nazis are now spread throughout Germany. "This explains why even the new technical colleges in eastern Germany may have such books," says Annette Gerlach of the Central and State Library in Berlin. In 1991, Klaus von Münchhausen, a political scientist in the city state of Bremen, was one of the first to suggest searching for stolen books. He criticized the city's state library for having many books on its shelves that had once been stolen from Jews. The Bremen Senate hired a retired senior official from the state Education Ministry to conduct the search, and she found 1,555 books recorded in the accession book for 1942. Some entries included the notation "Gift from the Nazi Party," while others were marked "J.A." — Jew Auction. Most of the books had been confiscated from Jewish emigrants who were boarding ships to go abroad. It was possible to identify the former owners of about 300 of the books. In early December 1998, a representative of the German government, together with representatives of 43 other nations, signed a document outlining 11 basic principles. The signatories to the "Washington Conference," vowed to search for works of art "that were seized by the Nazis and never returned," as well as the heirs of such stolen goods. But little has happened in libraries since then. When stolen goods experts at the Lower Saxony State Library in Hannover sent a questionnaire to roughly 600 libraries via the German Library Association, only about 10 percent replied. To date, only 14 libraries have officially registered their stolen goods. Even large university libraries, such as those in Frankfurt, Kassel and Heidelberg, have not yet begun to systematically search for stolen goods in their inventories. In most cases, the institutions blame a lack sufficient funding and personnel to conduct the costly and time-consuming searches. Accession books must be examined, and then all books taken in after 1933 must be searched for information identifying libraries, names, ownership stamps and other clues. In large libraries, the number of "suspicious books" ranges into the hundreds of thousands. Even the Berlin State Library, Germany's biggest library, took its time before beginning a serious search effort three years ago. "They had to be dragged to the search," says Werner Schroeder, an expert on Nazi loot in the northwestern city of Oldenburg. "They apparently wanted to avoid being associated with the Nazi foray throughout all of Europe." 'Sitting in the Stacks Like Corpses in the Cellar' Only seven years after the signing of the Washington Conference, a student discovered, while conducting research for his master's thesis, that the Berlin State Library owns more than 10,000 stolen books as well as another 9,000 volumes that were more than likely confiscated by the Nazis. There are probably even more, because the current library succeeded the Prussian State Library, which played a central role in the Nazis' book confiscation program. All books that were seized anywhere in the country had to be offered to the library first. The "Reich Exchange Office," which worked closely with the library, also became a transfer station for stolen books during the war. Because of bombing raids on Berlin, the accession department at the national library was evacuated to Hirschberg — now the Polish city of Jelenia Góra — in the foothills of the Giant Mountains in the spring of 1944. Many of the intake documents are still in Jelenia Góra today, where a historian has been reviewing them since the end of last year. "We spent too much time complaining about our own losses and looking to Russia," Annette Gerlach of the Central and State Library in Berlin says, not without self-criticism. But, she adds, it is now time for her and her colleagues to finally do their homework. "These books are sitting in the stacks like corpses in a cellar," says Salomon Korn of the Central Council of Jews. Of course, he adds, more has to be done, especially in a matter that involves clearing up the "Nazi's confiscation crimes." The University of Marburg Library is the only large German library that has now carefully examined almost all of its books from the period in question. As a result, the library has been able to return many books to the heirs of their former owners. In many cases, heirs can no longer be found. Then the books remain in the libraries, and their histories are documented in the card catalogue. And then there are cases like that of Isac Seligmann. A user at the Berlin State Library found a volume of an encyclopedia titled "Religion in History and the Present Day," which had a bookplate indicating that it had belonged to the Jewish theologian. Library staff managed to find his widow in Israel. "I appreciate your offer to return this book to me," Marion Seligmann
wrote from Jerusalem, "but I have no use for it now."
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
DO YOU HAVE A TOUGH QUESTION YOU'D LIKE TO ASK THE WHITE HOUSE?
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 25, 2008. |
|
World Net Daily (WND)'s MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance.
|
|
Ayers' influence off-limits at news briefing 'No comment' to question about Obama's terrorism links The influence that unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has over Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, a potential future president, is off-limits at White House news briefings. "That's it. I'm not going to answer it," Dana Perino, the president's spokeswoman, told Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, just as he had begun asking a question. Kinsolving had opened with a question about U.S. Secret Service bans on security clearances for individuals with known associations with terrorists. "This morning a spokesman for the Secret Service told me that to be an agent you have to have a Bachelor's degree, three years in law enforcement, and undergo a complete background check. When I asked if the applicant had any record of association with terrorists, I was told that would not be tolerated. And my first question is, is that the White House office's understanding of the qualifications to be a Secret Service agent?" he asked. "I have never spent time to go through the qualifications for Secret Service agents. I just trust that they know what they're doing," Perino said. "And then considering the Obama-Ayers association," Kinsolving started. "Okay, that's it. I'm not going to answer it," Perino said. " ... Senator Obama would not be qualified to be his own bodyguard?" Kinsolving finished. "I'm not going to answer it," Perino said, moving immediately to another reporter's question.
WND HAS REPORTED MANY DEFENDERS OF AYERS, THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND CO-FOUNDER and longtime Obama acquaintance, have sought to minimize his bomb attacks on the U.S. Capitol and other landmarks because they purportedly did not target people. But a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claimed he witnessed a meeting in which members discussed a future communist takeover of America in which some 25 million "diehard capitalists" would need to be killed. Larry Grathwohl recalled his experience in the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide," noted the weblog Confederate Yankee. In a session with members of the radical group, founded in 1969, Grathwohl said discussion centered on a future in which the communist nations of Cuba, North Korea, China and the Soviet Union would occupy various parts of the U.S., with "re-education centers" established in the Southwest to prevent counterrevolution. "I asked, 'Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?' And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated." Republican John McCain's presidential campaign has made Ayers an issue, charging Obama has had ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, including service together on two nonprofit boards. Critics also maintain Obama's political career was launched at the home of Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, also a former Weather Underground leader. Ayers, now a college professor, has said in interviews over the past decade he has no remorse for his 1970s terrorist activities, declaring he only wished he could have done more. Grathwohl, who worked as an operative for law enforcement agencies in Cincinnati, said when he pursued the genocide issue further, the Weather Underground members "estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers." "And when I say 'eliminate,' I mean 'kill,'" he continued.
"Twenty-five million people."
IN THE PHILADELPHIA BULLETIN, COLUMNIST DANIEL PIPES ASSERTED OBAMA'S PAST ASSOCIATES COULD BE VIEWED AS DISQUALIFYING FOR A SECURITY CLEARANCE. "Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its 'consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism," he wrote. Do you have a tough question you'd like to ask the White House? WND's MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance. Previous stories: Ayers' group foresaw genocide of capitalists
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
"OBAMA, "WHITE SUPREMACY AND ALL THAT JAZZ
Posted by Ted Belman, October 25, 2008. |
|
Barack Hussein Obama would have us believe that Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood" and that Rev Wright "preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life ... the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn." Would, that it was true. [Great VIDEO on the United Socialist States of America. A vote for
Obama will bring this about.
The truth of the matter is that both Ayers and Wright blame white supremacy for the troubles of the world and that Obama was and is in agreement with them. Ayers and Dohrn just published a new book 'White supremacy' responsible for America's troubles." Amazon summarizes the core of the book as "Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days — and that it is still very much with us — the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education," WorldnetDaily reviews this book and adds, "a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claims he participated in a discussion in which members of the group Ayers and Dohrn co-founded, the Weather Underground, discussed a future communist takeover of the United States in which 25 million "diehard capitalists" would need to be killed to prevent counterrevolution." It reports on one commenter "Bill Ayers 'gets it.' Here's what he understands: One strategy to undermine culture is to discredit its values and history. Of course, reducing American history to a simplistic notion of 'white supremacy' is absurd, but that's the point. The point is to slowly undermine the confidence of people about the values and history of their own culture so they'll be less willing to defend and protect it. Along the way, you've also created a structure of 'them' (so-called 'white' people, meaning, in this context, people from western and northern Europe) and 'us' (everyone else). This creates internal conflict based on simple, easy to understand qualities like skin color. Now Rev Wright's church, the one Obama attended for twenty years, is wedded to "Black Liberation Theology" which found its radical, revolutionary roots in the sixties as did Ayers. Kyle-Anne Shiver's "Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx" makes the connection "Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam." They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims." "Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)So where does Obama fit into all this? In Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father.. he writes * "I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE" It is immediately apparent that Obama, at a gut level, is rooted in Black Liberation Theology and Farrakhan's the Nation of Islam. William Ayers and all radical leftists/socialists/Communists find common cause with them. Moving right along. All these revolutionaries follow the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. In Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism, IDB advises, A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities." Ryan Lizza, in March '07, filled in more of the reality in The Agitator [Obama's] teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation" — making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent." This is how Obama trained ACORN and why he supports them. He needs them to bring on the revolution. Far from being a mainstream Democrat, as Obama presently positions himself, he is a dedicated revolutionary. BEWARE. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
WHAT SARAH PALIN TAUGHT US ABOUT OURSELVES
Posted by Avodah, October 24, 2008. |
|
This is entitled "An Instructive Candidacy" and it was written by
Victor Davis Hanson. It appeared in the National Review
article.nationalreview.com/print/?q= MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M= |
|
Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin. Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves. First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin's career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama's own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago. So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama's current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president. Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin's falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama's own falling in with those who ran Chicago. While Gov. Palin's frequent college transfers and Idaho degree are an item of snickering among pundits, none of them can claim to care much about Barack Obama's own undergraduate career. To suggest that he release his undergraduate transcript is near blasphemy; to scribble that Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child was not her own is journalism as we now know it. To care that Joe Biden is vain, with bleached teeth, the apparent recipient of some sort of strange facial tightening tonic, and hair plugs is deservedly mean and petty; to sneer that the Alaskan mom of five bought a new wardrobe to run for Vice President is, of course, vital proof for the American voter of her vanity and shallowness. Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves. Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees. So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin's critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska. We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin's Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour — or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League. Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric. Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol' Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket. Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden's gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush. Sobriety? Biden now admits that dangerous powers abroad will immediately test a President Obama. He warns that the results of such a crisis will be very disappointing to the American electorate, and thus Team Obama/Biden will need loyal supporters to rally as their polls sink. Yet remember that Biden himself has been a fierce and opportunistic critic of Bush, who despite a frenzy of congressional demagoguery, initiated the successful surge and ignored the very polls that the for-the-war/against-the-war Biden so carefully tracked. More importantly, if an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Putin ever had any doubts about carving out new spheres of uncontested influence, they may entertain very few now. Veracity? If one were to think that Biden's past brushes with plagiarism, inflated bios, and falsehood were exceptional rather than characteristic, the last two months confirmed otherwise. For all the false recall, it is hard to remember anything he said in his Palin debate that was true, whether describing the status of Hezbollah in Lebanon or his own past remarks about the wisdom of burning coal. Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — "John McAmerica," "a Palin-McCain administration," "Senator George Obama," "Congressman Joe Biden," who is both "good looking," and "drop-dead gorgeous." Or "I guarantee you, John McCain ain't taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I'm not bad with it. So give me a break." Or "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Or "Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me." The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality. I don't know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry's pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PROUD JEW, PROUD ISRAELI
Posted by GWY, October 24, 2008. |
|
This was written by Yishai Fleisher and it appeared as an Opinion
piece in Arutz-Sheva
Yishai Fleisher is the Director of Programming and show host at Israel National Radio. He is also the co-founder of Kumah, a pro-Aliyah grass-roots movement. |
|
Division between "Israeli" and "Jew" is artificial This article may seem at first to be dealing with nothing more than semantics. But in this case, we are dealing with words pertaining to our very identity. Our identity is the way we perceive ourselves and broadcast that perception to others. The name we are given and words we use to describe ourselves are fundamental to our identity. In an interview with Haaretz journalist Daniel Ben Simon the day following Shimon Peres' defeat to Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1996 election, the following exchange took place: Interviewer: "What happened in these elections?" According to the Peres model, there are two publics in Israel: the 'Israeli' and the 'Jew'. 'Israeli' represents the New Jew, free from the constraints of religion and free of the "Galut mentality." This individual has thrown off the baggage of two thousand years of exile and has now taken his rightful place amongst the nations as an equal. He has developed a new culture, a mix of East and West; and while he speaks Hebrew, he is a citizen of the world and feels that Israel's greatest mission is to achieve normalcy and equality amongst the nations. Peres' 'Jew', on the other hand, stubbornly retains his religious observance. The 'Jew' tends toward political isolationism and in his ignorance he is willing to disregard world opinion. The troublesome 'Jew' supports the continued "occupation" or "settlement" of Judea and Samaria, thereby retarding all progress towards peace. The 'Jew' is some kind of relic that needs to be cleared away so that a "New Middle East" can be born. The 'Jew' even has the audacity to fight for his land, not to mention for his life. Recently, Yair Lapid, the son and heir of the anti-religious Shinui party founder Tommy Lapid, with no trace of brotherly love, eulogized the "Jews" of Judea and Samaria by saying the following: "These people create a situation whereby, when the day comes, and the agreements are signed on the lawn in Washington, it will be easier to give up this land, which isn't really ours; this land where not only the laws and landscape are different, but also the people." This is yet another example of the linguistic and anthropological paradigm which we have been taught: the progressive and the regressive are two very different people living in the same parcel of land. One is 'Israeli' while the other is an outsider; he is the 'Jew'. The division between the Israeli and the Jew is artificial, counter-productive, and anti-Jewish. Our leaders should always be striving to strengthen the bonds that unite every Jew in the world — especially in this time of renewed anti-Semitism and the world jihad. So why do people like Peres and Lapid utilize the 'Jew' versus 'Israeli' paradigm? Because the distinction between 'Jew' and 'Israeli' was created by them and their post-Zionist cohorts. By blaming the 'Jew', they seek to create a scapegoat for their failed attempts to make peace by manipulating the public and giving away our country. By diverting the spotlight away from their own ineptitude and corruption, they stay in power. Furthermore, cowardly people who are prepared to give away the heart of Israel to our sworn enemies feel threatened by fellow countrymen who represent bravery and a will to survive. For post-Zionists like Peres and Lapid, the woman who happily raises her kids in Judea and Samaria is a constant reminder of their own gutlessness, leading them to develop a burning hate for the pioneering and strong 'Jew'. The irony of it all is that in today's Israel, the 'Jew' is the new 'Israeli'. Israel was supposed to be the breeding ground for a strong new Hebrew who does not cower. Yet in today's Israel, it is the secular-post-Zionist-left which is the cowering Jew being led to the slaughter. The religious settler is now the emancipated Israeli, bedecked with side locks and tzitzit, and armed with the classic fundamentals of Zionist ideology; that is, to ingather, to build, and to settle the land of Israel. In a cynical and cunning fashion, the post-Zionists are attempting to take away 'Israeli' identity from those parts of society which still retain the true 'Israeli' and Zionist spirit. By branding strong Israelis as 'the Jews', post-Zionists are trying to marginalize and denigrate that segment of society. The division between Jew and Israeli works to their advantage. Sadly, after the Disengagement, many of the 'Jews' have also embraced the very same 'Jew' versus 'Israeli' lingo. While it is not commonplace, some religious Zionists proclaim: "I am not a Tzioni, leave that for the Israelis, those who kick Jews out of homes and bash our children's heads in Amona like Cossacks." Without realizing it, the religious Zionist who embraces the 'Jew' vs. 'Israeli' lexicon is a victim of a propaganda aimed at destroying him by cutting him off from the state he helped build and defend. Instead of relinquishing his Israeli identity, he would be better off saying the truth: it is the post-Zionists who have lost their Israeli self. The strong Jews of Israel are the real Israelis. The word 'Israel' has been hijacked and has been made merely to reflect an identity of citizenship. However, while Israel is indeed the name of our country, it is much more than that. It is the name of our people. Our familial and tribal name is Israel. Our Book of Collective Memory tells us that we are all sons and daughters of While Israel is indeed the name of our country, it is much more than that. one man named Jacob, who was renamed Israel: "Then G-d said to him, 'Your name is Jacob, your name shall not be called Jacob any longer, but Israel shall be your name.' Thus he called his name Israel." (Genesis 35:10) (Israeli Arabs are not Israeli, and how could they be? Israel is a name set aside for the people of Israel. Arabs who live here can be called "Arabs with citizenship of the State of Israel", but they are certainly not 'Israelis'. Ask them and they will tell you the same thing.) Israel is the country that we have built. We, the Children of Israel, have returned to our land and have built a prosperous and healthy country in which Torah flourishes alongside advanced farming, life-saving medicine and computers. Are these things in contradiction? Of course not. We are one nation, reuniting on one land, speaking one language. We are Israel. I am Israeli, because for two-thousand years of exile I was the Jew, a lone speck traveling through time just to arrive at this point of redemption. I am no doubt Jewish, and I love Judaism. But I am even prouder that I have been given the great opportunity, the Jewish dream of two thousand years, to live in Israel and to help build it into the wonderful and holy country that it will one day be. Nobody is going to take away my hard-earned right to be an equal member of Israeli society. Nobody is going to take from me my country and my identity. And certainly I am not going to relinquish my name Israel and give it to those who have forgotten what Israel is really all about. Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
OBAMA CAMPAIGN DEMANDS BAN ON REPUBLICAN JEWISH GROUP, ESCALATES THUGGISH INTIMIDATION
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 24, 2008. |
|
Can Obama and his supporters reach even new lows? I think so.
This was written Omri Ceren and published in Mere Rhetoric
Omri Ceren is a PhD student studying Rhetoric at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. He lives in downtown Los Angeles. Email him at omri@mererhetoric.com |
|
Obama shill Mel Levine has never been shy about throwing around his AIPAC credentials. That's a good strategy given how his pro-Obama arguments are mindbogglingly stupid, but it does beg a question: given how the Obama campaign is on the attack against AIPAC, aren't Levine's credentials kind of a bad thing? Maybe someone should ask him about that. Not a Republican though, because they're not allowed: Barack Obama's campaign has decided advisers and representatives of the Democratic nominee for president will no longer debate officials from the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). This prohibition led Wednesday to the canceling of a debate scheduled for Sunday at Valley Cities Jewish Community Center in Van Nuys organized by the Council of Israeli Community in Los Angeles [CIC]. Larry Greenfield, California director of the RJC, said he still plans to show up. His counterpart, former Rep. Mel Levine, who is a Middle East adviser for Obama, will not participate in what would have been his fourth debate with Greenfield. That's the nice way to describe it. What actually happened is that the Obama campaign demanded that the CIC ban Greenfield from the debate as a condition for their participation. They're doing the same thing all over the country: no preconditions for meeting Iran but thuggish demands before they'll sit down with American Jews. And they're getting really good at this game: have someone spend months organizing a non-partisan event, pull their people out right at the end, and then shriek about partisanship. The only thing left is for them to threaten legal action. Then it would be a perfect replay of how they detonated the anti-Ahmadinejad rally. The CIC, for its part, is pissed: "It will be perceived as they are chickening out from a debate and they are ignoring the Israeli community and don't want to face the truth that the McCain campaign is putting out," Linder said. "You are leaving Larry on a stage to put out the information he wants without being rebutted. The Israeli community needs to hear, face to face, both sides, so that people can decide who they want to vote for." The Obama campaign is saying that they won't debate because of the RJC's "continual dishonesty." Which would already be incoherent if the RJC was actually being dishonest — in democracies, debates are exactly how we settle these things. But it's an especially disingenuous move given how the RJC's accusations are demonstrably true: "My appearing with him gives him a prominence that he doesn't deserve," Levine said when asked about the cancellation Wednesday afternoon by the Journal. "The RJC's tactics have been continually dishonest, and the campaign has made a decision to not keep getting on the same stage with them." Levine pointed specifically to the RJC's constant attacks on Israel-critic Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is an Obama foreign policy adviser but not concerning Obama's Israel policy, and its claims that Obama would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Indeed, Obama has said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations, but Ahmadinejad, a rabid anti-Semite, isn't the head of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is. Two things going on here. One, the Obama campaign is embarrassingly pathetic when it comes to addressing the valid concerns of American Jews. Two, they seem hell-bent on using their political power to prevent anyone from pointing that out. Nice to see Obama finally claiming Brzezinski. Last time the campaign got pushed on it, they trotted out Wexler to say that Brzezinski was "not an adviser to the campaign and has done no work for the campaign." So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then — and they knew just who to go to). But being almost honest doesn't make this argument any less asinine. Brzezinski believes that US tensions with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are caused by US support of Israel. So when Obama asks him how the US can repair relations with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia — what exactly do you think he's going to tell him? I'm also glad that Obama is finally admitting that he'd meet Iran without preconditions. For a while the campaign was claiming the opposite. So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then). But that doesn't make this version of the argument any more true. For the record: Levine is stealing this argument from Joe Klein, although Klein may have gotten a little help from elsewhere. It was a dumb argument then — but now? Come on. I know that the Obama campaign is using the Big Lie strategy to deal with Biden's anti-Israel record. But there's actual video and photographic proof that Obama promised to meet with Ahmadinejad. That's why Richardson — among others — explicitly criticized him for... wait for it... wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad. And if he did mean that he'd meet Khamenei without preconditions? That's somehow better? Khamenei has repeatedly declared that Iran is trying to wipe out Israel. He openly supports Ahmadinejad as the President of Iran. He's trying to make sure that Ahmadinejad stays the President of Iran. This is the "dishonesty" that justifies banning conservative Jewish Americans from democratic forums? It'd be nice if the Obama campaign's attempted thuggish ban was just because they were afraid to defend their awful arguments. But this is more basic: the Obama campaign is silencing opponents because it can. They've been using legal threats to shut down events and kill political messages that they don't like. They're not even in power yet and they're already threatening political opponents with jail time. They brag about the organized mobs that they activate to "fight the good fight" and prevent critics from speaking out. In the meantime they are quite literally blackmailing political opponents into silence. Across the country, Obama's more enthusiastic partisans have taken to violently intimidating conservatives and destroying their property. Just yesterday they demanded an FBI investigation into the FBI investigation of their ACORN allies. This is not a campaign that takes criticism well. So who knows — maybe Greenfield is lucky. The last citizen who had the temerity to publicly question the purity of The One was savagely destroyed by the press after Obama and Biden repeatedly stocked the fire by mocking him on globally-broadcast news stations. Little 12 year old girls are being viciously smeared for daring to look up to America's most successful female politician. From textbooks instructing students about Obama's "life of service" to illustrated children's books about "the name the whole world knows" to Obama Youth chanting and marching in lockstep to beatific children singing hymns about their Leader — let's just build a giant statue of him on a horse and get it over with. This election isn't about winning. As Obama's more honest supporters boast, they're in it to "crush the spirits" of social conservatives and foreign policy "neo-conservatives." Luckily "neo-conservative" is in no way a leftist code word for "pro-Israel Jew." So no cause for alarm. Memo to ostensibly pro-Israel Obama supporters: circa 2010 there are going to be headlines about the "severe crisis in US-Israel relations." You're not going to be able to say that you didn't know. References: ( Click here for links to articles) * Mel Levine's Defense Of Obama: He'll Make Obsessed Anti-Israel Lunatics Love The US. Presumably By Magic. [MR]
Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
TRUTH ABOUT SADDAM'S NUCLEAR WMD: URANIUM YELLOW-CAKE FOUND IN IRAQ
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 24, 2008. |
|
President George W. Bush is often criticized and accused of lying about Saddam Hussein's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) including NBC (Nuclear, Chemical and Biological) weapons. Saddam's development, possession of and use of WMD have been proven. Saddam used Chemical and Poison Gas on his own Kurdish people, murdering thousands. The following stories finally prove that he had nuclear weapons capability and we know he had the will to use it based on his own statements. America attacked and destroyed Saddam's evil empire based on these known WMD. Now we can see the proof. -------------- When the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) of December 3, 2007 was issued, Media headlines claimed that Iran had "ceased" its nuclear development, a smell wafted up that government insiders working against the Administration as Leftist moles. When you read the following, the lights should turn on as to the workings of a "Shadow Government" epi-centered in the U.S. State Department among the pacifists. On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled:
The opening paragraph is as follows: The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellow-cake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy. It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq . They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site. This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide. This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said, "The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy". Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife. Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger . The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof. During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in 'expanding commercial relations' for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger . However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003. Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush. Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger . The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements. It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told. Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was 'unequivocally wrong.' Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004. Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage — no friend of the Bush administration — who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years. The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no long er a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get. As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say
that, 'Bush lied,' we should tell them to, 'Have the yellowcake and
eat it too.' This story was verified, if you want to check it for
yourself, goto
The following stories finally prove Summary of the eRumor: Various commentaries and news agency reports about radio active concentrates of uranium known as "yellow-cake" being secretly transported from Iraq to a base in Canada. The Truth: This eRumor started circulating in August, 2008. "Yellow-cake" (or "yellow-cakes") is a concentrate of uranium that results from the refinement of uranium ore. It is used for making fuel for nuclear power plants and for use in nuclear weapons. According to published reports including CBS news, the United States secretly moved a huge stockpile of yellow-cake in early August, 2008, from Iraq to Canada, partly to keep it from falling into the hands of either terrorists or foreign governments such as Iran. The operation was reportedly more than a year in the making and took three months to execute. It included carrying 3,500 barrels of yellow-cake by road from Baghdad, then flying them on 37 military flights to an atoll in the Indian Ocean, then carrying them aboard a U.S. ship bound for Montreal. In all, it added up to more than 500 metric tons of material from Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. The Iraqi government sold the yellow-cake to a Canadian uranium company and it will be used in Ontario, Canada, for use in nuclear reactors. A CBS report said, "And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellow-cake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration. " Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellow-cake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions. What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine. "Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. While yellow-cake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellow-cake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. The Iraqi government sold the yellow-cake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellow-cake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors. "We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellow-cake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said. Secret mission The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal. And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellow-cake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration. Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts. Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellow-cake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellow-cake dating from after 1991, the official said. U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellow-cake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns. Yellow-cake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say. "The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellow-cake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine. Hurdles ahead of hauling yellow-cake Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellow-cake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact. Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington. An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellow-cake on cargo planes. But the yellow-cake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said. At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellow-cake from the Saddam-era containers — some leaking or weakened by corrosion — and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels. In April, truck convoys started moving the yellow-cake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base. On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation. The yellow-cake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha. Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said. The yellow-cake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites. The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise. Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced. But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years." The yellow-cake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington. A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellow-cake from Niger. A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of
perjury and obstruction of justice.
Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
WHO MISSED WHAT IN THE CAMPAIGN?; WHO'S PICKING THOSE OLIVES?; THE CAMPAIGN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 24, 2008. |
|
SUBTLE NASTINESS Nobody else seems to have noticed a subtle piece of nasty campaigning by Obama. In the debates, he stressed addressing the needs of the 21st century. But this is the end of the 8th year of the 21st century, so references to that century as a new one are old hat. Nor is there anything particularly different about the years after 2000 from the years before 2001. The proper way to campaign would be to refer to specific, recent or changing conditions. I take Obama's reference to the current century as an indirect dig at his older rival. WHO MISSED WHAT, IN THE CAMPAIGN? I heard no further reference to Sen. Biden's smear of Gov. Palin as disparaging the patriotism of certain areas. His audience believed him and his emotional rebuttal of her. Her actual statement was about the same that he, himself, made as an answer to her. I'm still wondering whether his staff misunderstood what she said and didn't check or whether he deliberately smeared her. Didn't anybody inform her of what he did? If yes, one would think she would call him up and inform him of the error. She should ask him to correct his error and exonerate her publicly, preferably with her standing by. If he refused, then she should make a big thing of his smear, for by keeping his gain from what may originally been an error, he'd be very unethical. She would conclude, no more Mr. Nice Guy Biden. She might add, isn't he the pit bull! INGENUOUS INTELLECTUALS I come across liberals who are supposed to be sophisticated and intellectual. At least they look down upon ordinary people. But they believe what they read that jibes with what they have read in the same sources, before. Like inbreeding. I learned as a boy that there may be more than one or two sides to a story and not to put my trust in the written word. WRONG WAY TO SET REPUTATION IN HISTORY As U.S. presidents wear out their welcome, they seek a dramatic breakthrough in foreign policy, to leave a favorable legacy. Often that breakthrough would be at the expense of Israel, an ally of the US, and to the profit of the Islamists, enemies of the US. That is not a breakthrough but a break down! It is poor thinking. It supposes that if the historians judge him negatively for it, at least his contemporary media will persuade the public that he accomplished something. But it would bring war fast. Must we be harmed by this inability to talk straight and think straight? Are we so easily gulled? OBAMA VS. MCCAIN ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT "Shalem Center Fellow Michael Oren, writing in Forbes Magazine," ... " pointed out that Sen. McCain favors moving the American embassy to Jerusalem while Sen. Obama has left his position unclear." "Obama, on the other hand, has expressed reservations about Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank, while McCain has overlooked the matter." "McCain has called on the Palestinian Authority to live up to its obligations to clamp down on terror, but Obama has stopped short of making such a demand. Obama has supported Israel's ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza and its peace talks with Syria; McCain opposes both," Oren added. At first, Obama said he favors an undivided Jerusalem. Within a day, after having received criticism from American Arabs [who had planned to vote for him], he admitted that he favors dividing Jerusalem. [His excuse was a transparent dissimulation, based on his wording and weasel-worded logic.] McCain cites the terrorists' approval of Obama(Arutz-7, 10/16). That does not mean they know something we don't. McCain's views are specific and pro-Zionist. Obama's are vague and anti-Zionist. However, If McCain really understood Israel and the menace of Islamism, he would demand that the US terminate subsidies to the P.A. and stop supporting statehood for it. WHO'S PICKING WHOSE OLIVES? Women In Green planned a gala at a former Army base that the government wants to turn over to the Arabs in Judea-Samaria. Women In Green want the Jewish people to keep it. As the Arabs describe this, they want to plant a colony. [How does one plant a colony in one's homeland?] The Arabs accuse settlers of attacking them, under protection of the Army. The reverse often is true. They attack settlers under protection of the Army. [The Muslim Arabs usually say the opposite of the truth, as did their allies, the Nazis and Soviets.] About 20 Arabs and Israeli anarchists raided Jews' houses at the outpost, Chursha. They succeeded by means of a ruse. " ... they told police that they had come to harvest olives. The police then notified Chursha's residents that officers and soldiers were escorting the Arabs to pick olives. Residents left to guard a nearby olive grove they had planted a few years ago, which Arabs claim is on their land. The assailants burned the living quarters and killed a puppy. A community security man held four fleeing perpetrators at bay until police arrived (Arutz-7, 10/17). Land claims should be resolved, but can't trust Israel to be fair to Jews. A "GOOD AMERICAN" SHOULD NOT BE A DEMAGOGUE Complaining that the Palin campaign aroused voters to hatred, Gail Collins wrote that Palin praised the pro-America areas of the country (NY Times, 10/23). Collins implies that Palin finds other areas anti-American. I didn't follow the campaign in detail. If I saw Palin encourage hatred, I would object. What I saw on TV was Biden, himself, accuse her of calling areas of the country bad Americans, and the same station contrast that with her actual words, praising all areas as replete with good Americans. She was unifying, he was divisive. Campaigns and journalists have a duty to quote accurately. Apparently its op-ed writers aren't up to the task. Actually, many Americans are not good Americans. They don't just disapprove of current policies. They hate their country. They deny their country the credit it does deserve. They are too sensitive to the criticisms of foreign leaders, who have their own axes to grind. POWELL'S PECULIAR PRAISE In endorsing Obama, former Sec. of State Powell was quoted by a letter to the NY Times as having argued that a Muslim child, as Obama was, is entitled to dream of becoming President. Powell indicated that nothing would be wrong if he did (10/23). I couldn't find that quote on the web, just that if Obama had been a Muslim, so what. I'll take up the issue on its merits. If Obama is, as the letter writer put it, a former Muslim, then he has been lying to the public in denying it. Why? What else is he covering up? Do we want to start out with dishonesty in a presidency? The evidence is clear that Obama once was a Muslim. Islam considers apostasy from Islam a capital crime that any Muslim may enforce by assassination. Thus, at first, as Powell supposes, the Muslim world may very well welcome an Obama administration. Then what, when they realize he is an apostate? As for an American Muslim child dreaming of becoming a President, should our country have as a President someone who believes in murder for different beliefs? Powell praises Muslim contributions to our society. He overlooks the increasing radicalism of Muslims here, their general approval of 9/11, and the global and historical effort by Muslims, citizens and from abroad to overthrow non-Muslim regimes, including ours. They want either to kill us or to repress our freedom. We would have to mistreat women the way they do. We would have to worship the way they do. Barbarism would replace the Bill of Rights. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
THE OBAMA ENIGMA
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, October 24, 2008. |
|
This was written by Victor Davis Hanson and it appeared
yesterday in Jewish World Review
|
|
Lame-duck Republican President Bush's dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman's when he left office. The Democratic majority in Congress will probably widen after the election. Republican nominee John McCain has not run a dynamic campaign. Gen. Colin Powell, George Bush's former secretary of state, has now enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama. The country is in two unpopular wars — amid the worst financial panic of the last 80 years. Not since prophet of change and newcomer Jimmy Carter ran against Gerald Ford (post Watergate and the lost Vietnam war) have voters been so eager for a shake-up. Why then is the charismatic Barack Obama not quite yet a shoo-in? Easy. Voters apparently still don't know who Obama is, or what he wants to do — and so are still not altogether sure that Obama is the proper antidote to George Bush. After more than a year of campaigning, he still remains an enigma. Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together. But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service." The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as "certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for." And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as "a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely." Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn't e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005, suggesting more than three years of communications — in a post-9/11 climate — after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing? Obama's campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN — an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised. Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions. Many of Obama's surrogates, from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Joe Biden, have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama's 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger? It's also unclear exactly what Obama's message of "hope" and "change" means. The hope part turned a little weird when Obama, in prophetic fashion, proclaimed, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and later put up Greek-temple backdrops for his speech at the Democratic convention. If we didn't get that supernatural message, Obama also promised of his election that it would be the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." And change? Obama himself has changed positions on FISA, NAFTA, campaign public financing, town-hall meetings with McCain, offshore drilling, nuclear and coal power, capital punishment and gun control, his characterization of Iran, the surge in Iraq, and the future of Jerusalem. So change from what to what? Under Sen. Obama's tax plan, nearly half of all income earners wouldn't pay federal income taxes. He also offers billions in cash payments to millions of those people. And he promises to pay for that loss in revenue by upping taxes on those in the highest income brackets, who already pay the majority of existing income taxes — and who could also be subject to proposed higher payroll, estate and capital gains taxes. Is that a tax-cut policy or more a redistribution of wealth in search of forced equality — what Obama himself apparently calls to "spread the wealth around" or what Biden once suggested was "patriotic"? A Martian who reviewed Obama's past elections in Illinois, the various associations he once cultivated, his brief voting record in the Senate, and the positions he originally outlined when he announced his presidential campaign might objectively conclude that America could elect either the most far left or the most unknown presidential candidate in its history. I just hope that it is still not racist or McCarthy-like — or blasphemous — simply to suggest that. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
THOUGHTS OUT OF SEASON II
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, October 24, 2008. |
|
What Israelis and Americans should know about the cravens and cretins who rule their countries: 1) Your enormous military power is zero since your enemy does not believe you will use it. 2) Your power is nothing if you do not strike fear in your enemy. It has rightly been said that ferocity is the ultimate guarantor of peace. 3) Since this is beyond your leaders, Osama bin Laden and the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thumb their noses on the Great Satan and the Little Satan. 4) How they will dance in joy when a fellow-Muslim enters the White House and converts it into a giant mosque! 5) Imagine his first "state of the union message," when he tells his "fellow Americans" the Sharia "supplement" the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. 6) How the liberal media will rush to report this "breaking news." The leaders of the ACLU will be silent, having been beheaded. 7) Hatred and uniformity will replace tolerance and pluralism in America. 8) Why can't Americans hate their enemies? Why can't Jews hate their enemies? How is it that Muslims hate not only all non-Muslims but even other Muslims? 9) Jacques-Benigne Boussuet, perhaps the greatest orator of the seventeenth century, said in his masterpiece Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture: "Those who love war, and make it to satisfy their ambition, are declared to be enemies of God." 10) Why can't Americans, why can't Jews understand this? Professor Paul Eidelberg an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached by email at list@foundation1.org |
|
EDITORIAL: What is ACORN?
Posted by UCI, October 24, 2008. |
| tThis is an Editorial from The Washington TImes. |
|
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is under investigation by state and federal authorities for its voter registration drives. Allegations are that ACORN's get-out-the-vote efforts have produced thousands of fraudulent registrations. The probes are encouraging; America wouldn't be in position to criticize other nations of ballot-stuffing if it permits the same at home. What's most encouraging, though, is that House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is calling for ACORN to be defunded. "The latest allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN are further evidence that this group cannot be trusted with another dollar of the taxpayers' money," he said. ACORN helped make the term "affordable housing" a Washington staple. So as the roots of the financial crisis are laid bare, take a hard look at ACORN. ACORN has its roots in the community-organization teachings of Saul Alinsky, who mobilized Chicago's stockyard workers in the 1930s. The organization was founded as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now by Wade Rathke, a protege of George Wiley, the civil-rights activist who later engineered the Poor People's Campaign with his founding of the National Welfare Reform Organization. After fighting for "motor-voter" registration in the 1990s, which allowed people to register to vote at departments of motor vehicles, ACORN began expanding its voter registration activities. Since 2004 it has come under scrutiny for producing thousands of fraudulent registrations, and 15 employees intent on exploiting their pay-per-registration policy to make money have been indicted or convicted of voter registration fraud. But it didn't start out that way. If the political left is an abstract concept for social justice and socialist sentiments, then ACORN is its avatar. ACORN's work has been primarily focused on affordable housing for low-income families first through community activism to force improvements to public housing. The group initially wanted to also increase welfare, which it succeeded in doing in cities across the country during the 1970s and 1980s, but the effort ultimately proved to be a failure. The concentrated pockets of poverty that resulted led to overwhelming crime that knew no borders; the residents themselves became easy prey for the criminal drug culture. In 1984, ACORN expanded widely, establishing chapters in a dozen cities and winning over poor and working-class members who took up the mantle for living wages and single-payer health care. ACORN also protested against insurance redlining issues. It also founded a political action committee and started radio stations and produced television programming. In 1991, ACORN began using its community organizing and protest activities to encourage homeownership, lobbying for banks to offer low-interest loans to people of limited financial means with little to no collateral. ACORN's work to defeat the weakening of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1991 found members protesting in the halls of Congress. Those efforts spurred anew their activity in voter registration and grass-roots political work. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A SMALL MODICUM OF HOPE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 24, 2008. |
|
The Shas party has announced that it will not be joining a coalition headed by Tzipi Livni. This decision was made by its Council of Sages; the announcement declared that it had demanded real aid for the poor and sought to protect Jerusalem: "We suggested solutions for the poverty issues and Jerusalem, but our opinion was not accepted..." I cannot but wonder what role Bibi Netanyahu played in all of this. Livni has announced that she will make her decision on Sunday as to whether to try to hobble together a narrow government, that is, one with a bare minimum of seats required, or to go to elections. Various advisors are telling her to go for elections and to hold tight. I'm betting she goes for elections. I certainly hope so. She is likely to opt for this because a narrow government is particularly prone to falling apart quickly. Labor had insisted that it wanted a stable government that would last two years. If she decides to go for elections, it will be two months until they take place, and — unless something totally unexpected happens — Bibi Netanyahu will be our next prime minister. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am including here a link to a speech given in New York on September 25, by Geert Wilders, who is another reason to have a modicum of hope. The situation he describes in his speech is grim — and should be noted seriously. The tendency in many quarters to make light of the realities he describes is cause for great concern. These facts need to be received by all with utmost seriousness, indeed alarm. But good things are also happening. In his speech, which was
sponsored by the Hudson Institute, Wilders — chairman of the Party
for Freedom in the Netherlands — introduced an Alliance of Patriots
and announced the Facing Jihad Conference to be held in Jerusalem in
December, promoted in part by MK Aryeh Eldad (NU/NRP). At long last a
response to the Jihadist threat is coalescing with seriousness.
~~~~~~~~~~ This is what Wilders — bless him! — says about Israel. Would that every American understood this: "The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense. "Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: 'Islam has bloody borders.' Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad...Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am hard at work on major material — on UNRWA — at this juncture, and so I ask your forbearance if my postings are somewhat less frequent or somewhere shorter than is my norm. I am finding I need at least six more hours in each day, but will do my best to post as I can. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am by nature an optimistic person. I certainly never give up the fight and never abandon hope — that is forbidden. But I confess a great heaviness of heart these days because I am witnessing the implosion of the US, both politically and economically. This is something I never imagined I would see. Perhaps, with the help of Heaven, the situation can be turned around. But please, please, do not write to me to tell me Obama brings great promise for good change, because I do not, cannot, accept this. Not remotely. Blessings of peace to all. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OUR LAND IS OCCUPIED BY ARABS
Posted by Eleazar ben-Yair, October 24, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Samson Blinder website and is archived at
|
|
Jews were given a considerable state by the Mandate. It was thought too much, and Britain took 3/4 of our country for some Bedouins in Jordan. The rest was also too much for Jews, and the UN halved our country for some Syrian Arabs who call themselves "Falestinian." Fine, we developed our patch of land from desert and marshes — and it, too, is thought too much for Jews. Now we must take in 1.5 million Arabs. What size of land larger than a cemetery is suitable for Jews? Americans have an entire country for themselves. Americans are not an ethnicity? Neither are Jews. Americans are not a religious group? What makes citizenship, an entirely artificial concept, better than religion in terms of legitimizing a group? If a group of (say, American) citizens can take a huge country all for themselves — and bar anyone else from freely moving in, even though most territory is not settled — why cannot another group, a religious one, take a minuscule country size of an American county — all for itself? I'm often asked if we're prepared to kill in order to achieve our ends. The assumption, invariably, is that killing is unimaginably abhorrent. This is nonsense. Every person save hardcore Quakers and cowardly peaceniks is prepared to kill for the sake of his nation, country, religion. European settlers in America — what, were they making health massage to the native Indians or slaughtering them? Russians in Chechnya, French in Algeria, British in Palestine, Germans in the World War I — were they not killing? Nations go out to kill over amazingly trivial issues: from the dynastic wars to Indochina to Falklands to Iraq. Should Jews perhaps be more moral than others? Define the morality for me. In my view, moral is what God said is moral. If we're told to expel the inhabitants of the land He gave us, that's the ultimate morality. Or, let's try a secular definition from natural law: morality is what was thought moral throughout generations. Hardly any activity was praised more than a war which one side considered righteous. No, that's not a good morality, either? Then understand that you're trying to impose on Jews some fictional morality with no basis in Judaism or secular tradition. The very nuts who oppose medical experiments on animals want to experiment on the entire Jewish people in Israel. "Try this morality, if it fails — try another one." No Jews left for experiments? No problem, they would upgrade to experimenting on rats. Yes, of course we're prepared to kill for national and religious ideas, and it's only incidental that our ideas do not require killing. Once a Jewish state stops subsidizing local Arabs with money, municipal infrastructure, municipal services for which Arabs refuse to pay, free education and health care, and forces them like all other citizens into the army — they would go. We have tanks, and Israeli Arabs don't, so they will certainly go. In 1948, thousand times as many Arabs fled Israel as the number killed — today proportion would be even better, making our enterprise relatively humane compared to any other countries' wars. God told us to exterminate Amalek only. The seven Canaanite nations should be evicted, not killed. The difference is this: Amalek attacked us for no good reason, but Canaanites justly defend their land. God even promised that he would implant terror in the hearts of Canaanites so that they will run from us. In 1948, Palestinian Arabs miraculously became terrified and massively fled the country. God did his part, and it's our turn to finish the job. Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it |
|
WEST BANK ECONOMIC CRISIS EVER DEEPER, WORLD BANK SAYS
Posted by Eleazar ben Yair, October 24, 2008. |
|
The folks writing the World Bank report could give a damn,
of course, about security issues. If polls showed the overwhelming
majority of Palestinians opposed terror attacks then it could be
argued that they are hostages of the Palestinian gunmen whose
activities over the Oslo years led to the situation today. But what is
one to think about "innocence" when the overwhelming majority of
Palestinians polled over the years actually supported terror?]
This is a news item from Ynet news |
|
Economy in territories shrunk rapidly since 2000 intifada, foreign aid unable to arrest decline, report says, adding 'situation has become untenable' While the developed world frets over a credit crisis and looming recession, a World Bank report published on Thursday describes a slow-burning economic disaster in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. It may not revolve around sub-prime mortgages, but land, or the lack of it, lies at the heart of many of the Palestinians' problems, the Bank says. Since the start of a Palestinian uprising in 2000, when jobs were already scarce in a broken landscape of refugee camps and overcrowding, the West Bank's economy has shrunk rapidly, with ever larger volumes of foreign aid unable to arrest the decline. "The situation has become untenable," says the report, which catalogues economic damage inflicted by decades of restricted access to land, whether for farming, industry or housing. An area comprising nearly 60 percent of the West Bank, called Area C in provisional peace accords with Israel, is under the full control of the Israeli military, and most of it is sparsely populated and underutilized. Palestinian access to nearly 38 percent of the West Bank is limited, notably by Jewish settlements and Israeli security. The allocation of land in the 1995 Oslo Accords, which laid the path for a peace accord that was to lead to an eventual Palestinian state, was meant to be transitory, the report says. "However, little territory has been transferred to Palestinian Authority control since the signing ... and this process has been completely frozen since 2000," it added. But the Palestinian population has not stopped growing, and its ability to meet its own development needs through economic activity is now severely constrained by the land pinch. 'Since 2000, economy in decline' In the increasingly cramped and fragmented space beyond Area C, land use decisions have become irrational and environmental management unsound, says the World Bank. "Today, only a fraction of the Palestinian population resides in Area C," it notes, because there is very little incentive to stay there. "While this may have been acceptable under an interim scenario ... after 13 years with minimal Israeli redeployments from Area C, the situation has now become untenable," it says. "This territorial division distorts land markets by creating land shortages," which in turn create housing shortages and put industrial development at a disadvantage. "In the aftermath of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian economy was expected to enter a period of sustained and rapid growth," the report said. Instead, growth lasted only a few years, and since 2000 the economy has been in decline, with GDP down 14 percent from its peak in 1999. When the rapidly rising population is factored in, the figure is even worse: per capita GDP is down 40 percent. International peacemakers have recently focused on trying to bolster the Palestinian economy alongside US-sponsored talks aimed at reaching a deal on establishing a state, but progress has been limited on both fronts. The World Bank forecast that "the investment climate will remain unfavorable and business opportunities much below potential" as long as most of the West Bank remains inaccessible for Palestinian economic investments. Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it |
|
WHY WOULD THE STATE DEPARTMENT ASSIST OBAMA BY ENABLING FOREIGN MONEY TO FLOW TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN?
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 23, 2008. |
|
Let's start from some time back? A few years? We all recall the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) Report published December 3, 2007, which created a false impression to the effect that Iran had ceased all efforts to produce nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons. Later information leaked out that the State Department had transferred three of its employees into various U.S. Intelligence Services to manipulate actual intelligence to their point of view. Some would call this a "rolling coup d'etat" as the State Department and certain powerful individuals moved to take control of government policy as a "shadow government". This could turn the American people into a Third World population working for new masters. This is not the first time the American public has been manipulated and fleeced by a "shadow government" run by self-serving controllers. Recall the Savings and Loan Crash and Bailout of the mid and late 1980s under James Baker III as Secretary of Treasury? For the record, 1,169 savings and loans in the United States failed. Texas, the epi-center, had the most failures, 237. In 2000, the FDIC said that the S&L disaster cost taxpayers some $124 billion. But that sum does not reflect the entire bill. In order to pay for the S&L bailout, the federal government sold bonds. By the time those bonds are finally retired in 2020 or so, the total cost of the S&L mess will likely be some $300 billion. Secretary of Treasury James Baker, took no action on the emerging savings & loan crisis. Today's current Crash may be the result of the oil manipulation between the multi-national oil companies and the Muslim and Arab oil nations — with 'we, the people' paying for this swindle. All of this is overseen by the U.S. State Department and Washington. The eventual cost to American tax-payers will be astronomical and is, as yet, hidden. The mis-information by the 2007 NIE Report was exposed by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. The manipulated NIE Report was designed to stop President Bush from ordering an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities which are now scattered throughout Iran's countryside. Later the head of the CIA apologized for the Report and its erroneous information but, nevertheless, the well-planned insider propaganda halted any American plans to destroy Iran's burgeoning nuclear facilities. The Leftist Media crawled all over the false NIE Report, practically cheering what turned out to be a phony Report. The State Department wasn't the only participant, as several top ranking officers of the American military were quietly relieved of duty for their participation in the false NIE Report. British and Israeli Intelligence were furious over this planted mis-information that Iran had ceased its operations when, in fact, they had actually accelerated production of their fissile nuclear material. One could consult with Senator Joe Biden as to why, over the years, he has always leaned toward Iran in his voting and deliberations among his colleagues. Why does this collaboration by State and other Intel/Military Agencies want a pacifist like Barack Obama for President? They knew they could not appeal to or trust John McCain and Sarah Palin to go along with the plan to stop a preventative invasion against Iran's nuclear facilities. Compromising America's security or that of our ally, Israel, is a betrayal of a greater magnitude. Barack Obama, given his history of "hanging around the neighborhood" with self-declared anarchists and generally considered far Left-of-Center, could be easily guided by the likes of Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski to not either pre-emptively attack Iran as necessary or mount a second strike even after Iran attacked any American city or interest. Obama has said he would rather talk than act. But first, Obama needed to be made President and that would cost huge sums. That meant he could not opt to take limited official Government funding as did John McCain. Obama needed far larger funds and that could not come from primarily normal contributions. It needed to come from deep, deep pockets — like those in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, the Gulf Oil States. But, those campaign contributions could not come to Obama in huge traceable gifts, thereby calling attention from government agencies for illegal funding. The money had to be split into very small sums — like $200 per gift through millions of new donors. Of course, Obama's fund raisers refused to release those names to check their origins as McCain chose to do. Other U.S. gifts to Obama in excess of legal limitations which were caught by outside observers, were generally returned — in part — but, even then — not all and not always. Who knew about this massive cash flow officially, unofficially or merely by well-founded rumors in the Intel community? The State Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA and any number of our 16 Intelligence Agencies knew. But, just as no one stopped the false NIE Reports which caused the loss of American resolve to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons' capability, no one stopped the buying of America by the huge, global campaign contributions. The Scam was that high up. Buying a Presidential Election would be a well kept secret not unlike "the magic bullet" and "the shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas". Was the fix in? It was puzzling when $150 Million Dollars came into Obama's campaign in one month — not to mention the already accumulated "windfall" of close to $450 Million Dollars raised before. The $150 Million Dollars influx in September led to a grand total of $600 Million Dollars for Obama to spend, snowing the American public to cover his record and propagate his rhetoric. Generally, that kind of money floats around drug cartels or oil deals between the Arab Muslim countries and the multinational oil companies. Clearly, if Iran (and Iran's oil) were to be protected — along with its future potential for oil contracts, Obama would be a better, even vital, choice as a malleable President than a stubborn, experienced military man like McCain. If the Presidency was to be owned and controlled by the multi-nationals and oil countries, they needed a President like Obama — a stooge. The "controllers" also needed a replacement VP who was known to be more than accommodating to Iran and, thus: Joe Biden. The Media never really questioned this extraordinary cash flow but, instead expressed happy astonishment that a Left Liberal was receiving such approval by way of donations. Of course, no one in government stepped in and said: "Wait a minute". No State Department, no FBI, no CIA, no Justice Department, no Intel Agencies, no watchdog Media....No Nothing! IF Obama's money is coming primarily from the Middle East, then this is a matter of National Security at its highest level — because America is in hock, in thrall, in debt to the tune of Billions of Dollars of deficit — and rising. Clearly, the elections should be put on an extraordinary hold until these unusual questions hanging over Obama's head are answered. A breach of security of this magnitude cannot be covered over or considered trivial just because the plotters need deniability. We all should have known something was seriously wrong when Obama refused to produce an original birth certificate that could prove he was a natural-born American as required for a Presidential Candidate under Constitutional law. A suit was filed in federal court Philadelphia, requiring Obama to produce his birth certificate but, the Courts dragged their feet, seeming not to want to force the production of such evidence of American birth. Obama is presently visiting Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother. Would you be surprised if he comes back with a Hawaiian birth certificate which, like counterfeit money, has been skillfully aged? Both the Judge and Obama, could go to prison if they colluded to insure the matter would not be adjudicated before the elections on November 4th. Because the suit was filed in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell, as well as the Attorney General of the Justice Department should have been all over this matter — as a matter of America's national security. If we have a President loyal to the Saudis and other foreign supporters for funding his election win and under the control of the State Department and those who fabricated the false NIE Report, then the matter of treason must be raised. The elections must be delayed while the investigation of Obama's riches from foreign contributions is implemented. This is vital to America's future as a free nation. We in these United States cannot exist as a Democratic country under a "Shadow Government" even if it is controlled by past and/or present State Department plotters. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
DID THE U.S. TORTURE?; BIDEN CARELESS OR DEMAGOGIC?; CONTROVERSIAL VIDEO ON OBAMA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2008. |
|
WHAT WASN'T MENTIONED What was stated: the IDF is coordinating with the P.A. for Arabs to harvest their olives this season, that Jews will be barred from certain areas to "avoid friction," and that some non-profit aid groups will be present (IMRA, 10/5). Unmentioned: The typical response by Israel to Muslims seeking to attack Jews, is to bar the Jews to "avoid friction." Is that fair? Or is it, itself, antisemitic? The attacks often are instigated by radical Jews, sometimes belonging to non-profit groups. Are those incendiary groups going to be present? If so, why? When there is "friction," the Israeli government usually lets the Arabs and their leftist accomplices burn Jews' crops. If Jews resist, it takes the Arab "witnesses' self-contradictory word for it and arrests the Jews, actually victims. Fair? Sometimes, government forces actively collude with the Arab rioters, not just ignore Arab crime and pretend that Jewish self-defense is a crime. Thus what the press release did not mention is more important than what it did state. Those professedly pro-Israel politicians and supposedly pro-Zionist, American Jewish organizations know nothing of this. Hint: don't expect the NY Times or Washington Post or even Fox News to keep yourselves informed. DID THE U.S. TORTURE PRISONERS IN RECENT WARS? A program on Channel 13, on 10/16, indicated that it had. Pres. Bush and Cabinet Members ordered it. Their lawyers rationalized it. We saw some film of it, were read internal reports on it, and heard testimony [some from interested parties as if reliable]. We also saw Pres. Bush deny knowledge of these malpractices that he admitted were un-American. His regime covered up. The program claimed that the US violated the Geneva Convention. The US Supreme Court agreed. I don't, but we did violate the Constitution by those interrogations, which I think were torture. Since the terrorists did not sign the Convention and fight by means of war crimes, they are not entitled to POW protection under the Convention. The program said, release them, but If they were POWs, they could be held until war's end. Many were captured outside of combat, based on "informants." There must be some way for such prisoners to challenge in military court their detention as one of mistaken identity as terrorists. The program omitted a key question. The alleged torture was committed, and is defended, under the notion of emergency need for intelligence. So, did the US gain much intelligence from it? If yes, it's still wrong. If no, it's surely criminal. BIDEN CARELESS OR DEMAGOGIC? The TV was on. Candidate Biden was making an emotional speech against his opponent's speech. He claimed she expressed joy about coming to where good Americans are. Biden condemned her for alleging that Americans in other states are not patriotic. Apparently she really was the "attack dog" they say she is. Then the camera quoted what Gov. Palen actually said. She said that good Americans aren't only in Washington, DC., but also in towns across the country. That is different. She did not impugn the patriotism of blue states. Biden had distorted her decent sentiment into one easy to denounce. Was Biden's staff careless about that, or is he demagogic? He owes her and us a profound apology. SOMALI PIRATES GIVE ISLAMISTS A CUT Somali pirates have captured about 20 ships this year and collected about $20 million in ransom. They have given about $1 million to the Islamists in that country, still struggling to take over (IMRA, 9/5). PEOPLE DON'T THINK? I find that people don't think about the issues. They toe their line, asserting it as if factual. Today a couple of people told me that the current administration is a poor one, as if the predecessors were better or as if the Administration's critics are much better. They said the war in Iraq had no justification, having forgotten about Saddam's violations of ceasefire agreements [to commit genocide], etc. They cite the casualty figures, such as 4,000 killed, as if that were high. Our other major wars cost 50,000 or more. They should be thankful that we have learned how to reduce military and civilian casualties. They say, like Obama, we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. We did. A few Al-Qaida men got away, but by leaving the country. The problems are that they fled to Pakistan, which our ruling class foolishly mistook for an ally, and Afghanistan is not a nation but multi-cultural, and split apart. They repeated Obama's statement that Iraq, having a surplus, should not need US subsidy. I said it is one of his throwaway lines for which no basis was stated. It should be explored, so see whether that surplus depended on oil prices since then fallen and whether they might rebuild the country faster with the money and ours. They said that the Iraqis want us out. Exactly, because we won and Iraq seems to be almost ready to defend itself; the US agreed. It didn't occur to people that Pres. Clinton drew down the Army, so Bush didn't have enough troops. Cant be a major power on the cheap. They don't understand the need to fight on multiple fronts. LIVNI'S VIEWS OF FATAH She referred to Iran's alliance with Hizbullah and Hamas. She said that statehood alone, for the P.A., would not bring peace. The new country must want peace. The rest of the Arab world would have to help it make peace (IMRA, 10/6). Does she think Iran would help it make peace? She failed to refer to Iran's growing aid to, and control of, Fatah. One would expect Israel's Foreign Minister to understand that. The rest of the Arab world does not want to settle the Arab-Israel conflict, it wants to settle Israel's hash. One would expect an aspirant to Israel's premiership to know that. Obviously, the P.A. also does not want peace. To grant statehood before the P.A. has come to terms with Israel is not risky, it guarantees, without risk of contradiction by events, war. How much intelligence and sincerity would it take for Livni to suggest that first the P.A. make peace with Israel, and then there could be talk of statehood? Reward reform, not recalcitrance. Israel likes to give concessions and then hope it induces good will. Doesn't work that way with Islamists. They are too fanatical to respond to decency. CONTROVERSY OVER JEWISH VIDEO ON OBAMA The Jewish Council on Education and Research interviewed Israeli generals for a video. The organization then issued a press release, including: "In the film released this weekend by the Jewish Council on Education and Research, retired members of Israel's security establishment express support for Senator Barack Obama or his policies and provide relevant analysis. The purpose of the film is to educate Jewish voters about support within Israel's security establishment for policies Obama has advanced regarding Israel." The film's Israeli producers claim that they briefed the interviewees about the purpose of the video. Two or three of the prominent Israelis issued their own statements, asserting that they were duped by the Obama supporters and do not endorse Obama (IMRA, 10/5). Another dirty Democratic trick? This is shaping up to be a dirty campaign. I'd say that McCain's condemnation of Obama over the vote fraud by ACORN in registering Democrats is dirty, but he didn't claim the fraud was an Obama trick, he said that it might be and that Obama should explain more about it but doesn't. In the third debate, Obama tried to give an explanation. I thought it sounded like a poor excuse. On the other hand, perhaps the GOP is making much of little. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
LA TIMES WON'T RELEASE VIDEO OF OBAMA TOASTING RASHID KHALIDI
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 12, 2008. |
|
This is from the Gateway Pundit website:
|
|
The LA Times refuses to release video of Obama toasting close friend & Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi — Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often spent time at each other's homes. Khalidi was also best friends with Bill Ayers. Not only does Barack Obama's church of 20 years support Hamas and Hezbollah but Barack Obama also has a longtime close friendship and financial association with suspected former PLO operative and Israel hater Rashid Khalidi. Earlier this month Sean Hannity dared to report Barack and Michelle Obama's radical associate and friend: Barack Obama funnelled thousands of dollars of cash to Rashidi's anti-Israel Foundation through his work on the Woods Fund. In 2000, Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative who justified Palestinian terrorism as contributing to "political enlightenment," threw a fundraiser for his friend Barack Obama. Although he is described as a former PLO operative, via Free Republic, this is what Rashid Khalidi has to say about Palestinian terrorism against Jews — he said anti-Israel violence contributed to "political enlightenment": On Palestinian violence. Khalidi glorifies anti-Israel violence as contributing to "political enlightenment"[vii] and unsurprisingly admires those who carry it out. His loyalty to Palestinian terrorist groups run so deep that he actually dedicated his 1986 valentine to the PLO, Under Siege, to "those who gave their lives . . . in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon."[viii] The book whitewashes PLO violence against Israelis and Lebanese, as well as the Syrian occupation.The LA Times wrote an article about Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi in April: It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York. The LA Times acknowledged it has a video of this tribute Barack Obama gave to the Khalidis at their going away party. But, the LA Times won't release this video before the election. Is it because of the other guests who were at the party?... Perhaps Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Khalidi and Ayers were practically best friends. And, both Ayers and Obama signed the commemorative book given to Khalidi at his going away party. It's hard to imagine that the LA Times would hold onto a video of Sarah Palin praising an anti-Israeli radical and former PLO operative... But, that is today's mainstream media. Tom Maguire has more on this radical friend of Barack and Michelle
Obama.
Previously: ** Obama's Fancied the Chicago Terror Gang — Partied With Bombers & Former PLO Operative
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
NEWT GINGRICH COMPARES MEDIA ELITES TO POLISH COMMUNISTS AND MSM TO PRAVDA
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 23, 2008. |
|
This was on the Gateway Pundit website
|
|
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went off on the American media's biased and dishonest coverage of popular Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tonight. Newt compared the outrageous Palin coverage to the reports written about freedom fighter Lech Walesa by the Polish communists. Newt condemned the media's intellectually dishonest ambush on Governor Sarah Palin and compared today's mainstream media reporting to propaganda pushed by Pravda. Woah. The video showing Newt Gingrich discussing the media with Greta Van Susterenos is on the same page click here. Here is Newt Gingrich: The elite media's attack on Governor Palin again and again has been factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, totally biased, worthy of the Polish State news media attacking Lech Walesa back in the 1980's. I mean this is the type of deliberate, vicious, dishonest, total distortion of who Governor Palin is including by the way, the Saturday Night Live Skit some of which by the way, I think were slander and were worthy of a lawsuit. Great points! Especially... On what the media has not asked the America's most popular governor. Pravda ought to feel insulted. UPDATE: The Pravda-media continued to hammer away at America's most popular governor today for the clothes she is wearing(?) UPDATE: Michael Graham has more on the angry Palin mob, via Instapundit. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
UNREPENTANT 60'S RADICAL WILLIAM AYERS' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, 'PRAIRIE
FIRE'
Posted by Avodah, October 22, 2008. |
|
This is a report by Zombie entitled, "Zombie: Billy Ayers' Forgotten Communist Manifesto, Prairie Fire It was posted on Little Green Footballshttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31651_Zombie-_Billy_ Ayers_Forgotten_Communist_Manifesto_Prairie_Fire The original has live links to additional material. Zombie includes copyright-free scans of the document and its cover. |
|
In an exclusive report linked here for the first time, Zombie has acquired a copy of a long-forgotten book by Barack Obama associate Bill Ayers, wife Bernardine Dohrn, and two other Weather Underground members, dedicated to RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan, written while they were in hiding from the authorities: William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire. 
The key points that this document brings out: Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links), Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings — their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," in Ayers' own words. Ayers and his co-authors freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts, and even provide a detailed list, most likely typed up by Ayers himself, of the crimes they had committed up to that point. Ayers' list, scanned directly from Prairie Fire, is shown below. He may have escaped conviction due to a legal technicality (the prosecutors failed to get a warrant during some of their surveillance of the Weather Underground), but this in no way means that Ayers was factually inncoent of the crimes. As has been widely reported, after the case against him was dropped, Ayers decribed himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird." Just because Ayers tries to appear respectable now doesn't mean
that he wasn't a violent revolutionary in the past. In fact, as the
text of Prairie Fire shows, Ayers was one of the most extreme
extremists in American political history. And as the links given as
the end of this essay prove, Ayers is just as politically radical now
as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he
professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he
no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as
the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different
tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the
goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers'
contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the
same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more
palatable in polite society.
Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
OBAMA IGNORES CREDIT CARD DONATION FRAUD
Posted by Kenneth R. Timmerman, October 22, 2008. |
|
What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common? All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors. The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous "gift" cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax. An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign's finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6. Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law. Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama's campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from "small" donors Obama won't disclose. The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign "turned off" many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address. Typically, card merchants require a cardholder's name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code. Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds. For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name "O.J. Simpson" participated in Obama's latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign's Web site. Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the "State of Nevada" and his occupation as "convict." The donor used a disposable "gift" credit card to make the donation. The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to "match" his contribution. Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name "Raela Odinga" also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card. The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama's through a maternal uncle. Obama donor "Raela Odinga" listed his address as "2007 Stolen Election Passage" in "Nairobi, KY." This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign. A few minutes earlier, "Daffy Duck" gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as "124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif." But just as with Odinga's address, the "Wacky Way" address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card. Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were: # Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif. Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity. Calling himself "Bart Simpson," the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama's campaign finance irregularities "with great interest," and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — "you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket." [Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."] "I tried it myself a few days ago," he said. "I'm attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy. "What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn't wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem! "This needs to be exposed," he said. The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to "match" their contributions. None of the matching donors' names appears in the Obama campaign's public disclosures to the FEC. Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include "Dertey Poiiuy," "Mong Kong," "Fornari USA," and "jkbkj Hbkjb." Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions. "We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with," James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax. Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment. But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards "only by the numbers on the cards." "There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction," one industry analyst said. Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added. "It's like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks" to newly registered voters or others, "and there's no way of tracing who is using them." Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal. "Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty," he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC. The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was "never contemplated by the FEC," a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name. "It's a lot of data. You're talking 7 million contributions," he said. The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. "I've been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It's just huge. When it's this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is." One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. "It's a colossal problem. They're paying the campaign with other people's money." Individuals such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will" who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted. "It's all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they're testing the cards. The campaign doesn't want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It's a colossal pain." However, the campaign itself has solicited these "messy little transactions" in numerous e-mails to supporters. For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to "make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack." Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to "match" donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor. Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores. Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor's name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card. Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story. Ken Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc., and author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and go to his website: www.KenTimmerman.com |
|
OBAMA IS BOUGHT, BUT WHO OWNS HIM
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 22, 2008. |
|
This was written by Paul R. Holrah and it appeared
today in the New Media Journal
Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri — Columbia and a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma. |
|
In a July 25 column titled "Who Owns Barack Obama?" we discussed Obama's phenomenal fundraising juggernaut. In July, Obama boasted that, as of May 31, his contributor base numbered some 1.5 million people, with one-fourth, or $66.25 million of his $265 million, coming from those contributing $2,000, or more... some 33,200 people. Thus, the remainder, or $198.75 million, came from some 1.47 million people, each contributing $5, $10, $20... or, as Obama assured us, "whatever they could afford." While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton's golf scorecard and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that $198.75 million dollars cannot be contributed by 1.47 million people in "$5, $10, or $20" amounts. Each of those 1.47 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $135 to create a pool of $198.75 million... and that simply does not happen. It has never happened before in American politics and it is not happening now. But now, just days before the election, the Obama campaign has compounded their sins. They are now reporting that their contributor base has increased from 1.5 million to 2.5 million and that the total amount raised now approaches $600 million. If we can assume that 25% of their contributions still come from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that base has now grown from 33,200 individuals to 65,000 in a time span of just three months, and the number of individuals contributing modest amounts... "$5, $10, $20, or whatever they could afford"... is now up from 1.47 million to 2.43 million, each contributing, on average, $185. Anyone who believes that is actually happening will believe almost anything. So how are they doing it? In our July 25 column we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf... along with George Soros, one of Obama's top two money men... had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, has advised wealthy Americans, including many of our worst villains, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and each other. In a Statement of Facts in the recent criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities. For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank. According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, falsify visas, encrypt communications, and secretly move money in and out of the country... " It is the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician. Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, or cartel, wishing to influence the election of the President of the United States, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious payees being entered by teams of paid staffers working in a "boiler room" setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, "international financier." For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow. So who would ever know the source of such contributions? No one. Now, in an October 20 article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provides details from Federal Election Commission records that give substantial weight to my theory. In studying Obama's FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election). The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days of the donor going over his/her limit. However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not been contacted by the Obama campaign and that they had not received refunds. But these are relatively minor infractions compared to 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, whose contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts. For example, Timmerman tells us that John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Illinois, gave a total of $8,724.26. He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300. Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver of Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12. Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded. However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election. One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, Ronald J. Sharpe, Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, is reported to have given $13,800... $9,200 over his limit. However, Mr. Sharpe does not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund. Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000. Lest anyone suggest that these 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a tiny bit more Macheavellian. Those 66,383 contributions are the proceeds of conversions of foreign currency, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance reports contain some 370,500 unique names... a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign. Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from Third World African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records. How massive is this crime? Since the Obama campaign has refused to disclose their complete contributor list (they continue to hide the identities of some 2 million donors), as the McCain campaign has done, Newsmax estimates that "Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases." Given the massive voter registration fraud committed by Obama's supporters, the fraudulent votes already cast in early voting by itinerant out-of-state voters, and the massive crime involved in accepting tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions, John McCain and Sarah Palin simply must close the gap in the closing days of the campaign. If not, we will inaugurate a man on January 20 who will have to be impeached before his wife has a chance to measure the White House for new draperies. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
21 REASONS WHY SARAH PALIN SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, October 22, 2008. |
|
This was posted by HB — happyharry613@yahoo.com |
|
1) She is a Woman. 2) She does not believe in killing babies, born or unborn. * 3) She is NOT endorsed by Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferrara, Barbara Walters, Helen Thomas, Ellen DeGeneris, Ted Kennedy, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Barbra Streisand, David Letterman, or others who Fervently believe in a Woman's Right to Choose (to kill babies). 4) She is married to a Foreigner — a species called 'Native American' — meaning her five children are half-breeds. * 5) She has on more than one occasion expressed PRIDE in the United States of America . 6) Unlike decent, self-respecting Democrats everywhere, she has a 17-year-old daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock. * 7) She is a member of the National Riflemen's Association. Actually owns firearms and knows how to use them. * 8) She has killed a moose, among other animals — and spreads the Propaganda that it is hunters, through their license fees, that keep American wildlife from becoming extinct. * 9) She often does her own grocery and other household shopping. 10) She drives a car, and flies a plane. 11) She chose to give birth to a defective child, rather than allow a skilled Abortion Doctor to kill it for her. * 12) She refuses to apologize for seeking the termination of an Alaskan State Trooper just because he applied a gentle taser to his 12-year-old stepson (who, of course, happened to be Gov. Palin's nephew). 13) She is inexperienced. And she refuses to admit that her duties as the chief executive in the State of Alaska are nowhere near equal to those of a public servant who was once a Community Organizer, or that of a United States Senator who has carried the awesome burden of overseeing a staff of political appointees. * 14) She has a son who is in the U.S. Military, soon to be (or already) deployed to the Persian Gulf — probably making her prejudiced against all the peaceful Muslims in that part of the world. * 15) She is on Oprah Winfrey's 'Do Not Invite' list. 16) She professes to be a Christian, but has no 'Spiritual Adviser' — even though Jeremiah Wright, who served Sen. Obama in that capacity for 20 years, is now available. 17) She isn't really a 'beauty queen,' as advertised. She was; Only the runner-up in the Miss Alaska Contest; and Alaska is not a very populous state, anyway. 18) The Obama-Biden ticket is favored over McCain-Palin, 80% to 20%, by our friendly allies in France. * 19) Her children are not properly trained in hygiene. (Did you see her 7-year-old daughter shamelessly lick the entire palm of her hand at the Convention, then use it to slick down the hair of her little Brother?) 20) She is of mixed English, German, and Irish ancestry — and you KNOW you can't trust the Limey's, Krauts, or Micks. * 21) Back to No. 1: This is the one that really galls modern, Liberal 'feminists.' Gov. Palin is a Woman, a female-type wife and Mother, who shaves her legs, wears makeup, dresses smartly, often cooks meals for her family, doesn't give a hoot about the National Organization for Women or the all-powerful Teachers Unions — and obviously will never, ever fit in as a member of the Washington Elite.* Add #22: She's a decent person: a species seldom seen in Washington.* Kidding aside, this is a YouTube video that shows Sarah Palin's
virtues and vision on Judaism and Israel worldwide.
It is called
"Sarah Palin for Jewish Survival: A Pro-Israel Eishes Chayil"
NO WAY * NO HOW
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
IRAN'S PRECONDITIONS: SO MUCH FOR OBAMA'S DIPLOMACY
Posted by LEL, October 22, 2008. |
|
This is a news item from Wall Steet Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB122463140573756495.html?mod=djemEditorialPage |
|
Barack Obama's declaration that, if elected, he would be willing to sit down and talk to Iran "without preconditions" has been widely discussed in this country. It's a key policy difference between him and John McCain, who rejects unconditional talks with Tehran. So what does the Islamic Republic think? The enterprising reporters at the state news agency recently asked a high-ranking official for his opinion on talks with the U.S. As it turns out, Iran has its own "preconditions" and they don't suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon. Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East — presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are "off the agenda," the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, "If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared. Iran is one of the toughest and most urgent foreign policy problems the new U.S. Administration will face. If Mr. Obama ends up in the Oval Office on January 20, he may find that solving it will take more than walking into a room and talking to Iranians "without preconditions." Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA OFFICE OPERATES IN PHILLY'S ISLAMIST CORRIDOR
Posted by LEL, October 22, 2008. |
|
This article was written by David J. Rusin
a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas
Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the
University of Pennsylvania.
It appeared on the Pajamas Media website and is archived at Research for this article was conducted under the auspices of [50] Islamist Watch, a project of the [51] Middle East Forum. |
|
When Barack Obama's campaign needed a base for harvesting votes from the southern precincts of Philadelphia, it set up shop in a building owned and managed by controversial real estate baron [1] Kenny Gamble. Also known as Luqman Abdul Haqq, Gamble holds a senior position with the Muslim Alliance in North America ([2] MANA), whose founding is [3] traced to a convicted cop-killer and whose [4] leadership is stacked with radicals. He likewise serves as a community organizer of sorts — one who has been accused of slowly transforming his neighborhood into a "[5] black Muslim enclave." The office [6] opened on August 21 at 1501 Christian Street, with Gamble himself [7] cutting the ceremonial ribbon. Makeshift [8] banners proclaim it the "South Philly Obama Headquarters," the address of which is listed on the Obama-Biden website as a [9] field office for the Pennsylvania Campaign for Change. Philadelphia tax records identify Gamble as the owner of the property, while signage indicates that the building is home to [10] Universal Educational Management, part of his [11] Universal Companies conglomerate. Gamble's associates and agendas expose him as a dubious figure that politicians seeking to present an image of inclusion would be wise to avoid. This is doubly true for a campaign like Obama's that already has suffered serious missteps in its interaction with the Muslim community. Best known for his work in the [12] music business, Gamble has held high-ranking posts with the [13] Muslim Alliance in North America, which focuses on African-American converts to Islam. That description fits Gamble and most of the group's senior members, some of whom also have roots in the Nation of Islam and Black Panther movement. Indeed, the formation of MANA was [14] inspired by [15] Jamil Al-Amin, the onetime Panther "justice minister" H. Rap Brown. MANA's enthusiasm for Al-Amin remains untainted in the wake of his [16] conviction for the 2000 murder of a sheriff's deputy. He has even [17] addressed, by telephone, MANA meetings at Gamble's [18] United Muslim Masjid. MANA's [19] governing bodies teem with Islamists: [20] Siraj Wahhaj, the organization's amir, was named as a potential [21] unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, supports [22] Sharia-prescribed punishments, and predicts America's demise unless it "[23] accepts the Islamic agenda." [24] Johari Abdul-Malik directs outreach activities for a Virginia [25] mosque repeatedly [26] tied to terrorism cases. [27] Abdul Alim Musa promotes anti-Semitic and anti-American [28] conspiracy theories and has [29] expressed admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Osama bin Laden. Musa's radical [30] As-Sabiqun group advises Muslims to assemble [31] self-contained strongholds, a strategy similar to what Gamble is pursuing in Philadelphia. As he explained in an [32] interview with Saudi TV, "One of the intentions that we had from the beginning was to create a model, so that, in the coming years, Muslims would be able to live close to each other, that they would live closer to the masjid [mosque], that they would eventually be able to open up businesses so that they would be able to employ each other and develop community life." More darkly, Philadelphia magazine has [33] reported that some South Philly denizens "fear that Gamble, a convert to Islam, is inclined toward racial and religious segregation" and aims to carve out a "[34] black Muslim enclave." The Obama office resides at the center of this storm. Gamble's [35] mosque is just a few doors to the north. On the same block stands the headquarters of his [36] Universal Companies, a local giant that specializes in urban renewal projects and runs a vast array of housing, businesses, and other facilities — even a charter school. Records of 1501 Christian also highlight Gamble's [37] modus operandi for growing his empire: get land and buildings dirt cheap from the city, which often seizes them through eminent domain for the express purpose of having Universal renovate them. According to the Board of Revision of Taxes website, Gamble bought the [38] property now hosting Team Obama for one dollar in 1991. (The database labels the plot as 822 South 15th, but the available information makes it the only possible match for 1501 Christian.) It is not just the heavily Islamic atmosphere of the surrounding neighborhood — complete with men in traditional dress [39] praying on the sidewalks — that feeds speculation about a veiled agenda. Gamble's bizarre [40] statements to Philadelphia magazine last year added more fuel to the fire: "You don't see the lion with the tiger. You don't see the tiger with the panther," he said. "You don't have people selling goods and services in the Irish community from some other community. In the Russian community, you don't have people from other communities. In the Puerto Rican community, the Puerto Ricans have their own economy, they have their own stores." The article notes that Gamble's musings sound like an endorsement of segregation and a desire to engineer a zone exclusively for black Muslims. The placement of an Obama field office in Philly's Islamist corridor is not the first link between [41] questionable representatives of Muslim America and the senator's presidential campaign. [42] Mazen Asbahi, Obama's initial Muslim-outreach coordinator, stepped down in August for connections to a controversial Islamic investment fund and Illinois imam. His successor, [43] Minha Husaini, then "accidentally" attended a meeting with the [44] Council on American-Islamic Relations and [45] Muslim American Society, two groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, [46] Muslim-Americans for Obama has peddled a policy [47] wish list colored with Islamism and run partisan voter registration drives from [48] swing state mosques, which would appear to violate their tax-exempt status. Obama's staff could be forgiven for accepting [49] contributions from Gamble, but renting office space from him at the heart of his troubling socioreligious enterprise falls well beyond the boundaries of good judgment. Simply put, the campaign is doing business with someone who may embody the type of change that Islamists and racial separatists can believe in. Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHERE TO START?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 22, 2008. |
|
Never, in the time I have been doing these postings, have I received such a barrage of messages — the vast majority anguished and supportive of my position — as was stimulated by my piece on Obama yesterday. Volatile is hardly the word for the situation. Before I move on to other issues — and I will — there is a follow-up on this subject: ~~~~~~~~~~ Jonathan Tobin, editor of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia has written a piece called "Who's Obsessed About 'Obsession'?" that echoes one of my themes from yesterday. Tobin describes the distribution inside Sunday newspapers last month of a DVD of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West. [ See below.] "The documentary's thesis is simple: Radical Islam is at war with the West, and its hatred of Jews and Western democracy isn't based on misunderstandings but on a faith-based fanaticism that will brook no opposition. Its prime tactic is to educate Muslim youth into believing that such hatred is a divine imperative, so as to create new generations of jihadist suicide bombers. "One might think that seven years after September 11 this insight would be self-evident, rather than controversial... But though it does no more than state the obvious about the rise of Islamism, its tactics and its purpose, Obsession appears to have a message that many Americans neither wish to hear nor believe. Indeed, the free distribution of the film...has set off a firestorm of critics from both Islamist groups and liberal media figures. ~~~~~~~~~~ ...The Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina refused the DVD insert because, as a statement from its publisher asserted, "it was divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose." The Detroit Free Press and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also declined the DVD... "These papers did not refute a single point in the film. But the raising of the issue of Islamist terror has, in their view, become not merely politically incorrect but inadmissible and, therefore, something that must be suppressed. That these publishers, who should be facilitating such a debate rather than squelching it, have acted in this manner is an ominous sign of the times. ~~~~~~~~~~ "Were that not enough, the film also has run afoul of some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. [The distribution of the DVDs in swing states] has led some paranoids to argue that the documentary's message is a subliminal argument against their candidate... "Others talk about the use of right-wing foundation money to distribute the DVD... "The problem with this whole argument is that the film contains absolutely nothing about American politics or the election. "While some on the left may consider raising awareness about the dangers of Islamism to be something only Republicans do, that is not a point Democrats ought to concede if they are as tough on terror as they claim to be....some Democrats are now so spooked by the topic of the Islamist threat, they think even mentioning the topic in a nonpolitical context is somehow part of a conspiracy against their hero. ~~~~~~~~~~ "...how does it possibly help the candidacy of Obama, a man who has missed no opportunity all year to assert his support for Israel and his disdain for Islamist terrorists, to claim that giving a documentary about Islamism a wide audience is hurtful to his cause? Can it be that some of his supporters believe that, contrary to his campaign statements, their candidate doesn't really share the concerns that the film raises? (Emphasis added) "Seven years after 9/11, many Americans seem to have forgotten that indifference to the threat of radical Islamists led directly to that tragedy. Apparently, some prefer to ignore the grim truth and cling to the illusion that right-wingers are making up all the fuss about Islamism to scare everyone unnecessarily. (Emphasis added) "As Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the greatest historians of our generation...points out in Obsession, 70 years ago, many in the West were similarly unwilling to face up to the danger of Nazism. Just as today many laugh at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they dismissed the murderous threats of Adolf Hitler as clownish bombast, and considered the brainwashing of a generation of German children by the Nazis unimportant. They denounced those who refused to be silent as prejudiced warmongers. Those truth-tellers were proved right, but too late to avert a world war, as well as genocide. "Just like then, those who ignore similar evidence about radical Islam today 'don't connect the dots,' Gilbert asserts. "That is a mistake the next president, who will confront an Islamist threat that may well be augmented by a nuclear Iran sometime in the next four years, cannot afford to make."
~~~~~~~~~~ What does it take to wake American up? ~~~~~~~~~~ On other subjects: Tzipi Livni has requested, and received, of President Peres an additional two weeks to put together a coalition. She's still on shaky ground, in spite of the fact that Labor has now come along — that's still only 48 seats out of 61 required. The Pensioners party was on board but is now upping the ante. Shas is still holding out and declaring itself not pleased. I know that Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu visited Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and appealed to him to stay out of this coalition. And, in fact, a former Shas spokesman Itzik Sudri has joined Netanyahu's team of advisors and will presumably be assisting in the attempt to keep Shas from joining Livni. So maybe on this score there's hope. ~~~~~~~~~~ President Peres is scheduled to go to Cairo to meet with Mubarak tomorrow, at the Egyptian president's invitation. The key issue, it is said, will be the Saudi Peace plan, which is really bad news. It calls for our complete withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, including from all of eastern Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ Reports now are that there are at least 600 active tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza operating under the watchful eye of Hamas. Everyone is making money on this. The Guardian describes one instance in which a tunnel, just 200 meters from an Egyptian watchtower, operates 24 hours a day. Some of these tunnels are big enough to transport a cow. ~~~~~~~~~~ And now for the first time there has been a tunnel discovered in Judea, not far outside of Hevron. About 150 meters long, and not completed, it was large enough to accommodate a person standing erect. There is speculation regarding the purpose of this tunnel — to permit the movement of weapons for purposes of terror attacks, or to permit movement of terrorists without being exposed. The report on this, in the Post, was baffling and disturbing. The tunnel was discovered by PA security forces, which immediately reported it to the IDF. An Israeli Engineering Corps was then sent to destroy it The tunnel, as approached by the Israelis, was empty. But it has been revealed that arms and hundreds of kilograms of explosives had been in the tunnel, but were confiscated by the PA before they notified the IDF. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Jewish community of Hevron is deeply anxious about the anticipated deployment in Hevron of 700 PA troops, presumably trained to take on Hamas. Plans are afoot as well for the PA to assume control of several cities in Judea and Samaria over the coming months. Defense Minister Barak is coordinating this with the Americans. All of this is designed, in theory, to "bolster the moderates" and provide momentum on the ground in lieu of a peace agreement. Great, huh? It must be noted that, according to Herb Keinon and Yaakov Katz in the Post, "officers in the [IDF] Central Command stress that while Palestinian security forces are effectively restoring law and order in Jenin, they have yet to noticeably crack down on local terror elements." Then, by all means, let's give them control. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: FALL COLORS IN A VINEYARD IN THE JUDEAN MOUNTAINS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 22, 2008. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Fall is upon us in the northern hemisphere and there is no better time of year to enjoy the splendor of nature. I am fortunate to have lived in New England for many years, and I can say with full confidence that Israel's fall foliage display — though on a smaller scale — is equally impressive and it lasts much longer here because winter is more temperate and slower to arrive. For the next several weeks, I'd like to feature photographs that show off the brilliant colors that shape Israel's magical fall landscape. In the last 10 years, vineyards have been widely planted
throughout the country, including the Negev Desert, to support
Israel's burgeoning wine industry. Many valleys and hillsides are
covered with several varieties of vine, each of which produces a
different leaf color, creating some dazzling patterns of color. This
shot is exactly what I had been searching for when I found this
section of terrace in a valley in Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem. As
with every landscape, timing is critical, so I planned a series of
late-afternoon exercise walks through the hills with my camera slung
over my shoulder, knowing if something interesting crossed my path,
I'd be there to capture it. Walking down from the road where I had
parked, I immediately noticed the strip of yellow and green vine that
loops across the foreground, a perfect visual gateway to the
contrasting orange and dark green leaves in the photo's center. I used
a mid-range telephoto lens (135mm) to compress the depth, thereby
bringing the two main subjects closer together. The long lens also
narrowed the angle of view so it included just the top of the orange
vine on the right while allowing a peek at the valley below in full
glory.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
"POSITIVE" & "NEGATIVE" CAMPAIGNS?; HOW NOT TO CAMPAIGN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 22, 2008. |
|
WHAT IS "MODERATE" Calling Egypt and Jordan moderate, Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland suggests giving them Yesha. His presentation ignored the reasons for not doing so. He rationalizes that since they [falsely] are called moderate, give it to them and then, he dreams, nobody can be angry with Israel. Islam always will be angry with Israel. That is built into its basic doctrine. Antisemitism is not based on anything Jews do; it is based on antisemitic psychosis. Calling Egypt and Jordan moderate doesn't make them such? What is "moderate?" The Israeli and US ruling elite, which toss around such terms, do not define them. A proper definition, if compared with the facts, would show the term defective if not totally false. A state falsely called "moderate" is one whose leader restrains the masses from major attacks on Israel until he either thinks he can win or he can get appeasers such as Eiland to give up defensive borders and then the "moderate" knows he can win. Both those allegedly moderate Arab states attacked Israel repeatedly before the Islamist philosophy had spread. They declared their intent to be genocide. Were they moderate then? Now that their people have become more radical and the government of Egypt still ostracizes Israel, they haven't become moderate? How moderate is Egypt, which lets Hamas get arms from stores in Egypt? A more elaborate case can be made that Egypt is a major enemy of Israel and Jordan a minor one. If Jordan took over Judea-Samaria, Arafat's Arabs are liable to overthrow it and turn its army actively against Israel. WHAT ARE "POSITIVE" & "NEGATIVE" CAMPAIGNING? Positive campaigning is proposing what really won't solve existing problems and will make new problems. Negative campaigning is exposing the opponent's problematic proposals. That's a joke, but actually, most people don't understand the difference between rebuttal and scuttlebuttal. DOUBLE TAXATION & TAXED ON TAX-EXEMPT BONDS Insurance benefits and municipal bonds are supposed to be tax exempt. Social Security is an insurance fund for which we pay via taxes. Nevertheless, my insurance benefits now get taxed and municipal bond income helps determine by how much. The government cheats us and over-taxes. HOW NOT TO CAMPAIGN The third presidential debate demonstrated the candidates' misunderstanding of the function of a campaign. Aside from organizing, an early phase should be to identify the issues, study them, and solve them. The next phase should be to explain them to the public. That would give the public sufficient grounding, so that in a debate, the candidate need not try to explain the issue from the ground up — not that he gets the time to do so — and the opponent cannot get away with most false assertions. Both candidates did not do that and neither explained some of his positions clearly. McCain, who admires Ronald Reagan, known as the "great communicator," overlooks that major aspect of Reagan's political success. Reagan made all his proposals clear. McCain did do a much better job at this than in the other two debates. The Democrats didn't lay down a factual groundwork but a prejudicial one. They made their assertions enter the popular mind, without providing facts. McCain proposed a tax cut for corporations without much rationale. It was easy for Obama to call this class warfare and unfair to poorer people, while proposing a class warfare tax increase on upper income people. McCain almost explained the need for his cut and the problem with Obama's increase. Thus McCain referred to US taxes as higher than the rest of the world's. He should have driven the point home by adding, "Lower taxes would make our corporations more competitive. Being more competitive, they'd gain sales. As their business grows, they higher more people. More jobs for the sake of the workers is one goal. More business and more jobs mean more taxes and lower deficits. Sen. Obama's tax increases on the upper class would have the opposite effect — fewer jobs and lower tax revenues." Americans are hurting financially, McCain stated. Therefore, this is not the time to raise taxes. He should have pointed out that raising taxes during a recession traditionally deepens a recession. He also should have stated that the upper class has lost so much, that Obama ought to recalculate how much revenue he thinks a tax increase can raise. It will be less, now. The debaters did not agree on the average cost of medical insurance. One said, $12,000, the other said, $5,800. The efficacy of their medical insurance plans depends on which it is. They probably are comparing apples & oranges. This difference should have been resolved. Neither candidate suggested halting the runaway malpractice suits that raise medical costs. Wouldn't do to antagonize the trial lawyers' lobby? How their respective plans would function was not clear. They talked in generalities. Their campaigns should have drummed the plans in. I have read analyses that indicated that Obama would remove freedom of choice. He says he wouldn't ban certain private plans, but by offering plans at government expense, those who pay for private plans surely would switch. Then the cost for taxpayers would rise. McCain would relieve companies of the cost of medical insurance. That would go a long way to keep US companies competitive. It finally would make insurance available such that people wouldn't have to fear that losing their jobs forfeits their insurance. That's important! McCain still criticized Obama over Ayers in such a poor way that the point was missed. By contrast, Commentary had explained that the two men's contact was frequent and enduring in a few organizations, and therefore close, but Obama's campaign tried to hide their connection, Obama earlier had refused to repudiate Ayers, and still dissembles about it. Stealth and dissembling is the problem. How can Americans trust such a candidate? I would have acknowledged that Palin erred in using the plural, that Obama met with "terrorists." Obama has made blundering statements about foreign policy, especially in how he would operate. One or two examples came out in each debate. McCain should have accumulated them to show that Obama would embarrass the US and harm our foreign policy. This debate was an opportunity for McCain to expose the dirty trick that Democrats played on the protestors against Iran, and how this was both anti-American and anti-Israel. He could have mentioned how pro-Israel and pro-US her speech was. He didn't. He would have had to be careful to refer to "leading Democrats" and not implicate Obama except to ask him why he didn't object to the sabotage, if he's pro-Israel and patriotic, and to ask him to criticize Hillary Clinton for helping to censor Palin. Conclusion: leading Democrats would rather harm the interests of the US and Israel, than let Gov. Palin show what she is capable of. And the Democrats talk about Bush repressing us! Both candidates missed a major problem in education. The curriculum doesn't offer much, the textbooks are dumbed down, and liberals use the schools to indoctrinate in their ideology. So do Muslims. Another problem is that not all the states use the same, standardized tests. New York has its own tests, whose questions and grading is rigged to make the State and City seem to be improving in education, when they are not. Yes, the US spends more on education than elsewhere, with poorer results. Yes, throwing more money at schools is not the answer. Learning how to educate is. I think that McCain should have emphasized that. Answer: he wasn't clear and emotional enough about it. I would have pounded Obama into the ground. Neither man seemed to understand that the problem is not just al-Qaida, but societies that embrace the ideology of jihad and the Saudi schools and mosques abroad that foment it. They talked about not buying oil from the Arabs or Venezuela. What? Don't they know that oil is in a pooled market? If we buy from elsewhere, then other countries that buy oil will buy it from the Arabs and Venezuela. Obama referred again to the US having 3% of the world's reserves but consuming 25% of annual production. He'd have to show that reserves are low, for that 3% to be a meaningful restriction, as he implied it is. He did not ask why we use 25% of the world's annual production. At least the candidates were realistic that it would take 10 years to become energy independent. At last, Obama suggested that cars in the US be required to get high gasoline mileage. Why didn't McCain? Why didn't they suggest other efficiencies and, heaven forbid, restraint? They don't really want to ask Americans to give up any of its over-consumption. The format didn't get much into foreign policy. It would have been interesting if a candidate mentioned that Iran now is assembling nuclear weapons. I had read about the free trade agreement with Columbia in a conservative newspaper. The newspaper did not state drawbacks. Obama criticizes the pact for not protecting foreign workers. The whole issue was not made clear. The question should have been asked how much boycotting of other countries the US can do in behalf of foreigners, without harming our economy too much. Is that a luxury we have to ration? I don't believe that Obama voted "present" so much because of principle. I think he did so in order not to antagonize anyone. Obama is too slick. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
WHO'S OBSESSED ABOUT 'OBSESSION'?
Posted by Barbara Taverna, October 22, 2008. |
|
This was written by Jonathan Tobin. Contact him at
jtobin@jewishexponent.com
It appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post
|
|
OBSESSION: Radical Islam's War Against the West.
This is a 10-part series. Part 1 is at
Links to the next ones in the series are on the same You Tube page. Last month, millions of Americans opened their Sunday newspapers and found amid the usual pile of coupons and advertising flyers something unusual: a free DVD of a documentary called Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West. The film, a well-researched foray into the world of Islamo-fascism, features an array of scholars, such as Sir Martin Gilbert, Robert Wistrich and Daniel Pipes, and investigative journalist Steven Emerson, as well as extensive footage of the anti-Semitic and anti-American fare that is par for the course on Arab and Islamic television. The documentary's thesis is simple: Radical Islam is at war with the West, and its hatred of Jews and Western democracy isn't based on misunderstandings but on a faith-based fanaticism that will brook no opposition. Its prime tactic is to educate Muslim youth into believing that such hatred is a divine imperative, so as to create new generations of jihadist suicide bombers. One might think that seven years after September 11 this insight
would be self-evident, rather than controversial. Especially, that is,
since the film goes to great lengths to assert that most Muslims do
not subscribe to these beliefs and are peace-loving citizens whose
faith is being hijacked by a radical minority.
BUT THOUGH it does no more than state the obvious about the rise of Islamism, its tactics and its purpose, Obsession appears to have a message that many Americans neither wish to hear nor believe. Indeed, the free distribution of the film, which was produced in 2005 and first released on DVD in 2007, has set off a firestorm of critics from both Islamist groups and liberal media figures. The Council on American Islamic Relations has organized protests against the film's distribution, asserting that the movie seeks to "incite hate and bigotry." But CAIR's leading the opposition to Obsession ought to lend the movie more credibility, not less. American supporters of the Hamas terrorist group founded CAIR; FBI witnesses revealed CAIR's role as a Hamas front-group during the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for illegally supporting terror abroad. Yet, some in the media are marching to CAIR's drumbeat. The Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina refused the DVD insert because, as a statement from its publisher asserted, "it was divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose." The Detroit Free Press and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also declined the DVD. The latter explained its decision by saying the film "troubled American Muslims." These papers did not refute a single point in the film. But the raising of the issue of Islamist terror has, in their view, become not merely politically incorrect but inadmissible and, therefore, something that must be suppressed. That these publishers, who should be facilitating such a debate rather than squelching it, have acted in this manner is an ominous sign of the times.
WERE THAT not enough, the film also has run afoul of some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It is true that most of the DVDs were inserted into newspapers in swing states. That has led some paranoids to argue that the documentary's message is a subliminal argument against their candidate, and that it has been placed into newspapers to mislead voters into thinking that Obama is a Muslim. Others talk about the use of right-wing foundation money to distribute the DVD. Yet, the most-incriminating connection about the film is that Rabbi Raphael Shore, the producer and co-writer, as well as the founder of the nonprofit organization that distributed it, has worked for Aish HaTorah, the Orthodox Jewish religious outreach group. The problem with this whole argument is that the film contains absolutely nothing about American politics or the election. While some on the left may consider raising awareness about the dangers of Islamism to be something only Republicans do, that is not a point Democrats ought to concede if they are as tough on terror as they claim to be. Indeed, one of the prominent voices heard in the film is attorney and author Alan Dershowitz, a well-known Democrat and supporter of Obama. But some Democrats are now so spooked by the topic of the Islamist threat, they think even mentioning the topic in a nonpolitical context is somehow part of a conspiracy against their hero. Indeed, Keith Olbermann, a host on the MSNBC cable news network and a prominent liberal fan of Obama in the media, denounced Obsession as "neocon porn," as if his banal grudges against the neoconservative movement trump the facts about radical Islam. Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, Virginia, a leading figure in the Rabbis for Obama group, called a press conference last week to blast the movie. In a scary echo of language used by CAIR, he said Obsession is a "thinly veiled call for disparagement and distrust of all Muslims," which seeks to "limit the rights of Muslims to enjoy the free exercise of their faith." But does Moline really believe that speaking openly about the way
Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas seek to teach children to hate Jews
restricts the rights of peace-loving American Muslims to practice
their faith? Does he not know that, as the film rightly asserts, the
primary targets of the Islamists are moderate Muslims who have been
slaughtered and silenced by the radicals.
FINALLY, HOW does it possibly help the candidacy of Obama, a man who has missed no opportunity all year to assert his support for Israel and his disdain for Islamist terrorists, to claim that giving a documentary about Islamism a wide audience is hurtful to his cause? Can it be that some of his supporters believe that, contrary to his campaign statements, their candidate doesn't really share the concerns that the film raises? Seven years after 9/11, many Americans seem to have forgotten that indifference to the threat of radical Islamists led directly to that tragedy. Apparently, some prefer to ignore the grim truth and cling to the illusion that right-wingers are making up all the fuss about Islamism to scare everyone unnecessarily. As Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the greatest historians of our generation and the leading biographer of Winston Churchill, points out in Obsession, 70 years ago, many in the West were similarly unwilling to face up to the danger of Nazism. Just as today many laugh at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they dismissed the murderous threats of Adolf Hitler as clownish bombast, and considered the brainwashing of a generation of German children by the Nazis unimportant. They denounced those who refused to be silent as prejudiced warmongers. Those truth-tellers were proved right, but too late to avert a world war, as well as genocide. Just like then, those who ignore similar evidence about radical Islam today "don't connect the dots," Gilbert asserts. That is a mistake the next president, who will confront an Islamist threat that may well be augmented by a nuclear Iran sometime in the next four years, cannot afford to make. The message of Obsession could not be timelier. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
AYERS SAYS EVERYONE IN HIS OFFICE KNEW HE WAS TERRORIST
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 22, 2008. |
|
This comes from Gateway Pundit
|
|
Barack Obama Lied About His Relationship With Bill Ayers. Barack Obama said during his ABC primary debate with Hillary Clinton that Bill Ayers was "just some guy in his neighborhood." However, this weekend it was discovered that Barack Obama, terrorist Bill Ayers and Maoist hardliner Mike Klonsky worked together in the same office building on the same floor for several years. And, it wasn't that big of a building: 
Not only did Obama lie about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he
also was not honest about what he knew about Bill Ayers.
In this amazing new video, Bill Ayers says in 2002 that everyone he
worked with knew he was a radical Marxist — that he didn't hide
anything.
Also, from the video you can tell that the former underground
terrorist is still a raging anti-Semitic radical and completely nuts.
The phony Obama "Fight the Smears" website says that they "have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood." Wrong. The two men shared an office and Obama knew very well who he was associating with: ** he knew who he was directing thousands of dollars of donations to, This is just more evidence that Marxisant radical Barack Obama is not
telling the truth about his mysterious and extremist past.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
THE NEXT THREAT ON THE US CAMPUS
Posted by Moshe Phillips, October 22, 2008. |
|
Pro-Israel campus activists in the US will soon face a tough new front on the battlefield of ideas. A controversial left-wing think tank is now planning a far reaching effort to equate campus activism against jihadism to anti-Semitism and to blame Israel for Jew-hatred. As if life for Zionist student activists in America weren't challenging enough already.... The Boston, Massachusetts, based Political Research Associates (PRA) advertised nationally last month for a "Campus Antisemitism & Islamophobia Project Lead Investigator". The so-called "Investigator" will author a report that will in part be about "opportunities for counteracting campus Islamophobia...." Perhaps the most telling aspect of the help wanted ad is that it did not list any specific required academic credentials — just a vague and open-ended line stating, "Advanced degree or substantial experience in relevant field." It is clear from the outset that the conclusions of the study are already decided; that is to say, the conclusions the "Investigator" is to draw from their research has been preordained and is a position paper. The first line of the job post asks: "What's fueling Islamophobia and antisemitism on U.S. college campuses?" For the PRA, it is understood as axiomatic that "Islamophobia" exists on campus and that if anti-Semitism exists, then it is necessarily due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The post-modern world would have it no other way. Further proof of the PRA's effort to create a case for causal relationship between Israel and anti-Semitism on campus — and for that matter underpinning the fact that the PRA is incapable of an honest attempt at unbiased research — is found within the text of their nearly 600-word ad: "The Lead Investigator will conduct research into the interrelated phenomena of Islamophobia and antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses and produce a report of her or his findings for publication." The PRA makes the unsubstantiated statement that in "the present period it is difficult to extricate the issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia from one another; they are part of an inter-related dynamic...." What if the researcher finds there is no "inter-related dynamic"? The PRA's objectivity is out the window. The PRA is not adhering to accepted research methods because research is not the game here. The "Investigator" will have as a duty "public speaking and media interviews" and will also have to "travel". This "Investigator" will be utilized as a major asset over the next few years by anti-Israel activists on campuses across the nation. The PRA's operative will be touted as an expert because of this report and be a star player in the large-scale, coordinated propaganda campaign that is now being prepared. This effort by PRA is tragic in part because there is a vital need for legitimate research into anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on US campuses by unbiased, professional researchers. Pro-jihad students on US campuses are becoming increasingly more prone to violence against Jews. Of additional concern is PRA's linkage of US foreign policy to Israel. One portion of the ad speaks of "the issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of United States policy in relation to that conflict, and of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast and surrounding regions." Thus, PRA seems to spread the leftist myth that every US move in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq, is something that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. PRA's experts know their business. Their ad explains: "demonization and scapegoating often render productive discussion and debate impossible. Students are quickly polarized, and there is little room for genuine questions to be answered, or different solutions weighed for merit." Their plan is simple. PRA will demonize and scapegoat Israel and Israel's defenders in the US with this report, and it will help make campus-based critics of Israel more "productive" in fomenting anti-Israel and anti-American extremism. The jihadist point of view will be portrayed by the PRA in a positive light and Zionism will be painted as illegitimate, politically incorrect and worse. It should come as no surprise that the PRA has found its demons and its scapegoats even before their research has begun. The PRA labels itself as "progressive" and says it was formed in "1981 in response to the emergence of the New Right." Its demons are always on the Right. From a survey of PRA's website there can be little doubt that such effective defenders of Israel and America as David Horowitz, Michael Medved and Daniel Pipes, as well as the organizations with whom they are connected, will be among the targets of PRA. They will be targeted because of their outspoken opposition to jihadist activity in the US, particularly at colleges and universities. Horowitz, Medved and Pipes are all the subject of multiple articles on the PRA website already. Christian Evangelicals — a favorite target of PRA's since its inception — will no doubt also be charged with Islamophobia. The slogan on PRA's website proclaims: "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers." Radicals have used PRA for over 25 years as a source of information and direction. That is what makes this new PRA initiative so dangerous to Israel's cause and to the fight against anti-Semitism on campus. The PRA report will be used as a source of information to bash Israel with for years to come. Also it will be used to attack attempts to expose the very real flesh and blood threat that Islamic extremist violence and terrorism pose to American cities and towns. One may have thought that opposition to jihadism could be something on which the Progressives could find common cause with the Right. After all, Progressives have not exactly faired well in Islamic countries where jihadists have come to power. Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For a Safe Israel — AFSI. The chapter's new website is at: www.phillyafsi.com. This appeared October 20, 2008 in Arutz-7 |
|
NEW YORK CITY'S ISLAMIST DAY PARADE
Posted by Saul Goldman, October 22, 2008. |
|
This presentation comes from Pamela Geller's website and is archived at
|
|
UPDATE: 10/14/08: In a conversation yesterday with Lars Hedegaard of the Free Press Society in Denmark, he made a very sagacious point. When Muslims lie down on Madison Avenue, it is not an act of prayer, it is an act of territorial control. Notice how they line up — a line of soldiers, like a file. Rank and file. It's like an Army lined up for battle. That's what it is. When they "paraded" down Madison Avenue, they are alternate yelling Allahu Akbar (Allah is great!) and Takbir! (expansion!) UPDATE 4:01 am: An important middle of night observation, the rules are changing. First, the difference between the fighters for free world over in Europe who get attacked, harassed, berated and in some cases physically beaten Islamist_day_parade_101208_106and us (in America) is law enforcement. The police in the US do their job. Magnificently. What was striking today was, for the first time since I began covering these demonstrations (three years and counting), an agitator was allowed behind our barrier and permitted to harass the patriots (as seen in the video). Later on, when a Muslim was filming on our side of the barrier in our designated area, screaming allahu akbar, I asked the cop why he was permitted to agitate where we had secured the space with a permit, she replied, "he's allowed on the sidewalk". Also, it's noteworthy the policemen in uniform dropped to their knees and prayed on Madison Avenue while on duty (see pics). They removed their hats and shoes to pray. Now look, on their own time they can do what they want. But that is unacceptable. I am sure that shiz would not fly if it were a Christian, Jew, Jehovah, wiccan, pagan ...... bottom line seperation of church and state. It is disturbing to think that the thin blue line is being erased and we only need to look across the pond to see the dark future. [...] Lars Hedegaard, President of the Free Press Society in Denmark, said in my interview with him last month: "You can talk and you can talk and you can preach but people, in the final analysis, people have to feel it on their bodies and in their daily lives 
Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
THE TROUBLE WITH DEMOCRACY; THE INDIGENOUS LIVES OF JESUS AND MOHAMMED
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, October 22, 2008. |
|
1. THE TROUBLE WITH DEMOCRACY:
When I was a young man I saw a bumper sticker that said "I love my country but hate my government." That was in the 1980s. Today it seems the main message of democracy is 'I hate my country and I hate my government.' This dangerous hatred is not only reminiscent of what put the nails in the coffin of Liberal Democracy in the 1920s and 1930s but is also surprising because today it is the wealthy elites, those who benefit the most from the country, who hate it the most and it is the poor who receive so little from democracy that support their country. I was at a recent theatre production in Israel and I saw a wealthy leftist young man with a Pro-Palestinian khaffiya around his neck. He was attending a theatre production in one of the wealthiest parts of Israel and was approvingly surrounded by wealthy people. He had numerous friends and they all seemed to enjoy his company. Juxtaposed to him was a middle aged man who was working as a guard at the production, someone who was obviously poor and forced to work on a Friday night. Here was the wealthy leftist supporting terrorism being protected by the poor member of society who might have to give his life to defend against that very terrorism. In another incident in Israel we see that there is Prof. Sternhell who preaches that Israeli democracy is 'threatened' by the 'fascist right.' During the second Intifada he even gave instructions on who Palestinian terrorists should murder, calling on them to target male settlers. Those same male settlers are drafted into the Israeli army and are called upon to man the checkpoints and do the operations directed at stopping the terrorists who might target Israeli civilians, including Prof. Sternhell. Here is another example of a wealthy intellectual, paid by the state, who advocates the murder of other members of the state, especially those who are asked to risk their lives to protect him. Then there is William Ayers, the American terrorist, now a college professor. He was from a wealthy background and he dedicated his young years to murdering his fellow Americans. He was never apologetic but because of his wealth and connections he was never sent to prison for his terrorism and now he is rewarded by society by becoming a wealthy professor at an American University. Those wounded by his terror groups activities, by contrast, receive nothing and come primarily from the lower classes. The trouble with democracy is that today it produces a society where those who benefit from the most from freedom use that freedom to advocate the murder of those who have the least. In a democracy with free speech the wealthy members use that free speech to advocate not only the destruction of the very system from which they feed but also advocate the murder of other members of society. What if democracy produced people who refused to protect these individuals? What if, when the student with the pro-terrorist khaffiya showed up the guard on duty simply left his post. Abraham, in his dispute with God regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah pleaded with God not to destroy the cities if 10 innocent individuals could be found. But in our society we see that since society does not reject the wealthy terror supporters that there is no reason that society deserves to be protected. If the wealthy want to enjoy their theatre productions and their wine bars and their universities they should protect themselves. The poor should not be called upon to protect those who advocate their death. Intellectuals like to support terrorism. There is no reason that the armed forces should waste time protecting such a society where the tax dollars of the soldiers are used to pay the salaries of professors who instruct and encourage the terrorists on how to murder those soldiers. The trouble with democracy is that in the name of 'free speech' it allows people in society to advocate the murder other members of that society, and it allows those who benefit the most to advocate those who have the least, it allows those who never work to advocate the murder of those forced to work in them most dangerous occupations. A soldier or a security guard should never again be forced to lay down his life so that a wealthy person can enjoy his 'free speech'. A Khaffiya wearing college student who has never worked a day in his life should not be allowed to joke and relax in a safe atmosphere while some poor old man must guard the door. Democracy is not a system that guarantees the freedom of anyone so long that those that are free refuse to reject those that advocate the death of the simple members of society. So long as democracy allows its elites to encourage the death of the poor then there can be no sympathy for democracy, it is a failed system for it produces elites who hate the very society whose blood they suck. Those that opposed democracy in the 1930s were correct for they saw that democracy allowed for the existence of Communist parties, governed primarily by wealthy intellectuals, who advocated on behalf of terrorism and the murder of other members of society. The trouble with democracy is that it is naturally suicidal and is unable to protect itself from pernicious ideologies, terrorism, and communal hatreds. Those that support democracy say that it is far from perfect but that it is better than other forms of government. But when democracy reaches the point where the state is forced to support those who support the murder of other members of society can we truly say it is the best? When a state pays one man who calls on a second man to murder another is it truly better? When the wealthy members of the democracy justify the murder of the poor based on some ideology, is it truly better? 2. THE INDIGENOUS LIVES OF JESUS AND MOHAMMED
A new study of American elementary school text books by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research has found that the history of ancient and modern Israel has been politicized by modern interpretations of the 'conflict' in the Middle East (Haviv Rettig 'U.S Textbooks misrepresent Jews, Israel' Sept. 25, 2008). Thus in numerous text books Jesus has become an indigenous 'young Palestinian.' In addition modern textbooks present the story of Islam as if it were a true story, discussing the 'Prophet Mohammed' and his life story. Whereas the story of the Jews is always prefaced with 'Jews believe', the story of Mohammed is presented as if were lifted from a classic Saudi Arabian religious textbook, which it probably was. This new revelation that Jesus has become an indigenous Palestinian reminds us of Jane Kramer's April 2008 article entitled 'The Petition' in the New Yorker in which she claimed that the history of Israel is really one of "1400 years of indigenous Islam." But if Jesus is a Palestinian and Islam is indigenous to the land of Israel then who are the Jews? The problem with raising up Jesus as a 'Palestinian' and creating an indigenous notion of Islam and the Arab connection to the land of Israel is that it ignores the very reason that Islam and Christianity have a connection to the land in the first place. If Jesus was really an indigenous Palestinian Arab then shouldn't he have been born in Arabia, since there were no Palestinian Arabs in Palestine in 30 A.D? But Jesus wasn't born in Arabia. He was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish family from Nazareth. If Jesus was a Palestinian Arab then what was he doing in Jerusalem 'cleansing the Temple'? He was in Jerusalem because he was a Jew and there was a Jewish temple there. But the Palestinian Jesus wouldn't have needed to go to Jerusalem, for as an indigenous Palestinian living in a land that has no Jewish history there would have been no Jewish Temple. School children who are taught to believe that Jesus was a 'young Palestinian' are thus subconsciously forced to believe that he was 'killed by the Jews' just as the modern young Palestinians are being 'killed by the Jews.' But any Christian whose children are taught this anti-Semitic nonsense must find the rest of the Christian bible hard to fathom, with all its Jewish references, quotes from the prophets and attempts to reform the Jewish tradition. But the claim that Islam is indigenous to Israel is as perplexing as the notion of a Palestinian Jesus. No Muslim confuses himself by believing Mohammed was a 'Palestinian' because the center of Islam is Mecca, not Jerusalem. But every Muslim knows that Mohammed chose Mecca after first considering Jerusalem, and turning away from Jerusalem because the Jews rejected Mohammed, something they are forever cursed for time and again in the Koran. But the notion of the indigenous Palestinian Islam stems from the Temple Mount' Dome of the Rock where anti-Israel Muslim rhetoric now claims no Temple ever existed. But if there was no Temple and no Jews then why did Mohammed make a 'night journey' to the 'far mosque' of Jerusalem. As with the Palestinian Jesus, without the Jews there would be no reason for Mohammed to be in Jerusalem, for it would not have been a holy city. Muslims that confuse this history and claim that Mohammed journeyed to Jerusalem because it was already holy to Christianity then forget that it was only holy to Christianity because Jesus the Jew had gone their to cleanse the Temple. Elementary students who are today being brainwashed to believe in an indigenous Islam in Palestine and a Palestinian Jesus are being done a great disservice by those who predicate the teaching of history on the present. People reject the existence of Israel and thus want to reject the history of Jews in the Holy Land. But by deracinating the Jews they forget that Christianity and Islam have no connection to Jerusalem or the land. There can be no Palestinian Jesus without first having a Jewish Jesus and there can be no Dome of the Rock without first having a Jewish Temple Mount or 'far mosque' to build it upon. Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays appeared on his website. |
|
KUWAIT AGAINST TERRORISM?; ISRAELI P.R. ABSENT, HOLOCAUST LOOMS; BIASED U.S. TEXTBOOKS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 22, 2008. |
|
HOUSE DEMOLITION — WHAT DOES IT MEAN & DO? One means countering terrorism Is to demolish terrorists' houses. Israel has been criticized for using that means. Critics call it collective punishment. Defense Min. Barak suggests strengthening the legal underpinnings for the measure. A former secret service official, Min. Gideon Ezra, denounced the justice system for delaying implementation of demolition orders issued months ago, after a Jerusalem Arab rammed a vehicle into Jews. Some of the delay is because in Israel [thanks to the routine and unjustified interference by the judiciary and the Attorney-General, absent a constitution and separation of powers], before every move, the government first seeks an opinion on its legality [including ordinary military retaliation and even self-defense]. Min. Ezra spoke out after the fourth such known incident. He praised the lieutenant (a yeshiva graduate: IMRA, 9/25) who shot the assailant dead. Ezra describes the value of demolition not as a punishment but as a deterrent. "Every terrorist and his family should know that their house will be demolished and that they will no longer be residents receiving all the benefits the State of Israel offers." (Arutz-7, 9/24.) Slow implementation loses its effect, something like spanking a child long after he has forgotten his transgression. The deterrent effect is based on Arab family loyalty. Usually a terrorist does not want to be responsible for impoverishing his family. For full effectiveness, the deterrent requires that the government forbid donations from foreign Arabs for rebuilding such houses. By way of explanation, Jerusalem Arabs have most of the privileges of citizenship without the franchise. Israel does not have to grant this. Israel certainly can remove it from proven enemies. Israel is foolish for doing that and other expensive favors for its enemies. Again, the police failed to shoot the assailant. This is an ominous or a symbolically ominous failure of the regime, based on appeasement. KUWAIT AGAINST TERRORISM, OR IS IT? It denounced terrorism "in all its forms," exempting resistance to "occupation." Kuwait wants an international definition of terrorism like that, differentiating charity from financial support for terrorism. It called for a ban on defaming religions (IMRA, 10/11). In other words, Muslims may criticize other faiths but other faiths may not criticize Islam; killing innocent Israelis is okay; charity for terrorism is okay, not UJA donations to Israel. CONTAINING IRAN US policy is to contain Iran. Unfortunately, US forces in the region are tied down in combat, sometimes with proxies of Iran. US bases increasingly are subject to foreign control or confiscated. The states there are no match for Iran (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 9/25). Iran is containing the US. AHMADINEJAD APPLAUDED FOR THREATENING GENOCIDE At the UNO, Pres. Ahmadinejad vowed to destroy Israel, as a public service to Europe, which he claims Israel manipulates. [Did Israel manipulate them into favoring the Arabs?] The speech was applauded warmly. [Some organization, the UNO, that our liberals suggest the US get more in line with!] The government of Israel didn't respond and won't. Its UNO ambassador doesn't take Iran seriously. She rationalizes that the UNO leaders merely were polite to Ahmadinejad. She says her job is to correct false impressions her people have about it and to defend Israel in the UNO. [The UNO always been anti-Israel. Even the partition resolution would have led to an untenable state.] The ambassador's line follows Foreign Min. Livni's. Livni tells Israelis that the UNO, the EU, and the Palestinian Arabs are friends of Israel and that such foreign powers will protect Israel. Livni is trying to become Prime Minister without having to face a contested election [and who became party head by crooked means, and whose policy destabilizes the region]. She claims to be the right person for the job and who would provide continuity and therefore stability. She answers Iran only by urging diplomats not to let Iran onto the Security Council. She doesn't think Iran is a big problem for Israel. She thinks the biggest problem is not handing Israeli territory to Palestinian Arabs and giving them a state they don't want. She doesn't know or admit that they want Israel. When she claimed to have made progress towards that urgent goal, the P.A. negotiator treated her contemptuously and threatened war. She didn't respond. Her sense of urgency gives the Arabs the impression that Israel is desperate or collapsing. They are right. Israel's ruling elite has collapsed morally (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/26). ISRAELI PUBLIC RELATIONS SUPERFICIAL Israel urges its media to show that Israel has girls in bikinis, is high tech, and is good for homosexuals. The Left defames Israel on policy matters, creating indignation, without government opposition. The Left accuses Israel of imposing "humiliating" security measures against P.A. Arabs, and makes unworkable [and unjust] demands that Israel "give peace a chance" and withdraw from all land acquired in 1948 and bring in the vengeful Arab families that fled (IMRA, 9/25). BIASED U.S. TEXTBOOKS The Institute for Jewish and Community Research studied the 28 most popular US history textbooks. They found 500 errors, many similar to the propaganda in textbooks of Iran! These errors include: 1. Jesus was a Palestinian. Christian doctrine depicts him as an Orthodox Jew. There weren't Arabs there; Rome had not yet coined the term, "Palestine." 2. A glossary describes the Ten Commandments as "Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God Yahweh on Mount Sinai." The same glossary describes the Koran as a 'Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God' — without a conditional qualifier." 3. Terrorism is discussed mostly about pre-state Israel, almost not at all in the State of Israel. The PLO is not described as terrorist. US support for Israel is called a cause of terrorism. 4. The Arabs did not start wars on Israel, they want peace. 5. Israel put Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps in Arab states. [Weird.] 6. The 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states were not mentioned 7. The Jews killed Jesus. [This now is more a Muslim than a Christian idea.] 8. Jews care only about the letter of the law, Judaism is stern and warlike and not compassionate like other religions. [What compassion have they for Jews?] 9. Some of the books call the Jewish Bible "Old Testament," which Jews find disparaging, as if its religion was displaced. [Should be "Hebrew Testament." The disparagement passes over the heads of most Jews.] 10. The books disrespect Judaism, are critical of Christianity, and glorify Islam. 11. They call Muhammad a prophet of God, don't qualifying this as Muslim belief. 12. There is an attempt to break the connection between ancient Israel and modern Israel as being of the same religious group. Problem is, the authors are not experts, and dumb down books . They kowtow to Muslim "sensibilities." Muslim groups influenced the text (IMRA, 9/25). When are we going to get our country back from the Muslims, in regard to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, immigration, and security? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: CHILLING PROSPECTS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 22, 2008. |
|
For us here in Israel, the Sukkot-Simchat Torah holiday season has ended; in the Diaspora, it will be another day. This holiday is the season of our joy, and, indeed, it is celebrated with gladness and song. But now it is time to come down to earth and focus on matters both mundane and serious. There are a dozen issues on my lists — topics to be explored. Yet I've decided to devote today's posting to one issue alone: The election in the US. The ramifications of what is taking place are extraordinarily serious. ~~~~~~~~~~ Just days ago, someone in the States with whom I am very close told me that he could understand how I might favor McCain because he is stronger on terrorism, but...and but... there are many other reasons to vote Obama. I would suggest that there is no "but." That the heart of the matter lies with this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ I wish to make it clear that I am not writing this as an Israeli, who wants to see an American president who will be good for Israel (although, clearly, I do). I am writing as a voting American citizen who has lived most of her life in the US. My overriding concern here is for what is happening to America, and by extension the Western world. ~~~~~~~~~~ What my being in Israel has done is to broaden my perspective. And I seek here to bring that perspective to Americans. John McCain's tougher stance on terrorism is important not just for Israel, but also for America. The failure of many Americans to perceive this is both shocking and frightening. It's as if nothing has been learned. What should have been learned — back in the 1930s, when Hitler was not stopped — is that appeasement does not work. Yet now we are facing a world threat as serious as the Nazi threat and — may Heaven help us all — the US electorate seems prepared to put into office the candidate who espouses a philosophy of appeasement. The candidate who simply doesn't get it: who is ready to sit down and talk with Iran without preconditions, who is vigorously promoting a state for the Palestinians without demanding that they first relinquish terrorism. ~~~~~~~~~~ It could be that the US electorate is prepared to vote Obama because it not only he who doesn't get it. What I fear is that a large percentage of Americans don't get it either. From where I sit it is very clear. There is evil afoot in the world, an evil that it behooves us to stop before it is too late. Islamic Jihadists — with an Iran that intends to go nuclear seeking to lead the way — are deadly serious about establishing a new Caliphate and destroying the Western way of life. Wake up, my friends! The Twin Towers wasn't taken down by downtrodden, poor, hopeless Arabs, but by educated Arabs living a materially comfortable life, and motivated by an ideology of hate. Here in Israel, we pulled — so foolishly, so wrongly — out of Gaza, leaving behind infrastructure and greenhouses. The Arabs there had an opportunity to make something of themselves, to build their agriculture. But their hate took precedence. They destroyed the greenhouses and built rockets to launch at Israel instead. ~~~~~~~~~~ The radical Muslims are watching. They will take the measure of the man who sits in the White House and they will know what their advantage is. Hitler took the pulse of the world back at the time of Munich, and saw that he wouldn't be stopped by the world. So it would be now... I will suggest to you that putting Obama in the White House brings World War III closer. ~~~~~~~~~~ Thus am I not swayed by arguments about health care or tax cuts. For those who don't have a broader perspective regarding the precarious state of the world, these things loom as over-riding issues. I do not make light of them — if you have no health care or cannot manage on what you're earning, it is hardly a small matter. But in the face of WWIII? In the face of forces that would destroy the way of life you know and the traditional values you once held dear? It's time to put first things first. ~~~~~~~~~~ Time was that America was the leader of the free world. But now America seems to be imploding fast. I am terrified. So are many of my associates. How about you? ~~~~~~~~~~ If you are an American citizen, I suggest that before voting for Obama you search your heart with regard to which candidate you truly believe is better equipped to keep America and the Western world strong and to defend America against her enemies. Unless you are convinced that Obama is better able to do the job, think and think again before pulling that lever next to his name. Here in Israel the voting public is caught in a parliamentary electoral system that relies too much on party lists, and back room wheeling and dealing, and doesn't permit the voice of the people to be clearly heard. But in America, the people vote for the president. It is likely that the vote has never been more critical to the future of the US. ~~~~~~~~~~ I ask everyone who is an American citizen to give deep and serious thought to the issues I raise here. And then I ask that each of you forward this to others who are voting American citizens. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
October 21, 2008
OBAMA THE BRAND VS. OBAMA THE MAN %#151; A DEMOCRAT SAYS IT AIN'T PRETTY
Posted by Family Security Matters, October 22, 2008. |
|
This was written by Dr. Lynette Long, a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter who is voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4. |
|
I am a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4. I want to start by saying something about the Democratic Primary. First let me say that I have a Master's Degree in mathematics and I am the author of 14 math books. I'm a numbers girl and I naturally calculate and extrapolate numbers in my head, so my analysis of the Democratic primary process spills out of that natural gift. The primary process consisted of fourteen caucuses and thirty-nine primaries. Obama lost only one out of fourteen caucuses yet he lost twenty-one out of thirty-nine primaries. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize something smells fishy. I first noticed something was wrong when I watched the returns from Texas come in. Texas is unique in the Primary world because it has both a primary and a caucus — affectionately called the Texas Two-Step. Hillary Clinton won the primary by four points, yet she lost the caucus which was held on the same day by twelve points. That's a sixteen point swing with the same pool of voters on the same day. Almost four million people participated in both the primary and the caucuses. In a poll with only 700 participants, the margin of error is usually 3 or 4, then in a primary and a caucus, with millions of participants, a sixteen point swing would be highly unlikely, very highly unlikely. What's even more astounding is that Obama came out five pledged delegates ahead in a state she won. After questioning the likelihood of the Texas two step results, I decided to analyze the rest of the caucus results. Washington State, Nebraska, and Idaho also held a primary and a caucus and the results were even more divergent than Texas results. In Washington State, Clinton did thirty-two points better in the primary than the caucus, but all delegates were based on the caucus only. In Nebraska, Clinton did thirty-four points better in the primary than the caucus, but the delegates again were based only on the caucus results. And finally in Idaho, Clinton lost the caucus by 62 points but lost the primary by 19 points. And again delegates were awarded based only on the caucus results. The divergent results in all four of these contests were partially the result of the disenfranchisement that is inherent in the caucus process since the elderly, mothers of school aged children and shift workers are less likely to attend caucuses. But they are also the result of voter fraud intentionally perpetrated by the Obama campaign and voter intimidation by Obama supporters. The result is that the primary was stolen from Senator Clinton. Even without factoring in the caucus results, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were only 4 pledged delegates apart at the end of the primary process. Obama, Pelosi, and other senior Democrats paid superdelegates to cast their votes for Obama. Clearly the will of the people was ignored. The Selection of Obama over Hillary Clinton by the Democratic hierarchy was a miscarriage of justice and my reason for my original contact with the McCain Campaign. After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, I and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain. I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet you will not see a single picture of a woman on paper currency. Women are underrepresented in every branch of government and there has never been a female president or vice president. I personally asked Senator McCain to choose a woman for the Vice Presidential slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Little did I know then that he heard me and the millions of women of this country who have gone unrepresented in the Executive branch of government for far too long. When I made similar requests of the Obama campaign, I was laughed at by the canvassers outside my home, told there weren't enough qualified women by a member of his Finance Committee, and asked by a member of a policy committee why I was making such a stupid request. Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, "It's a girl" or "It's a boy." From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. You can't learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can't have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what's best for women. You can't legislate for women, without women. But by choosing Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain acknowledged that men never can fully know what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister — things Governor Palin knows all too well. Senator McCain chose the second only bi-gender ticket in American history reinforcing his image as a maverick. Choosing a Vice-President was the first significant decision Senator McCain and Senator Obama had to make. Senator Obama talks about change but picked a running mate who is part of the Washington establishment. Senator McCain's choice speaks for itself. Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every election. Obama the brand is for women's rights while Obama the man pays the women in his office 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. And Joe Biden pays women 73 cents on the dollar. Obama the brand is pro-Israel, Obama the man is not. Obama the brand touts leadership while Obama the man voted present 130 times in the US Senate. Obama the Brand claims change, while Obama the man picks a Washington Insider as his running mate. Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listens for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. Obama the man and Obama the brand are not one in the same. I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party was disrespectful to all women when they refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other Democratic or Republican candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the sexist attacks of the mainstream media. My party's candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party's candidate was silent when the rapper Ludacris released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. My party's candidate chose Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard, who said women can't do science and math. Well here I am Mr. Summers, let's talk. Neither my party nor its candidate has demonstrated in this election that they hold women in high esteem. When it comes to women, sixteen is a special number. Did you ever hear the song 16 candles? Or the phrase "Sweet sixteen and never been kissed"? Eight plus Eight is sixteen, four times four is sixteen, and 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. But sixteen is special for other reasons. * Guess what percentage of the members of the House of Representatives are women? How can having a country composed of 52% women with only 16% representation be fair? How can it accurately represent the will of the people? In fact, the United States ranks 69th in the world with regard to women in government. Sarah Palin is good for women. She has kept the debate about women in government and feminism alive. She is helping us define a new brand of feminism that unites both Republican and Democratic women. She has a chance to put a sledge hammer to the ceiling that Hillary Clinton put eighteen million cracks in. I happened to be on an Alaskan Cruise when Governor Palin was nominated for Vice-President. When we docked in Ketchikan my Blackberry was buzzing away with emails shouting, "It's a girl." I thought, "Who is a girl?" My friends are too old to be pregnant and I didn't think my daughter would hold out on me. As soon as I stepped on-shore, my tour guide told me their governor, Sarah Palin was the VP pick. I can testify here today, that every person I met in Alaska loved her. Alaskans are proud of their Governor. I heard many people say they don't think Sarah Palin is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency since Alaska has only 750,000 people. Let's get this straight. Sarah Palin is only one of only fifty governors in the entire country. If Alaska were a country, it would be the twentieth largest country in the world. The unique topography, economy, population, and climate of Alaska all make Alaska a challenging state to govern. Home of the Alaska pipeline, Alaska hosts the majority of our oil resources and some of the largest fiscal projects in the country. Alaska is home to indigenous peoples and remote towns that are not on the electrical grid. Alaska is the only state in the Arctic climate zone and is profoundly impacted by global warming. Alaska is home to diverse wildlife and, consequently, management issues. International relations are a major issue in Alaska and I'm not talking about cab drivers. Alaska shares a border with Canada and ten miles across the Bearing Strait is Russia. Consequently it has a standing National Guard. I don't want to hear Sarah Palin is only the Governor of Alaska. There is nothing "only" about Alaska. I do not agree with Senator McCain and Governor Palin on all the issues, but I don't agree with any candidate on all the issues. I am emphatically pro-choice. Being pro-choice doesn't mean I am pro-abortion. I would not want to trade places with any woman trying to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy or any mother trying to advise her teenage daughter on the same issue. It is not a choice most women make lightly. But even though I will defend a woman's right to choose, I will not surrender by vote to the Democratic Party out of fear of losing that choice. I will not vote for a Democratic candidate I feel is unfit to lead, just to protect Roe V. Wade. The Democratic Party has blackmailed and bludgeoned women with Roe v. Wade for decades nullifying their power. Women's votes cannot belong to a single party, because if they do we are hostage to that party. Women make up 52% of the population and 56% of the electorate. If Democratic and Republican women ban together we can elect any candidate or pass any bill. We can change the world. No one knows what is going to happen during the next four years. In the recent past, the challenges to each President have been enormous. When he took office, Harry Truman did not know that he would have to decide whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Lyndon Baines Johnson didn't know that on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King would be assassinated, propelling the country into racial unrest. George Walker Bush didn't know that on September 11, 2001, terrorists would wage the greatest attack on US soil. We need a President who is prepared to lead on day one — ready to handle any attack, any crisis, any financial emergency. I cannot vote based on POLITICAL PROMISES and POLITICAL PANDERING. But I can vote based on PRICIPLES and PATRIOTISM. In Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I find two people with personal integrity and a love of their county — individuals who not only talk the talk but walk the walk. I can work with that. I will vote for McCain-Palin. In fact, I've decided to try to win one vote a day for the McCain-Palin ticket. My new personal mantra is, "A vote a day keeps Obama away." Make no mistake about it, we are in a war. I am not talking about the Korean conflict where our soldiers literally stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops from South Korea starring at the demilitarized zone — the most heavily armed strip of land in the world. I am not talking about Afghanistan where our troops search for Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorists who perpetrated nine-eleven. I am not talking about Iraq, where over 100,000 of our young men and women are embroiled in a war. I am talking about a war on our own soil, a fight for our way of life. This war pits socialism against capitalism. Barack Obama may call it "income redistribution" but socialism by any other name does not smell sweet. If we lose this war, what we know as our way of life will disappear. This is a war between Barack Obama and John McCain. You are the foot soldiers in this war. Are you willing to fight for economic freedom or do you want to live in a socialist country? Our country needs you. Join me on Election Day and save our country. |
|
AMERICA THE WEAK: AMERICA'S FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER
Posted by Ted Belman, October 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared in the NY Post |
|
IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness. Add in Sen. Joe Biden — with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years — as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we'd face a formula for strategic disaster. Where would the avalanche of confrontations come from? * Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible — in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home — hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood. The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency — only far worse. Think Bush weakened America? Just wait. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
SELF-DEFEAT 101
Posted by GWY, October 20, 2008. |
|
This was written by Stephen Kruger. |
|
The 1967 war was the third major, post-independence military attack of Israel by Arabs. In baseball, the rule is, three strikes, you're out. This practical should have been applied in 1967. Instead, Israel continued its touchy-feely policy toward Arabs, put in place by left-wing Jews in Palestine at the end of World War I. The self-defeatism inherent in that policy caused Israel to lose the peace in 1948, to lose the peace again in 1956, and to cement its loss of the peace in 1967 by abandoning Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The denial of Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza created the condition precedent for some other sovereignty there. To bring into ex-nihilo existence a populace for some other sovereignty, Israel connived with Jordanians who lived in Judea and Samaria, and connived with Egyptians who lived in Gaza, to view themselves as "Palestinians,v a term which theretofore never connoted a national identity. With further Israeli connivance, "Palestinians" created the potential sovereignty of "Palestine." Moreover, during the intifadas, Israel took quarter-measures. Israel did not attack Arabs in response to Arab murders of Jews. No rockets were fired into Gaza in response to rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Instead of using crushing military force in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Israel chose to negotiate its national interests in one and another international meeting. Compare China in relation to Taiwan, to Tibet, to the Spratly Islands, or to the Paracel Islands, none of which is permitted by China to be negotiated in an international meeting. The two-state solution is not applied by China to Tibet or to Taiwan. The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of China, which annexed Tibet in 1950. In the decades since, there were sinofication of Tibet and strong measures against the Tibetan population. Tibet remains Chinese, under Chinese sovereignty, and the world accepts that circumstance. Compare Russia in relation to Finnish territory taken by Russia during World
War II, Japanese islands taken by Russia at the end of World War II, and
Chechnia, none of which is permitted by Russia to be negotiated in an
international meeting. The two-state solution is not applied by Russia to Chechnia.
The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of Russia, which fought two
wars against Chechnia (1994-1996; 1999-2000). The wars were real wars, not
Israeli-style quarter-measures. Thousands of Chechnians were killed by the
Russians. Half of Grozny was leveled by the Russians. There was neither creation
of a potentially-creation of a potentially- creation of a
potentially-potentially- The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of India or of Pakistan,
which fought three wars (1947; 1965; 1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style
quarter-measures. There is no potentially-1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style
quarter-measures. There is no poten1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style
quarter-measures. There sovereignty of its respective part of Jammu and Kashmir, and
the world accepts that circumstance.
In light of history, it is strange for the United States to encourage Israel
to negotiate its interests in an international meeting, and it is strange
for the United States to support the two-state "solution" vis-à-vis Israel.
When, in 1861, southern states of the United States seceded from the Union, the
United States did not negotiate its national interest at an international
conference. The United States did not entertain a two-state solution in relation
to the Confederate States.
Rather, the United States denied entirely the right of the southern states
to secede and to form the Confederate States. The United States fought to a
complete victory over the Confederate States and it population.
"International law" has a private aspect (e.g., treaties concerning
commercial relations) and a public aspect (e.g., treaties between countries). There
is no "public international law" any more than there is an "international
community." The sole use which the "international community" has for "public
international law" is as a club with which to clobber Israel (mutatis mutandis,
the United States). For example, around September 20, 2007, there was a
declaration by Israel that Gaza is a "hostile territory." Secretary-General Ban
Ki-Moon stated that the declaration violates "public international law." The
statement was made within a day of the Israeli declaration. Mr. Ban spent no
time researching "public international law," and he did not offer a citation
supportive of his statement. He manufactured that notion of "public
international law" for the purpose of condemning a defense by Israel of itself.
It is asserted that "public international law" requires a two-state solution
detrimental to Israel. There is no assertion by the "international
community" that "public international law" requires a two-state solution detrimental
to Spain or to France, concerning the Basque country, or requires a two-state
solution detrimental to the Philippines, concerning Mindanao. Ditto for a
two-state solution on Cyprus (Greeks and Turks), to the detriment of Cyprus; in
Georgia (each of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), to the detriment of Georgia;
and on Sri Lanka (Sinhalese and Tamils), to the detriment of Sri Lanka.
Jordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza,
yet the "international community" perceives the rightful Israeli presence in
Judea and Samaria as an "occupation,Jordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria,
and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza, yet the "international community" perceives
theJordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza, yet
the "international community" perceives the rightfu by occupying Northern
Ireland; or about Spain contravening "public international law" by occupying
the Canary Islands, Melilla, and Ceuta; or about India contravening "public
international law" by occupying Goa, Daman and Diu.
The two-state "solution" is a bill of goods, bought by Israel at a heavy
price: thousands of post-1948, pre-1967 murders of Jews at the hands of Arabs,
the throwing away of the post-1967 peace, and thousands of post-1967 murders
of Jews at the hands of Arabs. The bill of goods is not yet paid in full by
Israel. Despite the refusal by Israel to win the win two intifadas, and despite
the disowning by Israel of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, Israel will be
expected, at a forthcoming international meeting, to make the "painful concessions"
that the Golan Heights is Arab, that the Sheba'a Farms is Arab, that the
essential part of Jerusalem is Arab, and that the Temple Mount is Arab.
The two-state "solution," if implemented, would find a vulnerable Israel,
hemmed in by an non-rational border, and surrounded by a Hamas-controlled Gaza,
a radicalized post-Abbas "Palestine," an Assad-controlled Syria, and a
Hezbollah-controllea Lebanon. A coordinated ground attack from those four Arab
quarters, coupled with a rain of rockets from Iran, would give rise to the
Final Pogrom, the inevitable endgame of the two-state "solution
Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
OBAMA, MASTER OF DECEPTIVE LANGUAGE
Posted by C.A. Fulghum, October 20, 2008. |
|
To: The Republican Jewish Coalition It isn't naive. It is intentional. If you go back and review what Hussein Obama says, it isn't difficult to trace the emerging use of deceptive language. He is quite good at it but you have to read what he says and compare it to emergent deeds. He is dangerous to the world in general and, to the United States and Israel in particular — to say the very least. As the "leader" of the so-called free world, he will be the Commander 'n Chief of the most powerful military in the world. And, I might add, he has the full support of Muslims in their "57 states" and more! In "his" book, Dreams From My Father, there is a core revelation that I believe is overlooked by those of us who have read it. It is the statement that basically says that if "ugly winds" move against Islam, he will side with Muslims. This is the foundation from which he uses extremely deceptive language to get to where he wants to be and where the Muslim world — by their enormous contributions — want him to be. When he says, "I will never compromise Israel's security" you have to glean what he means by that with past statements he has made about other issues. He is a master of double meaning. And, if you don't get it, let me be completely blunt — the terrorists won't compromise Israel's security either. Get it???!!! This is one of the key characteristics of Muslims and it comes straight out of their Koran. Lying is considered sacred to Muslims because the savage Mohammad "consecrated" it. Hussein Obama's whole presentation is completely and utterly fraudulent. Allow me to give you another example if you will. On the issue of abortion. When he was asked by Rick Warren, "When does human life begin?" what was his answer? He said, "That answer is above my pay grade." That seems innocent enough were it not for a few veiled declarations. Here is one for your consideration and requires some explanation: By answering that "the beginning of life is above my pay grade" he mockingly points to God which veils his venal support for that which he has no problem — taking from those whom he will deny is their life. The reality of who they are is "above his pay grade." He has no problem taking from them what he himself will not define — those who are "born alive." More importantly, that statement ignores the vile fight Hussein Obama wages against those little lives in the way that their little lives are destroyed — lethal injections. See below for the dissertation I wrote as it relates only to abortion and the twisted mind-set of Hussein Obama on this one issue.[1] There is so much more — it is frustrating. Hussein Obama is a liar, deceiver and, a manipulator as it relates to our common welfare. He has already demonstrated his position on life (something he can't seem to define the beginning of), liberty and, the pursuit of happiness. The God of the Torah and Biblical Christians says, "I knew you before you were born." It is this communicator's view that God Almighty is going to have a real problem with those who support the murder of and those who murder someone He knew before that which Hussein Obama can't define! If Hussein Obama is elected, he will be elected by fools who "can be fooled all of the time" and those "who can be fooled some of the time." That just may be the swing votes that pollsters are overlooking!!! As a Biblical Christian, I love and support God's Chosen people in general and Israel in particular and it is with this in mind that I respectfully submit these observations and more for your consideration. Jews and Biblical Christians must pray for the peace of Jerusalem — and, I might add these United States of America. Shalom Alechem!!!
Hussein Obama — by all accounts — seems very calm on the outside. From all that I have read and correlated it is this communicator's opinion that this is indeed a façade accommodating an angry menace to freedom and the inalienable rights to life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness. These are rights realized, promulgated, and fused into the fabric of our culture by our founding fathers who knew precisely from whence they came, even God Himself. What is one essential of these matters as they relate to Hussein Obama? It is his answer that yields no answer to the question, "When does life begin?" He has never answered that question. He does answer the question as it relates to the death of a baby — immediately after the baby has survived attempts on his/her little life. That doesn't seem to be above his pay grade or his conscience (which this citizen doesn't believe he possesses). Hussein Obama completely ignores expressing the realization that life does in truth begin at some point. "Above my pay grade" as it relates to when life begins should be a disturbing affirmation to anyone who discerns what he purposefully eludes. "Above my pay grade" intentionally conceals the notion that he has no problem with the execution of an innocent baby. Hussein Obama vehemently fights for the execution of a live birth — a baby, a child, a person, a human being. He knows what that means. By never answering the question as to when life begins, he is free to fight for the most heinous executions of children since Herod. "The beginning of life is above my grade" is a perfect answer for one who mockingly points to God whilst cold bloodedly cloaking his venal deception. Hussein Obama's Venal Deception Those within the iron walls of the abortion mill, including the mother — where a baby is born — seek the child's death! The baby survives (live birth) the attempt on his/her little life and is born into the world. It is what is waiting on this side of the womb that Hussein Obama fights for — a lethal injection that renders the child dead. It is indeed engaging that the fight for this cruel act is not "above his pay grade." It is the execution of a child that Hussein Obama deliberately ignores when he says that the beginning of life is "above my pay grade." It is the veiled lure of his communion with the destruction of life that should give rise to the question, "At what point is the execution of an innocent human being not above his pay grade?" The hideous commission of live birth executions — and his passionate support for it — should give any thinking person some evidence of what life is not to Hussein Obama. It is his calm detachment as it relates to life and the expiration of that life's liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is so disturbing. And what of the demented collection of minds that support "live birth" abortions? I suppose they could entertain themselves with the prerequisite that a lethal injection proves that a baby is not viable. Herod (in an attempt to deceive the wise men) said, "Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also." Now that we know the deception, we know that what he in truth was saying was, "Go and find the child that I may go and kill him." Since Herod couldn't kill the One he was seeking, he murdered all children 2 years old and under. They too, were on this side of the womb. Herod — by employing deceptive language — was masking the grotesque intent to kill children. The lives of children were "above his pay grade." As is true of Hussein Obama, the killing of innocent children was not above Herod's pay grade. Whether Jew or Gentile, this is an historical account — verified by secular historians — of the brutality of one who was not encumbered by the reality of life, no matter when the killing is executed. Hussein Obama has floated to where he is from the bottom of an emerging culture of death. He now is presented with the opportunity to be the leader of those who believe as he does while he continues to mask what he is with very deceptive language until he gets to where he wants to be. Judging by the massive amounts of money pouring in from his Muslim miscreant pals, they want Hussein Obama where he wants to be too. His so-called 'pastor' seeks the destruction of America when he says, "God damn America." His pal, Bill Ayers, seeks destruction when he blows up buildings and laments that he wishes he could have caused more death and destruction. Hussein Obama's Marxist pals — like Saul Alinsky — seek the destruction of our free enterprise society. Hussein Obama seeks the destruction of human life even after the child is born alive. Along with his alliances in his community of evil, Hussein Obama moves among our citizenry with the utmost calm. Put his alliances together with a common binding energy of hate and what have you got? Those who have all of the baggage that goes with the affection of Marxist-socialist miscreants, judgments they represent and, coercion features (Civilian Security Force?) that are set firmly in this obliging mind-set. Hussein Obama has wittingly answered what life does indeed mean to him by having never answered the question, "When does life begin?" It is his actions and deeds that provide answers to what he thinks of life by intensely fighting for the execution of babies. In doing so he does indeed answer the question, "When should death be implemented to take that from which I will not confirm is life?" And so — immediately after a baby survives attempts on his/her little life, what Hussein Obama intensely fights for is implemented...the execution of him/her which he will not define as a living, breathing human being. Herod extended the death penalty for children two years and under. Herod's cause was to rid the trouble he was having in his dark heart as it related to the perceived threat of a coming "king." Innocent children paid the ultimate price for Herod's "cause." His choice was the option to kill. Hitler extended the death penalty many years later from the womb for anyone who was a Jew — from babies to the elderly. His cause was to implement his "final solution to the Jew problem." His choice was the option to kill. Hussein Obama's cause by favoring the death penalty of a child is that the "right to kill" should be protected by way of the utterly debased reason of "choice." His "final solution" is to rid us of the "punishment" of a baby whose criminal penalty is execution for the revelation that she/he is indeed a living human being. Hussein Obama's choice is the option to kill. If this imposter — who continues to veil what he is — is elected President of these United States then we will surely get what we deserve. Allen Fulghum
Contact C.A. Fulghum at chasful@gmail.com
|
|
MADE MY OBAMA FRIENDS LIST, NOW CHECKING IT TWICE
Posted by Kyle-Anne Shiver, October 20, 2008. |
|
When a man of so little verifiable background and experience presents himself as a candidate for what is unarguably the most powerful political position in the entire world, every scrap of detail regarding his life, beliefs, associations, and accomplishments is of extreme importance. They are all we have, especially in light of Barack Obama's refusal to release and make public the following: * A certified, authenticated birth certificate In light of these gaping holes in his resume — holes that could be easily filled in by Barack Obama, but have not been — it becomes the duty of every voter to examine the peripheral areas of Obama's life with utmost care, giving special attention to patterns of association that point to matters of judgment, character, and true intent. Obama's associations "When you know who his friend is, you know who he is."
The most problematic quality of Barack Obama's run for the presidency at this time is that we do not really know him. Obama has repeatedly deflected curiosity about his associations with glib responses from "This is not the man I knew," to "Can I just eat my waffle?" When Obama was still on the campaign trail without his teleprompter, he regularly created relatives and events out of whole cloth, only to later issue campaign statements declaring he "misspoke," "spoke inartfully," or was "mistaken." From these actions, what are voters to conclude? One might conclude that this not-even-through-his-first-term senator does not want Americans to know who he really is. He has not been forthcoming. We have been forced to dig for information and draw our own conclusions as the African proverb above suggests. If we see who Obama's friends are, we will see who he is. Friend #1: Jeremiah Wright Obama clearly lied about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright at his last April press conference. When Obama declared that this Jeremiah Wright, revealed by widely circulated videos, was not the man he knew and declared that they had never been close, he was not telling the truth. David Mendell wrote a favorable-to-Obama book, From Promise to Power, for which he had wide access to Obama, his family members, Jeremiah Wright, and a number of other close associates of the candidate. Throughout this book, Jeremiah Wright plays a prominent role as mentor and counselor. At every decisive juncture of Obama's rise from Trinity congregation member to the United States Senate, Jeremiah Wright provides counsel and mentorship to the rising Barack. In a recent Newsweek article, "Finding His Faith," Obama answers questions regarding his attendance at Trinity. He now says he and Michelle really didn't attend Trinity very often at all. "At the beginning, we went fairly frequently . . . probably went two or three times a month. When we had Malia, our first child, we went less frequently, and that probably continued for a couple of years, just because — I don't know if you've had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it's not easy . . . As they got older, we would go back a little more frequently, probably twice a month." Unfortunately, Senator Obama gave a vastly different answer to the same question when he was running for his U.S. Senate seat. Here's what he told Cathleen Falsani, in a face-to-face interview for the Chicago Sun-Times. In March 2004, Obama said this about his church attendance: FALSANI: Do you still attend Trinity? Friend #2: Tony Rezko Consider this telling fragment from the Obama timeline, offered by David Freddoso in his new book, The Case Against Barack Obama: July 31, 1995 — Tony Rezko makes his first political donation to Obama. January 14, 1997 — Tony Rezko, while claiming he cannot afford to turn on the heat in one of his slums, writes a $1,000 check to Barack Obama's campaign. February 1997 — Obama co-sponsors a bill that creates affordable local housing funds in order to subsidize private developers. August 23, 2001 — A bill is co-sponsored by Obama, giving special tax credits to donors to private developers of "affordable housing." May 21, 2003 — Obama votes for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, creating demand for at least 7,000 new "affordable housing" units and letting private developers circumvent local ordinances. August 14, 2003 — Stuart Levine and Tony Rezko steer $50 million in teachers' retirement money to an investment firm and receive a $250,000 kickback from the "finder." March 4, 2004 — Obama co-sponsors a bill to move forward deadlines of a developer-friendly housing bill. June 15, 2005 — Obama and Tony Rezko close on adjacent properties in Hyde Park. May 26, 2005 — The Chicago Tribune profiles Tony Rezko, noting that he has been subpoenaed in a criminal investigation. January 2006 — Obama purchases part of neighbor Tony Rezko's lot. Those quality, affordable housing units for the poor residents of Chicago? They are now mostly condemned as uninhabitable by human beings. A really super terrific use of taxpayer money. Syrian-born Tony Rezko is now in prison, after having been convicted by a federal jury on 16 of 24 counts of corruption charges. Last week, Rezko reportedly made a deal with prosecutors to talk about others steeped in Chicago and greater Illinois political corruption. His "talking" may or may not lead to an indictment against Barack Obama. As for me, what I already know is enough. This one association alone tells us voters that Barack Obama has neither the character nor judgment to be president. Friend #3: Bill Ayers Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers was first raised in the presidential primary debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama employed his habitual deflection technique, saying only that "Bill Ayers is a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and everything he did against America was when "I was eight years old." Since then, Obama has been forced to admit a little more here and a little more there about the real relationship he has had with him over at least 15 years. Thanks to the steadfast, persistent efforts of Stanley Kurtz at National Review, we now have more of the Annenberg Challenge records that show clearly Ayers is not just some unknown guy who lives down the street from Obama, but is in fact someone much, much closer. As Kurtz detailed for the Wall Street Journal in September, Obama's only executive experience — period — has been working with Bill Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge and its radical education/indoctrination programs: Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists. The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers' home. Of course, to those on the far political left, from the 1960s onward, Bill Ayers and his radical wife, Bernardine Dohrn, have been heroes, not despicable domestic terrorists. It isn't hard for me to understand why Obama's alliance with this pair isn't problematic for any of the blame-America-first crowd. But for those of us who still love America and believe in our Constitution, a working relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is enough to disqualify Obama from our votes. Since Barack Obama has played a game of dodge-ball rhetoric concerning these associations of his — and since they are really all we know about him, his judgment, his character, and his patriotism — he has left us little choice but to vote against him in November. Early in the year, I wrote that this election would break on the lines of those who still love America and those who clearly don't. I still believe I'm right and that McCain will win — by a sizable percentage. This article was published on the Pajamas Media
|
|
HIDDEN DICTATORSHIP IN ISRAEL; STABILITY VS. LEGITIMACY IN ISRAEL; AMERICAN MUSLIM DAY PARADE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 20, 2008. |
|
U.S. LOSING STRATEGIC POWER? The US has a moratorium on new nuclear weapons. The US does not modernize its stockpile. It could fall behind its enemies. If other countries perceive this, they will stop following US leadership and act on their own (IMRA, 8/22). This probably means that they would develop their own weapons. The moratorium is a poor way of avoiding global nuclear buildup. A better way would have allowed building better weapons and de-commissioning older ones. HIDDEN DICTATORSHIP IN ISRAEL About the year 2000, most Israelis stopped voting for the Left. The place of the leftist parties was taken by, or reinforced by, the media. The media used its position to advance the leftist agenda. Reporters learned that if they didn't take a leftist line, regardless of their own views, their careers would suffer. The media there does not cover events, it covers up events. The media's ideology is "disparagement of patriotism and of the military, the dislike of the government [though the government is leftist], the self-praise as a 'peace' camp, the revulsion from Middle Eastern Judaism combined with an idolization of the Arabs, and the deep-seated grudge against the Right, against Netanyahu and capitalism." As talented people shun the scorned government, "a vacuum is formed, into which this party media enters with great force." The media boosted Livni "with false polls, and cheered when she appeared to win." The media hardly focused on the extensive scandals in the primaries she barely won. " ... the media is manipulating politicians instead of [the old problem of] being manipulated by them." (IMRA, 9/22.) Voters get deceived by parties or party leaders only pretending to be right-wing or centrist. ISRAEL DISCRIMINATES AGAINST JEWISH PRISONERS Convicted Arab terrorists get holidays from prison and expect early release. Convicted Jewish "security" prisoners usually are get neither, perhaps a few hours in chains to see newborns. The secret service claims they know of other Jewish conspiracies and that while out of prison, they endanger public safety. One placed a defective bomb at a Jewish school. He claims he knew it would not go off, just wanted to scare the Arabs away from terrorism. The judges (no juries in "democratic" Israel and no "reasonable doubt"] decided he didn't know it was a dud. Israeli judges can read minds, didn't you know? (Arutz-7, 9/23.) I find that most of the Jews are framed. Their excessive and cruel punishment, like Pollard's in the US, is political, in this case, anti-Zionist. ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF BOMBING IN PAKISTAN An Israeli analyst attributes some of the bombings there to the futile attempt at making a country out of several tribes, as does Sudan and Afghanistan. The UAE solved the problem by making a separate country for each tribe, then confederating (Arutz-7, 9/21). TEST OF ISRAELI "PEACE MAKERS" Ahmed Qureia, chief P.A. negotiator (and former head of the P.A., called a moderate by the US and Israel) was asked what would happen if negotiations fail. He said that if the P.A. doesn't attain independence [and whatever else it wants], the Muslims would resume violence against civilians [not that their terrorism ever ceased]. He was asked whether that would include suicide bombings. He said that all means are permissible to them. Dr. Aaron Lerner asks whether any Israeli "peace maker" will denounce Qureia's threat (IMRA, 9/23). I think they won't. They are too anti-Zionist. Their notion of making peace is to give the Muslims most of what they demand and accept humiliation from them. STABILITY OR LEGITIMACY? Kadima head Livni was not elected to be Prime Minister. Neither did she honestly win the primary to head Kadima. She lacks legitimacy. She insists that the Knesset pick her to be Prime Minister without general elections, to maintain stability. Her rival, MK Netanyahu, says that for the crucial issues coming up, legitimacy, via general elections, is more important (IMRA, 9/24). Since her foreign policy is disastrous, and she is stubborn about it, hers would be the stability of simpletons. It should not be left up to a non-elected appeaser to give away defensive borders and not even get peace. Legitimacy brings stability. AHMADINEJAD'S TENURE Pres. Admadinejad is trying to gather all power in his hands, as he seeks re-election. His extreme view about conjuring up the "hidden imam" to start Armageddon has brought him in opposition to the traditional clergy. He takes seriously his mission to destroy Israel and the US and make Iran supreme in behalf of Shiism (MEFNews, 9/24). If he loses the election, his successors will pursue nuclear weaponry and terrorism, too. They are more diplomatic but just as extremist in policy. IRAN BLAMES ISRAEL FOR FINANCIAL CRISIS According to the President of Iran, Zionist manipulation of financial markets caused the financial crisis (Arutz-7, 9/24). I didn't know that. How did Israel manage to manipulate banks that have much more money than it does? How did Israel get Congress to start the financial meltdown by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pressuring other lenders to give mortgages to people unlikely to repay? How did Israel get rating services to evaluate as sound the bundles of sub-prime mortgages? Israel doesn't have much capital and doesn't own those companies. Does Admadinejad mean that the fees paid by the mortgage companies to the rating services did not unduly influence the ratings, but Israel did? Rescinding the requirement separating banking from mortgage lending was desired by the financial industry. Israel didn't demand it nor has it any way of ordering it. People could invest in hedge funds with only a fraction of the assets. When values fall, and the bills come due, the funds can't repay. What has the lack of stricter margin requirements to do with Israel? Might the financial weakness of the West have something to do with the hundreds of billions a year of money paid to the oil exporting countries? Reducing our oil consumption should be required. Why would Israel bring chaos to the US, a country of which Israelis are fond and which sells it half its weapons [and which it needs for bombing Iran's nuclear]? It's all Israel's fault, somehow, he says. Guess we don't need to stop the affirmative action in lending mortgages to the poor, separate banking from mortgage lending, and require less investing on high margin. TASK FOR READERS Would someone please track down the status of the Bekaa Valley site where two Syria tank battalions were guarding the buried contents of a convoy that fled from Iraq when the US invaded? Presumably it held Iraq's nuclear weapons program. AMERICAN MUSLIM DAY PARADE On Columbus Day, Muslims paraded on 5th Ave. with false propaganda, such as, "Islam is a religion of peace," and "Islam seeks justice." Youths chanted, "NY City down, mighty, mighty Muslims." No other ethnic group would have celebrated their city's misfortune or bragged of their power. Enemies Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
BARACK OBAMA AND MORE ACORN FRAUD EXPOSED
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 20, 2008. |
|
ACORN Whistleblowers
This was written by Kenneth Timmerman, and it appeared today in
www.Newsmax.com.
|
|
New testimony obtained by a consumer advocate group from former employees of ACORN paints a startling picture of the apparent misuse of taxpayer dollars to further the group's left-wing political agenda. Four former employees of ACORN and of ACORN Housing Corp. have supplied sworn affidavits to the Consumer Rights League that provide eyewitness accounts of how the two organizations have commingled funds and resources, in apparent violation of federal law. ACORN has devoted $50 million to Project Vote activities in the current election cycle, primarily to register minority and low-income voters. Barack Obama ran the Chicago branch of Project Vote in 1992, and soon afterwards began teaching classes for "Future Leaders Identified by ACORN." In 1995, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for its supposed failure to implement the new "motor voter" law, the first piece of legislation signed by Bill Clinton after he became president in 1993. In a statement now immortalized in a YouTube video, Obama promised ACORN and other community organizations in an Iowa presidential campaign forum for Democrats in December 2007 that if elected president, he would bring them into the White House to help shape the agenda of an Obama administration. "Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America," Obama pledged. ACORN endorsed Obama on Feb. 21, 2008, at the most critical point of the tough primary battle that pitted him against Hillary Clinton. Welcoming that endorsement, Obama said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career." But now that ACORN's alleged voter fraud activities have become public, the Illinois senator has sought to distance himself from ACORN, just as he has from other former allies, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or former wanted terrorist William Ayers. His "fight the smears" Web site now has a statement claiming that "ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee," but acknowledged that he was hired by the organization in the 1995 lawsuit. [Turns out he trained them for free. — BSL] "Obama's failure to disclose the true nature of his relationship with ACORN is very surprising and deeply troubling," the John McCain campaign said in a press release last week. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as a non-partisan group, supported by tax-exempt contributions from individuals and corporations. The ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), an ACORN affiliate, receives more than 40 percent of its funding from government sources, ostensibly to promote affordable housing to low- and middle-income families. But according to CRL, internal documents obtained from whistleblowers suggest that ACORN has failed to maintain the proper distinction between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive political activities. "ACORN and its offshoots take in millions of dollars in government grants under the guise of ‘consumer advocacy' to line their own pockets," said Jim Terry, CRL's chief public advocate. The new testimony, from four former ACORN and AHC employees, provides "hard confirmation" that ACORN and its affiliate are in fact one in the same, Terry told Newsmax. "Here are people who have been in the room, testifying to the criminal intent of the people involved" in shuffling ACORN resources from tax-exempt purposes to political activities, he said. "Everything they do and say, with the exception of filing their government reports, treats this family of organizations as one cohesive unit. They operated as one organization, controlled from the top down," Terry said. One former employee, who was with ACORN for six years, including in a management position, testified that she has "knowledge that AHC has subsidized and believe that AHC continues to subsidize ACORN activities," in apparent violation of the law. "AHC subsidies to ACORN include office telephone service, fax, supplies and rental space paid for by AHC funds," she added. In addition, AHC management routinely treated federal grants as money that could be shared with ACORN, Terry told Newsmax. "Between 2004 through 2006, AHC transferred $4.6 million to ACORN in grants and fees, according to their tax returns. This is inherently wrong." Since 40 percent of AHC funds came from government grants, that means that U.S. taxpayers were in effect paying for ACORN's partisan political activities, he added. AHC required employees to "solicit funds and cash from clients and real estate professionals to pay for AHC operations," one of the whistleblowers said, detailing what amounted to a "shakedown" operation. Another former AHC employee said he would testify in court to the fact that "AHC and ACORN have operated as one entity," and quoted internal e-mails detailing how federal grants were shared between the organizations. The whistleblowers also stated that: AHC employees were instructed to hide documents from federal auditors with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. AHC employees were instructed on "steering" loans to partner banks, including Chase (for loans in the New Orleans area) and Bank of America for other areas around the country. AHC National Field Director Lee Trujillo stated in the presence of several of these witnesses that "AHC and ACORN would be funded out of the same account." AHC and ACORN have also shared "voter initiative money." Internal AHC e-mails and other documents "clearly show that AHC is paying for lease space occupied by ACORN." All of these are potential violations of the laws governing non-profit organizations. ACORN is currently under investigation for fraudulent voter registration and related activities in at least 11 key battleground states. Election officials in several states have said that 50 percent of ACORN voter registrations are fictitious. Just last week, for example, ACORN's offices in Nevada were raided by state law enforcement officials after reports that ACORN had registered the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas. In Connecticut, a 7-year-old girl was found to have been registered to vote by ACORN, which changed her age to 27. ACORN announced last week that it had just completed "the largest, most successful nonpartisan voter registration drive in U.S. history," by helping "1.3 million low-income, minority and young voters across the country register to vote." The group insisted that the allegations of voter fraud are "bogus," and "aim to camouflage voter suppression," a term used by many groups on the left to describe alleged police roadblocks in black neighborhoods in Florida during the 2000 campaign. Despite a two-year investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under the direction of Jesse Jackson protegé Mary Frances Berry, not a single eyewitness stepped forward who could corroborate the allegations of voter suppression or police roadblocks in Florida during that election. ACORN has paid more than 13,000 workers to sign up new voters this election season, and admits that "there are always some people who want to get paid without really doing the job." In any large voter registration operation, ACORN said last week, there will always be "a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms." But discrepancies in voter registration documents "has nothing to do with ‘voter fraud,'" the group insisted. AHC gets U.S. government grants to provide free advice and counseling services to low and mid-income consumers on how to qualify for a mortgage. In the advice it offers consumers, AHC warns about "predatory" lending. And yet, CRL alleges in a report issued earlier this year that AHC engages in many of the same practices it condemns. "ACORN's 'financial justice' operations attack lenders for ‘exotic' loans, but AHC has recommended ten-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and reverse mortgages (which can be detrimental to senior citizens)," the report states. AHC also has worked to obtain mortgages for undocumented workers, and has advised intake officers to counsel consumers how to use "under the table" income not reported to the Internal Revenue Service in order to increase their borrowing ability. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
DEFINITIVE WORD ON JOE THE PLUMBER?
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Mark Steyn It has got to be read with an "open mind", don't you agree? Sad, Bad, Mad mad world...!! |
|
Give a man enough rope line and he'll hang himself. There was His Serene Majesty, President-designate Barack the Healer, working the crowd at some or other hick burg, and halfway down the rope up pops a plumber to express misgivings about the incoming regime's tax plans. Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut. You'd think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than six-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you're wondering why Obama didn't simply announce that under his plan 112 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they'd really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 per cent it is. By the way, like the nightly news shows, this column now has an exclusive lavishly funded Fact Check Unit set up at great expense (a colorful graphic with the words "FACT CHECK ALERT!") in a lame attempt to pass off our transparent political bias as some sort of scientific exercise. Anyway, our Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: "95." It's the words "per cent" immediately following that are wrong: that's a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut. Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting's tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: "It's not that I want to punish your success," he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there's another typing error: that "you" should read "I, Barack." "You" will have no say in it. Joe the Plumber might think he himself can spread it around just fine, but everyone knows "trickle-down economics" don't work. So President-presumptive Obama kindly explained the new exquisitely condescending "talking-down economics:" Put that in your pipe and solder it. Evidently the O-mighty One was not happy after his encounter with Joe. He's still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But never again will he talk to Joe the Plumber without preconditions. Outraged at the way the right-wing whackos were talking up Joe the Plumber as if he were an authentic regular Joe like Joe Biden, the O-Bots of the media swung into action. Vast regiments of investigate reporters were redeployed from the Wasilla Holiday Inn back to the Lower 48. "We need you down here checking out this Joe the Plumber," editors barked to journalists. "But I'm this close to wrapping up the Wasilla Town Library banned-book investigation!" "Forget it! The Atlantic Monthly is claiming Joe the Plumber is Trig's real father. We can't get behind on this. Get to Minneapolis Airport. Joe the Plumber was seen in the bathroom with Senator Larry Craig." "Yes, but he was installing a stopcock ... " "Look, you went to Columbia School of Journalism. This is what we bold courageous journalists do. We're the conscience of the nation. We speak truth to plumber." "Er, shouldn't that be 'Speak truth to power'?" "That's the old edition of the handbook. Now we speak truth to power-tool operators. Joe the Carpenter, Joe the Plasterer, Joe the Electrician ... When you're building utopia, you don't want any actual builders getting in the way." Alas, as a result of this massive investment of journalistic resouces, no investigative reporter will be free to investigate ACORN voter-registration fraud or Obama's ties to terrorist educator William Ayers until, oh, midway through his second term at least. Under the headline "Is 'Joe The Plumber' A Plumber? That's Debatable", John Seewer of the Associated Press triumphantly revealed that Joe is not a "licensed" plumber. In fact, he doesn't need to be licensed for the residential plumbing he does, but isn't that just typical of Bush-McCain insane out-of-control deregulation? It wouldn't surprise me to discover that most of these subprime homeowners got Joe in to plumb their subprime bathrooms. Next thing you know, the entire global economy goes down the toilet. Coincidence? Joe is now the most notorious plumber in American politics since the Watergate plumbers. And they weren't licensed, either. It turns out Joe doesn't even make 250 grand, and it's only the 250-thousand-a-year types who'll be paying more (please, no tittering) under Good King Barack. Joe Biden — that's Joe the Bluecollar Senator — said that he didn't know any 250,000-dollars plumbers in his neighborhood, or even in the first-class club car on Amtrak he rides every night to demonstrate his bluecollar bonafides. On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer emphasized this point, anxious to give the apostate plumber one last chance to go with the flow: "Well, I just want to ask you now about the issue that was raised, because it's been a little confusing to me as I try to sort it out here. To get straight here, you're not taking home $250,000 now, am I right?" "No. No. Not even close," confessed Joe. So what's he got to be worried about? The heart of the American Dream is aspiration. That's why people came here from all over the world. Back in eastern Europe, the Joe Bidens and Diane Sawyers of the day were telling Joe the Peasant: "Hey, look, man. You're a peasant in the 19th century, just like your forebears were peasants in the 12th century and your descendants will be peasants in the 26th century. So you're never gonna be earning 250 groats a year. Don't worry about it. Leave it to us. We know better." And Joe the Peasant eventually figured that one day he'd like to be able to afford the Premium Gruel with just a hint of arugula and got on the boat to Ellis Island. Because America is the land where a guy who doesn't have a 250-grand business today might just have one in five or ten years' time. I'm with Joe the Plumber, not Joe the Hair-Plugger. He's articulated the animating principles of America better than anyone on either side in this campaign. Which is why the O-Bots need to destroy him. As Obama's catchphrase goes: "Joe the Plumber!
For the record, I am not a government-licensed pundit. But I expect they'll fix that, too. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
see examples of his graphic art at
|
|
AMERICAN MUSLIMS' PRIORITY PROBLEMS
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Raymond Ibrahim, the editor of "The Al Qaeda Reader," first-time translations of Muslim religious texts and propaganda. This article appeared October 19, 2008 in Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023167.php |
|
All humans generally live according to some set of priorities. A person may make a priority of health, of pleasure, of study — of absolutely anything, really. But it is practically a law of nature that a person must make a priority of something. Even those who lead unstructured existences unconsciously live according to some set of unarticulated priorities, if only according to something so basic as the primal need for food, drink, and shelter. For many people, religious practice — striving to obey God's commandments — is a high priority, the highest, even. Yet this priority can come into conflict with the character of the society in which one lives. This is undoubtedly the case for devout Muslims who voluntarily relocate to Western nations. This invariably will compromise what many of them profess to be their ultimate priority: living in accordance to the divine laws of Allah (i.e., sharia — most of which is derived from the words and deeds of seventh-century Mohammad). Some of these Muslims arrive in the West and refuse to compromise. Consider the following news stories: A few Muslim cashiers working at Target stores in Minneapolis last year refused to scan customer purchases that may have contained pork products. Instead of swiping the products themselves — which is their job — they inconvenienced the customers or fellow employees by having them do it. Muslim cab drivers have long been discriminating against customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. Officials at the St. Paul International Airport estimate that, on average, alcohol-bearing customers seeking cab rides are denied 77 times per month. Some blind customers have also been turned down on account of their seeing-eye dogs. Muslims in Seattle have requested (and been granted) regularly scheduled hours for their exclusive use of public pools; an all-Muslim-girls basketball team at a Chicago university demanded that men be barred from attending their matches; some 200 Muslim women signed a petition at a Michigan fitness center demanding separate workout times for men and women, or at least the erection of a screen divider between the men's and women's section (which was granted). More recently, Muslims have been demanding special rights in regards to prayer time during Ramadan. All of these issues revolve around the Muslim desire to live according to Allah's laws — which, among other things, ban contact with pigs, dogs, and alcohol, insist on punctuality concerning prayer, and have rigid social guidelines, especially in regards to public interaction between the sexes. From a religious point of view, then, the anti-social behavior of these Muslims is logically consistent. They are doing only what their religion commands them to do. And their refusal to compromise on these points demonstrates that adherence to the commandments of Islam is a priority of the utmost importance to them. However, if living in strict accordance to sharia is the first priority of some Muslims, one wonders: Why have they voluntarily come and immersed themselves in infidel countries that do not recognize sharia law and, indeed, allow many things that run counter to it, such as the selling and consumption of alcohol and pork and the liberal intermingling of the sexes? Most of the Muslim countries that Muslims abandon for the West are much more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle and uphold many if not all aspects of sharia law. Yet, each year, thousands of supposedly "ultra-devout" Muslims forsake these countries and, of their own free will, come and surround themselves with wine-imbibing, swine-eating libertines. Why? For the same reason that everyone else comes to the West — for the "good life." They come in order to be prosperous and to enjoy opportunities, security, and equality the likes of which they could never have in their own countries (ruled quite often — no surprise — according to sharia). The vast majority of Muslims emigrating from the Islamic world do not leave due to necessity — say, oppression or starvation. No, they come to the infidel West solely to prosper materially. But why are Muslims of the "ultra-pious" variety seeking after material comfort in the first place — especially when doing so will almost certainly undermine their professed desire to live strictly according to the sharia? Coming to live in a democratic country composed of some 300 million infidels is bound to affect any Muslim's observance of sharia. These pious Muslims risk coming into daily contact with, not only pork, alcohol, and dogs, but all sorts of other defilements: flamboyant homosexuals, scantily clad women (who are often in positions of authority!), gamblers and usurers, to name a few. Are they not concerned that they, or especially their children, might become contaminated by the licentious and seductive practices of the infidel West? If their priority is truly to strictly follow sharia, should they not remain in their Muslim countries of origin, which, if not as prosperous as the West, are definitely more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle? Or, could it be that, despite all the ruckus (and subsequent headlines) made by these Muslims, living in accordance to Allah and his sharia is not their first priority, after all? At least, not to the degree that they would be unwilling to put this priority at substantial risk for the sake of living the good life, in a strictly secular and materialistic sense. Furthermore, if common sense does not dissuade them from relocating to the West, the very sharia they claim to want to closely observe should. For instance, if pork and alcohol are condemned (e.g., Koran 5:4; 2:219), voluntarily living among infidels, idolaters, and atheists is looked on no better. The Koran declares: "O you who believe! Take neither Jews nor Christians as friends...whoever among you turns to them is one of them" (5:51). There are countless verses and traditions, in fact, that make it clear that Muslims are to be in a constant state of animosity toward non-Muslims, waging war through tongue and teeth in order to spread Islam, and, when finally in a position of superiority, discriminating against those who refuse to convert (see, for example, Koran 3:28, 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, 9:25, etc). When the Meccans persisted in their unbelief, refusing to accept the prophet-hood — and subsequent authority — of Mohammad, he finally abandoned his kinsfolk with these parting words, which some Muslims believe still define the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims: "We [Muslims] disown you [non-Muslims] and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — until you believe in Allah alone!" (60:40). So why are some Muslims making public scenes here in the United States over scanning bacon or transporting customers with sealed bottles of wine in their luggage while at the same time freely choosing to live with — and of course benefit from — those whom they are commanded to hate and wage war upon, or at the very least, disavow and be clean of? Of course, there is always the "stealth jihad" to consider — that is, the subtle, non-violent form of jihad that seeks to gradually turn the West into a part of the Abode of Islam. But that is another story for another time. At any rate, "straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel" has long been a sure sign of hypocrisy. All Muslims who freely migrate to the West must understand that they can't have it both ways — that they can't have their cake and eat it, too. They must choose between either strictly upholding the laws and customs of 7th-century Arabia (in which case they should remain in their "sharia friendly" countries of origin) or, if prosperity and comfort is their first choice, let them relocate to the West, but prepare to assimilate — that is, compromise — to some degree. It's a simple question of priorities. |
|
ACORN PLAYING HUGE ROLE IN MISSOURI RACE
Posted by Newsmax, October 19, 2008. |
|
This was written by Nathaniel R. Helms and it appeared today
|
|
Sandwiched between two heavily populated urban centers where voter roles are swelled by inner-city voters recruited by ACORN is the rest of Missouri, the rural heart of a bellwether state where presidential nominee John McCain is still the candidate of choice. "Senator McCain has to win Missouri to win the White House," said Jared Craighead, executive director of the state's Republican Party. On Sunday, McCain was five or six points behind Obama in most state polls with a plus or minus error factor of four. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — usually referred to as ACORN — wants to keep it that way. Missourians have voted for the presidential winner in all but one election since 1904, and brings 11 electoral votes to the table. This election, however, the influence of ACORN with neophyte voters without the sophistication or interest to registers themselves may overpower the traditional voice of consistant conservative voters in rural Missouri, worried Republicans predict. Time after time since ACORN developed into a social and political force in St. Louis and Kansas City two decades ago, it has used means fair and foul to influence local and statewide elections by energizing the otherwise ignored inner-city precincts, events have shown. In November 1993, ACORN helped register more than 100,000 voters from poor urban neighborhoods in St. Louis and Kansas City to pass an amendment to the Missouri Constitution to legalize gambling. The same amendment was defeated by 1,200 votes the preceding April on the strength of heated rural voters when ACORN wasn't involved. When another edition of the amendment was rolled out for the November general election with strong ACORN support funded by $12 million paid by gambling interests to finance the campaign it passed by about 54,000 votes. In 2006, ACORN was credited by Republicans with helping to defeat Congressman Jim Talent in his race against Democrat Claire McCaskill for the U.S. Senate. Last April, eight of the ACORN organizers who ran the voter registration drive in St. Louis during the vicious campaign pleaded guilty to election fraud charges in federal court. They were accused of submitting registration cards with false names and addresses in the 2006 election. Two weeks ago, officials in Jackson County, home to Kansas City, joined two other states in investigating ACORN when hundreds of bogus registrants began popping up. "I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Charlene Davis, the county's elections board co-director, told The Associated Press at the time. Ultimately more than 400 registration cards with false names and addresses were discovered. The forms, she said, came from ACORN. Missouri is particularly important to Republicans, both parties agree, as they trail in most of the other swing states, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Both candidates have blitzed the state with political ads and multiple visits, with Sen. Barack Obama reportedly spending $6 million on media advertising and McCain almost $5.5 million. It may not be enough for McCain. ACORN has enjoyed strong support from organized labor since its founding in 1970. Its founder and chief organizer is Wade Rathke, who also serves as chief organizer for Service Employees International Union Local 100, which represents about 5,000 workers in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. The union is powerful in neighboring Missouri as well, particularly in St. Louis and Kansas City where about 25,000 SEIU workers staff hotels, restaurants, hospitals and the gambling industry. It has endorsed Obama and offers a voter registration guide on its Web site ACORN admittedly targets well-funded registration drives in close-race states like Missouri. Talent lost to McCaskill by less than 50,000 votes, about the same number of voters ACORN claimed it had registered. During that contest, city election officials in St. Louis, overwhelmed by more than 5,000 suspicious-looking voter registration cards, sent letters to the registrants asking them to contact the election office. Fewer than 40 people responded, officials later said. The city's election director, Scott Leiendecker, said at the time that only about 10 percent to 15 percent of all ACORN registration cards reaching his office were legitimate. In neighboring St. Louis County, election officials came across hundreds of bogus voter address changes in the months leading up to November. Most of the suspicious information had been submitted by ACORN, voter registration officials there said. Across the state in Kansas City, election official Ray James, along with his Democratic counterpart, Sharon Turner Buie, announced that more than 15,000 registration forms were "questionable." On Nov. 2, 2006, a federal grand jury indicted four ACORN employees for "knowingly and willingly" submitting false information to Kansas City election authorities. A U.S. district court judge subsequently dismissed a two-count indictment against one of the defendants at the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney's Office. It turned out ACORN had used her identity "without her permission." This year ACORN claims the political action group has registered about 34,000 voters in St. Louis for the presidential election. Currently there are no problems to report at the St. Louis Election Board, Leiendecker said. Despite the assurances from Leiendecker, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, a St. Louis Republican, spoke out and condemned the continued problems Missouri election officials in St. Louis and Kansas City have endured in every recent election. Danforth and former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman head McCain's "Honest and Open Elections Committee." "It's an outrage," Danforth said in his press conference. "It breaks the system down. There's a big difference between registration drives — that's great — and turning in bogus names. Register people, but register real people. Don't register, as was the case in our state in the last presidential election, where a dog was registered." |
|
OBAMA'S SECRET CAMPAIGN CASH: HAS $63 MILLION FLOWED FROM FOREIGN SOURCES?
Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, October 19, 2008. |
|
This was published today in Newsmax.
|
|
As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding. By Obama's own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain's campaign, Obama won't release the names of these donors. A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws. For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit. Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them. And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency. According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more. When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about — either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission — "will be returned." "Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions," LaBolt said. "And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary." But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had "never" been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago. In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle. Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws. Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because "I love Obama," she said. According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit. The Obama campaign reported that it had "redesignated" the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits. But if that happened, it's news to Handley. "No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money," she said. Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800. The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit. But there's one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn't remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money. "At the end, I was making monthly payments," he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments. Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization. John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds. Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300. Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded. In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions — for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 — added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election. Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign. In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public. Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors. Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000. Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts. One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation. "Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center. "The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors — and even small donors — are in even dollar amounts," he told Newsmax. "Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers." Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work. "There's always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare," he said. Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual. "I've never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates," he said. "The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions — contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal." Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be "pretty unusual." "You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it's pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored." LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online "Obama store," which sells T-shirts and other campaign items. "Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts," he said. But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there. The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for "accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals," which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations. "Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late," RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax. The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names. Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama's publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret. As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC — money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama's finance team, who won't take calls from the press. While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases. The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed. If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors. However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources. Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday. Ken Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc., and author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and go to his website: www.KenTimmerman.com |
|
IRAN AND THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD
Posted by GWY, October 19, 2008. | |
|
This was written by Michael Welner, M.D. Dr. Welner lives in New York, NY. | |
|
Past is present. In 1942, the U.S. State Department, and leaders in American Jewry first confirmed the mass execution of Jews that was taking place under German direction. The enormity of the Final Solution was known even then, 2 years before the end of World War II. Yet anti-Semitism among decision-makers in the Roosevelt administration State Department, including the point man on immigration policy, and a meek American Jewish community stalled American efforts to save the doomed Jews until early 1944. Even then, death camps were not bombed or destroyed, and America turned a blind eye until the liberation of the camps by US forces. Consider how many of your own relatives could have been saved. Consider how many doctors never cured, scientists never invented, never had the opportunity to contribute to mankind. Consider the advances to all of humanity — including the Arabs and other hateful anti-Westerners — that we will never know because the talented Jewish parents and grandparents that would have produced them were exterminated like vermin. I only live to write this because my mother was spared by fate as she scrambled for her life all over Germany, hiding and by her wits, as a young girl, alone. And so, the Holocaust was not merely an act of genocide, but of unparalleled cannibalism, as the world watched a culture of educated, philanthropic, community minded, generous, and inventive peoples wiped out, carrying the prospect of their children and future hopes of the world with them. The role of American Jewish passivity in the disintegration of an enormous proportion of Jews cannot be understated. The late 1930s were an age of antiwar ambivalence, as Hitler marched. Jews had endured a depression that pitched the world into a resentment of Jewish influence; the hatred behind the genocide in Europe was echoed among many who tied America's downturn to Jewish bankers in a manner hauntingly similar to the comments of Iran's Ahmadinejad at his UN speech two weeks ago. And leaders in the Jewish community with ties to Roosevelt cared more about their proximity to power than to rock the boat with an administration that actively obstructed the efforts of righteous non-Jews to save lives. While papers were pushed aside, masses were pushed to shooting deaths at mass graves. While people who knew looked away, Germans and their enthusiastic neighbors herded the brilliance and spirit of millions into the gas chambers and ovens of a Solution to the "Jewish Problem." In these, the days in which many of us pray for God's plan for the New Year ahead, it is worth remembering that between this year and the next Yom Kippur, the mullah's Iran will acquire the capacity for a nuclear bomb — with an expressed determination to use it. In the spirit of recognizing what a catastrophe it would be for another generation to endure a Holocaust, I ask each of you to pray for the safety of the free world from the Islamist menace and its access to the weapons of elimination of the miracle that is Israel. And I ask each of you to ask your rabbis and priests to do the same. The Islamist messianism of the Iranian mullahs has taken over Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and aims at Iraq is greeted by the same bloodthirsty enthusiasm for killing Jews that Hitler found in Poland, the Ukraine, and elsewhere. The difference is, that millions can now be killed at the touch of a button, and not through some systematic plan. The touch of a button. The touch of a button. Keep in mind also that unlike Nazi Germany who merely wanted to conquer the region and possibly more, the theocracy of Iran sees the apocalypse as idyllic. Pray also for our leaders to not see the menace of Iran and economic priorities as mutually exclusive. That is a naïve and dangerous excuse. For the West powers the world's economy. Israel's role as part of that economic engine is wildly disproportionate. Cell phones, microchips, stem cell cures, countless creations are emerging from the miracle that is Israel. The safety of Israel is not a Jewish problem — it is a problem for a mankind that seeks to evolve forward. A single airborne nuclear device, peddled by Iran to the terrorists it sponsors worldwide, can dismantle the American electronic and technology infrastructure through EMPP. Just like that. The War on Terror has protected the economy from the sudden catastrophes that cost billions; economic policies of greed and pandering to voting blocks that need to be remedied do not change the reality that the belligerents who draw inspiration from the Koran interpret these setbacks merely as signs that we, the United States and the Great Satan, deserve to be destroyed. In the spirit of this, I want to call your attention to the speech that Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin prepared a few weeks ago, anticipating the opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad on his recent visit to the UN. It is a speech of great clarity and essential urgency. It is absolutely required reading for every Jew, every American who admires Israel, every American who fears engaging a War on Terror with a nuclear-armed messianist, and every American who appreciates the precariousness of democracies and countries of free enterprise in a world of deprived liberties, economic socialism and corruption, and political dictatorship and backward oppression. My brief comments follow this speech, from Gov. Sarah Palin.
Final thoughts: Past is present. For Gov. Palin was prevented from giving her remarks, and disinvited from this rally, by Jewish leaders who did not want to jeopardize their "influence" in the Democratic Party. They did not want to offend Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton (who withdrew from the opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad herself). It mattered more to them to curry favor than to use their responsible leadership to engage a genocidalist who has the temerity to dare the world to stand in the way and is applauded at the UN — on our own shores. This is exactly the extraordinary spinelessness and cowardice that enabled the Final Solution. Silence — death. And the urgency grows each day after Ahmadinejad left our shores. Those fearful of acting for their own self-interest forfeit the right to lead — and so we must stand up and do it ourselves. Iran must be stopped. Be it by crippling economic sanction, or by abetting Israel's own military intervention (through giving Israel landing rights at forward US bases and refueling planes), it must be done. The world has been talking to Iran for years, to no avail. A policy of Neville Chamberlain's circa World War II Britain has only emboldened the theocracy in Iran to accelerate its development and to deepen its collaboration with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran must be stopped. This needs to be a rallying cry of every peace-loving rabbi, priest, and American leader. And so I appeal to those of you praying for the year ahead to deeply pray for the dismantling of the Iranian and Islamist nuclear menace. Share Governor Palin's comments with your spiritual leader and have them distributed to every member of your congregation — if they disagree, point out to their conscience about the consequences of putting political considerations ahead of a threat of genocide. Tell them about what the leaders before them did in 1942, and challenge them to do otherwise and prove themselves worthy of the pulpit. There has been talk of whether negotiations with or without preconditions are appropriate. This debate is irrelevant — for negotiations with Iran have proceeded for several years — enabling Iran to exploit more time to push forward. Iran has taken advantage of the world choosing to negotiate with it. While more apathetic powers of the world have resisted sanctions on the nihilistic Iran, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad have accelerated refinement of material for assembly into nuclear weapons. German and Russian interests have supplied Iran with needed technical assets. Negotiations, with or without preconditions, will no longer work. The time has come to sanction Iran now. The world's major economic powers, at a time of the falling price of oil and a time of Iran's own economic strains, must squeeze Iran into choosing its priorities — nuclear weaponization vs. economic collapse. The alternative is a regional war that will involve Israel, Iran, and the countries they control — Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians. Or, a nuclear attack on Israel that would kill millions and reprise the catastrophe of the Holocaust in a single moment. Millions dead — instantly. War will happen, and a war unleashed, unless leaders step up and Stop Iran now, Sanction Iran now. Share this with your friends, priests and rabbis and prospective voters who care about Middle East Policy, the Iraq War, and the War on Terror. For Iran — the most active force in the killing of Americans in Iraq today — is poised to pounce on Iraq as soon as the US leaves, if done precipitously or to score points for an Obama presidency already running for re-election (with initiatives to clamp down on opposition talk radio and stations who run attack ads). Joe Biden has told Israel it must live with a nuclear Iran. Do you think so? Biden himself said, in the aftermath of 9/11, that we should give 200 million dollars to Iran, with no strings attached. Would you agree with that idea? And both Obama and Biden have reflected a voting record that avoids or opposes designating the arms of Iranian military hegemony as terrorist organizations, and sanctions to Iran. There is a lot that can be done, and needs to be done. Gov. Palin may know less about the world than a number of experienced politicians who have dithered on this issue, but at least what she knows is true. Iran must be stopped. The plan of Senator McCain to mobilize the world's democracies to sanction Iran economically, and meaningfully, is a forceful start. We need to stop the genocide of the Jews of Israel before we ask ourselves why we were silent. Past is present. Please spread the word. You and yours must not be silent,
must not be passive, must not accept another genocide or choose the path of
your own seeming popularity or personal benefit. You have the power. Stand up
and fight!
Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com
|
|
ISRAEL PRAISES UN SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN KI-MOON CALL AGAINST HIZBULLAH
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 19, 2008. |
|
More BS from the UN. What are they going to do, send more ineffective observers? |
|
Israel welcomed a call from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for Hizbullah to be disbanded. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki... "If Lebanon is a sovereign state with an army, it must have a monopoly over power and the situation where Lebanese political parties have armies is totally unacceptable," a Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday. Ban said Thursday he was encouraged by the positive developments in relations between Lebanon and Syria, but called on the two countries to take further steps to improve security along the border. He also warned that Lebanon would not be a fully sovereign state until Hizbullah and other militia groups were disbanded. The secretary-general's six-month report to the UN Security Council focused on Lebanon's progress in holding presidential elections, but underscored the immediate danger of armed groups. "Over the last six months, Lebanon has experienced both the ruinous effects of sectarian violence and hope and optimism," he said in the report. "I applaud the historical steps that have been taken so far by Presidents Suleiman and Assad," he said. "For the first time since their independence, the two neighboring states are establishing diplomatic relations." The foreign ministers of Syria and Lebanon signed a document last Wednesday formalizing diplomatic ties between the two countries for the first time in their turbulent history. Israel welcomed Syria's commitment to begin fulfilling its international obligations but stressed that this is just the first step. "Israel expects Syria to fulfill its other international obligations by stopping support for terrorism and particularly Hizbullah in Lebanon, stopping interference in internal Lebanese affairs and to start implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701," the Foreign Ministry official said. Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War, called for the dismantling of all militias in Lebanon. Ban, in his report, said in addition to establishing diplomatic relations, Lebanon and Syria must also take concrete steps to implement other agreements reached during these meetings, including "joint activity to improve security arrangements along that border." In his April report, Ban highlighted the mounting international concern over Lebanon's failure to fill the presidential post, left vacant after pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud stepped down last November. In Thursday's report, he said the most significant progress made in the last six months was Lebanon's compliance with requirements for a "free and fair presidential election according to Lebanese constitutional rules." Ban said Lebanese President Michel Suleiman's election on May 25 "represented a significant step forward," but said "I remain concerned by the political assassinations and explosions that continue to plague Lebanon." The secretary-general said that clashes in May and violent incidents since then raised concerns "that groups on all sides of the political spectrum may be rearming." In the report, Ban called on Lebanese parties to immediately halt all efforts to acquire and build paramilitary capabilities. He reiterated that disarming and disbanding all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias should be done through a political dialogue "that will lead to the monopoly on the use of force by the government of Lebanon throughout all of its territory. "The ultimate purpose of disarmament is the establishment of a strong Lebanese state for all inhabitants of Lebanon," he said. "Hizbullah's maintenance of separate military assets and infrastructure is a fundamental challenge to the government's attempts to consolidate the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese state," he said. "In addition, several Palestinian militias operate in the country, inside and outside of refugee camps," he said, adding that they also undermine the stability of the country and the region. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA & FRIENDS: JUDGE NOT?
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 19, 2008. |
|
"...associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate." — C.K. Dear friends, Charles Krauthammer's reputation is beyond reproach. He has been known to criticize all sides of the political spectrum. Here he writes about Obama's associations. The Dems are trying to paint "guilt by association" as being unfair, or even racist. The truth is that this is not just "by association" but guilt by ALLIANCE. It was said that if any person was running to any Federal government post, the FBI probe would not find him/her eligible, yet Obama is a heart beat away from the Oval Office.... This was published October 10, 2008 in the Washington Post
Your Truth Provider,
|
|
Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association. But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate. McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate. McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist. This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely. Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once. Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough." Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism? No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama. First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics? Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success. Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition. Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond. Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse. Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
ACORN TARGETS A WEAKNESS IN DEMOCRACY
Posted by Avodah, October 19, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Sign On San Diego
|
|
To end the many obstacles Southern states put up before African-American voters as late as the 1960s, Congress worked for decades to make voting much easier. These efforts had a hugely positive effect — until the 1993 "motor voter" law. This measure and some related laws made registration so easy — and so difficult to verify because of a lack of resources and time — that they created nothing less than a structural weakness in American democracy. This election year, we're seeing a determined, well-funded effort to exploit this weakness, led by ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Using corporate, partisan and taxpayer grants, the nonprofit group has spent $35 million this year to register 1.3 million people in 21 states. But it's highly likely that hundreds of thousands of these registrations are bogus. That's because ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get — an invitation to fraud — and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of "social justice." ACORN's voter drive in San Diego County — detailed in yesterday's Union-Tribune — is troubling. Nearly 2,000 of the 26,000 forms it turned in were invalid, much higher than the norm. But compared with what ACORN did elsewhere, its San Diego effort was a model of probity. In Ohio, for example, officials say ACORN gets the primary blame in the registration of 200,000 new voters whose forms appear to be bogus. Unfortunately, many Democrats depict concern over ACORN as Republican hysteria. They are right that voter fraud has been a tiny problem in recent years. But they ignore a key point: the stunning scale of bogus registrations this time around. Even if a tiny fraction of these fake voters actually fill out a ballot, they have the potential to tip the presidential vote in battleground states — such as Ohio. Or Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina or Wisconsin — all swing states where ACORN has been active. If we have another very close race, the subsequent court fight could make Florida 2000 seem like a polite tiff. So, please, spare us the "social justice" rhetoric. What ACORN has done isn't noble. It's reprehensible. We hope that the FBI's investigation into the group is vigorous and thorough. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
20 MIDDLE EAST POLICY QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CANDIDATES
Posted by David Bedein, October 19, 2008. |
|
This was first asked in April 2008 |
|
The following twenty Middle East policy questions are the questions that American voters may wish to pose to Senators Obama and McCain...along with all candidates for the US Congress 1. Numerous declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the US government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948. How would you, as President relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia? 2. The current administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture. Would you, as President, continue this policy of arming the Saudis? 3. Successive US presidents have supported the idea that Palestinian refugees should be reside in the squalor of UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return", instead of being rehabilitated under the principles of UNHCR which work to rehabilitate refugees in decent living permanent living conditions, instead of perpetuation the unreal notion of the right of return to villages and homes that no longer exist. Would you, as President, call for an application of UNHCR principles to alleviate the plight of Palestinian refugees? 4. The Bush Administration has announced a program to arm the Fatah, despite current terror activities of the Fatah and despite the fact that Fatah remains on the list of organizations defined by American law as illegal terrorist organizations. Would you, as President, continue to arm the Fatah? 5 The PA has used US AID funds to foster an Islamic Sharia constitution which doe not provide juridical status for any religion besides Islam. Does you, as President, approve of this PA policy? Would you, as President, ask for a change in such a constitution as a condition of future aid to the PA? 6. The Bush Administration has restrained Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza. Would you, as President, restrain the hand of Israel? 7. As a matter of policy, terrorists who fire missiles at Israel from Gaza use Gaza civilians as human shields. Would you, as President, recognize the fact that casualties in Gaza remain a direct result of this human shield policy? 8. The Palestinian Authority harbors terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial. The Clinton and Bush Administrations turned a blind eye to such a policy. Would you, as President, allow such a policy to continue? 9. Palestinian Authority operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights. Would you, as President, condition for any future US assistance in a human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA? 10. Christians are persecuted in the PA and are often not allowed to practice their religion in the open in the PA. The American consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA. Would you, as President, continue to ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA or will you, as President, champion the cause of Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA? 11, Syria continues to host and support a plethora of terror groups. What would the policy to Syria, as President, be to Syria in this regard? 12. Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world. Would you, as President, support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley? 14. Since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in the Galilee, would you, as President, support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from the Golan? 15. The Bush Administration asks that Israel abide by the road map for peace. Which road map would you, as President, endorse — the road map of April 30th 2003 or the road map of May 25th 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations] 16. The Bush Administration characterizes the Fatah terror organization as a "moderate" factor. Would you, as President, share in that characterization. 17. The Clinton and Bush Administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo accord "declaration of principles" which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo accords on the White House lawn on September 13th, 1993 and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on October 6th, 1993 in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24th. 1996. Would you, as President, continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo accord and never cancelled the PLO charter? 18. The Clinton and Bush administration instituted a policy of ignoring the message communicated by the newly constituted Palestinian Authority in the Arabic language which communicates a clear language of continued war on Israel. Would you, as President, insist on a change in that policy and issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official media outlets of the PA? 19. The Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently ignored the fact that the new Palestinian Authority curriculum introduced by the PA inculcates the next generation to continue the war to liberate all of Palestine. Would you, as President, ask for a cancellation of such a curriculum? 20. Since the Gaza withdrawal demonstrates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel, would you, as President, insist on future Israeli withdrawals? David Bedein, author of the forthcoming book, "Swimming Against the
Mainstream", has run the Israel Resource News Agency.
|
|
JEWS, OBAMA, MCCAIN AND STREISAND
Posted by GWY, October 18, 2008. |
|
I cringe every time the Obama campaign message is broadcasted, the one where he claims to have sat on his grandfather's shoulders waving a little American Flag. Who is he kidding?????? everyone, it seems. This was written by Dr. Sam Bierstock, a physician and surgeon, who is a nationally recognized authority on healthcare clinical information systems. He is the past Chief Medical Officer for IBM's healthcare and hospital business consulting division. He is the author of more than 75 published professional articles, 3 books and lectures nationally and internationally on healthcare information technology. He is also the recipient of the 2007 George Washington Freedoms Foundation Award for his work in honoring veterans. |
|
I am an American, a Jew, and an Independent. I think I have a good handle on the issues, the presidential candidates and their positions. I will be voting for John McCain. I am also a physician and I think I have a reasonable degree of understanding of complex issues. I get the fact that Jews have historically been very liberal and often socialistic in their leanings and politics since the turn of the 20th century. That having been said, I am confounded, perplexed and completely confused by the fervor with which so many of my fellow Jews flock to, and support Obama and the democratic party in the face of the issues of today's world. One year ago, I was concerned about allegations widely circulating on the Internet about a relatively unknown Barak Obama with claims that he was a closet terrorist sympathizer, raised by a fundamental Islamist, educated in radical Islamic Wahibism, a cohort and confidant of Lou Farrakhan, a disciple of racist Jeremiah Wright, a true Muslim masquerading as a Christian convert; that he refused to salute the American flag, wear a flag pin or say the pledge of allegiance. When I forwarded such notes to my Jewish friends and family, I received angry responses that this was all slanted hype and without basis in fact. I think they have been proven to be correct in debunking such early hysterical hype. I now receive forwarded email from these same people telling me that Sarah Palin supported Pat Buchanan, is a right wing, anti-Semitic Christian radical, has no concerns for the environment, is a heartless hunter, an irresponsible mother, a hypocrite because her daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, fired her ex-brother in law for personal reasons, and is a radical right-to-lifer who has a husband who had a DWI many years ago. Apparently, this is valid hype. I think it is fair to say that many people base their votes on a limited number of issues — or even a single issue. For some it is the economy, or women's rights, and for others it is the war or support for Israel. Herein lies my confusion. How about this issue? Survival! Our history as a people has taught us quite clearly, and as recently as 70 years ago, that complacency and comfort in what is viewed as an enlightened society with a "temporary" politically persuasive candidate with strong oratory skills can be a very dangerous mistake. What value lies in placing the economy or woman's rights in a position of priority when there are forces out there who want to destroy us — as a country and as a people? On the one hand we have a candidate who would sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unconditionally, enjoys the support of Louis Farrakhan, says he supports a united Jerusalem one day and changes his position under pressure the next, and who worshiped for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright (who has pro-Hamas literature circulated in his church). On the other hand we have a battle-hardened hero who has never wavered in support of Israel, has consistently supported a united Jerusalem, recognizes the accuracy of history relative to the holocaust, and who sees the threat of Iran and its anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, holocaust denying leader. Um, Let's see. Shouldn't this be a slam dunk? Try making these arguments in the Jewish community and you may receive, as I have, such arguments as "Yeah — well Palin is a right wing crazy!" Oy Veh! I grew up in a Canadian town that was called Berlin until WWI. When the radio and newspapers announced German victories, the people poured into the streets to celebrate. I was in a small Jewish community and I had more than my share of bloodied noses and bruises as a kid. I grew up with friends living in eerily silent homes with parents who bore the tattoos of the camps on their arms. By the time I was a young adult, I learned that when someone stuck their finger on my chest with a threat or an insult, it was much more effective to grab that finger and hold it in a position where I could break it than it was to try to discuss how nice Jews really were — and that I really didn't personally kill Jesus. Try listing the number of countries in the world where Jews can live entirely comfortably and with virtually no fear of harassment or veiled anti-Semitism. I suspect you will not get further than 3 or 4. Yet collectively, the American Jewish Community in this country astounds me in its attitude. We pride ourselves in being enlightened and tolerant to our own detriment, and I believe this to be the single most threatening characteristic to our continued comfort in this most wondrous of countries. As an illustration, consider the case of Mel Gibson revealing his true feelings in an alcoholic rant — feelings handed down to him by his holocaust-denying father. Within a week of the event a Los Angeles rabbi invited Gibson to address his congregation. Did he think he was going to change life-long, deeply ingrained anti-Semitism by showing Gibson that we are really OK and a nice group of people? Did he think he was going to open up a dialogue and change Gibson's views? Did he think Gibson's expressed regret was because he was truly repentant — or did he consider that perhaps in accepting the invitation, Gibson was worried that his career in a largely Jewish industry might well be over and that speaking to the congregation would show that he really didn't mean what he said while under the influence? What the hell was the rabbi thinking? I also understand that woman's rights versus abortion is a volatile and controversial issue for our entire country. I don't have a "right" answer, but I have formed my own opinions in this regard because as a physician, I have literally been on the other end of abortion procedures and watched them being done. Because of those experiences, I cannot support abortion as a casual means of birth control — but accept its use in cases of rape, incest or severe deformity. I have seen the remnants of the life that is being ended. I recognize that to be my personal view, yet it is another issue that is often virtually undebatable in the Jewish community. When did Jewish law and ethic succumb to standard bearing for women's rights over those of the unborn? What happened to the Jewish tradition of respectful debate and discussion? Lastly, I hear repeatedly from my lantsmen(mainly co-religionists) that another four years of McCain will be another 4 years of Bush. Excuse me — but if McCain is Bush, then let's consider that Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids — the most ineffective president of the 20th century. Obama is to the left of Carter — another skilled orator of high-minded rhetoric who brought is 18% interest rates, a humiliating 18 month hostage crisis in Iran with a botched rescue attempt, and the most anti-Israel secretary of state (and current advisor to Obama) Zbigneuw Brezinski — not to mention a fair number of anti-Semitic utterances during his post-presidency years — utterances from a self described deeply religious man who regaled us endlessly with descriptions of his deep Christian morals and values. McCain is not Bush any more than Obama is Carter. I am not asking my fellow Jews to flock to the Republican side, but it is a sad thing to me to so frequently encounter in a traditionally tolerant and liberal thinking population, an intolerance to opposing views. We have become "Streisanded". Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
RECORD VERSUS RHETORIC
Posted by GWY, October 18, 2008. |
|
This was written by Thomas Sowell and it appeared on the
Townhall website
|
|
Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media. The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience — none in an executive capacity — and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected. Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money. Sarah Palin has had executive experience — and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record. We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues. "Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers. He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis. Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media? One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate. Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway. More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think. Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it. Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops. Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year. Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is. But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions. Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience." Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
JOE THE PLUMBER VERSUS OBAMA'S ORWELL
Posted by Sultan Knish, October 18, 2008. |
|
Joe the Plumber is important. Not simply because he represents the defense of middle class aspirations against a socialist system designed to create a wide gap between the dependent ranks of the working class and the upper classes safely ensconced and managing the socialist bureaucracy... but because his case demonstrates quite well the fate of those who criticize an Obama administration. Even without government control, Obama's backers are using the weapon of media intimidation to silence and suppress critics and clear his way to the top job. The media has managed to turn up more negative material on Joe the Plumber in a day than they have on Barack Hussein Obama in a year. The latter is running for President, the former was an ordinary man who asked him a question. This is the way things are supposed to work in a dictatorship, not in the United States. Here the critical eye is supposed to be on the politician, not on the American who asks him a critical question. Yet that is exactly where we are now, and if we don't stop it, there may well be a country called America, but it will have little in common with the United States of America. Which makes it all the more important on election day to get out there and tell the messiah to stick his arugula where the sun don't shine. Meanwhile in more of the Rage problem on the Obama side, PJM has an attack on a McCain supporter in Manhattan. I'm not remotely surprised that the supporter was a middle aged woman or that the attacker was a burly man. This is actually common for your average enraged liberal coward. At pro-Israel rallies, lefties routinely went after signs held by older women. Typical of this kind of enraged leftie cowards such as Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller at an anti-israel rally who assaulted Rachel Neuwirth or Nathan Winkler who chased a woman for having a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on her car. Now put this in the context of the psychotic hate being directed at Sarah Palin, and you're closer to the real face of liberalism, sheer cowardice. (By the way if anyone knows where I can buy a McCain button in the New York City area, I'd be grateful, since by the time the official store ships me one the election will be all but over.) Meanwhile Obama supporters are doing their own GOTV in their own old fashioned way, by stealing it. First we have this disgusting story when a mentally handicapped man
was forced to vote for Obama when he was taken to the polls for early
voting. Look for a lot more of this happening particularly with senior
citizens in New York and Florida. Forget the Big Schlep, the real
story will involve caretakers and social workers and others going in
with disabled people and seniors into the voting both and voting for
them. I've seen this repeatedly in New York City at the polls.
Secondly the Supreme Court just legitimized Ohio's massive vote
fraud, which just shows that the left will be happy to steal the
election using the Supreme Court after all. How ironic.
Meanwhile anti-jihadist sites are running reports of a link between terrorists and pedophilia websites. British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. "It shows that these people are very confused," a source said. "Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff." This of course just goes to show you how dim British security sources are. Pedophilia is a product of the decadence of the Muslim world, far more than it is a product of Western decadence. And Islamic terrorists routinely piggyback their fund raising ventures on organized crime based on doing things that are illegal in the West but a part of their culture, whether it's drug, car theft or pedophilia. After all Islam's prophet raided caravans and took a child bride. I have no idea if he chewed quat, but either way it's 2 for 3. Meanwhile the fire sale of Israel continues with the US having now chosen to back the giveaway of the Golan to Syria. The circus goes on with more terrorists set to be freed, Haredim continuing to sell out Israel, Shas playing its cynical games on Yerushalayim and the religious zionist camp experiencing leakage away from sanity. The picture could be grimmer probably, but not by much. As I've said before a lot is on the line this year and by the end of this year we will either be headed in a virtually irreversible downward spiral. All the while the Obamas will be chowing down on Iranian caviar in the White House. In a brief blogsphere roundup, Daled Amos covers the murder of 3 Americans by Palestinian Arab terrorists Not much attention seems to have been paid this past week to the 5th anniversary of the murder of three American security contractors, John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Martin Linde Jr. by Palestinian terrorists on October 15, 2003. At the Keli Ata blog, riffing on Obama's Grapes of Wrath In the movie, Henry Fonda does a much better job reciting it than does the plagarist Barack Obama. Another reference to Obama in pop culture/American literature? I can't help it because the man keeps framing himself with it, plagarizing. The always highly readable Breath of the Beast blog has an important post on the underlying psychological framework behind what's going on today Obama intentionally presents us with an image of ourselves in that is calculated to make us feel is a reflection of the kind of world we desperately long to see. Because of that image, many people have made the commitment to ignore any thing negative that may come up about him and threaten the coherence of the image. This, as in the strange little mirror dance of Groucho and Harpoo ceases to be gullibility and becomes credulity. Even in the face of mounting evidence that he is not a man of good character, experience or, even, good will. Sultan Knish blogs at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ |
|
OBAMA'S LIFE IN THE RADICAL LEFT
Posted by Barry Shaw, October 18, 2008. |
|
With only days until the U.S. Presidential Elections Barack Obama has a clear advantage in all the leading polls. With voting less than three weeks away it seems that only a seismic event will reverse this trend and prevent Barack Obama from reaching the White House. He was little known before he set out on his ambitious journey to be the head of the free world. The people of America, and interesting observers world wide, have come to learn something about the man, his personal history, the people who have influenced his political thinking, and the fire that has forged his ambition to take charge of the political life of Americans and, by default, the world. He has led a glittering and impressive campaign. Yet, to a neutral eye, there have been a series of worrying, even dangerous, facts that have come to light that question who, truthfully, is Barack Obama, and what does he really stand for. His history of association and close contact with murky characters does not seem to have affected the majority of voters in America. In another world one would say that a life spent in the company of influential people demonstrate the mindset, motivation, and future policy of a Presidential candidate. This theory does not seem to have been applied to Obama. The list of players linked to Obama would have led to an early defeat for any other candidate. Obama seems to float above the stench, oblivious and unaffected by the associations. Seemingly he is Teflon coated. Worrying even more, is the Three Monkeys attitude adopted by Obama supporters. Whenever facts have been exposed they close their ears and eyes in the 'Hear no evil, See no evil' pose. Instead they accuse the opposing camp of negative campaigning and detracting from the leading issue, namely the economy. But, eventually, important facts must be courageously faced. By not doing so now, Americans could find themselves with a default President leading their country in a direction which will be abhorrent to them and the free world. It seems that the fact that Obama's Presidency would be unconstitutional does not disturb them. One of the three basic conditions inscribed in the US Constitution is that a presidential candidate must be born in the United States. Obama was born in Kenya. His grandmother, older brother and sister were in attendance. His grandmother, to this day, proudly boasts about her successful grandson born in her country. He now claims that he was born in Honolulu but he has refused to offer up the essential documentation to prove his birth. Why not? This document would clearly lay to rest a constitutional issue if it proved that he was a natural born citizen. Instead a lawyer, Philip J.Berg, is bringing a petition to the Supreme Court forcing Obama to produce his birth certificate that would clearly show that he was born within the United States. It is incredible that this basic tenant has not been observed. FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS WAS OBAMA'S EARLY MENTOR in his days in Hawaii. Davis believed in, and outlined, the Communist plan to take over America from within. This would be done by installing educators at all levels of the education system, gaining control of the media, getting liberal judges appointed, training and financing people to be elected to public office from local level all the way up to the White House. Davis had a decisive influence on Barack Obama. Davis put Obama in contact with the Socialist Party in Chicago. William Ayres was a member of this New Party. Barack Obama joined in 1996. By 1999, the New Party was defunct after losing a Supreme Court challenge that ruled the organization as unconstitutional. By that time, the New Party had gotten Barack Obama and others elected to local office. Today the Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic National Congress have attempted to cover up and deny any ties between Obama and these socialist organizations, but they do exist. During his days as a radical local politician a flag showing the portrait of Che Gevara hung prominently in his office. Obama has tried to deny being influenced by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the ranting radical preacher of Black Liberation Theology. He has not, however, been questioned on how the writings of James. H. Cone, have influenced his political thought process. Cone advocated radical, even revolutionary, black racist action — the same Black Liberation Theology incited by Wright. Barack Obama was financially assisted by a Khalid al-Mansour, who has been described as a Black Nationalist and Black Muslim. Mansour who was an influential figure and mentor of the infamous Black Panther movement in the 1960s. Obama know Mansour. He was influenced by him, and assisted by him. Mansour's funds came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal. Bin-Talal is the man who blamed America for 9/11 because of their pro-Israeli policies. Rudy Guliani refused to accept bin-Talal's cheque for $10 million to help rebuild Manhattan. REGARDING ISRAEL, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN touted in the past by Obama's team that an Obama Administration would swing away from support for the Jewish state. A short list of foreign policy people close to Obama demonstrates a pro-Palestinian bent. Some examples are Samantha Powers, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama who is quoted as favouring sacrificing millions of dollars to Israel in favour of giving it to Palestinians, and creating a force against the Israeli I.D.F. She was fired after making derogatory remarks about Hilary Clinton. Obama was forced to fire Robert Malley after he had regular meetings with members of Hamas. In a tight presidential campaign, it would have been embarrassing and a vote-loser to keep close contacts with Malley. Zbigniew Brzezinski is someone who Obama called "an outstanding friend and one from whom I have learned a lot." This foreign policy advisor to Obama has a long track record of being anti-Israel. From his Chicago days, Obama is closely linked to Rashid Khalidi. This Chicago professor has justified suicide bombings if executed against Israelis. He also favours a bi-national state, rather than a two state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Yet Obama said of him, "He is a constant reminder to me of my own blind spots". What is this if not an admission of an influence to his political development? At an AIPAC gathering Obama declared that he stands for a "Jerusalem undivided". Yet, the next day when criticized by pro-Palestinians he said, "My words were poorly chosen." One must decide between remarks thrown to garner votes, and true intentions. True intentions can be evidenced by the people Obama has around him. ON FOREIGN POLICY, HIS RUNNING MATE, JOE BIDEN, is put forward as a friend of Israel. Yet Biden's record deserves close scrutiny. Joe Biden was one of only 16 senators who voted against a bill that would add Iran's Revolutionary Guards to the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations, because of it's involvement in murdering U.S. troops in Irag. Biden's pro-Iranian record goes further. Rather than sanction Iran, Biden advocates that the U.S. should offer Iran a greater role in Iraq's internal affairs. Joe Biden's decision to address the American-Iranian Council, and other pro-Tehran groups, has angered many American-Iranians, as well as Israel. Bidens ties to the pro-Iranian regime lobby are a matter of conviction. When criticized for attending a fundraiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, Biden ignored their concerns and attended the event on 19 February 2002. At this event Biden delivered a speech in which he criticized President Bush's State of the Union address which identified Iran as being part of the Axis of Evil. With Obama in the White House, and with Joe Biden as Vice President, what chance does Israel have of America exerting sanctions on Iran? OBAMA'S STATIONS OF THE CROSS LEADING HIM TO HIS CALVARY are replete with statements and actions that are troubling. In his book 'Dreams of my Father' he wrote of his white mother, "I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race". In his book 'Audacity of Hope' he wrote, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." These published racist remarks and political intention statements should cause many deep reservations about the man who would be president. He refused to wear the American pin early in his campaign. He failed to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem. His wife's careless remark about it being the first time she was proud to be an American when he defeated Hilary Clinton is in line with the "God damn America" of her pastor, the Reverend Wright. Taken individually, they may be meaningless. Put together, they expose a thread that reflects the inner thoughts and feelings of the couple that may soon be residing in the White House. IF THE ECONOMY REALLY IS THE MAIN ISSUE on which American's will choose their next President, Obama's role with Freddie Mac and Fanny May, his involvement with ACORN, and the subsequent fallout that is the current financial crisis needs to be addressed. His participation in these companies and organizations activities, have not shown him to be a financial expert. At a minimum he clearly does not understand economics. On a more serious note his political agenda, when linked to financial activities as reflected in the Freddie/Fanny/ACORN loan scandals, is a proven disaster. When the election campaign is over, and Obama is seated in the Oval Office, in what direction will he take America? Will the politics of Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayres, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, James.H.Cone, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, be reflected in the White House? He may be portrayed as a Liberal, but his associates have been radical left wing figures. His close links to these people may be excused as poor judgment, or minimized as part of a damage control exercise. They may also be exposed as a deliberate forging of a political philosophy and action plan that is about to descend on America. To many, his campaign has been one of stealth, putting out a message acceptable to Americans while disguising the true purpose of his mission. Those eager for change have dismissed the criticism of him. This is allowing Obama to sail through to the White House without having these dubious and dangerous links, suspect political and religious influences, properly addressed by him or the American people. It may be too late when the man becomes President Barack Hussein Obama of the United States of America. [One reader commented: But let's not forget Khalid al Mansour, Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Bernadine Dohrn, Emil Jones, Nadhami Auchi, Raila Odinga... In fact, it is more difficult to find one — just one — of his friends, advisors, mentors, babysitters or whatever that is NOT a thug, terrorist, black nationalist, radical Muslim, marxist or some other manner of America hater.] The View from Here articles are written by Barry Shaw Contact him at netre@netvision.net.il |
|
FLIPFLOPPERY. OBAMA BEFORE: "I'VE BEEN FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ACORN";
NOW: ACORN WHO?
Posted by Ted Belman, October 18, 2008. |
|
This was posted by Bill Levinson on IsraPundit |
|
Obama: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career" Contradicts Fight the Smears' claim, "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN" Obama's two-faced statements on his involvement with ACORN reminds us of a scene in Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado" in which Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, must perform an execution to avoid the abolition of his office. The Mikado's incognito son, Nanki-Poo, volunteers to be "executed" to avoid an unwanted marriage, and goes into hiding afterward. The official Poo-Bah is initially quite pleased with his role in the purported execution. Mikado: And this is the certificate of his death. "At Titipu, in the presence of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Mayor, and Groom of the Second Floor Front..." Then, however, the Mikado discovers that the executee was in fact his long-lost son. Mikado: I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent. ...Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. ...I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret — I'm not a bit angry. Like Pooh-Bah, Barack Obama was quite proud of his deep involvement and close association with ACORN. Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along. Now that ACORN is up to its neck in indictments and actual guilty pleas for voter registration fraud, however, Barry tells a very different story. Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN Just like Pooh-Bah, Barry now wants us to believe "I wasn't there." Note also the doublespeak in his efforts to distance himself from ACORN. It is admittedly true that ACORN never hired Barry as a trainer; he trained its personnel for free. Let's go back to see how the Emperor of Japan reacts to Poo-Bah's excuse. Mikado: That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake... Or not knowing... Or having no notion... or not being there. There should be, of course, but there isn't. That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then? Now Barry, let's see about your landslide defeat — will November 4 suit you? Can you wait till then? Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
EVIDENCE MOUNTS: AYERS CO-WROTE OBAMA'S DREAMS
Posted by C.A. Fulghum, October 17, 2008. |
|
I wanted to share the following article with you.
It was written by Jack Cashill and it appeared today in the
American
Thinker
See Jack Cashill's first American Thinker article on the
authorship of Dreams from my Father October 9, 2008 at American Thinker
|
|
Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized. * The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman. The timeline A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as the Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990 caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir. Obama repaired to Chicago with advance in hand and dithered. At one point, in order to finish the book without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. His agent hustled him a new, smaller contract. Ayers published his book To Teach in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career. Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home. In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head. Neighborhood assistance Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself into what the New York Times has called "that rare politician who can write... and write movingly and genuinely about himself." There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama's and reputed ally of the PLO. In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi writes of Ayers, "Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some writing for the project." Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help. Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University's Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners that they had shared as well as for his "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases." Chicago's Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center were Ayers and Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers' terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know. The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march. I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought a sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, "Help." Obama's limited skills Obama needed all the help he could get. Prior to 1990, he had written very close to nothing. In 1981 Occidental College published two of Obama's poems-"Pop" and "Underground. Obama calls it some "very bad poetry," and he does not sell himself short. From "Underground": Under water grottos, caverns It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print, and this only an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as "a fairly standard example of the genre." Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review — more of a popularity than a literary contest — Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. In 1990 Obama also contributed an essay to a book published by the University of Illinois at Springfield, an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in Dreams and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication, or promise. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range or lack thereof: "Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda." These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas." Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian, and wonkish, a B- paper in a freshman comp class. In "Why Organize" Obama makes use of the fully re-created conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in Dreams. Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe: "I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer." To read "Why Organize" in its entirety is to understand the profound limits of Obama's literary talent. I am sure he sensed those limits if no one else did. Postmodern themes Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and Obama's Dreams From My Father follow oddly similar rules. Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed. Dreams and Fugitive Days are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls "our constructed reality." A serious student of literature, Ayers has written thoughtfully on the role of the first person narrator in the construction of a memoir. In true postmodernist fashion, he rejects the possibility of an objective, universal truth. He argues instead that our lives are journeys, whose "narratives" we "construct" and, if we have the will and the power, impose on others. Curiously, Obama says much the same in Dreams and in much the same language. "But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," writes Obama, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother." The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of "Why Organize" into the sophisticated postmodernist of Dreams, and he did not so not by tutoring Obama, but by rewriting his text. The Ayers' quotes that follow come from an essay of his, "Narrative Push/Narrative Pull." The Obama quotes come from Dreams: Ayers: "The hallmark of writing in the first person is intimacy. . . . But in narrative the universal is revealed through the specific, the general through the particular, the essence through the unique, and necessity is revealed through contingency." Although I cite one example for each, Dreams offers many more. There are ten "trap" references alone and nearly as many for "narrative," "struggle," and "journey." To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer who make their dining room tables available to would-be authors of a leftist bent. The sea metaphors A newly discovered anecdote from Bill Ayers' 1993 book, To Teach, solidifies the case that he is indeed the muse behind Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father. In the book, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who would take her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city. As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river's edge, one student said, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student said, "No, it has to flow south-down." Not knowing which was right, the teacher and the students did their research. What they discovered, writes Ayers, was "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push." In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama shares a stunningly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. He tells of meeting with "Marty Kauffman" at a Lexington Avenue diner, the man from Chicago who was trying to recruit him as a community organizer. After the meeting, Obama "took the long way home, along the East River promenade." As "a long brown barge rolled through the gray waters toward the sea," Obama sat down on a bench to consider his options. While sitting, he noticed a black woman and her young son against the railing. Overly fond of the too well remembered detail, Obama observes that "they stood side by side, his arm wrapped around her leg, a single silhouette against the twilight." The boy appeared to ask his mother a question that she could not answer and then approached Obama: "Excuse me, mister," he shouted. "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?" "The woman smiled and shook her head, and I said it probably had to do with the tides." Obama uses the seeming indecisiveness of this tidal river as a metaphor for his own. Immediately afterwards, he shakes the indecision and heads for Chicago. Even were there no other clues, Obama's frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors like this one makes a powerful case for Ayers' involvement in the writing of Dreams. Despite growing up in Hawaii, Obama gives no indication than he has had any real experience with the sea or ships. Ayers, however, knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman. Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir. "Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages. "The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter." Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness." Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea." More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter." Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon." Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments." In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama." Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty." Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams. On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well. Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's The Sea Wolf. My own semi-memoir, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control here too. The book makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky. None. And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean. If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the black nationalist message: "A steady attack on the white race . . . served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair." As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did. Why this matters Obama's handlers have "constructed" his persona around his presumably superior intelligence. Bill Buckley's son Christopher, smitten by Obama's literary skills, is among those who have yielded to this imagery and joined the Obama crusade. Even if someone benign had ghostwritten the book it would present a problem for Obama. The question is often asked why Obama associated with Ayers. The more appropriate question is why the powerful Ayers would associate with the then obscure Obama. Before Obama's ascendancy, it was Ayers who had the connections, the clout, and the street cred. Ayers could also write and write very well. By the mid-1990s he had had several of his books published. What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own. My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case. At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book. The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers. EDITOR'S NOTE: Update October 29, 2008: Mr. Cashill has released one of the
statistical summaries in PDF format at:
Additional information is available at World Net Daily:
Contact C.A. Fulghum at chasful@gmail.com |
|
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF LAW
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 17, 2008. |
|
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (resigned but still in place), in collusion with the police, hid from the public — with the assistance of Israel's Leftist Hebrew Media — has been exposed by Carolyn Glick. We've been waiting for the full story to be revealed. The full extent of this Arab Muslim pogrom against Jews, starting on Yom Kippur and continuing for four days, was suppressed by the corrupt Olmert government lest the public rise up against the Kadima Party's plans to transfer to the Muslim Arab Palestinians, all of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and those parts of Jerusalem (north, south and east) that Jordan occupied and desecrated for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. This article below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in
the Jerusalem Post
|
|
The Arab pogrom in Acre on Yom Kippur was yet another wake-up call. The 200 Israeli Arabs who shattered the windshields of 110 Jewish cars, and burned and looted dozens of Jewish businesses in the city on the eve of Yom Kippur while shouting out, "Death to Jews!" "Allah Akbar!" and "We'll kill you if you leave your homes!" couldn't have made their point any more clearly. They don't like Jews. They don't want peaceful coexistence with Israel. They don't recognize the authority of Israel's laws. They don't accept their identity as Israeli citizens. If the actual violence wasn't enough to clarify matters, then we have the invitations for the Arab theater festival that began on Thursday, and its program. Acre's Arab leaders decided to organize their festival in response to Mayor Shimon Lancry's decision to postpone indefinitely Acre's annual Alternative Theater Festival. Fearing continued violence, Lancry opted over the weekend to postpone the annual event that was scheduled to take place this week. The Arabs called their festival, "Acre Is Not Alone." In the invitations distributed to the Arab residents of the city, the organizers wrote: "We will not surrender to the emergency laws that were enacted after the settlers' [that is, the Jewish residents of the city's] attacks. The settlers are trying to enact an ethnic cleansing of the eastern neighborhoods of the city. We call on Acre's Arab residents to come to the Old City and break the siege that has been enacted against the merchants there. We are organizing these activities to preserve the importance of Acre as a center of Palestinian tourism, culture, history and geography." So in short, "Acre is not Alone" has been organized to raise Arab awareness of Arab suffering at the hands of the Jews in Israel. Its main attractions include a movie that portrays the Arab riots in October 2000 from the perspective of the families of the Arab rioters killed by police trying to quell their violence against Jews; a one-man play fulminating on the victimization of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority by Jews; and an "artistic" narration of the plight of an Arab who left Acre in 1948 as a result of Jewish "aggression," and died in a UN camp in Lebanon. It is important to pause for a moment and set out as precisely as possible what happened in Acre on the eve of Yom Kippur and the following night, after the holiday ended. On Wednesday night, when as is customary, after prayers ended Jews milled about in the streets that were empty of moving cars out of respect for the holiday, Acre resident Jamal Tawfik drove into the city's predominantly Jewish Ben-Gurion neighborhood. Jewish residents claim that Tawfik was driving at high speed with his windows down and music blasting out of his speakers, in a clear provocation of the Jews. Tawfik denied the allegations. By all accounts, some Jewish youth approached his car. Some accounts claim that a handful of teenagers hit the sides of his car. Some accounts claim that some teenagers pelted his car with stones. All accounts agree that he exited his vehicle unscathed. Just after this altercation, a still-unidentified Arab in the Old City broadcast that a Jewish mob had murdered Tawfik via the loudspeakers of a mosque. More than 200 Arab residents then descended on the Ben-Gurion neighborhood with axes and knives. They shattered the windshields of some 110 Jewish-owned cars. They then moved into the business district and looted and vandalized the Jewish-owned stores and businesses. Despite multiple calls for help from terrified Jews, it took the police several hours to appear on the scene. And when they arrived, they did nothing to end the Arab rampage. [Was This Akko'S "Kristallnacht"?: — EW] The next evening, after the holiday ended, the Jewish residents started a spontaneous protest against the Arab riot. Arab rioters returned. This time, the police, equipped with riot gear, succeeded in separating the Arabs from the Jews. A group of Jewish protesters, demanding revenge, torched a handful of Arab-owned apartments in mixed neighborhoods. The Arabs continued looting Jewish businesses and attacking Jewish cars. Police arrested rioters on both sides. In the days that followed, Arab leaders published condemnations of violence "on both sides," and asked Jewish leaders to join them in their statements. Most Jewish leaders in the city refused. As Acre's Chief Rabbi Yoseph Yashar told a reporter, "As long as they speak of the Arab rioters from the eve of Yom Kippur in the same breath as the acts of vengeance carried out by Jews in response, it will be very hard to calm matters down." On the national political level, Kadima and Labor party leaders have embraced the Arabs' moral equivalence. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their subordinates have all decried "acts of violence" and "lawlessness," while refraining from making any special mention of the fact that the violence was carried out almost entirely by Acre's Arabs. Olmert went further than his colleagues. During a meeting with anti-Israel activists from the Arab sector, including the deputy head of the Hamas-linked northern branch of the Israeli Islamic Movement on Monday, Olmert claimed, "There can be no doubt that for years the Arab population has suffered from discrimination that stemmed from a variety of sources." By making the statement to some of the most extreme anti-Israel voices in Israeli Arab society, Olmert seemingly justified the lawlessness of their followers. The police have reacted to the Arab violence with now customary passivity. Decrying the police's belated and feckless response to Wednesday night's violence, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz minced no words: "The public security minister [Avi Dichter] and the chief of police [David Cohen] must resign. The State of Israel has become the only country in the Western world where pogroms are carried out against Jews. Physical assaults are carried out against them and against their property amid calls of 'Death to the Jews.' A police force that is incapable of defending Jewish neighborhoods requires a serious overhaul." WHILE STARTLING, the events in Acre — and the official response to them — are not new phenomena. Last Yom Kippur, an Arab driver from Shibli in the Galilee mortally wounded nine-year-old Tal Zino from neighboring Kfar Tavor. The driver entered the community at top speed on his all-terrain vehicle. Children playing outside the synagogue ran to evade him. Tal couldn't get out of his way fast enough. He ran her over. As Tal's mother, Haya Zino, told Ma'ariv last Friday, that incident was the first attack against Jews carried out by an Arab operating a heavy motor vehicle. In her view, the more recent murders of Jews in Jerusalem by Arab bulldozer operators are simply a continuation of the attack on Kfar Tavor that killed her daughter. Two years ago, an Arab mob in Acre violently attacked yeshiva students dancing in the streets on Simhat Torah. The students were forced to flee to their yeshiva, where the Arabs then besieged them. Rather than disperse the crowd, the police simply helped the students escape to their homes through the yeshiva's backdoor. And in the riots in Peki'in earlier in October 2007, the police refused to confront the Arab mob that attacked the Jewish homes in the village. They allowed a policewoman to be held hostage for several hours and essentially begged anti-Israeli local leaders to intervene on her behalf. THE EVER-INCREASING radicalism of Israeli Arabs, who today openly and officially oppose the existence of the Jewish state, shows the imbecility of the government's plan to "separate" from the Palestinians by withdrawing from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Given that Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs openly identify themselves as one society, there is no way to separate from the Palestinians. But the fact that Israeli Arabs are indistinguishable from Palestinian Arabs does not mean that there is no way to contend with their rejection of Israel. To the contrary, it points to the only way to contend with both the Palestinian Arab and the Israeli Arab rejection of Israel: By reestablishing law and order and respect for the law both within the 1949 armistice lines and in the areas Israel took control of in 1967. Here, it is worth pointing out that in their rejection of the authority of Israel, the Israeli Arab rioters in Acre are little different from the French Muslim rioters who set their country ablaze in November 2005. In both cases, the rioters demonstrated their abject contempt and rejection of the state in which they live, at the same time that their governments were doing everything in their power to appease them as a suffering minority. Responding to the violence, French voters elected President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy campaigned on a law and order platform. Sadly, since taking office, he has done little to abide by his campaign pledges in this regard. In Israel's case, no political leaders have made the connection between law and order and Israeli Arab or Palestinian Arab irredentism. Indeed, since the Arab riots in 2000, Israel has simply stopped enforcing its laws in the Arab sector. This is true not only with regard to violent crimes and treason, but also in relation to lesser offenses. For instance, polygamy is illegal in Israel. Yet, over the past decade, the prevalence of polygamy among Israeli Beduin has grown to unprecedented levels. Last spring the government announced its intention to contend with the issue by forming committees and support groups for children of polygamous marriages and women who are involved in these illegal relationships. No thought was given to the obvious remedy of arresting the polygamous husbands and trying them for their crimes. And this gets to the heart of the matter. While no doubt, historically, Israel has witnessed discrimination against members of its Arab sector, today, the chief form of discrimination they suffer is what US President George W. Bush has referred to as "the soft bigotry of low expectations." This of course causes both Israeli Jews and Arabs to feel contempt for the law and so increases the tendency of both Jews and Arabs to take the law into their own hands. But more important, the pro-Arab discrimination of Israel's political and law enforcement arms has facilitated the radicalization of Arab Israeli society. Far from appeasing them, Israel has shown them that they are right to reject its authority. And their rejection of Israel — like their Palestinian Arab brethren's rejection of Israel — only increases as Israel seeks to appease them. By opting not to assert its authority over Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by refraining from punishing their lawlessness and aggression against Jews, and even rewarding it, Israel guarantees that yet more dangerous attacks will soon follow. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
THE HEAD OF THE BBC ADMITS THEY'RE SCARED SH*TLESS OF MUSLIMS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 17, 2008. |
|
This comes from the Joshua Pundit website
See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077816/The-BBC-tackle- Islam-differently-Christianity-admits-Director-General.html |
|
No great surprise here, but at least al-Beeb is now out in the open. Al-Beeb's Director-General, Mark Thompson did an unusually honest bit of whinging and admitted that the BBC reports differently on Christianity than on Islam. "What Christian identity feels like to the broad population is a little bit different to people for whom their religion is also associated with an ethnic identity which has not been fully integrated. There's no reason why any religion should be immune from discussion, but I don't want to say that all religions are the same. To be a minority I think puts a slightly different outlook on it." Thompson also said shows critical of Islam would be shown if they were of high quality...which, based on al-Beeb's programming and reporting can be translated as 'never in hell.' Having seen what kind of violent behavior Muslims are capable of when they get riled up, the BBC simply decided that all that stuff about journalistic ethics and responsibilities and the Fourth estate wasn't worth risking their necks for, thank you very much. Blasphemy against Christians, on the other hand, is cool and shows how modern and cutting edge we are according to Mr. Thompson's logic...and speaking of cutting edge, those wimpy Christians might shout a little but they're not going to issue a cash bounty death fatwa on reporters or start bombing the BBC's offices. This sort of selective bias not only effects reporting on Islam but obviously impacts how Al-Beeb reports on stories about Israeli-Arab conflict (or indeed any stories about Israel) Iran, Pakistan, Islamist terrorism, no-go Muslim areas in British cities, the Iraq War and a host of other topics, something that's definitely not news to anyone with a fighting chance of a two digit IQ that's been paying attention. But here's the question...the Beeb is a government monopoly, paid for by the taxpayers. Is it the official policy of the British government that Islam gets preferential treatment and benefits from de facto censorship? Did the British electorate vote for this? And then the the little factoid that the vast majority of those taxpayers just happen to be Christians, at least nominally. According to Mark Thompson, that apparently means that their rights and sensibilities can be stomped on with impunity. Did I get something wrong here? "All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." — George Orwell, Animal Farm. Hat tip, Ms. Bookworm Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
THOUSANDS ATTEND PRIESTLY BLESSING
Posted by Avodah, October 17, 2008. |
|
This is by the Jerusalem Post Staff and AP
|
|
Thousands of Jews participated in the priestly blessing, or Birkat Cohanim, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Thursday. Birkat Ha'Cohanim at the Western Wall in Jerusalem The Cohanim, believed to be descendants of priests who served God in the first and second Jewish Temple before they were destroyed, perform a blessing ceremony of the Jewish people once a year during the festival of Sukkot. The blessing originally appears in the fourth book of the Torah, Numbers, and is comprised of three phrases. It is therefore also known as the "Triple Blessing." The blessing is also the most ancient biblical text found on archaeological artifacts: Lucky charms and cameos bearing the three phrases were found in graves in the Valley of Hinom outside Jerusalem's old city (the Hebrew word for hell, Gehinom, literally means "the Valley of Hinom"). The cameos, dating back to the First Temple period, are displayed in the Israel Museum. The blessing is recited by the Cohanim in synagogues in Israel
every morning, while abroad it is only given on festivals.
Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
HOW LIVNI TOOK OVER KADIMA; "J STREET" BOASTS IT GOT PALIN DIS-INVITED; US DIRTY CAMPAIGN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 17, 2008. |
|
HOW LIVNI TOOK OVER KADIMA She squeaked in by slander ofg her rival, MK Mofaz, "disqualified ballots, extended voting hours and the reprehensible broadcast of exit polls falsely showing an overwhelming Livni victory — an appalling breach of democratic norms that could only have persuaded those Mofaz supporters still waiting to cast their ballots that they were wasting their time and should head home." (IMRA, 9/19.) Many polling stations had more voters counted than were allowed, and in others, votes cast were not counted (IMRA, 9/22). Paid agents enrolled tens of thousands of last-minute "members" of Kadima, to vote in the primary as directed. The media hardly brought up Livni's disastrous policies she pursued as Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, Livni has herself portrayed as being "clean." She is as disgraceful and illegitimate as Olmert, the loser of a war against a Hizbullah ready to defeat her again. IRAN'S THREAT Iran has threatened, if attacked, to fire at all oil tankers in, and shut, the Gulf, through which 40% of the world's oil is shipped (IMRA, 9/19). Attacked by one or two states, it would punish all? If the UNO were for international law and peace, it would denounce Iran's threat. Instead, the head of the General Assembly plans to honor the President of Iran. The threat is serious. It almost by itself justifies war on Iran as a global threat. A mere raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would have to be accompanied by war against Iran's navy and against all its intermediate-range missiles. Tall order. RUSSIAN SPYING ON ISRAEL Russia has spy ships in Syrian ports and has electronic surveillance facilities on Syria's side of the Golan. An Israeli security official accuses Russia of turning the resulting intelligence over to Syria, and Syria of turning it over to Hizbullah. Another official thinks Russia just wants to keep itself posted (IMRA, 9/20). JENIN TOUTED AS HOPE FOR PEACE P.A. police have cleared the streets of armed gangs. They say they can't help releasing prisoners, for lack of room. They are said to be more competent. Haaretz touts this as showing that the P.A. can run an area in peace. However, the police have collected only 80 weapons. The many more not confiscated await a signal to attack Israel (IMRA, 9/20). The P.A. still incites Jew-hate. HAMAS ABUSING TRUCE ARRANGEMENT The truce between Gaza Israel calls for certain supplies to be let into Gaza. This includes cement. Hamas has confiscated all cement supplies for its construction of bunkers and tunnels to be used in warfare. Israel is considering reducing cement shipments but not so much as to end the "calm." (IMRA, 9/20). The "calm" is deceptive. It builds up the aggressive Islamist forces for the next war. Israel never should have agreed to it. If its leaders were not defeatist, they would have annihilated Hamas and not allowed it to get thousands of missiles from Gaza and enough munitions to make a later invasion costly. Yes, the government talks about reducing the supply of cement. That just means it would take Hamas a little longer to build bunkers. If Israel's government were determined, it would cut off everything to Gaza and it would explain to the world why it must. It is not Israel's responsibility to assist a military buildup against it, a buildup that the whole population there supports. As for complaints about hardship for the population, Israel should put that responsibility upon Hamas. Hamas attacks and steals relief shipments of food. cement, and gasoline from intended recipients to prepare for war. The supposed humanitarians should be told that their efforts support the next war. "J STREET" CLAIMS IT GOT PALIN DIS-INVITED J Street is an organization of leftist Jews who want Israel to withdraw from certain land. It boasts that in one day, it rounded up more than 20,000 signatures, compelling the organizers to rescind the invitation to Gov. Palin to speak at a rally against Iran (IMRA, 9/21). Although the Obama campaign may not have tried to keep her from speaking, Democrats [including Clinton] did. As Palin's speech put it, Iran is fighting against the US and threatens the US. Unfortunately, the Democrats would rather deny her a platform than help the US. The effort to dis-invite was led by the two Jewish organization heads, one a former high Democratic Party official and the other a Jewishly subversive anti-Zionist (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/23). J Street boasted of having won against Palin. Neither it nor the other organization that worked to keep her out gave their members information for attending the rally. They were partisan, not patriotic. EVIL OF RELEASING CONVICTED TERRORISTS Kuntar, the terrorist convicted of heinous murder, and who was released by Israel, has been filmed getting weapons training (IMRA, 10/7). That exposes the folly of releasing convicted terrorist prisoners. DEMOCRATS TALK LIKE HOLOCAUST JEWS Obama always and sometimes McCain talk about rallying the rest of the world against Iran. Democrats say that the US should not act alone, and mistakenly assert that Pres. Bush did, thereby alienating other countries. Liberals talk about the "international community, as Jews did during the Holocaust. In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews and many gentiles did not believe that Hitler would take power or use it as radically he acted out of power. As European Jews were ostracized, they said, the "world" would not let this happen. The "world" did. Britain and FDR were complicit with it. The lesson of the Holocaust is not to depend on "the world, " to recognize evil ideologies, and to fight them. Whom do our politicians expect to rally? The Organization of Islamic Conference comprises 49 states and the P.A.. The Communist bloc has half a dozen members. Some "world!" DIRTY CAMPAIGN? Yes, but Democrats don't realize how dirty their own side is. The NY Times has become an Obama campaign journal. Its columnists find GOP dirt now and then, but scrutinize and distort everything in McCain's campaign. It keeps accusing voters of significant racism. The Times long has attempted to panic white voters into voting for Obama lest they be thought racist. That is racial demagoguery. Palin's audiences did exhibit some racism. McCain denounced slurs against Obama. I think he should have said that their cries are used by the Democrats to take away decent voters from him, that those racists don't help him, if they even intend to. He'd better get Palin to say the same, fast. Else, they are suspect. The campaigns are superficial. McCain doesn't realize about the terrorist-Ayers connection with Obama that either it must be thoroughly explained so its point gets accepted or else it is denied and he is made to seem unfair. He should have thoroughly explained the Rev-Wright connection to show that Obama is a radical, has been lying about it, and is dangerous to America. Obama learns the right answers, as he goes along, except on taxes and big government. McCain does not. McCain does not criticize Obama enough about big government, but McCain is not conservative enough. Obama hinted but did not outright say that we should reduce aid to Iraq, which now has a $90 billion surplus. Why not? That surplus, a surprise due to the oil price hike, may not persist. The question is, what is being done with it? Can it replace our aid or does it go into faster rebuilding? Why didn't McCain either refute Obama's implication or accept it? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
THE OBAMA THUGOCRACY GOES AFTER JOE THE PLUMBER
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 17, 2008. |
|
Without prompting and because he was talking (down) to a working stiff — someone who actually worked with his hands not his jaws, Obama did that un-Obamish thing: he spoke truth. "We want to spread the wealth." And so it happened that Joe the plumber pointed out that the American dream was to work hard to succeed, not to be part of a cargo cult who sat passively waiting for government handouts. The Press on the other did as they always do. They ignored the issues; they avoided confronting Joe's important question. Instead they went after Joe. Kill Joe and his message dies with him. So they told us his name wasn't Joe — he uses his second name. Wow! Ain't that terrible. They told us about his private life. They slashed here, they slashed there. And with every slash, they made it apparent that it is leftist journalism/T.V. new reporting is no longer an admirable profession. Its practitioners could move over from selling Obama to selling soap or hemarrhoid relief, and they'd sound just the same. This was written by Lorie Byrd and it appeared today on Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2008/10/17/ the_obama_thugocracy_goes_after_joe_the_plumber?page=2 Lory Byrd blogs at http://www.loriebyrd.com. Contact her by email at lorie@fastmail.fm |
|
The star of the final Presidential debate Wednesday night was not Barack Obama or John McCain. It was Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher from Ohio. Joe the Plumber came to the attention of the candidates when a video of him questioning Obama about his tax policy made news. Video of Obama's response that when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody, spread like wildfire across the internet, to some cable news shows, and to John McCain's attention. Since Joe was a big focus of the debate, and a big hit with Republicans, the Obama thugocracy (as tagged by Michael Barone) wasted no time targeting him. Some liberal bloggers went after Joe the Plumber saying he didn't even make $250,000 and that he would receive a tax cut under Barack Obama's plan, supposedly proving "Joe the Plumber" was a Republican lie. Here is what Joe said in the exchange with Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about 250, 270-80 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more isn't it?" So much for the Republican lie. Joe told Obama that he was planning on buying a company, which he hoped would put him in that $250,000 or more income range in the future, which prompted Obama's response about spreading the wealth around. By choosing that line of attack, those on the left proved what many of us on the right already believed — that they don't "get" the basic concept of the American dream. The American "dream" is about aspiring to improve your lot — to take advantage of the freedoms this country affords those who are willing to work hard, invest time and energy and often to take risks, to achieve success. In the response of liberals trying to blunt the effect of Obama's spread the wealth comment they revealed their inability to understand that basic concept. Obama did the same in the full response he gave to Joe's question. Obama stressed over and over again not what his tax plan would do to those who have begun to experience the success of the American dream, but only what it would do for those behind them. The idea that increasing taxes on the rich could negatively impact the not yet rich is a completely foreign notion. In addition to those who tried to make hay out of the fact that Joe doesn't yet make $250,000 (which they would have known if they had actually listened to his question), the Obama thugocracy went after him any other way they could. First they questioned Joe's political affiliation, some saying he had given to Republicans in the past and others saying he was not registered to vote at all. Then they moved to his personal financial and legal records — first digging up a tax lien against him, then pointing out that he didn't have a specific license (something required for commercial work, not residential). Joe "not the plumber" Biden, evidently listening to the talking points and not to Joe the Plumber's question, thought that Joe the Plumber made $250,000 and therefore wasn't really a "real" plumber at all. On NBC's Today show Biden said, "John [McCain] wants to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber. I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year." God love'em. On Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Joe the Plumber said Obama's plan to take more money from those who are successful is "scary" and a "very socialist view" and a "slippery slope." If he continues to talk like that, and if he continues to resonate with Americans, there is no telling what we will learn next about Joe Wurzelbacher. Is he Trig Palin's baby daddy? Does he wear silk undergarments? Is he really bald? The point those on the left now trying to destroy Joe the Plumber don't get is that it doesn't matter. Not only do their nasty attacks on him discourage anyone else from becoming involved in public political debate, but nothing they could dig up on him would matter anyway. Whether Joe the Plumber is a Republican or a Democrat, a decided or undecided registered or unregistered voter, gay or straight, a wearer of boxers or briefs, a huge GOP donor or even the secret love child of John McCain doesn't matter, because it doesn't change what Barack Obama said. Of his own free will, Obama admitted that he believes his tax plan is a good thing because when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody. Those of us who have believed Obama's policy proposals to be a socialist redistribution of wealth had everything we believed confirmed, straight from the horse's mouth. That is what was so shocking about the video exchange between Obama and Wurzelbacher — what Obama said. Obama told Joe that it is okay to soak those making more than $250,000 because then you can "spread the wealth" around and everyone will benefit. That is redistribution of wealth — taking from the rich (and from the kinda rich) and giving to the not so rich and the poor. And Obama admitted it. Out loud. On video. Joe the Plumber is not going to be making tax policy (unfortunately), so even if he was a plant or a liar or Trig Palin's daddy or John McCain's love child doesn't matter because it would not change what Barack Obama said. If the scenario described by Joe was real or fabricated would not even change the fact that Obama, the man asking to be allowed to reshape America's economic policies, said out loud what his philosophy on taxes is and it amounts to redistribution of wealth. James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report said that in Obama's statement he was "playing into the most extreme stereotype" of the Democrat party "that is infested with socialists." He pointed to what he called McCain's best line in the debate, "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around." Pethokoukis then pointed to something from a Gallup poll from June: "When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans." That attitude may have changed a bit since June, considering the recent credit crisis and anger toward Wall Street fat cats. But even if it is not still an 84-13% split, it is almost certainly still a substantial majority. No wonder those on the Left have decided Joe the Plumber must be destroyed. What they don't get is that he is not what will cost them votes — Obama's own words are. |
|
A MESSIAH MANUFACTURED BY MARXISM
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 17, 2008. |
|
This was written by Judi McLeod, an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. She can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com |
|
Last night's final presidential debate proved once again that Senator Barack Obama talks a lot, but really says nothing — nothing you can count on when he tells another whopper. ( see here.). Time is closing in on the 11th hour of Election '08 but the search for the real Obama is still on. If Obama steps out of the fog through the scavenger hunt for his birth certificate and unanswered questions about his alliance to Islam into the Oval office, he will usher in a new socialist America. Concerns about Obama, the closet Muslim, fit right in with Obama, the Marxist. Marxists, always difficult to pin down, work hand in hand with radical Islam. Ilich Ramirez Sanchez ("Carlos the Jackal") wrote in his book, L'islam revolutionnaire (Revolutionary Islam) that "only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States." There can be little mistake that the United States of America, in throwback scenes to the Roman Empire, is being attacked from within. Even before the economic meltdown, the landscape of Election '08 could be compared to soap opera, a shock in every episode, with the proverbial plot continuing to thicken. Throughout all, Obama was like the errant husband. Confronted with the facts of his affair, he clings to constant denial. Don't count on the tragically hip mainstream media to portray Obama for what he really is anytime before Nov. 4, 2008: a cog in a well-oiled machine. Obama is the charismatic puppet of George Soros and other creators, who have worked for decades to deliver America over to Socialism. Like the malcontents exploited by al Qaeda operatives, who recruit among prison populations, Obama was fertile ground. But in his way, Obama is deadlier because he makes the White House the destination for the airtight agenda of his Marxist masters. Difficult to keep up with the shock-a-day associations of Obama, the latest being ACORN registering Mickey Mouse as a voter and a Kansas City couple finding a donation to the Obama campaign they never made, courtesy of their own credit card. Worry is all that comes from being told it's possible that not Obama but his mentor William Ayers is the real author of Dreams of My Father. False hope is all that comes from elusive proof of Obama's birth certificate. Loss of individual freedom and the end of an era is what will come to pass if the next President of the United States is a Marxist. Only the American electorate can stop Obama from becoming the 44th president of the United States. Don't count on John McCain or the mainstream media to tell you who Barack Obama really is. Proof is in the Public Record. "The public record is our only proof," says former Naval Intelligence Officer Marion Valentine. "In 1963, while serving in Navy Intelligence (1958-1967), I read the FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis. He had outlined the Communist plan to take over America from within, by installing educators at all levels of our educational system, gaining control of the media, getting Liberal judges appointed, recruiting, training and backing people to be elected to public office. "I have researched every piece of legislation I can find that the Liberal Democrats have passed since the early sixties, and if you will research for yourself, you will find that they have been slowly moving this country toward Socialism. "When Obama announced he was running for President as an unknown with only one major speech at the DNC (that the DNC and MSM made so much fuss over), he aroused my old intel suspicions. So I started researching. "I have not found any evidence to convince me he is a Muslim, but I did find his radical associations were unusual. I found Frank Marshall Davis, who had fled from Chicago to Hawaii when Obama was 12 years old, was Obama's mentor from then till Davis died in 1987. "Davis put Obama in touch with the Socialist Party in Chicago (called the New Party) which Ayers is also a member of, (emphasis added) therefore the first "Planned" contact with Ayers. The New Party helped launch and finance Obama's political career. Obama...selected, trained, groomed and scripted to become the "puppet" leader of the United Socialist States of America. "Since I am in the 4th and final stage of congestive heart failure and will be lucky to live long enough to see the next president take office, why should this election matter to me? Why does Obama's statement, that he wants a National Civilian Security Force" as strong and as well funded as our military (conjuring up images of the old-style USSR police state) matter to me? "It's simple...I love America," says Valentine. The public record states clearly on Obama's commitment to Socialism. Even though no major mainstream media outlet has ever reported it, "Web archives confirm Barack Obama was a member of Chicago's Socialist "New Party" in 1996." (politicallydrunkblogspotcom, Oct. 8, 2008). "In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The New Party was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards." In North America, Marxism never comes through the front door of federal elections, but sneaks in the back door of civic elections and school boards, whose elections are dogged by public apathy. Americans have only to look northward to Canada to see Marxists elected to Toronto and Vancouver City Halls and school boards. In the Chicago experience, "the admitted Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist "New Party" was essentially defunct after losing a Supreme Court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion reform platform as unconstitutional. But their tentacles had already spread, and story begins rather than ends there. "After allegations surfaced in early summer over the "New Party's endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democrat Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization, The DSA and "New Party" then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party." (politicallydrunkblogspot.com). The deceit that transpired in order to remove any trace of Obama-the-Socialist/Marxist is mind-boggling. Back to the politicallydrunk blogspot: "On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page, which was published in October 1996, was an Internet newsletter update on that year's congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization (emphasis added) had archived the page. "From the October 1996 update of the DSA "New Party': "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of the key races... Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)." (Proof of the above can be found through the WayBack Machine.) Suppose for a minute that the information gleaned from the NP web page was erroneous. Empirical proof that Barack is a socialist exists in the Progressive Populist magazine in November 1996. "New Party members and supported candid dates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the country board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago: "The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Editor of New Ground 47 Newsletter: The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different (sic) in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base... The NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join the Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task force on Voter and Education and Voter Registration. In other words, Obama's presidential platform of change is not even his own. Change is what Socialists have wanted for American for decades. Mainstream media hype notwithstanding, Obama is not "The Messiah", "The Anointed One", the Rock Star, the Cult Leader, the First Black President, Your Agent for Change or Messenger of Hope. To quote the Bible Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been is what will be, And what has been done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun." Obama is the programmed robot of the global elite, working to usher in what some call a pre-orchestrated financially challenged world, The United Socialist States of America. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ALL THE ONE'S MEN
Posted by Amil Imani, October 17, 2008. |
|
Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, "The medium is the message." As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping the views and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation. Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas or certain people. These are indeed trying times for the American people. Free people must decide their priorities with foresight and wisdom and shy away from shortsighted simplistic solutions. We live in a Democracy and Democracy, by its accommodating and benign nature, is susceptible to corruption and even destruction by forces from within and from without. The Democrats have not gotten over the last two elections in which President Bush won. The left felt the presidency was stolen from Al Gore and John Kerry. Those losses caused most everyone on the left into a hate spiral, so severe is this hatred that Charles Krauthammer (who is also a trained psychiatrist) was compelled to diagnose it and give it a name: BDS — or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now that they believe they have found their Messiah in the person of Barack Obama. Now they want "social justice," they want revenge. What the left calls "social justice" is actually "the revenge of the psychologically oppressed against people who look happier and more satisfied with their lives." As such, it is intimately related to the psychoanalytic understanding of envy, which is an unconscious mechanism that goes about destroying what one does not have, in order to eliminate the emotional pain of not having it, says Gagdad Bob. Today's polls show that many Americans are unhappy with the Republican Party and that's enough reason to vote for a Democratic ticket. Fine and dandy. This is America, where the voter is king, and when one is king, one needs to be a sane and wise king. When people hear the word "insanity," they conjure up the image of someone out of touch with reality and out of control, a dysfunctional person fit to be tied. Yet, insanity comes in numerous types as well as degrees. It is also widely prevalent in groups, even in nations as a whole. One common and troubling form of insanity is, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," warned Albert Einstein. America has already tried the path to insanity by electing Jimmy Carter as its president and he failed us miserably. Now, repeating this insanity by electing Mr. Obama is a national disaster. Senator Obama's greatest weakness is his past, a deliberately obscured past that MSM is fiercely trying to make look irrelevant. He, as a sequacious politician, always toes their party's line. Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with some irresponsible leftists such as Bill Maher, (a humbug), who, in March 2, 2007 stated, "I'm just saying if he [Dick Chaney] did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." Please let me assure you, I do not say that Mr. Obama is a bad person. I say he's not the right person for America. He would lead this country to an abyss. The presidency of the United States is a very prestigious position which entails a great deal of skill, wisdom and high moral values. It cries out for integrity and truthfulness. Although the American presidency has not been invested with the same degree of glory as a monarchy has, the American people have upheld the office to a mythic status and hold its resident in reverent awe. In comparing the two presidential candidates, it appears that many people see John McCain as a true American and Barack Obama as a true politician. However, in this race and in our era of uncertainty, more than anything else, character does matter, experience does matter and yes, patriotism does matter. "When patriotism dies, the nation dies." It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who has been Senator Obama's close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below: — Tony Rezko, a convicted political fundraiser. He was called "slum landlord" by Senator Clinton. He was an activist who raised money for both U.S. political parties. He is charged with at least eight counts, including fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and aiding bribery. Rezko was one of Obama's first campaign contributors when Mr. Obama first ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. The Sun Times implied that Senator Obama could possibly go down with Tony Rezko, sooner rather than later. ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOES MORE TO PROTECT BARACK OBAMA THAN REPORT ON HIS SHORTCOMINGS, judging by the way it has ignored the story about his questionable relationship with a supporter who's now on trial for influence peddling. The American public deserves to know who Mr. Barack Obama really is. I am sure we would all prefer the truth come out now rather than after the election. Let us remind ourselves that our highest priority is the preservation of this nation of the free. We have done what it took in the past and we must do what it takes now and in the future to safeguard America and safeguard our liberty. We must meet any threat and defeat it. The alternative is to suffer. Let us not be fooled by the accusations that the incurably sick leftists at home and America's ill-wishers abroad level at this country. America is not perfect. Yet, it is the very best hope for a humanity struggling to find its greatness. America is worth defending. Vote for the candidate who is not going to cut and run in the face of domestic terrorism or the Islamic Jihadism. Winston Churchill said it best: Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. This article appeared October 16, 2008 in
The American Thinker
|
|
ANDELMAN WRITING ON THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 17, 2008. |
|
This is an excerpt from the book
A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today
|
|
On Jan. 4, 1919, Chaim Weizmann arrived in Paris to head the Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference. It was a triumphal moment for a Jew born in a remote East European shtetl. The day before his departure from London, he had signed a monumental agreement with Emir Feisal. For Weizmann, it was an accord that climaxed years of negotiations and ceaseless shuttles between the Middle East and the capitals of Western Europe and that promised to usher in an era of peace and cooperation between the two principal ethnic groups of Palestine: Arabs and Jews. It was by no means the first contact between the two men of such disparate backgrounds and aspirations, united only by a common goal of coexistence with the great powers that for years had been busily dividing up the region, which both hoped to make their homes. Both Weizmann and Feisal believed they desperately needed this agreement to work as a foundation for building strong and prosperous nations that could co-exist in a hostile world. For the Zionist leader, this need was especially acute and painfully immediate. Chaim Weizmann was born Nov. 27, 1874, in the shtetl of Motal. Through the centuries, a host of wars and pogroms had washed across its few hundred families. The young Weizmann found a particular talent in the field of chemistry and, after his earlier education in Berlin, decided to move to England. In early 1906, the 31-year-old Zionist chemist met Arthur James Balfour. Weizmann recalled their first meeting vividly: "The British government was really anxious to do something to relieve the misery of the Jews, and the problem was a practical one, calling for a practical approach. ... I pointed out that nothing but a deep religious conviction expressed in modern political terms could keep the movement alive, and that this conviction had to be based on Palestine and on Palestine alone. Any deflection from Palestine was — well, a form of idolatry." ********* Weizmann promptly departed for Palestine and plunged into his study of the Arab mentality with which he would have to cope for the next 34 years. Three months after Weizmann's arrival, the British commander, General Edmund Allenby, suggested it was time for him to meet the most important Arab leader in the Middle East. In May 1918, Weizmann set off for the Arabian Desert to meet Emir Feisal. After a long trip through the desert, Weizmann was ushered into the presence of Feisal, who was surrounded by a group of forbidding-looking Bedouin warriors. For the next two hours, the Zionist leader explained his mission: "to do everything in our power to allay Arab fears and susceptibilities, and our hope that he would lend us his powerful moral support." As it turned out, Feisal and T.E. Lawrence both believed the Jews, particularly the Zionists, could be a great help in furthering the Arabs' own agenda in the Middle East. *** The Zionist agenda now evolving was far more ambitious than any envisioned by Balfour and his declaration — British mandate, with Hebrew as the official language. Finally, on April 25, 1920, the conference of San Remo, where the Paris Peace Conference had moved to consider the treaty with the Turks, agreed that Britain would be awarded the mandate over Palestine. Moreover "the mandatory would be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th November 1917 by the British government." The Balfour Declaration was affirmed in an international treaty. All the fine sentiments of Weizmann and Feisal ratified in the glow of the Peace Conference were drowning in the tsunami of Jewish immigration once the mandate became law. While the peacemakers in Paris had been arbitrarily redrawing the map of Europe on ethnic grounds and paying lip service to the rights of self-determination under Wilson's Fourteen Points, they were equally ignoring powerful demographic imperatives they had set in motion in Palestine. The population growth was already dramatic. In 1800 there were 5,000 Jews and 250,000 Arabs in Palestine. More than a century later, in 1917, there were 50,000 Jews in Palestine and 610,000 Arabs. By 1922 the Jewish population had edged up to 84,000, comprising 11% of the population. In 1935, even before the Nazi holocaust had begun in Europe, there were 320,000 Jews, a quarter of the population. By the end of the British mandate and the independence of the State of Israel in 1948, there were 650,000 Jews. With all limits removed from immigration, the Jewish population more than doubled again in the next three years, making Jews a majority in the territories they controlled. The peacemakers of Paris failed the Jews and the Palestinians in equal measure as profoundly as they failed the Bedouin Arabs — Shiites and Sunnis alike. The Western leaders were simply unable or unwilling to appreciate that each of these groups had their own very specific characteristics. They might very well have found a means of coexisting as separate, independent neighbors. But each was unable to exist in any fashion commingled in diverse, heterogeneous nations that only intensified their mutual antipathies and broke into violence at the slightest provocation. The Middle East remains as unstable — perhaps even more so — as its advocates had envisioned when they met with the Allies in Paris in 1919. The West is still unable to appreciate that small, homogeneous states in such volatile regions are inherently more stable than large heterogeneous groupings. Still, there were many other peoples in far-off corners of the world who would be disappointed by these same leaders who were gathered in Paris in 1919 producing equally catastrophic results. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
FAKING A POSE FOR A CAMERA PHOTO OPPORTUNITY WITH THE AMERICAN FLAG
Posted by Boris Celser, October 16, 2008. |
|
Is that a man's hand on the floor under the desk? |
|
When you are faking a pose for a camera photo opportunity with the American flag, 
At least get the phone turned in the right
direction!!!
Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net
|
|
PINCH YOURSELF
Posted by LEL, October 16, 2008. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in the
Spectator (UK)
|
|
The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama's radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day. The Obamaniacs are spinning the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, former of Weather Undergound Terrorism Inc, as of no consequence because this was supposedly a chance acquaintance and because the educational project they worked on, the Annenberg Challenge, was a worthy one. Stanley Kurtz now nails that canard by showing how, through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric 'educational' programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama's black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was forced to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the 'rites of passage' philosophy which attempted to create a 'virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world' in order to 'counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.' One such teacher taught that 'The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.' Kurtz concludes: However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. No surprise there, since back in June Kurtz pointed to evidence that Obama shared the black racism of the Trinity United Church of Christ. In this article Obama was reported as rejecting 'integrationist assimilation' and wanting to channel black rage more effectively into political organisation. Kurtz dug out a chapter in a 1990 book called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois in which Obama sketched out how radical black churches could be harnessed to help radicalise the black population. As Kurtz wrote: So it would appear that Obama's own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama's long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright's radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama's grand political strategy. Those few brave souls who do try to enlighten the public about all this come up against the kind of intimidation by Camp Obama charted here by Michael Barone: Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago — papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters. Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One. No such threats, of course, will be made against this new book whose publication is tactfully timed for next year so as not to frighten the horses — Race Course Against White Supremacy, by none other than William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Meanwhile, it turns out that not only did Obama do favours for convicted Chicago fraudster Tony Rezko, but as this story reports Alexi Giannoulias, who reputedly bankrolled Michael 'Jaws' Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting prostitution, became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, and has now has pledged to raise $100,000 for Obama's campaign. You have to pinch yourself — a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so. |
|
MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S WAR ON THE TRUTH
Posted by Mark Gold, October 16, 2008. |
|
You might think that with all the words written in recent years about the shortcomings of the mainstream media, whether regarding its overall performance or about the Mid-East in particular, that the subject has been adequately covered. But, no, unfortunately, the criticism has been no match for the problem. The media's biases cause it to both reflexively and consciously alter its product to substantial degrees from what would be acceptable and what the public deserves. While this is true of the American media, most other outlets are even worse, in many cases not even claiming the pretense of standards to which U.S. journalists often purport to adhere. Don't doubt that the media's war on the truth encompasses omission, distortion, and outright lying. The tactics of omission, distortion, and lying lead to the effect of distortion in the picture provided to the public. The media's use of each of these sometimes overlapping techniques is explored below. Part of the problem is that the mainstream media proclaims it is unbiased and gives us an accurate picture of our world. Or, it may admit that it has biases, but it still gives us an accurate picture because it doesn't let its biases affect its product. Well, at least that is amusing, as by now many Americans and Israelis know better. In contrast, in the U.S, much of the non-mainstream media is above-board about it biases, and is happy to tell you where it stands. That knowledge of the perspective of the source makes it much easier to judge the value of the information offered. As well, this alternative media seems less affected than its mainstream counterpart by the herd mentality and the peer pressure the rest of us felt as children. The mainstream media exhibits a remarkable degree of uniformity among its various components in using remarkably similar language and opinions to describe the remarkably similar events they each deem newsworthy. Their similarities are often in the guise of presumed "standards" that lead to many of the inanities listed below. Even outlets thought to be on the edge or outside of the mainstream, such as Fox News or the Washington Times, increasingly conform to these mainstream practices in their news reporting. Since it is difficult for those of us interested in world events to avoid exposure to the mainstream media, we are exposed to their biases and versions of events. Supplementing that with other voices from talk radio, the internet, and niche publications often adds much valuable information and perspective. Omission and Distortion Omission is the mainstream media's favorite tactic for handling information they don't want you to know. Often the less stringent tactic of simply burying the story and providing it less emphasis than the preferred story lines is adequately effective. These tactics are nothing new; the media has a long and sordid record of burying crucial information. These tactics go back at least to the New York Times' virtual burial of information on the incredibly mounting death toll of Jews in the Holocaust. Following is a small sample of the many pieces of information that mainstream media outlets don't want us to know and therefore don't mention much in their reports (media omission tactic) or do note but in a distorted way (distortion tactic): * Hizbullah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. Distortion tactic: Sanitize them by describing them as "militant" organizations, or with any other term but "terrorist". These media tactics are not employed only against Israel, but against the broader war on terrorism, and other U.S. interests as well. Further omissions/distortions: * American soldiers and Marines in Iraq perform heroically. Distortion tactic: Find an allegation against the American (or Israeli) military and trumpet it in the extreme (e.g. the absurd on its face charge of flushing a Koran down a toilet; Muhammad al-Dura). A side note is that Saddam Hussein also did have a link to first World Trade Center bombing of 1993. He harbored terrorist 1993 World Trade Center bomb plotter Abdul Rahman Yasin in Iraq and paid him a monthly stipend. * Some WMD has been found in Iraq — including 500 sarin/mustard gas-filled shells. Distortion tactic: Claim no WMD in Iraq. Outright Lying While a less charitable media analyst might also include the media's denial of Iraq-al Qaeda links and WMD having been found in Iraq in this category, here are two other examples: * To delegitimize Israel's claim to the disputed West Bank territories, refer to the 1967 armistice lines as an international border. Could National Public Radio's long time Israel correspondent be so ignorant as to make this mistake innocently? Bottom Line My bottom line measure for the integrity of a news outlet rests on its willingness to call terrorists "terrorists". If it can't even honestly describe our enemy, how can we trust anything else it tells us? Regarding media bias specific to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Stephanie Gutmann has penned an outstanding first-hand account that is highly informative, even for those of us who think we are on to the media's tricks. Entitled The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy, I heartily recommend it for further reading. And remarkably, as an indicator of how some things seemingly never change, Zev Chafets had written Double Vision twenty years earlier, a book documenting a then very similar picture of Middle East media distortion. Mark Gold lives in Virginia. Contact him at mgva@earthlink.net |
|
SECRET SERVICE: 'KILL' OBAMA REPORT UNFOUNDED
Posted by Newmax, October 16, 2008. |
|
Barack Obama asserted during Wednesday night's presidential debate that someone shouted "kill him" when the Democrat's name was mentioned at a Sarah Palin rally. But the head Secret Service agent at Tuesday's Palin rally in Scranton, Pa., said: Never happened. The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on Tuesday in a story written by reporter David Singleton, saying that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama's name, a man in the audience shouted "kill him." Other media outlets picked up the story, including ABC News, MSNBC, and The Associated Press, with most attributing it to the Times-Tribune. During the debate Obama mentioned to John McCain "some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him,' and that your running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say, 'Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line.'" But Bill Slavoski, the agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton, was in the audience at the rally, along with an undisclosed number of other agents, and he said not one of them heard the comment. "I was baffled," he told the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader after reading the Times-Tribune report. He said the Secret Service conducted an investigation and could not find a single person to corroborate Singleton's allegation. "We have yet to find someone to back up the story," Slavoski said. "We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it." Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman said on Wednesday: "We stand by the story." But Slavoski insisted that Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell "kill him." Contact Newsmax at newsmax@reply.newsmax.com |
|
TIMES DOWNPLAYS POSSIBLE OHIO VOTE FRAUD, FEARS "WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS" AT POLLS
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 16, 2008. |
|
This was posted by Clay Waters
|
|
A move by Ohio Republicans to halt possible vote fraud is spun by the Times: "Court Ruling May Impede Thousands of Ohio Voters." Concerns about the validity of the mass of newly registered voters in Ohio (especially names submitted by the dubious left-wing activist group ACORN) led a federal appeals court to require election officials to impose a safeguard that may require some new voters to cast provisional ballots instead of regular ones on Election Day. But in the mind of reporter Ian Urbina, the possibility of voter fraud is apparently overridden by the possibility of "widespread problems when the voters show up at the polls," in "Court Ruling May Impede Thousands of Ohio Voters." More than 200,000 registered Ohio voters may be blocked from casting regular ballots on Election Day because of a federal appeals court decision on Tuesday requiring the disclosure of lists of voters whose names did not match those on government databases, state election officials and voting experts said. The court decision requires Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio secretary of state, to provide the names to local election officials by Friday. Once the local officials have the names, they may require these voters to cast provisional ballots rather than regular ones, and they may ask partisan poll workers to challenge these voters on Election Day. Both possibilities could cause widespread problems when the voters show up at the polls. Better to have provisional ballots than to have legitimate votes cancelled out by illegitimate ones, right? Apparently not. Urbina detailed the Democratic rebuttal: Concerns about those problems led the Ohio Attorney General’s Office to file an appeal of the decision to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Ms. Brunner on Wednesday night. The state’s appeal went directly to Justice John Paul Stevens because he oversees the Sixth Circuit. It argued that the Republican Party had nearly two years to raise complaints about the process of screening voter registrations and failed to do so. Any changes now to the process would disrupt preparations for the election, it contended. Federal law requires states to verify voter registration applications with a government database like those for driver’s licenses or Social Security cards. Names that do not match are flagged for further verification. Since Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, the decision will probably affect their party’s supporters disproportionately. Polling in the state shows Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, with a slight lead on his Republican challenger, Senator John McCain. Republicans have been angered by reports of voter-registration fraud linked to groups allied with Democrats, like Acorn, a community organizing group with ties to Mr. Obama. This month, the Ohio Republican Party filed a motion seeking to force Ms. Brunner, a Democrat, to hand over the list of all registration applications that had been flagged when checked using the state or federal databases. Urbina quoted three law professors, all of who disagreed with the decision, all of who appear to be liberal (although that's par for the course for law professors). Social Security data indicate that Ohio election officials found more than 200,000 names that did not match this year; state election officials say their analysis of the data indicates that most of these are individual voters, not duplicate registrations. But Ms. Brunner said that problems with the databases could very well be why the names did not match. .... Ms. Brunner said she was worried that requiring so many voters to cast provisional ballots would also raise tensions at the polls and worsen lines and confusion on Election Day in a year when she is expecting unprecedented turnout. Wendy Weiser, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University law school, said many voters were flagged erroneously because the databases used to check voter registrations were prone to errors. Most nonmatches are the result of typographical errors by government officials and computer errors, she said, not voter ineligibility. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
FBI LAUNCHES NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION INTO ACORN FRAUD
Posted by Avodah, October 16, 2008. |
|
This is by Avi Green of Tel CHai Nation website:
|
|
FBI launches nationwide investigation into ACORN fraud The FBI is beginning an important investigation into the shady movement's activities around the US (Hat tip: Hot Air): WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election. A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because regulatons forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election. It's time to close down ACORN once and for all. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL FEARS POTENTIAL OBAMA PRESIDENCY
Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 16, 2008. |
|
This is by Chad Groening from OneNewsNow
|
|
Evangelist and Middle East expert Tom Doyle says the people of Israel are very concerned about a possible Barack Obama presidency in the United States. Tom Doyle is the Middle East director for the strategic church-planting ministry e3 Partners and author of the book Two Nations Under God: Why You Should Care About Israel. Doyle has spent a great deal of time in the Holy Land, and he says while Israelis are concerned about possible elections in their own country, they are eyeing the November 4 presidential election in the United States. "They're very nervous about our elections. They're watching that, wonder[ing] what the next president of the U.S would be like," Doyle explains. "Would he be favorable to Israel? Will he stand with them? And so they're watching that quite closely." He adds that Israelis have told him they are concerned about a possible Barack Obama presidency. "This is what I heard over and over: we have a candidate who was born Muslim. He has a Muslim name, and he claims that he's converted to Christianity. But in the Middle East when you do that, usually you change your name to a Christian name," Doyle points out. "All we can interpret is that he's still a Muslim — which wouldn't bode well for Israel — or at least has strong Islamic roots, and there's a real nervousness." Doyle notes that Muslims in the Middle East consider Obama to be one of their own. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
WHY OSLO FAILED; DEMOCRATS PLAY POLITICS WITH ISRAEL; IRAN ON THE VERGE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 16, 2008. |
|
ISRAEL ALREADY AT WAR WITH IRAN Israel has been hampering Iran's nuclear development for years. [Obviously not sufficiently.] Israel doesn't publicize such efforts, but it also fights Iran through computer technology, espionage, and selective assassination (Arutz-7, 9/16).. Iran has been fighting Israel by proxy — Hizbullah, Hamas, and Fatah. HOW FRANCE AVOIDS ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS Three Jewish counselors of World Bnei Akiva were beaten by 11 French Muslims wearing brass knuckles and uttering antisemitic epithets. French police tried to induce anti-Muslim remarks from the victims by suggesting that the Muslims "smell." Police discovered that one Muslim was of Jewish origin but raised as a Muslim. They then classified the attack as one of gangs, rather than antisemitic. The French media blames Jews for the fight (Arutz-7, 9/18). The counselors are not part of a gang! France is dissimulating, in order to minimize the moral rot among its Muslims and to scapegoat the Jews. BEHIND 9/11 A journalist alleges evidence that Iran facilitated the Arabs who committed the attack. He claims that the 9/11 Commission is under pressure from intelligence agencies not to expose Iran. He did not explain why (Arutz-7, 9/18). WHY OSLO FAILED Oslo had little chance to bring peace. In addition, its Israeli devisors allowed the Muslims to sabotage it and divide Israeli society. Peres and Rabin "were both blinded by the wealth of compliments, honors, publications, and prizes and gave in to Arafat on the 'petty issues.'" "...by agreeing to negotiate while suicide bombers were blowing themselves up in buses and wedding halls, the decision makers caused the failure of the" Oslo Accords that they themselves started. "The moment that Arafat got away with refusing to don the business suit and remained in a military uniform at the White House lawn ceremony — in violation of explicit understandings — he knew he could get away with anything and everything." The Arabs "...concluded that if Israel did not insist on the main principle — recognition of the state and an end to the violence — there was almost no limit to the concessions they could achieve. And when Rabin and Peres declared that "we will continue with the negotiations as though there were no terror,' P.A. chairman Yasser Arafat was convinced once and for all that permission was granted because the Jews had no red lines." (IMRA, 9/18.) ISRAELI MEDIA'S POLITICAL BIAS The Israel media deliberately protects its political favorites and harasses those it disfavors. After succeeding, it then feigns pangs of conscience and laments its bias. It just did that again, with Foreign Min. Livni. It criticizes itself for assisting her effort to win the Kadima primary. It admits not asking her to explain her failures, Israel's difficult situation, and her position on it. The media also let her get away with spending taxpayer funds on a private function (Dr. Aaron Lerner, 9/18). She boasts of integrity. DEMOCRATS PLAY POLITICS WITH ISRAEL Some Jews organized a rally to protest Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad's presence at the UNO. They invited prominent Americans to speak. When they added Gov. Palin to the list of speakers, Sen. Clinton withdrew. She said the invitation to Palin made the event partisan. She did not explain how adding a speaker from a second party makes the event partisan nor how a speaker from just one party makes it non-partisan. Democrats on the rally committee demanded that the invitation to Palin be rescinded and threatened to get the committee's tax exemption revoked. The invitation was rescinded (Arutz-7, 9/19). Democrats weakened a rally for Israel and the US and against Iran in order to gain partisan advantage. That is unconscionable. Voters should punish them. In any case, this indicates that Obama is not the national unifier he claims to be. FEDERAL INTERVENTION "Title VI 'outreach' allows biased academics to bring in off-campus activists, and pay them lecture fees to propagandize teachers and the general public. All at the taxpayers' expense." "The law says you have to have teacher training seminars on campuses, and these have a radical anti-American bent. There is a place in New Mexico called Dar el Islam, a giant 1,300-acre complex that has a mosque, a medrassah [Islamic theological school], a summer camp, a teacher training workshop, and a publishing house that publishes some of the most virulent translations of the Quran, as well as the materials for their teacher-training that are used all over the country — and all stamped with the fancy blue-green-white star emblem of ARAMCO, the state-owned national oil company of Saudi Arabia. They are very very stealth — I call this the 'soft jihad' against America." (Arutz-7, 9/19.) Sen. Obama touts government intervention? Sometimes it is worse than nothing. ABUNDANT FOOD IN "STARVING" GAZA? Israel lets humanitarian food supplies into Gaza. [It had to reduce shipments, because the regime there is making war on Israel. It attacks the gates from which food would enter and criticizes Israel for not letting more food in.] An Englishwoman, Lauren Booth, identifies with the Gazans. She's over there, likening their food supply to that of Darfur and Nazi concentration camps. She claims that Gaza conditions get less publicity than Darfur's. It should, because several hundred thousand people have been killed in Darfur, but about one thousand in Gaza. Booth's interviewer checked on Google, and found fewer than 14,000 references to Darfur and more than 17,600 references to Gaza. Truth is not Booth's strong point. For now, she has to stay in Gaza, because neither Egypt nor Israel want to let her pass through their country on her way out. She claimed that the Israelis threatened to shoot her. After her interviewer explained how unlikely that was, especially with the automatically controlled passage there, and after further probing, it turns out that the gunmen she met were Arabs and the alleged Israeli threat was delivered to her by another Arab [who probably wants her to stay and keep making propaganda]. Then she posed in a well-stocked food store buying luxuries such as candy and soda. The joke is on her, her hysterical hyperbole about Arab starvation exposed (Arutz-7, 9/19). IRAN ON THE VERGE Iran still has secret nuclear facilities not disclosed to the IAEA. Iran is known to have produced enough material for six atomic bombs. Its missiles can reach any country in the region. It probably is assembling the six bombs. The time to strike Iran is now. [It may be too late, because facilities can be destroyed, but now every missile must be found! That means full-scale war and invasion.] Meanwhile, Iran has become more aggressive, both in defense against raids and in operations and diplomacy abroad. It is stimulating al-Qaida in Gaza and helping it in Egypt to kidnap some of the couple of hundred Israelis who refuse to evacuate the vacation fleshpots of Sinai, despite Israeli governmental warnings. Pres. Ahmadinejad is coming to the UNO, to be feted by the head of the General Assembly. [Feting him?] The bellicose Iranian also will be honored by the Mennonite and Quaker churches, which pretend to be pacifist and are anti-Zionist. [It's a strange pacifism that honors a leader of a-bomb development and threats to use them against a country that seeks peace.] The US still is striving, and failing, to get other countries to join it in imposing economic sanctions on Iran. It still is pursuing covert sabotage. It's too late for that and for efforts to overthrow the regime — Iran is assembling bombs. The US and Israel must bomb Iran now and then try to apply other measures. Unfortunately, the US refuses to do so and Israel doesn't even have a government (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/19). Israel's leftist regimes are appeasement-minded and anti-Zionist, themselves. As for our presidential candidates, they claim they will try diplomacy, first. Are they lying or are they stupid? Notice how useless the IAEA is! Critics have pointed this out all along. Our leaders, however, preferred to pretend that the IAEA would prevent nuclear proliferation, rather than have to act, themselves, to prevent proliferation. The result will be a larger holocaust than ever. Nobody is safe, now. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
GOVERNMENT TREATMENT OF PATRIOTIC CITIZENS IS A SHAMEFUL AND
DISGRACEFUL FARCE
Posted by Alex Maist, October 16, 2008. | |
|
In August 2005, the Israeli government evicted the Jews of Gaza from their homes, handing the area over to the Arabs, who promptly vandalized the Jewish homes and greenhouses and destroyed property they did not wish to convert into bomb factories and terrorist training camps. An article appeared in a Russian-language newspaper; its author, poet and writer, Gregory-Gershon Trestman, wrote a parody describing the Arabs in language the largely left-wing Israeli news media usually reserve for settlers and other patriotic Jews. You will not be surprised to learn that the Mossawa Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens is suing both Trestman and his editor. They are under indictment, accused by Mossawa of publishing racist material and incitement against Arabs. The Israeli writer, Maya Kaganskaya, is the recipient of a number of Israeli and international prizes. She wrote the letter below. Essentially, she points out this is a political trial, a farce designed to stifle opposition. | |
|
Alexander Maist is a journalist with the Russian-language Israeli newspaper Novosty Nedely. |
|
HIJACKED IRANIAN SHIP WAS A DIRTY BOMB MEANT FOR ISRAEL ON YOM KIPPUR
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 16, 2008. |
|
During the U.S. elections a great deal of vital information has been sidelined. The following speaks to Barack Obama's plan to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to "talk it over" without pre-conditions. As a naive freshman Senator would deal with a very dangerous Iran who lie about everything, especially Nuclear Fissile material. Please send this on to Senator John McCain and the Media. This article was written by Brian Harring who writes for TBR
News. It comes from the October 6, 2008 Shirat Devorah |
|
On August 21st, 2008, the MV Iran Deyant, 44,458 dead weight bulk carrier was heading towards the Suez Canal. As it was passing the Horn of Africa, about 80 miles southeast of al-Makalla in Yemen, the ship was surrounded by speedboats filled with members of a gang of Somalian pirates who grab suitable commercial ships and hold them and their cargos and crews for ransom. The captain was defenseless against the 40 pirates armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades blocking his passage. He had little choice other than to turn his ship over to them. What the pirates were not banking on, however, was that this was no ordinary ship. The MV Iran Deyanat is owned and operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) — a state-owned company run by the Iranian military that was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on September 10, shortly after the ship's hijacking. According to the U.S. Government, the company regularly falsifies shipping documents in order to hide the identity of end users, uses generic terms to describe shipments to avoid the attention of shipping authorities, and employs the use of cover entities to circumvent United Nations sanctions to facilitate weapons proliferation for the Iranian Ministry of Defense. The MV Iran Deyanat departed Nanjing, China, July 28, and, according to its manifest, planned to sail to Rotterdam, where it would offload 42,500 tons of iron ore and "industrial products" purchased by an unidentified " German client". The ship has a crew of 29 men, including a Pakistani captain, an Iranian engineer, 13 other Iranians, 3 Indians, 2 Filipinos, and 10 Eastern Europeans, stated to be Albanians. The MV Iran Deyanat was brought to Eyl, a sleepy fishing village in northeastern Somalia, and was secured by a larger gang of pirates — 50 onboard and 50 onshore. The Somali pirates attempted to inspect the ship's seven cargo containers but the containers were locked. The crew claimed that they did not have the "access codes" and could not open them. Pirates have stated they were unable to open the hold without causing extensive damage to the ship, and threatened to blow it up. The Iranian ship's captain and the engineer were contacted by cell phone and demanded to disclose the actual nature of the mysterious "powdered cargo" but the captain and his officers were very evasive. Initially they said that the cargo contained "crude oil" but then claimed it contained "minerals." Following this initial rebuff, the pirates broke open one of the containers and discovered it to be filled with packets of what they said was "a powdery fine sandy soil ...." Within a period of three days, those pirates who had boarded the ship and opened the cargo container with its gritty sand-like contents, all developed strange health complications, to include serious skin burns and loss of hair. And within two weeks, sixteen of the pirates subsequently died, either on the ship or on shore. News about the illness and the toxic cargo quickly reached Garowe, seat of the government for the autonomous region of Puntland. Angered over the wave of piracy and suspicious about the Iranian ship, authorities dispatched a delegation led by Minister of Minerals and Oil Hassan Allore Osman to investigate the situation on September 4. and they witnessed some of the deaths due to exposure to 'something on that ship.' The Somali pirates initially set the ship's ransom at $2 million and the Iranian government provided $200,000 to a local broker "to facilitate the exchange." The $2 million dollar ransom agreement, which was supposedly secured on September 6th, never took place for reasons unknown. After September 10th, sanctions on IRISL were applied specifically because the company was said to engaged in illicit operations on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Serious negotiations were broken off completely. Iranian authorities subsequently denied that it agreed to the price nor had paid any money to the pirates. Nevertheless, after sanctions were applied to IRISL on September 10, Osman says, the Iranians told the pirates that the deal was off. "They told the pirates that they could not come because of the presence of the U.S. Navy." The region is patrolled by the multinational Combined Taskforce 150, which includes ships from the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. Subsequently, it was disclosed that the U.S. government had offered to pay $7 million to the pirates to "receive entry permission and search the vessel." Officials in the Pentagon and the Department of State have consistently refused to comment on the situation. The exact nature of the cargo remains officially a mystery but officials in Puntland and Baidoa are convinced the ship was carrying weapons to Eritrea for Islamist insurgents. "We cannot inspect the cargo yet," Osman said, "but we are sure that it is weapons." The US Navy (and the French and the Russians) have been hove to off the coast of Eyl, going anywhere once released, it will be seized once it gets to sea. The specific clauses that have been approved in both the UN and in Congress would allow the US Navy to seize the ship under the suspicion clause. The claims that there are weapons onboard, and the possibility there might be chemical weapons, has insured there is at the very minimum, an inspection of the ship by outside authority will be mandated. At this writing, the MV Iran Deyanat is at anchor, watched closely by American, French and Russian naval units. Although American intelligence and government sources are maintaining a strictly observed silence, the same does not apply to the Russians and so it is that we learn the real story of the MV Iran Deyanat. She was an enormous floating dirty bomb, intended to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. The entire cargo of radioactive sand, obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore. Given the large number of deaths from the questing Somali pirates, it should be obvious that when the contents of the ship's locked cargo containers finally descended onto the land, the death toll would be enormous. This ship was nothing more nor less than the long-anticipated Iranian attack on Israel. Not the expected rocket attacks (which could be intercepted by the Israelis) but an even more deadly and unexpected attack by sea.. It is very interesting to note that the Israeli government has in the past few weeks, been loudly demanding that the United States establish a naval blockade of Iran. The reason for this blockade would be to prevent any more Iranian ships with deadly cargos from attacking either Israel or other targets from the sea. [ EDITOR'S NOTE: FOLLOWUP October 20, 2008:
I have a correct copy of the ship's real manifest that a U.S. Navy source faxed me about two hours ago. There was no rocket fuel on board. Her cargo contained "a significant quantity" of radioactive waste from China, in lead-lined and secured cargo containers. The ship was never boarded by anyone from the time she left Nanjing in China until the Somali pirates grabbed her. Sixteen pirates died within two weeks, of heavy radiation poisoning, and three more are expected to die. An international force consisting of American, Russian, French and Dutch ships were involved in blockading the ship and preventing her from leaving Somalian waters. A "ransom" of $250,000 was eventually paid by the U.S., the ship boarded by the Navy, her cargo secured and the crew interrogated and eventually released and the ship was moved, under her own power and with an American crew, to the Muscat port where the U.S. Navy has docking rights. Her manifest was entirely false. The ship was not going to Rotterdam and there was no "German businessman" to take charge of the fictional cargo. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
WHO'S GOOD FOR THE JEWS?
Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Michael B. Oren, a visiting professor at the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, is the author of Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present. |
|
As an Israeli who lives part-time in the U.S., I am always surprised when Americans ask me who the Israelis want to win the U.S. elections. My response is that, though Israel is intensely close to the U.S., many Israelis cannot even identify the Democratic and Republican candidates. As an item on the Israeli news, the U.S. elections usually rank fourth or fifth, well behind the latest political scandals, multi-car accidents and soccer scores. And yet, the outcome of November's balloting could have profound ramifications for Israelis. The contestants' positions on the peace process, their policies toward Iraq and Iran and their strategies for pursuing the war on terror — all will impact the Jewish State. Depending on who wins, the Middle East — and Israel's place in it — may look substantially different. That is the conclusion of a study I published in the current edition of The Journal of International Security Affairs, the first comprehensive analysis of the candidates' platforms affecting Israel. My findings were astonishing. Apart from their common commitment to Israel and to the search for peace between it and the Arabs, Barack Obama and John McCain differ significantly on virtually every issue. McCain, for example, favors transferring the U.S. embassy, situated in Tel Aviv, to Jerusalem — an action certain to antagonize the Arabs — while Obama has not supported the move. Obama, on the other hand, has expressed reservations about Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank, while McCain has overlooked the matter. McCain has called on the Palestinian Authority to live up to its obligations to clamp down on terror, but Obama has stopped short of making such a demand. Obama has supported Israel's ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza and its peace talks with Syria; McCain opposes both. McCain insists that the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be solved without first confronting Islamic radicalism. Obama believes that the Arab-Israeli dispute, though not the root of all Middle Eastern conflicts, is nevertheless a "constant sore" that "infect(s) all of our foreign policy." The differences between the candidates on a continued American military presence in Iraq and proposed talks with Iran are well-documented. McCain favors the first and opposes the second, and Obama's positions are exactly reversed. Regarding the war on terror, Obama advocates a return to the Clinton-era treatment of terrorists as criminals who should be tried by the justice system. McCain, by contrast, upholds the Bush Doctrine of preemption and the defeat of terror by extra-Constitutional means. Which of these policies are best for Israel depends on one's definition of best. Some might prefer an America that is even-handed in peace talks, dedicated to achieving a comprehensive Arab-Israeli agreement and open to dialogue with its enemies. Others favor an America that is more sympathetic to Israel in negotiations, committed to fighting Islamic radicalism and ready to act preemptively — unilaterally if necessary — against terror. An America led by McCain or Obama will pursue substantially different courses in the Middle East, impelling Israel down widely divergent paths. Israelis may not have a say in choosing that direction, though many of their supporters might. In spite of the Republicans' claim to commanding an unprecedented 35% of the Jewish vote, the sizable majority of American Jews will still vote Democratic. Still, a difference of only several percentage points could tip the scales in such key states as Florida and New York with their large Jewish populations. Paradoxically, the race in those states may be decided by the former Floridians and New Yorkers who now live in Israel but who retain their U.S. citizenship. Mostly religious and politically conservative, these Israeli-Americans are expected to side overwhelmingly with McCain. Perhaps the question of whom the Israelis want for president should not be so surprising, then, especially when posed to a dual-citizen. Israel may yet exert a small but pivotal influence on the presidential elections. American Jews and Israeli-Americans may, together but indirectly, determine Israel's future. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
CHRISTIANS GATHER IN JERUSALEM TO SUPPORT ISRAEL
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Julie Stahl and published on
CNS News
|
|
Christians from around the world gather in Jerusalem for the annual
Feast of the Tabernacles celebration. Some participated in a parade in
Jerusalem on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008. (Photo by Julie
Stahl/CNSNews.com)
Christians from around the world gather in Jerusalem for the annual Feast of the Tabernacles celebration. Some participated in a parade in Jerusalem on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008. (Photo by Julie Stahl/CNSNews.com) Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) — Thousands of Christians from around the world are gathering in Jerusalem this week to celebrate the Biblical festival of Succoth. More than 7,000 Christians from about 100 nations are attending the International Christian Embassy's annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration, which coincides with the Jewish holiday and is Israel's largest single tourism event each year. The pilgrims will spend an estimated $18 million here. "In the middle of a global financial meltdown, this Feast is one of the biggest and it's paid for already. We have covered our costs," Malcolm Hedding, executive director of the ICEJ said. "More important, thousands of people in spite of everything are coming to Israel to express their solidarity and their friendship for the people of Israel," Hedding told CNSNews.com. Hedding said it's particularly important for Christians to stand with Israel as it "confronts the growing threat of a nuclear Iran." Addressing the pilgrims at Jerusalem's main convention center on Tuesday evening, Hedding said he has news for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Before he wipes Israel off the map, he will have to remove God from His throne." There is no nuclear bomb that can wipe Israel off the face of the earth, he said. Israel is not a "political coincidence" or "accident of history" but a fulfillment of God's prophecies in the Bible, Hedding said. The West believes that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program to secretly develop an atomic bomb. Ahmadinejad repeatedly has said that Israel should be wiped off the map. The Iranian leaders (and others) have charged that Israel, which was established in 1948 following a United Nations resolution partitioning British Mandatory Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, is the result of a Western colonial effort. The crowd of Christian Zionists believe that the Bible promises the Land of Israel (including Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip) as an eternal inheritance to the Jewish people. Earlier this decade, during the worst years of the Palestinian uprising, when suicide bombers were regularly blowing up buses and restaurants in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, they kept coming by the thousands to the ICEJ Feast to show their solidarity with Israel. The ICEJ was started in 1980 by a group of international Christians as an act of solidarity with Israel. During that summer the Israeli Knesset passed a law establishing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Arab States threatened an oil embargo and many nations pulled their embassies out of Jerusalem. Some 1,400 Christians from 40 nations gathered in protest and decided to open their own "embassy" in support of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Tourism Minister Ruhama Avraham Balila welcomed the pilgrims on Tuesday evening on behalf of the government to what she called "the City of God, the eternal capital of Israel forever and ever." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has indicated that he would divide the city of Jerusalem, which the Palestinians also claim as their capital. But Abvraham Balila pledged that would never happen. "Let us all pray that this city will remain united forever. I promise you that Jerusalem will be controlled by the Jewish people forever. And I promise you that Jerusalem will be open to all people of all faiths, for all times to come," she said. The ICEJ's gala celebration opened on Monday evening with a huge meal and program for some 6,400 pilgrims in the desert by the Dead Sea. Singers and dancers in bright costumes performed a variety of traditional Jewish as well as Christian songs. A troupe of 20 Chinese performers who had participated in the opening of the Summer Olympics in Beijing also played the opening drum and musical numbers there. Life changing There are about 1,000 pilgrims at the Feast this year from North America, said ICEJ spokesman David Parsons. The largest contingent — about 1,800 — is from Brazil. For many pilgrims, their trip to Jerusalem and Israel is a life-changing experience. George Jackson and his wife Betty, who founded the World Outreach Church in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, have been traveling to Israel since 1969. They have brought some 20 tour groups from their church since 1999, he said. "We bring Christians to Israel [because] it makes the factual information [in the Bible] come alive," Jackson told CNSNews.com. When Christians see the geographical location of Israel in relation to the nations around it and see how the Jewish people "by God's decision have impacted the world for 4,000 years," it gives current events meaning, Jackson said. It also helps them to make "wise choices" in their own personal lives, he said. Albert and Susan Jefferson from Richmond, Virginia, are on their first trip to Israel. They said they weren't deterred by bad news on television. "This is a trip of a lifetime," Albert said. Deber Ruth from Brazil also is visiting Israel for the first time. "Since I'm a Christian, it's always good to know where Christ walked and where his ministry started," said Ruth. "We read in the Bible about not only the history but about [the disciples] of Jesus Christ, and coming here is feeling what they felt and maybe a way to [an] encounter with the truth. It's very, very touching," she said.
Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com
|
|
NEVER MIND THE ALAMO. REMEMBER KACHA!
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 15, 2008. |
|
Kacha's death must be avenged! The blood of Kacha's dead body demands an accounting, for she is a-maulderin' in her grave. The murderers must be apprehended. Kacha is the latest martyr. Even though she was, well, a dog. The valiant and heroic Kacha was a dog in the West Bank 'settlement' of Churshah, really a small outpost consisting of a few Jews and their pets. A group of leftist 'anarchists,' better known as anarcho-fascists, entered the village with some Arab thugs and they murdered poor Kacha in cold blood. Those leftists, as opposed to Kacha, were the REAL sons of bitches. The story is reported in detail at
Now this is a wonderful opportunity for all those Jewish animal rights nuts all over the United States. Many of them have been trying to get the main kosher slaughtering company in Iowa in the US shut down because the animalists claim that the self-esteem and the human rights of the cows and chickens there are not being probably respected by the evil kosher food corporation. A whole movement of 'kosher certification in the name of justice' now operates in the US, whereby a company gets a kosher certificate only if it complies with fashionable leftist PC fads, including of course animal rights. My guess is a nice pig slaughtering company that recycled and used ethanol could get a 'hachsher tzedek' certificate from these clowns. So will these same animal rightists now speak out about the atrocity committed by the anarcho-fascists? Will they demand that Kacha's legacy be preserved and her murderers punished? Will they endorse establishing a new memorial settlement some place in Samaria named after Kacha? Commemorating Kacha's very own Masada-like heroism and Maccabee-like heroism? What about the other liberal-keftist animal rights nuts in the US? Will Rabbi Moonbeam (Michael Lerner) and Rabbi Woodstock (Arthur Waskow) write new Tikkun articles commemorating Kacha? Will the Reform synagogue's leftist SWAT team, the misnamed Religious Action Center, take a brave stand for Kacha's rights? Will the Jews for Obama ask Barack Hussein to speak out against this atrocity? Stay tuned!
2. A letter concerning Israel becoming a 'state of all its citizens': Dear Dr. C: Concerning your inquiry about the chances that Israel will follow the advice of some Arabs and some of its leftist Jewish anti-Zionists and transform itself into a 'state of all its citizens': First of all, Israel already IS a state of all its citizens. It is a democracy and all its citizens vote, enjoy free access to courts, can run for office, and enjoy freedom of speech. Of course the large majority of all its citizens happen to be Jews who happen to think that Israel has a right to exist as a state with a Jewish majority and with a Jewish character as legitimate as France being French. There is a minority of hostile disloyal Israeli Arabs who do not want Israel to exist as a state of all its citizens, but granting them their wishes is hardly the creation of a "state for all its citizens." Rather it would be a denial of the rights of the citizens of that state. Violence can be stopped if Israel at long last gets serious about stopping it with the necessary force. The same way the Allies stopped violence in Germany in 1945. Hope that answer helps. Yours,
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
IMPORTANT VIDEO: THE PATH TO THE FINAL SOLUTION
Posted by Boris Celser, October 15, 2008. |
|
The thoughts below are from a friend of mine. The video discussed
is at |
|
Though we think we know about antisemitism, we for the most part are aware mostly from reading about it. Antisemitism however for most of us is some distant threat that does not impact us directly. It is important that you watch this video. Graphic images of Jew hatred bring the threat of antisemitism into much sharper focus and that is necessarily important for all of us. Jew hatred is growing and that includes North America and the communities in which we live. It is growing closer to all of us and our children then we realize, unless we take a moment to think about it. At our universities anti-Israel views and sentiments, that often cross the line into anti-semitism are not only tolerated, but accepted as legitimate views for debate and discussion about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Those discussions allow for anti-Zionist sentiments which is a transparent word for Jew and those discussions attacking Israel and Zionists often implicitly and even expressly go beyond that conflict and the attack is on Jews. Our universities have facilitated and played host to numerous anti-Israel events at the instance of the Muslim Students Association, such as Israel Apartheid Week. The first such IAW event took place at the U of Toronto about 4 years ago. It was reported to have turned into a Jewish hate fest. Since then, the U of T has made this an annual event and it has expanded onto many Canadian and American campuses. Reports have confirmed that these and like events promoted by Muslim Student Associations and supported by the Universities and their left wing contingent, often descend into Jew hatred which intimidates Jewish students who out of fear say nothing or ensure they do not get anywhere close to where the event is held or in the hallways outside the lecture halls where the audience gathers to carry on the anti-Israel discussion after the event. In politics, be it the legitimization of anti-Israel/Jewish views by the likes of former Pres. Carter, by Prof.'s Walt and Meirsheimer in their very negative book about the American Israel lobby, ignoring the vastly more powerful Arab/Muslim/Saudi lobby or here in Canada, the vascillations of the NDP vis a vis Israel, the big talk and little action of our Liberals vis a vis anti-Israel sentiments and the Liberal's deplorable U.N. record of abstaining or voting for the annual litany of anti-Israel U.N. Resolutions sponsored by the Muslim world, the anti-Israel boycott resolutions passed by American and Canadian churches and by Canada's major union, CUPE under the leadership of Sid Ryan, etc. etc. The double standard the world applies to Israel is being increasingly applied to all Jews. Unless Jews unite amongst their respective communities to defend themselves and to defend Israel from the Jew haters of all stripes in our midst, there may soon come a time that antisemitism impacts you directly and painfully, but you will be alone to defend yourself. Better that we all stand together now! I urge all of you to pass on this video, to put the threat of anti-semitism in the forefront of your minds, to not be hesitant to speak to others including community leaders about uniting against it and to not be the least bit hesitant to speak out against it when it confronts you. SEE THIS VIDEO
The path to Hitler's "final solution to the Jewish question" has branched and deviated since his death, but it's fundamental principle remains the same. Antisemitism did not end with WWII, and it's seen a fresh resurgence in recent years. While some might have you believe that talk of antisemitism is merely a ploy on the part of Jews to divert attention or curry some advantage, the threat it poses cannot be ignored. In an age of rogue nations armed with WMD, a worldwide Islamic jihad and the resurgence of various hard-left and hard-right militias, how long before someone will successfully enact Hitler's 'final solution'? This video is dedicated to the men and women of the Israeli Defense Forces. If you are interested, a related blog and supplemental material can be found here:
Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
THE JIHADIST VOTE
Posted by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., October 15, 2008. |
|
NBC reported on Thursday that the Obama campaign's latest radical "Muslim outreach coordinator," Mouha Husaini, met last month in one of Washington's Northern Virginia suburbs — the heart of what has been dubbed the "Wahhabi Corridor" — with her predecessor, Mazen Asbahi (who had to resign this summer due to his own associations with Shariah). Even more problematic was the presence at the Springfield event of two prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives: Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Nihad Awad of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR). As I pointed out in a debate on Tuesday, with a man associated with both organizations and arguably the Bush Administration's senior Muslim official, Suhail Khan, the Brotherhood is an instrument the Islamists have been using to foster a Fifth Column in America. Its stated purpose in this country is to "destroy Western civilization from within." According to NBC, even other attendees expressed concern that the Obama campaign was reaching out to such "politically radioactive" individuals as Bray and Awad. Unfortunately, this is hardly the only association of this type. Others include the following: A Federal Election Commission (FEC) employee has reportedly been warning for months about evidence that the Obama campaign has received as much as $200 million almost half of his total donations, in amounts less than $200. That is below the threshold for donor information that Sen. Obama has chose to report to the FEC — unlike the Clinton and McCain campaigns which have reported all donor information. Of the $200 million, between $30 and $100 million is from the Mideast, Africa and other places Islamists are active. It is unclear whether — as seems likely — these funds are coming not only from Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood types and jihadists of other stripes but from non-U.S. citizens. That would make such contributions not only worrying but illegal. Although the FEC has studiously ignored the problem to date, the matter finally appears to be the subject of a formal complaint by the Republican National Committee. Unfortunately, even if the Commission finally bestirs itself to investigate the facts, it seems unlikely to render a finding before the jihadists' and others' votes are counted. Another question yet to be resolved is whether Senator Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, a prerequisite pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. There is evidence that Obama was born in Kenya rather than, as he claims, Hawaii. There is also a registration document for a school in Indonesia where the would-be president studied for four years, on which he was identified not only as a Muslim but as an Indonesian. If correct, the latter could give rise to another potential problem with respect to his eligibility to be president. Curiously, Sen. Obama has, to date, failed to provide an authentic birth certificate which could clear up the matter. Then there is the Democratic candidate's get-out-the-vote effort. In addition to the prospect that its "Arab-Americans for Obama" effort is recruiting Muslim Brotherhood elements to enhance turn-out, the Obama campaign is trolling for voters in problematic places. Some are felons in prison systems long used by Islamists as centers for recruiting converts to their causes. Some — thanks to a radical group known as ACORN with which Barack Obama has had ties for many years and that has a serial problem with vote-registration fraud — are homeless. Their attitude towards the Islamist agenda, or for that matter any other aspect of national policy, can only be surmised. Finally, there are the various well-known Islamists with whom Barack Obama has long had ties and/or who are actively promoting his campaign. These include: a former Black Panther convert to radical Islam who calls himself Khalid al-Mansour; an aggressive promoter of Wahhabi influence operations, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; a virulently anti-Israel and pro-suicide bomber Palestinian professor named Rashid Khalidi; and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in a speech last February called Sen. Obama "the messiah." Even Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi has gotten in the act,
describing Obama in a videotaped speech transcribed by MEMRI as "a
black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim" (Philip Berg's
contention. See The next three weeks afford the American people — and the media,
the courts and the Federal Election Commission — an opportunity to get
to the bottom of Barack Obama's ties to and affinity for jihadists who
have their own reasons for relishing his promise of "change" for this
country. Unfortunately, the change his Islamists supporters have in
mind is for global theocratic rule under Shariah, and the end of our
constitutional, democratic government.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.
This was published yesterday and is archived at
|
|
UNSATISFACTORY DEBATE: GOVERNMENT EXPOSES ISRAELIS TO TERRORISM
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 15, 2008. |
|
UNSATISFACTORY DEBATE I listened to the second presidential debate. Should we ask whether the debate revealed or concealed policies and traits of the candidate, or who won? Right after the debate, two commentators thought Obama did better, because he was smoother. In high schools, elections were popularity contests. A Presidential election is supposed to hinge on the issues. What the commentators call smooth, I call slick, ignorant, and deceitful, changing his stance to meet criticism and then pretending he was right all along. I thought McCain ended gracefully, whereas Obama ducked his final question. That is my judgment on the judges. I think that the candidates did not treat enough issues satisfactorily. My reasons: 1. The first year of the campaign should have laid groundwork, first by learning the issues. The by-product would have been to educate the public, too. Some of the resulting proposed solutions would be independent of ideology and political correctness. Others would bolster legitimate ideological positions. 2. McCain's campaign should have analyzed the assumptions of voters and of the Clinton and Obama campaigns and their self-contradictions. Then voters could be disabused of those assumptions. An example of such assumptions is that government is always the solution and not the problem and that diplomacy can resolve conflict with fanatics and totalitarians. Both candidates want to rally supposed US allies to solve foreign problems. Don't they realize that the US has tried, but came up against mercantile and defeatist EU tendencies! The problem is not that Bush was poor at rallying allies, but that European countries have become poor at rallying for Western civilization. An example of a self-contradiction is that Obama would raise certain revenues from a currently declining corporate sector, and that his tax increases on dividends and capital gains would not affect middle income people. What does he think their IRAs depend on? Obama would save money on the war in Iraq, but would re-spend it on Afghanistan and Pakistan. For every problem he has an expensive government solution, but claims he would end the deficit. McCain said that Obama's tax increase would harm small businesses. Obama denied it. Neither gave us rational, numeric evidence, just assertion. Many small businesses barely get by on incomes a couple of times greater than the starting point of Obama's tax increase. Incidentally, the plan to transfer troops to Afghanistan is Bush's. It is imminent. Obama should not pretend he devised the solution. 3. Each campaign should investigate the background of probable opponents, but not for the petty dirt that Clinton and Obama dug up. McCain then should have revealed that Obama and Clinton are far leftists whose agenda would weigh the citizenry and their rights and revenues down with government bureaucracy, and kill our economy. Further, he would reveal that Obama is a dangerous radical who sought out Rev. Wright, and that he is lying about hardly knowing Wright and Obama's terrorist associate. (Since the NY Times blasts McCain for hinting at this, I refer you to a serious treatment of it in Commentary magazine.) McCain did not know how to expose his rivals without being accused of negative campaigning. He should boldly have called them outright frauds and said they betray the great Democratic Party. 4. A journalist insisted that both candidates know that certain political situations are very bad, but won't admit it until either one takes office. Can't blame them too much for that. Voters prefer candidates who pretend that everything can be solved without difficulty. When will American voters grow up? McCain did suggest they can't keep expecting "goodies." 5. Americans seem to have lost the ability to explain or debunk. They over-generalize and are vague and too polite. Thus McCain made the best point of the debate but failed to make it a knockout. He remarked that Obama fostered the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies of extending mortgages to poor prospects for repayment, which lit the match under the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The knockout should have come from drawing the conclusion that Obama doesn't know which regulations work and which make problems, and that he and his philosophy are dangerous for our economy. He should have put it emotionally that the people must not entrust their funds to such a politician. Obama said that the problem is insufficient regulation. He should have been pinned down to how simple it really could be, but wouldn't be under him: (a) Full disclosure, which the Federal Reserve seems to be requiring now; (b) Stricter margin requirements, to prevent bubbles and permit investors to meet obligations in downturns; and (c) Restore the separation of mortgages from banking, to avoid conflicts of interest. McCain didn't draw a line of what and how much regulation is reasonable, he just talked about greed. So? McCain emphasized his bi-partisanship and Obama's partisanship. He might have added the rating of Obama as fourth most party-line voter in Senate. He should have stated that Obama exercised no leadership. Why should one expect leadership from Obama now? The Democrats' line is that everything bad that happened to America is Pres. Bush's fault, and that since McCain is of the same political party, it's also his fault. That is a ridiculous line. All McCain did, which was correct, was stress his differences with Bush. His preparatory campaign should have defined the limits of the presidency, as I tried to do in my articles. He also should have put Democratic Members of Congress on the hook, as bearing their share of responsibility. After all, they had a strong influence when in the minority and for the past couple of years were in the majority. Where were they, where were Obama and Clinton, who now blame Bush for things they condoned? To be fair, they don't know much about how the economy ticks, but then they shouldn't point fingers. How much did they try to learn about what they now criticize others for? McCain offered no defense for his proposed tax cut, which his opponent claims benefits solely the rich. McCain either should have come up with a rationale for it or withdrawn it. Don't propose what one cannot defend. McCain let the Democrats get away with denying legitimacy to the Iraq war and somewhat with pretending that one could have abandoned it. McCain tried to explain only the need for continuing the war until victory, but failed to point out that a premature withdrawal would draw the enemy, aided by Iran, right back in. Obama now talks about a phased withdrawal, as if he originally didn't want to abandon the war precipitously. Neither candidate broke with Bush over policy on Israel. That policy is to deprive it of defensive borders by wresting from it traditional Jewish homeland territory and conferring it on anti-American terrorists. That policy is bad for the US. A poor question was whether the US would help Israel if Iran attacked it. The answers were poor, too. If Iran attacked, it would be with weapons of mass-destruction. The only question is whether the US would send over undertakers. When Iran attacks, it would be too late! Both candidates said only (worse if they believe it) that Iran's nuclear weaponry would be bad for Israel and for the region. Yes, but don't they realize how bad it would be for the US? Iran is working on longer-range missiles, which rogue states could give it at any time. Then it could fire nuclear weapons at the US. If the candidates are so eager to uphold Israel against Iran, why don't they criticize Pres. Bush for not raiding Iran's nuclear facilities and for denying Israel the air lanes and other means for doing so, itself? Obama actually criticized McCain for having suggesting bombing Iran, though McCain said he was joking. Since diplomacy with Iran has not fazed its nuclear development, then eventually it will attack. The candidates talk about putting pressure on Iran. What do they think the US government has tried to do, but found most of the rest of the world against doing that? Our leverage against Iran is limited. McCain rightly criticized Obama' inexperience in openly threatening to attack in Pakistan. McCain said you don't say that aloud. It simply antagonizes potential supporters. He added, Teddy Roosevelt advised walking softly and carrying a big stick. In response, Obama slickly confused the issue by pretending that the advice to him was only to talk softly and then pretending to counter McCain by citing instances when McCain allegedly was loud and threatening. Those instances were dealing not with potential supporters but with actual enemies. Then a threat may be useful. Obama got away with his tactlessness not corrected, his illogic not detected, and his insinuation against his opponent not shamed. Both candidates upheld the notion of government subsidy for everything. McCain emphasized his objection to earmarks, but other subsidies are vast. That is the "Washington way" that one would think a radical and a maverick would oppose. McCain is insufficiently conservative. They proposed subsidies for alternative energy consumption and development. A previous Administration tried subsidizing development of alternative energy, then called "synfuels," and wasted it all. Government is poor at foreseeing technological change. McCain should have pointed out that the subsidy of ethanol is a costly waste, but certain lobbies gain from it at the general expense. Neither candidate suggested raising the minimum gasoline mileage of vehicles or reducing usage of pleasure craft and snowmobiles. The relationship of untapped US oil pools and US consumption was stated but not explained clearly. The NY Times claims that we lack the means for increased drilling that both candidates now support. Obama's change on that went unnoticed. When Obama echoed intent to computerize hospital records, McCain should have said, give the originator of that proposal his due — Pres. Bush. The idea was blocked by Democrats, just as they, in their over-zealous partisanship, blocked other good ideas of his. They don't differentiate good from bad, workable from non-feasible, just Democrat from Republican. Incidentally, many hospitals now are doing this on their own. Another idea Bush had that is opposed by a powerful lobby was to limit class action suits. Such suits have wrecked businesses — workers, stockholders, and consumers — especially the financial industry just before the current crisis. So does the Sarbanes-Oxley law, also unmentioned. McCain was more reasonable about the role of the US in whether to fight for our security or against genocide. He should have added that the financial crisis constrains us. We can't afford everything everywhere. We certainly don't have the troops. He once said we need to raise more troops. The debate on this was unrealistic. The candidates still promise everything to everybody. Obama would not let people of one state buy health insurance from a company in another state. He claims that then all the insurance policies would become the same. To the contrary, more choices would be available. People who don't want to pay for certain coverage would select policies that don't offer it and don't charge for it. I got the impression that their proposals for keeping medical costs down do not suffice. They offered no analysis. They sprinkled their discussion with numbers, but not in any way that we could add up. I think that these debates are not frank and thoughtful enough and their visual presentation diverts from what thought is offered. People take them too seriously, especially what Obama says. He will say what helps his campaign at the moment. It does not reflect his policy. More serious is his having anti-Israel advisors such as Bryzezinski. OLMERT'S INITIATIVE Muslims equate Arab murderers of Jewish civilians with Israel combat troops. Israel had refused to equate them. Now Olmert [and colleagues] trade terrorists for legitimate soldiers. Israeli officials should introduce the death penalty to prevent such exchanges. Hizbullah publicly celebrates the trade's humiliation of Israel. Olmert may have traded to divert attention from his legal problems. The regime has lost the will to defend itself. It claims it can't stop the P.A. from firing missiles into Israel. No more Entebbes. Instead, it lets the P.A. hold a soldier contrary to law, and gives the P.A. water and power. It makes unilateral concessions for continued Arab warfare. The Left claims that security depends on abandoning strategic borders! It thinks force no longer useful, though it is in the most barbaric region. Now normal can a country be that entrusts its security to the goodwill of terrorists whom it pretends are peacemakers? It isn't normal, it has become alienated from its traditions by emphasizing secularism which has led to defeatism and feelings of guilt (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/17). GOVERNMENT EXPOSES ISRAELIS TO TERRORISM The Terror Victims Organization had asked the government to restore some checkpoints, lest their absence permit terrorists to circulate amongst Jews. At one of the former checkpoints they referred to, a terrorist indeed did attack. He stabbed a soldier and stole his weapon. Meir Indor, head of the organization, said that large areas of Samaria have come under terrorist control, by virtue of the absence of checkpoints. "In effect, today a terrorist can leave the Mukata [the PA headquarters in Ramallah — ed.] and travel unmolested to the Dead Sea, with no inspection on the way, and set up an ambush for the thousands of Israelis traveling on the main routes to the Galilee or to the Arava. Israeli travelers...have no way of knowing that they are exposed to hostile elements." (Arutz-7, 9/16), The removal of checkpoints is demanded by the State Dept. Pres. Bush bears some moral responsibility for the resulting casualties. Even less responsible than Bush, the UNO is demanding that Israel dismantle more checkpoints. [A recent study, I think by the UNO, blamed the poor state of the P.A. economy on Israeli checkpoints. The study showed obvious bias. It ignored the sinking of that economy before roadblocks were erected.] The UNO's says that its goal is to bolster Abbas' standing in the P.A. (Arutz-7, 9/6). Why should foreigners care which terrorist is in good standing in the P.A.? Why does Abbas always need boosting? Didn't the earlier Israeli gestures boost his standing sufficiently? No? Then why ask for them? Is it really about boosting his standing or about ousting Israel out of the Territories? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
OBAMA RAISED $1 MILLION FOR FOREIGN THUG'S ELECTION
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 15, 2008. | |
|
Democrat joined Libya's Gadhafi among top contributors to Odinga This was written by Jerome R. Corsi and it appeared
yesterday on World Net Daily
| |
|
NEW YORK — Sen. Barack Obama, with a donation of nearly $1 million, and a son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi were among the biggest contributors to the presidential campaign of controversial Kenyan leader Raila Odinga, according to an internal document obtained by WND. The memo was prepared by the head of Odinga's campaign finance accounting section, Shakeel Shabbir, as an official report delivered to the national treasurer for Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement party, or ODM. Among the 72 individuals and organizations that contributed money to Odinga's 2007 presidential run in Kenya, Shabbir lists "Friends of Senator B.O." as having donated 66,000,000 Kenyan schillings, about $950,000. Saif el-Islam Gadhafi, the Libyan strongman's second oldest son, reportedly donated 53,450,000 Kenyan schillings, about $765,000. According to several highly credible ex-ODM sources WND interviewed in Kenya, the $950,000 raised for Odinga's campaign came from a series of private meetings arranged for Odinga by Mark Lippert, a foreign policy adviser in Obama's U.S. Senate office. The meetings with top-dollar Obama fundraisers and donors took place during Odinga's 2006 trip to the U.S. In Kenya, WND talked to several top ex-ODM officials who played key roles in Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign. The officials became disaffected with Odinga after confirming he signed a memorandum of understanding with Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, or NAMLEF. In the Aug, 27, 2007, agreement, Odinga promised that within six months of becoming president, he would "rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religions." The ex-Odinga officials also told WND that, as Christians, they were appalled to see Odinga use tribal violence as a strategy to gain power after he lost the election by some 250,000 votes to sitting President Mwai Kibaki, a member of Kenya's majority Kikuyu tribe. Odinga called on fellow Luo tribal members to protest alleged voter fraud, resulting in a brutal wave of machete-wielding violence that killed an estimated 1,000 members of the Kikuyu tribe in January and February. Some 800 Christian churches also were destroyed or burned to the ground, without a single mosque being damaged. Get the book that started it all — Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed — for only $4.95, available today, but only from WND! In a move to end the post-election violence, Kibaki named Odinga as prime minister April 13, effectively entering into a power-sharing agreement brokered by former U.N. General Secretary Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that established Odinga as a co-equal head of state. WND contacted both Obama's Washington Senate office and his Chicago campaign office asking for comment on this story but received no response. Odinga-Gadhafi alliance The ex-ODM supporters of Odinga also confirmed a long-suspected alliance between Odinga and Gadhafi that dates back to Odinga's service as Kenyan minister of energy in 2001-2002. Shakeel Shabbir's internal campaign finance memorandum was noted in Chapter 4 of "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality." At the time the book was published, however, the authenticity of the memo could not be proved. Research conducted in Kenya by WND this month confirmed Shabbir's funding memorandum had been smuggled out of ODM offices by Christian former-ODM officials who had turned on Odinga after the agreement with the Muslim leader was verified. While several Internet sources posting the Shabbir memo have been taken down since publication of "The Obama Nation" brought it to international attention, it can still be seen here. As energy minister, Odinga was introduced to the family of Sheik Abdulkadir Al-Bakri, one of the richest oil families in Saudi Arabia. Through his firm Pan African Petroleum Limited, Odinga is believed to have made millions on a concessionary petroleum deal he negotiated as a silent partner in the local arm of Al-Bakri International. The Washington Times reported Odinga visited Obama during three trips the Kenyan politician made to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006. The Times also reported Obama sent his Senate office foreign policy adviser Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate a Senate "fact-finding" visit to Kenya later that year. WND previously published a copy of a private Dec. 22, 2006, e-mail in which Obama personally informed Odinga that "all our correspondence [be] handled by Mr. Mark Lippert." Obama apparently sought to establish a level of separation between himself and Odinga in their communications regarding the Kenyan election, noting further in the e-mail, using Lippert as a go-between "will be for my own security now and in future." WND previously reported that when Obama visited Kenya in 2006, the administration of President Kibaki objected that Odinga was using Obama's visit to win votes. Obama's repeated public appearances with Odinga, and the senator's almost daily criticism of the Kibaki government added to the administration's objections. A report by Chicago's WBBM-TV news team, which covered Obama in Kenya, shows the senator making statements critical of the Kibaki government. WBBM interviewed on camera Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua, who accused Obama of meddling inappropriately in Kenyan presidential politics. Matua said, "I think Odinga has to look at critically where he is receiving his advice from. Just because somebody wants to run for president, and he is using Senator Obama as his stooge, as his puppet, to be able to get where he wants to get." WND met with key officials in the Kibaki administration who affirmed their continuing conviction Obama used his 2006 Senate fact-finding visit to Kenya to advance Odinga's presidential candidacy. Obama, the officials charged, allowed Odinga to join him in many public appearances in Kenya and give speeches attacking Kibaki with themes that later became key attacks in the 2007 campaign. Obama maintained close contact with Odinga throughout the Kenyan campaign, with Lippert continuing to review and share strategy documents with Odinga from Obama's U.S. Senate office in Washington, according to the ex-ODM officials WND interviewed in Kenya. In the final days of the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary, while the post-election violence was still raging in Kenya, Obama told reporters from the BBC he continued to maintain contact with Odinga in Kenya by cell phone. The Chicago Sun-Times called Lippert one of Obama's "inner circle of foreign policy experts," noting Lippert joined the Illinois Democrat's Senate office in Washington at beginning of his term in January 2004, moving over from a staff position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Newsweek reported Lippert, a lieutenant junior grade in the Naval Reserve with an intelligence background, also served a year's deployment in Iraq. Lippert also worked for five years with the Senate Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommittee and handled foreign policy and defense issues for the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, according to the Sun-Times.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ARAB OBAMA AND HIS ARAB FRIENDS [INCL. RASHID KHALIDI]
Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by Linda Cowan and it appeared July 24, 2008
in The Conservative Voice
|
|
The revelation that Barak Obama is 43.75% Arab goes a long way to explain his political and business connections to Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Joseph Aramanda, Louis Farrahkan, and other characters he relies on as contacts, advisors, campaign organizers and political contributors. Obama needed the black vote, so he wrote a book and created a fictional African-American profile for himself. His real dealings are with his true heritage, anti-Israel Arabs. It explains Obama's close relationship with pro-Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, providing a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. AAAN's cofounder, Rashid Khalidi, was a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, while AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA's English translator. During that time, the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Presently, the AAAN is located in the Palestinian neighborhood in Chicago and serves as the mouthpiece against Israel. It is a pro-Palestinian Terror Network. The Woods Fund is the same board that William Ayers served alongside Obama, which figures! The picture is getting clearer and clearer! We are getting a better idea of just who Barak Obama really is. His statement that he would personally talk to rogue nations and terrorist sponsors can be linked with the philosophy provided by his former advisor, Syrian, Robert Malley, who advocates negotiations with Hamas and has blasted Israel for numerous policies he says harms the Palestinian cause. Obama's relations with Malley were severed after the press reported that Malley had held talks with Hamas during Obama's campaigning. Malley has been involved in anti-Israel activism and propaganda for years so it is impossible this was "news" to Obama. Obama "supposedly" severed ties with Malley because he became a liability to Obama's campaign. But, how would anyone know if his ties were really severed or not? We have become numb to Obama's lies. His Arab heritage also explains Obama's 18 year relationship with Syrian developer and political fundraiser Antoin 'Tony' Rezko and Illinois businessman Joseph Aramanda — both of whom were named in a Federal investigation of bribery of Illinois state officials. Rezko was indicted and found guilty by a federal grand jury and Aramanda was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator. Obama's stance against the Iraq war has more to do with wanting Rezko's continued ability to bilk the Iraqi Government than it did with Obama's convictions against the war. His stance was purely in Rezko's interest to extend his Iraqi bribing operations and Obama shared in these operations as an Illinois Senator by voting in funding for projects that were in favor of Rezko. Remember, in Chicago, it is tit for tat. Just think how big the tit for tat would be as President of the United States! |
|
PAKISTAN'S OTHER FRONT
Posted by Olivier Guitta, October 15, 2008. |
|
While some in Pakistan usually do not cry over these murders of women that they consider customary, a gruesome murder of three young teenage girls has recently shaken Pakistani society. Three sisters, aged 16 to 18, Hameed, Ruqqaya and Raheen who lived in Baba Kot, a village in Baluchistan, are dead, buried alive in a mass grave. The three girls are dead because they wanted to perpetrate the ultimate crime: marry the man of their choice and not the cousins that the Umrani tribe had picked for them. On July 14, the three girls that had left the village the day before with their mother and aunt to get married, were abducted by a commando of men from the Umrani tribe. Being brought back to the village, where a jirga (assembly of elders) is solemnly convened to decide their fate. The jirga decided on a very gruesome death, in order to serve as a lesson to all the other girls of the community. The next day, driving the five convicted in the heart of a desert, the executioners of the tribe use the excavator they brought along not only to dig a pit but also to tear to pieces the poor women. Then a salvo of gunfire hit them. Then the bulldozer pushed the bodies in the pit. According to the Pakistani press, the victims had not died yet when their executioners started covering them with sand and stones. If it weren't for a brave local journalist who received death threats from the Umrani tribe, these deaths would have been kept silent. Even after uncovering the murders, the Baluchi police did not do much because local political heavyweights were involved. Indeed, the vehicle used to kidnap the five women had a tag used only by official vehicles of the government of Baluchistan. According to witnesses, the man behind the horrible murders is allegedly Abdel Sattar Umrani, the brother of Sadiq Umrani, the housing minister of Baluchistan affiliated with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the party (of late Benazir Bhutto) now in power in Pakistan. This story did not get much coverage until the end of August when a televised debate at the senate shed light on the murders. In fact, responding to these heinous crimes, Mir Israhullah Zehrs, representative of a nationalist party of Baluchistan, justified the honor killings saying that they were traditions that he will keep on defending. This statement infuriated MPs who then passed a resolution denouncing the collective murder of Baba Kot. This could have been the tipping point feminists in Pakistan needed to shed light on the honor killings custom they have been denouncing for the past 15 years. In fact in 2007, 636 women have been murdered in Pakistan because of this barbaric "custom." But the real figure is most likely in the thousand range, since the law of silence is so strong. Most of the time, the murderers are close relatives of the victim: brother, father, cousins, convinced of their right, even proud to have washed the "honor" of the family. Pakistani leaders have to face heads on the cultural violence that is such a misguided conception of honor. Pakistan now realizes that it is at war with radical Islam. And it is not only a question of large-scale terrorism but also of everyday life or sometimes everyday death.
Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is
the founder of the newsletter The Croissant This article appeared in Middle East Times
|
|
EGYPT NOT HUMANE; FRAUDULENT ISRAELI PRIMARIES; HIZBULLAH DERIDES ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 15, 2008. |
|
PM OLMERT SORRY FOR THE ARAB REFUGEES He said he was ready to express sorrow for what happened to the Arab refugees, and also for the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were driven out of Arab countries (IMRA, 9/15). I wish that Jews who suffer the neurosis of unwarranted "Jewish guilt" and Westerners who feel guilty over ancestors' imperialism would stifle themselves. If Olmert or his successor goes ahead with such a statement, it likely would be taken as a Zionist admission of guilt. Israelis have no basis for such guilt. Israel had offered the Arabs safety and citizenship if they stayed. Considering Islamic hostility, the Zionists were foolish to offer citizenship to numbers of enemies great enough to thwart the re-establishment of the Jewish state. The Arabs rejected peace. Instead they, not universally but largely collectively, tried to annihilate the Jews and expel the Jews from Arab states. Most Israeli Arabs fled from their own terrorists, or by order of their own leaders, or out of fear of the war that they started. They got what they deserved. Their flight was the salvation of Israel. If Israel had sense, it would have expelled the rest, not consider, now, expelling Jews from parts of the Jewish homeland when the Muslim doctrine is to use those parts to conquer the rest and leave nothing to the Jews. Israel still should get the Arabs out of Israel and Yesha, not feel sorry for those genocidal maniacs. The Arabs caused both refugee problems. ISRAEL WOULD NOT REACT LIKE EGYPT Only Israel manufactures a certain drug for cystic fibrosis. An Egyptian boy has that disease. His father wanted to buy a supply. Egypt's health ministry, however, refuses to let him. It explains that Egypt has no direct relations with Israel. The father is indignant with his government over this (IMRA, 9/22). Unlike Egypt, Israel would do the humane thing about such a matter. Egypt's government is not just doctrinaire but incompetent. I wonder whether it would get swept away by the rising Islamists there, just like Abbas was from Gaza. IRAQ JUST ANOTHER ARAB STATE AGAINST ISRAEL? An Iraqi Member of Parliament visited Israel again. He suggested that his country establish diplomatic relations with Israel. His fellow parliamentarians condemned him for the visit and proposal (Arutz-7, 9/14). Israel didn't gain much from the US war on Iraq. The US didn't reform Iraq that much, so far. ARAB ISLAMIC CULTURE Paul McCartney plans a concert during Israel's 60th anniversary. Pro-Arab groups demand that he cancel it. Muslim Sheikh Omar Bakri, exiled from Britain, vowed to sic suicide bombers on him, otherwise. To Bakri, the friend of the (Islamic) enemy is his enemy. He demanded that McCartney not sympathize with Israel, which, he claims, oppresses the Palestinian Arabs. "Omar Barghouti, of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel deplores the threat (Arutz-7, 9/14). Is Mr. Barghouti better? Suppose his boycott attains its goal. The likely result would be war, the conquest of Israel, and the extermination of Israeli Jews and the killing by Muslims' weapons of mass-destruction of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs. This would leave Islam victorious over a cemetery. Another possible outcome would be dispossession of the Jews of Israel. They not only would lose their homeland to usurpers, they would have no place to go. Most would perish. Barghouti is just another arrow in the Islamist quiver. Those who make such allegations against Israel never prove them nor explain the situation which is one of oppression of the Jews, that I document daily. People should question the false statements against Israel and the resort to violence not only against Israel but against those, like McCartney, who don't boycott Israel. Unfortunately, few people contest the basis for Islamic hostility towards other faiths. The liberal media is in a state of ignorance, denial, and appeasement. They inform audiences too little for them to conclude otherwise. How can they evaluate Democrats' proposals to run out of Iraq? MUSLIMS BRING THEIR CODE OF HONOR TO WEST That means that some of them they murder their own daughters for such "sins" as not wearing head scarves (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/14). I suggest that we could preserve Western civilization and prevent civil war by keeping Muslims out. A counter-argument is that the US was built by immigrants, so immigration should continue. That is not logical. Being built, the US doesn't need to increase the number of immigrants. If immigration is to continue, it doesn't have to be by Muslims. FRAUDULENT ISRAELI PRIMARIES The Kadima primary was arranged by vote contractors who forged signatures and brought in members for each clique (IMRA, 9/15). ISOLATION OF GAZA ENDING? For security, Israel has maintained control over the Gaza coast, to bar weapons. Foreign sympathizers of the P.A. planned to send a ship to Gaza, to bring out some people whom Israel did not want to let out. Israel was afraid to stop them, lest it get unfavorable publicity. It failed to devise a policy to deal with this. Now others are planning to send more ships to and from Gaza. They declare that Israel's isolation of Gaza is overcome (IMRA, 9/15). Israel doesn't plan except how to give in to the Arabs and take it out on Jews. For example, Israel sent a complaint to the UNO about UNIFIL ignoring Hizbullah's violations of the UNO ceasefire Resolution 1701. Israel did not publicize this complaint — it didn't even copy it onto its Foreign Ministry's website. Lack of funds is not the major reason for Israel's poor public relations. Lack of patriotism and inability to foresee and plan may be. MUSLIM NOTION OF HUMANENESS ONLY FOR THEMSELVES The P.A. demands that Israel release to them the bodies of terrorists killed during attempted infiltration. It cites the Geneva Convention that bodies of soldiers must be buried according to their religious beliefs. It and Hizbullah do not, however, freely return bodies of Israelis whom they capture and kill (IMRA, 9/17). Terrorists are not soldiers entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention that they violate as a matter of policy. IRAN VS. RADIO FARDA Radio Farda is run by an American from Radio Free Europe and dedicated Persian colleagues. It fills in news that the clerical regime bans. Iran tries to jam the broadcasts. Iran intimidates journalists by threatening their relatives left behind in Iran. For example, an elderly parent might be threatened with confiscation of her house. (Dogs are routinely confiscated, because the mullahs don't think such pets consistent with their version of Islam) (MEFNews, 9/17). HIZBULLAH DERIDES ISRAEL, AND IT'S RIGHT Olmert said that the dream of a "greater Israel" from the Jordan R. to the Mediterranean Sea is dead. [The Land of Israel also includes Jordan, beyond the river.] Nasrullah, head of Hizbullah, called that a concession of defeat by "mediocre Israel," forced to give up its land piece by piece (Arutz-7, 9/17). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
FANNIE, FREDDIE, AND THE LEFT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 15, 2008. |
|
This was written by John Perazzo and it appeared
October 13, 2008 in Front Page Magazine
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. Contact him at wsbooks25@hotmail.com |
|
As evidenced by Barack Obama's rise in the polls immediately following the financial collapse of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, few Americans understand that for many years Fannie and Freddie have been, first and foremost, tools of Democratic politicians, funders of the Democratic Party, and, in the words of a former Fannie CEO, the intimate "friends" and "family" of the Democratic Party's left wing. Nor are most Americans aware that Fannie and Freddie, through their eponymous grant-making foundations, have funneled literally hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to a host of leftist groups and causes that work to promote Democratic agendas, causes, and policies. To set the record straight, it is worthwhile to examine the connections between Fannie, Freddie, and the Democratic Party. A full account of the recent financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must consider the role of the Clinton administration. As early as 1993, Clinton's first year in office, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros and Attorney General Janet Reno expressed dismay over reports that the rejection rate of black mortgage applicants nationwide was considerably higher than that of their white counterparts. In response, Reno warned that thenceforth "no bank" would be "immune" to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish such "discrimination" in the lending market. For emphasis, then-Assistant Attorney General Deval Patrick pledged to work for the elimination of all racial disparities in mortgage lending rejection rates. A careful look at the facts revealed, however, that those disparities were not actually due to discrimination of any kind. Instead, they reflected the realities of borrowers' credit-worthiness, as determined by such objective factors as credit history, debt burden, income, net worth, age, and education. But the political champions of "racial justice" in the Clinton White House were not interested in these facts. So instead of permitting this information to change their outlook on the issue of mortgage lending, they moved ahead with their crusade to inject new energy into the so-called Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which, according to President Clinton, had failed to live up to its potential as a vehicle for increasing minority homeownership. Thus began the government policy of forcing lenders, under threat of severe sanctions, to make subprime loans to high-risk borrowers who failed to meet traditional loan criteria. It was a policy guaranteed to create a crisis. The only question was when. Now that the crisis has arrived, Democratic finger-pointing has become the order of the day. Leading the charge, Barack Obama not only blames Republicans, but tacitly blames capitalism as a whole, referencing it by the pejorative code name of "trickle-down" economics. Yet, Obama makes no mention of the fact that the Bush administration exhorted Congress for years to set up an agency to regulate lending institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nor does he mention that John McCain demanded similar oversight, only to be rebuffed by Democrats like House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, who continued to favor the issuance of the subprime loans that have now caused the mortgage market to collapse. Since the 1990s, indeed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in the Democratic Party's hip pocket. From 1991 to 1998, for example, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale. While dutifully following the Clinton administration's aforementioned mandate, and thereby helping to run the mortgage lender into the ground, Johnson himself earned tens of millions of dollars in his Fannie Mae post, including $21 million in 1998 alone. Johnson made headlines this past summer when Barack Obama tapped him to chair his vice presidential selection committee. Johnson had to resign in disgrace from that position when it was revealed that he had taken at least five below-market real estate loans totaling more than $7 million from Countrywide Financial Corporation. Johnson's successor as Fannie Mae's head, Franklin Raines, had previously served as a budget director to President Bill Clinton. During his years at Fannie's helm between 1999 and 2005, Raines, while continuing the ill-advised policies that ultimately would bankrupt the company, pocketed nearly $100 million in compensation before leaving under a cloud of scandal. It seems that Raines had manipulated profit-and-loss reports so as to enable himself and other senior executives to earn enormous bonuses on top of already-high salaries — in 2003 alone, Raines received $16.8 million in cash compensation — even as the financial empire he oversaw was imploding. Another Fannie Mae luminary was Jamie Gorelick, who served as vice chair of the mortgage lender from 1998 to 2003. Prior to that, she had been Janet Reno's Deputy Attorney General during precisely those years when the Clinton Justice Department was aggressively compelling banks to make subprime loans to unworthy borrowers. That experience gave Gorelick valuable training for her future post at Fannie Mae, where she ultimately would increase her personal net worth by $26 million. While the foregoing Democrats collected obscene sums of cash as reward for their complicity in the subprime mortgage debacle, by no means were they the only beneficiaries of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money. Between 1989 and 2008, no fewer than 354 members of Congress received funds from Fannie and Freddie. Of those, 209 were Democrats who pulled in a combined $4.84 million. The leading recipient of Fannie/Freddie money was Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd, the Banking Committee Chairman who collected more than $165,000. Dodd opposed oversight of Fannie and Freddie and pushed hard for the continuance of subprime mortgage loans. In second place was Barack Obama, who, in just three years in the U.S. Senate, raked in $126,000. Third was Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, with $111,000. Republicans, too, deserve a measure of criticism. Some 143 of them received Fanny and Freddie funds totaling just under $3.02 million. Utah Republican Robert Bennett, a Senate veteran, led the GOP with $107,999 in total contributions from the mortgage giants. Two independents also took in over $28 thousand. As further evidence of the Democrats' role in the credit crisis, consider Fannie Mae's intimate relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), which represents the far-left of the Democratic Party. At a 2005 ceremony, Fannie Mae's interim CEO Daniel Mudd told the CBC (of which Barack Obama was a new member) how deeply he valued "the friendship and partnership between Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus." Mudd referred to the CBC not only as "good friends to Fannie Mae and our mission," but also as Fannie Mae's "family" and "the conscience of Fannie Mae." (For a video of Mudd's remarks, click here.) Such ties represent merely the tip of the iceberg. To gain a fuller appreciation for just how closely the mortgage companies were allied with the Democratic Party and its surrogates, one might look at the grant-making arms of Fannie and Freddie — specifically, the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Freddie Mac Foundation. The former was established in 1968, the latter in 1991. Together, they hold combined assets exceeding $285 million, and each year they give tens of millions of dollars (nearly $89 million in 2006 alone) in grants to predominantly leftwing organizations that promote a host of pro-Democrat agendas. Among the groups supported by Fannie and Freddie are the American Civil Liberties Union; the NAACP and the National Urban League; left-wing financier the Tides Foundation; pro-illegal immigration groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, the National Immigration Forum, and the National Council of La Raza; pro-Democratic community activist groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center for Community Change, and the Alliance for Justice; feminist organizations like National Organization for Women and the National Women's Law Center; and former president Jimmy Carter's Carter Center. A comprehensive list of liberal, leftist, and pro-Democratic Fannie and Freddie grantees would fill an entire book. During last week's presidential debate, John McCain made a point of observing that Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats had long "defended what Fannie and Freddie were doing" and had blocked all efforts at reforming the now-notorious institutions. Obama parried the charge by insisting that American voters were "not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers." Obama's defensiveness is understandable. If Americans took the time to examine the issue, they would discover that much of the blame for the current crisis belongs to the Democratic Party. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
OBAMA HIGH: NO CHILD LEFT BENIGN
Posted by Doc Milt Fried, October 13, 2008. |
|
This was written by Andrew Breitbart
and it appeared in the Washington Times
|
|
Elected officials in Chicago made international news last week by proposing to create a public high school for gay, lesbian and transgender students. The Pride Campus of the School for Social Justice is set to open with 600 students in 2010, and its curriculum promises to "teach the history of all people who have been oppressed and the civil rights movements that have led to social justice and queer studies." Yet no American journalist covering the presidential race has queried the Chicago-based Sen. Barack Obama about this radical development in education reform: a key issue to which the young senator has committed much of his public life and all of his executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, Mr. Obama oversaw the Annenberg Challenge, a nearly $100 million Chicago-based education-reform group co-founded by unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Nor has any intrepid mainstream-media reporter looked into a greater trend across the United States in segregating public school students by politically correct "victim" class for the explicit purpose of indoctrinating children in "social justice." This loaded political term has been preached by such Obama allies and mentors as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Michael Pfleger and Mr. Ayers: committed left-wing agitators all, and all off-limits to the working press. So what exactly is "social justice"? This past Martin Luther King Day, a group of social-welfare students at the University of California at Berkeley got together and took a stab at defining it: "Social justice is a process, not an outcome, which (1) seeks fair (re)distribution of resources, opportunities and responsibilities; (2) challenges the roots of oppression and injustice; (3) empowers all people to exercise self-determination and realize their full potential; (4) and builds social solidarity and community capacity for collaborative action." Fitting the narrative, the Social Justice High School in Chicago was created in an act of political protest. The first words on its main campus' Web site at the "About Us" tab make it clear that public funds are intended to develop future Moveon.org and ACORN-style activists: "On May 13th, 2001, fourteen community residents of Little Village neighborhood staged a nineteen-day hunger strike demanding the construction of a new high school." The protesters back then chanted: "Construyan la escuela ahora!" ("Build the school now!"), and victory was theirs. It was "Si, Se Puede" in action, the Spanish-language Obama chant, and also, not at all coincidentally, the slogan of self-described "social justice" activist Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union. It's not a conspiracy because conspiracies are actually hidden. Mr. Obama, who proudly refuses to take money from lobbyists representing parents, has publicly stated the "single most important factor in determining a child's achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it's not who their parents are or how much money they have. It's who their teacher is." The Nation magazine uses the words of Rico Gutstein, a founding member of Teachers for Social Justice and a colleague of Mr. Ayers at the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Education, to describe the group's pedagogy. The magazine gave the example of running "probability simulations using real data to understand the dynamics behind income inequality or racial profiling." Mr. Gutstein called such exercises "examples of lessons where you can really learn the math basics." Then he adds, "but the purpose of learning the math actually becomes an entree into, and a deeper understanding of, the political ramifications of the issue." For students of history, this teaching theory adds up to many of the reasons why the 20th century was so filled with misery and bloodshed in the pursuit of a utopian political promise. If it weren't so deeply appalling, it would be funny. According to their press material, among the gay "heroes" to be weaved into the curriculum at the Pride Campus are expatriate American writer Gertrude Stein, as well as author James Baldwin, who advocated a "Yankee-Doodle type Socialism" and spent many years abroad attacking America. Yet the Pride Campus refuses to acknowledge my personal gay hero, Paul Lynde, whose historic one-liners were delivered with precision during the heyday of "Hollywood Squares." Mr. Lynde's crime? He was no victim of a dominant heterosexual paradigm — as evidenced by his prime real estate in the center square. And he didn't need social Marxist educrats to coddle his psyche in order for him to reach the heights of American greatness. Will the Pledge of Allegiance be scrapped at the Pride Campus for a "pledge of tolerance?" Such is the trend where publicly funded "social justice" curricula are promoted. The Illinois School Code explicitly states: "No county, city, town, township, school district or other public corporation shall make any appropriation, or pay from any school fund anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose." If the "social justice" coincidentally promoted by Mr. Wright and Father Pfleger, is not sectarian, than what is? If sequestering gay people to protect them from straight bullies is the stated goal, then why will the school be majority-straight? How will the heterosexual bullies have been weeded out? And why is the answer to bullying a return to separate but equal? Why hasn't Mr. Obama in his years in Illinois politics stepped in to stop this blatant political sectarianism on the public's dime? Or is it more likely that the School for Social Justice represents the sort of fruit he sought to produce in his work with Mr. Ayers and others? In 1990, the Boston Globe described Mr. Obama's "single-minded concern for social justice." It seems that the likely president of the United States is supportive of ghettoizing children based on identity politics in order to make them politically active collectivists. In addition, according to Stanley Kurtz at National Review, the tens of millions of dollars doled out by Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers for education reform "failed to improve student achievement in the 210 Chicago schools where it operated, according to the Annenberg Challenge's final report." Is a return to "separate but equal" and blatant political brainwashing the "hope" and "change" American parents can look forward to starting in the fall semester, 2009? One thing is for certain, under President Obama home schooling will become a huge growth industry. Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
MCCAIN: EXPLAIN SOMALIA LESSON FOR IRAQ
Posted by Judith Apter Klinghoffer, March 13, 2007. |
|
I find it rather ironic that Barack Obama can get away with the argument that the cost of an early withdrawal from Iraq is going to be acceptable. Especially since Somalia continues to prove it's obvious fallacy. Not only has the 9/11 commission acknowledge the important role that withdrawal played in the rise of Al Qaeda and the thinking of Osama but the headlines keep coming: Another Tanker hijacked ; Yes, despite MSM's best efforts, Lawless Somalia elbows its way back into the news. Why am I writing despite MSM's best efforts? Because no one wishes to return to chaotic Somalia or examine the lessons it offers for Obama's preferred solution for Iraq. Obama argues that if things all apart in Iraq, the US (with it's Obama led allies) can return. Anyone is advocating a return to Somalia? The situation there is dire enough. Long the world's most ignored tragedy, Somalia largely dropped off the West's radar after U.S. forces ignominiously withdrew in 1994, five months after 18 U.S. soldiers died in the dust of a Mogadishu street, during a one-day battle gone disastrously wrong. Now imagine the Straits of Hormuz filled with pirates and armed gangs fighting it out in Iraq. John McCain argues that he opposed Clinton's Somalia policy. That should not prevent him from making clear that as heavy as the price of early withdrawal from Somalia has been, it cannot compare to the price that an early withdrawal from Iraq is bound to be. He should ask Obama whether he recommends sending American forces back to Mogadishu or does he hope that he can sit down with the pirates and convince them to give up their most lucrative terrorist financing operation? John McCain, it's time for some honest straight talk about the Somalia lesson for Iraq.
UPDATE: In Somali Pirates: Islamist and Jihadist Influences and Funding, Ganesh Sahathevan notes: The spike in attacks at sea has coincided with a rise in assaults on land by radical al-Shabaab [the "youth"] insurgents, including the capture on Friday of Somalia's strategic southern port Kismayu. Al Shabaab fund raising through piracy is part of Islamist scholar supported financial Jihad explains Abdisaid M. Ali, a former cabinet secretary in the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, and now an independent consultant/analyst on Horn of Africa: Praising the merits of financial jihad, Muslim scholars also rely on Islamic tradition (hadith)attributed to the Prophet Mohammad, which assures Muslims who donate money for jihad the same reward in Heaven as the mujahidin themselves. Contact Judith Apter Klinghoffer by email at jklinghoff@aol.com This article appeared today in History News Network (HNN)
|
|
THE COMING LIBERAL THUGOCRACY
Posted by Avodah, October 13, 2008. |
|
This was written by Michael Barone and it appeared in
the Washington Times |
|
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up. That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago — papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters. Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One. Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers. These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views. To their credit, some liberal old-timers — like House Appropriations Chairman David Obey — voted against the "fairness doctrine," in line with their longstanding support of free speech. But you can expect the "fairness doctrine" to get another vote if Barack Obama wins and Democrats increase their congressional majorities. Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals. Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes — we know where you live — and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard. Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment. Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society. Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website: http://www.am-yisrael-blog.blogspot.com/ |
|
NGO LAWFARE
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, October 13, 2008. |
|
On October 7, 2008, NGO Monitor held a press conference to introduce the research monograph entitled NGO "Lawfare": The Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. This publication is a detailed analysis of the role of NGOs in the abuse of European and US courts for political "lawfare" — the use of legal methods to achieve military goals. In parallel to their other political campaigns, these groups have initiated criminal and civil cases against Israeli officials using false claims of "war crimes." NGO Monitor's forty-page monograph provides the first in-depth study of this important issue, and reveals the central role of NGOs in promoting the expansion (and subsequent abuse) of "universal jurisdiction" statutes worldwide; the creation of the "lawfare" strategy against Israel at the infamous 2001 Durban Conference; and the leading role NGOs have played in these cases. The report also documents how the main perpetrators of NGO "lawfare", such as PCHR and Al Haq, are funded by the European Commission, many European governments, the Ford Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute. Panelists at the press conference included Professor Gerald Steinberg, Executive Director of NGO Monitor; Maj. Gen. (Res) Doron Almog, former IDF head of Southern Command and the target of multiple "lawfare" cases; and Irit Kohn, former Director of the International Affairs Department at Israel's Ministry of Justice and lead defense counsel for Ariel Sharon when he was prosecuted by NGOs in Belgium. Below is the Executive Summary in English. To read the Hebrew Executive Summary, click here. [PDF] |
|
NGO "Lawfare": Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict The use of courts to prosecute violations of human rights has grown exponentially since the 1990s. This growth has coincided with the vast accumulation of power by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the expansion of the concept of "universal jurisdiction." NGOs claiming to promote human rights (many funded by European governments, the EU, and prominent foundations like the Ford Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Institute) are engaged in international lobbying as well as filing civil lawsuits or initiating criminal complaints against Israeli officials for alleged "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" in Belgium, England, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, and elsewhere. These legal actions, ostensibly to provide "justice" to "victims," are a form of "lawfare" [1] — a "strategy of using or misusing law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve military objectives" — intended to punish Israel for anti-terror operations, as well as to block future actions. They are also a means for actors that are not accountable to any form of democratic check to subvert a country's foreign policy and interfere with diplomatic relations. While Israel is not the only country that has been subject to NGO lawfare (several prominent NGOs have filed similar suits against US officials in France and Germany), it is a primary target of these efforts. Though claiming to promote universal human rights, these same NGOs have not pursued cases against Palestinian, Hezbollah, Syrian, or Iranian officials involved in terror. The strategy to delegitimize Israel using legal frameworks was adopted at the NGO Forum of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa ("WCAR" or "Durban Conference"). The NGO Forum crystallized a plan in which Israel would be singled out as a "racist" and "apartheid" state and isolated internationally through a campaign of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions and explicitly adopted lawfare to advance the political war against Israel. [2] The NGO Forum Declaration called for the "adoption of all measures to ensure [the] enforcement" of international humanitarian law, including "the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid . . . perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." This movement is led by Palestinian NGOs such as Al Haq, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and Badil, and aided by international NGOs including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights (France), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (New York). These NGOs are largely supported by European governments and receive funding from prominent foundations. This monograph presents a number of case studies analyzing the central role that NGOs have played in the strategy of lawfare, using it to further their political campaign against Israel. The study begins with a discussion of NGO involvement in the movement to promote and expand the concept of universal jurisdiction and the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Without these legal developments, this NGO strategy would not be possible. Second, the paper will detail anti-Israel lawfare at the international level, examining the crystallization of the tactic at the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference, alternative strategies adopted by the NGO network in lieu of criminal prosecutions of Israelis at the ICC, and the International Court of Justice case against Israel's security barrier. As in other politicized NGO campaigns, these activities consistently draw an immoral equivalence between anti-terror operations and mass scale atrocities, minimize or omit the context of terror, exploit international legal terminology and rhetoric, level condemnations without providing proper bases or reliable evidence, and use incomplete, distorted, or inconsistent legal definitions. Third, the monograph discusses NGO-led litigation against Israel in the national courts of Europe and the United States. Because Israel has not ratified its participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC) due to serious political and legal concerns, NGO lawfare has generally been pursued in national courts where "war crimes" statutes or other universal jurisdiction laws have been enacted. The lawsuits detailed in the study include the case against Ariel Sharon in Belgium for his alleged responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres; the arrest warrant issued against Doron Almog in the United Kingdom for alleged "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention; civil cases in the US against Avi Dichter for his alleged role in the targeted killing of the founder of Hamas' military wing and against Moshe Ya'alon for his alleged participation in the 1996 IDF operation in Qana, Lebanon; and, finally, cases initiated in the US and the UK intended to block corporate trade with Israel. As a US Court of Appeals observed, these cases seek to engage courts "in the micro-management of military targeting decisions" and are not cases such as those against "an Idi Amin or a Mao Zedong." [3] Plaintiffs point to no cases where "similar high-level decisions on military tactics and strategy during a modern military operation have been held to constitute torture or extrajudicial killing under international law." [4] While these cases were all dismissed in the preliminary stages, the media coverage was highly damaging, fulfilling one of the NGOs' central goals. As a result of these cases, several countries, notably Belgium and the UK, have amended their laws to prevent future abuse. Such amendments have included denying NGOs the ability to apply to a judge directly for an arrest warrant without consulting any government officials. Yet, these lawsuits continue to have serious political and diplomatic repercussions, including severely limiting the ability of Israeli officials to travel abroad. And the media impact remains an important element in the demonization of Israel. This report also highlights the lack of transparency and accountability of NGOs, and their contribution to diplomatic and political tension, and even greater conflict. Analysts have noted that the "single-issue" focus of many NGOs that claim to promote human rights makes them "less concerned with the balancing of interests required of policy leaders." [5] NGO officials use lawsuits to promote their personal ideologies and foreign policy goals, and are not accountable to a democratic polity. Instead of engaging in debate and making the difficult choices of nation-states, such as how to weigh sovereignty and security concerns with human rights, these NGOs advance their political agenda regardless of the wider impact of their actions. This self-interested view in the midst of a complex geo-political environment, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, entrenches conflict, and paradoxically, leads to a dilution of the universality of human rights.
[1] Jeremy Rabkin, "Lawfare: The International Court of
Justice Rules in Favor of Terrorism," The Wall Street Journal,
September 17, 2004, available at
[2] For more information on the Durban Conference, see Gerald M.
Steinberg, "The Centrality of NGOs in the Durban Strategy," Yale
Israel Journal, Summer 2006, available at
[3]Belhas v. Ya'alon, Opinion of the DC Circuit Court of
Appeal, February 15, 2008, at 2, 7, available at
[4] Ibid. [5]David Davenport, "The New Diplomacy Threatens American Sovereignty and Values," in "A Country I Do Not Recognize": The Legal Assault on American Values 113, 119 (Robert Bork ed., 2005), available at http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817946020_113.pdf. Mr. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University. |
|
A CALL TO VIOLENCE IN ACRE
Posted by David Bedein, October 13, 2008. |
|
Over the past few years, Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the "Islamic Movement of Northern Israel," has been conducting mass rallies of Israeli Arab citizens who live in the mixed Arab-Jewish city of Acre, located midway between Haifa and Nahariya on Israel's Mediterranean Coast. In these rallies, Sheikh Salah makes repeated calls to Israeli Moslems that the Al Aqsa Mosque, a holy site in Islam in Jerusalem, is in danger of being destroyed by the government of Israel, because of its proximity to the Temple Mount, where the Jewish Holy Temple stood almost 2000 years ago. In August 2007, Salah was indicted for inciting racism and violence after he called for a "third intifada," or uprising, as a response to an Israeli archaeological dig in Jerusalem's Old City that he says endangers the foundations of the Al Aqsa Mosque. Visiting Acre last summer, you could see posters from The Islamic Movement of Northern Israel plastered throughout Acre which called on Israeli Arab Moslems to rise in rebellion against the government and state of Israel, with his call for Islamization of Jerusalem. Since the latest Israeli census showed that there are more than one million Israeli Moslem Arabs — representing 14% of Israel's population, the Israeli security establishment has expressed cause for concern over the actions of The Islamic Movement of Northern Israel. Last month, Israeli security forces raided the offices of the Islamic Movement in Umm al-Fahm under suspicions that it was aiding the Hamas terrorist organization. Dozens of police entered the offices of the Al Aqsa Heritage Institute, the new name of Mr. Salah's organization. They confiscated documents, computers, and close to $100,000 held in a safe. Last Wednesday night and Thursday, during the 25 hours of the holiest day of the Jewish calendar — Yom Kippur — Mr. Salah's incitement came to fruition. After an Arab sped his car through a Jewish neighborhood in Acre on Yom Kippur, something that is generally not done on the one day of the year that no traffic occurs in most Jewish neighborhoods, angry Jewish worshippers attacked the Arab driver. [Yom Kippur is one of a few Jewish holidays whose prohibitions are observed in public by virtually all Jews and even secular Israelis refrain from desecrating the holiness of the day in public.] After police vehicles rushed to the scene of the altercation with sirens blaring, a rumor spread in a contiguous Arab neighborhood that Jews had "lynched and murdered an Arab driver." Arab witnesses to the events told the Bulletin that hundred of Acre residents then went on a rampage, ransacking Jewish businesses in downtown Acre that were closed down for Yom Kippur. Israeli Police reported that more than 100 Jewish owned cars suffered smashed windows and flat tires as the Arab riots spread in Acre during Yom Kippur as Arabs shouted "Death to the Jews," "Allah hu Akbar [God is Great in Arabic]" and threatening to kill Jews "if you dare leave your houses." A Jewish witness told the Israeli media that the Arab driver who had sparked the clashes in the first place was driving threateningly near several girls sitting in a park. After the girls started screaming, he reportedly challenged the Jewish youths who came to see what had happened when he told them "you don't know what's coming for you." The witness told Israel radio that Jewish residents were afraid to leave their houses or even to go to synagogue. He told of "400-meter rows of cars, each and every one with smashed windows." He said the devastation seen in the streets was worse than after Katyusha rockets fell in the city in the Second Lebanon War during the summer of 2006. This week, the International Acre Cultural festival is scheduled to take place, with tourists from Israel and from around the world scheduled to make their annual pilgrimage to this ancient city, where a variety of plays, open air concerts, movies and theatre presentations occur every year. Members of Acre's city council appealed for calm on Israeli radio stations with calls of reassurance to tourists "that all will be OK for those who plan to visit the International Acre Cultural festival next week." Time will tell if their reassurance holds any weight. David Bedein, author of the forthcoming book, "Swimming Against the
Mainstream", has run the Israel Resource News Agency.
This article appeared today in Front Page Magazine http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9D98F513- BC43-4BF5-AEF9-FBDC783534BF |
|
JERUSALEM NOT HOLY TO MUSLIMS; OLMERT DISREGARDS WITHDRAWAL'S DANGER; BATTLE OF THE ROADS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 13, 2008. |
|
ISRAEL TRAINING INDIA IN COUNTER-TERRORISM Indian troops learn how to fight with the least harm to civilians (IMRA, 9/13. OLMERT'S LATEST He suggests allowing actual Arab refugees, all of whom are elderly, to return to Israel to die. However, states Dr. Aaron Lerner, Olmert failed, as usual, to imagine what would ensue. A worldwide campaign would strive to let the old refugees' relatives enter, to take care of them. That means about 150,000 more, come not to die [but to kill]. Weak [and anti-Zionist] as is the Israeli ruling class, how would they resist such a campaign? (IMRA, 9/13.) LESSONS FROM LEBANON WAR LOST? A member of the commission that recommended military reforms to reform the IDF failures during the war with Lebanon deplores that half the proposals were ignored. Some major military reforms were not made (IMRA, 9/14). WHAT IS REALISTIC? "Dr. Aaron Lerner — IMRA: 'The vision of a greater Israel no longer exists. Those who speak of it are delusional,' the prime minister said." "How about this? 'The vision of peace with a sovereign Palestinian state no longer exists. Those who speak of it are delusional'" Vice PM Ramon said that settlements outside the security fence won't remain under Israeli control [When the fence was erected, more in a political manner than in a security manner, the government denied that it was a future border and Jewish nationalists warned that it was. Once again, the government proved deceitful and the settlers proved foresighted.] ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST JERUSALEM FOR MUSLIMS As we explained before, Jerusalem is not holy for Muslims. Periodically they claim it is, for politics and religious imperialism. They misrepresent the Koran to make Jerusalem seem like the site of Muhammad's ascent to heaven. The Koran referred to his having ascended from "the further mosque." The falsifiers claim that this mosque was al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. However, the Muslims had not yet conquered Jerusalem, and had no mosques there. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan U. adds that Muhammad regularly visited a village, where he prayed at the further of its two mosques, al-Aqsa (IMRA, 9/14). OLMERT'S VIEW OF ARABS PM Olmert condemned settlers' armed demonstration against the village of an Arab who burned down a Jew's house, and stabbed a boy. Olmert said the Arab town's residents may not have had anything to do with the assault on the Jews. He did not condemn the assailant. Neither did he call upon the P.A. leadership to condemn and act against their Arabs who commit violence. Prof. Steven Plaut writes (9/14) that the arsonists escaped into that village, which harbors them. The villagers are not so innocent as Olmert implies. Israel confiscated the settlers' guns, but let the Arab perpetrators alone! Dr. Aaron Lerner depicts Olmert's failure to condemn the Arabs as implicit belief that they "are a pack of uncontrollable mad dogs and thus should not be either held accountable for their violence as a community nor for their leadership to be expected to both condemn and take measures against Palestinians (Arabs) who engage in violence." Dr. Lerner calls that belief racist. Perhaps. Perhaps, however, Olmert doesn't want to draw attention to the fact that Abbas and his P.A. regime are not peace partners with Israel, for they praise attackers of Jews. Dr. Lerner makes the rare but right description of the Arabs as having a collective view. That is the way their society operates, collectively. Their media, mosque, and government promote bigotry and violence. Villagers are incited by the same preacher, share the same view, and cooperate against Israel. It was appropriate for the settlers to raid the whole village. Olmert claims that some Arabs were wounded. My associate said if so, it would have been big news. The only ambulance was for the boy. [My personal informant may have been incorrect that the boy disarmed the terrorist — another report states that he was stabbed five times, but he put of a valiant fight. The Arabs will think twice about assaulting that Jewish community, because it fights back. OLMERT DISREGARD'S WITHDRAWAL'S DANGER An MK warned "that the danger of rocket attacks would increase should Israel withdraw from more territory." PM Olmert replied "that such an argument should not be a basis for rejecting a deal: 'To those who speak of the threat of missiles, I say: Even today, the State of Israel, from end to end, is in the range of missiles from terror organizations, and, therefore, conceding a meter more or less is not significant,' he said." (IMRA, 9/15.) He'd cede thousands of square miles, not a "meter." Referring to a major withdrawal as "a meter" is the mendacious Israeli way of ridiculing a serious concern. Olmert helped expel the Jews from a smaller area, Gaza, and it became a terrorist base firing thousands of rockets at Israel. The withdrawal from Lebanon leaves Israel under an existential threat of rockets. Olmert proves himself unable to learn from his errors, or determined to repeat them because he is afraid of prosecution by the psychotically anti-Zionist Attorney-General. An agreement with terrorists is not an "opportunity" for peace but for terrorism. BATTLE OF THE ROADS My associate writes, "Some settlements such as Beit El don't fight back as Yitzhar did and have problems from the near-by Arab village. Fire bombs were thrown into the settlement around 3 weeks ago on Friday night, causing a fire. They complained to the IDF who did not go into that town. Saturday night another firebomb was thrown into Beit El. Because of the problems with that town, the IDF closed the road going through the town to Jewish cars. That road leads to Jerusalem. So instead of 25 minutes to Jerusalem it takes the residents of Beit El and Dolev more than 1 hour to go on another road to avoid that dangerous road and which is closed to Jewish traffic. Instead of destroying the town, they give these terrorists the road and close the road to Jews." [The NY Times writes only of traffic restrictions on Arabs and special roads for Jews.] A colleague of mine set out with eight cars, "...on that twisting road. We were trying to open it again to Jews. Of course, everyone had guns ready in case of an attack. Thank G-d there was none, but the Arabs were standing on the sides and looking surprised that Jews were actually going on the road. The man that led us through said that if the Arabs start to shoot, just turn around and go back. One of the caravan members said, 'No, I will shoot back.' He answered, 'I didn't hear that.' Here is the problem. They shoot, no arrests, town is not touched, and they get rewarded by road closed to Jewish traffic. I chance arrest by taking that road. The same with a new road leading from Tekoa to Jerusalem. We had to fight to open it up to Jews. We won that battle, but I had to run up and down a mountain chased by horses...That was 2 years ago". "Here is an analogy: Suppose Arabs along Broadway in Manhattan attacked cars with rocks and guns. Mayor Bloomberg then closes Broadway to traffic for the American people and allows the Arabs to have control of the road. Insanity! That's what is happening here." I think that the problem is not just appeasement. The Israeli government does not admit that this is war and the Arabs are fighting for control and fighting collectively. This justifies harsher and collective reaction. I called this piece "Battle of the roads." It is reminiscent of Israel's War for Independence, when there were battles of the roads. Arab villages attacked Jewish traffic on the roads, to bottle up Jewish towns, including Jerusalem. Zionists fought to preserve themselves against the Arabs, aided by the government, then British. Now the government nominally is Jewish, but sides mostly with the Arabs. One of those battles was against the militarized Arab village of Deir Yassin. Although the Jewish nationalist assault force allowed civilians to flee, their necessary attack on that village was distorted into a war crime, contrary to the evidence. The Arabs used illegal tactics, such as using white flags to get close and then drawing guns. That is a war crime! Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
ETROGIM ON SALE IN ADVANCE OF SUKKOT IN JERUSALEM
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 13, 2008. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.
Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:
I chose this photo because it gives me an opportunity to share an
image of something that most people have never seen and, through the
wonders of the internet, ask if anyone may know where it comes from or
how it was cultivated. Sukkot is our "zman simchatenu," the season of
our joy. Wishing everyone a joyous and meaningful holiday.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
IS BARACK OBAMA MENTALLY STABLE?
Posted by Rock Peters, October 12, 2008. |
|
The attached article is an expose' on Obama own words. Let's get it out to America! |
|
Who is Barack Hussein Obama the junior senator from Illinois, the man who aspires to be the President of the United States? I am a registered Independent and I believe in the ideal of Martin Luther King that men be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. If a black man ran for the Presidency that I felt was better qualified than his white opponent, I would absolutely vote for the black man. I sought to find out who Barrack Obama is, and what better way to know someone than to read his own words? In his memoir Dreams from my Father Obama recalls a trip with his mother to a museum in Chicago, on page 145 he writes: "At the Field Museum, I saw two shrunken heads that were on display. They were wrinkled but well preserved, each the size of my palm, their eye and mouths sewn shut, just as I should have expected. They appeared to be of European extraction: the man had a small goatee, like a conquistador; the female had flowing red hair. I stared at them for a long time (until my mother pulled me away), feeling with the morbid glee of a young boy — as if I had stumbled upon some sort of cosmic joke. Not so much as the heads had been shrunk — that I could understand; it was the same idea as eating tiger meat with Lolo, a form of magic, a taking of control. Rather, the fact these little European faces were here in a glass case, where strangers, perhaps even descendants, might observe the details of their gruesome fate. That no one seemed to think that odd." I ask Americans is Obama's reaction a normal one? Can any sane human being imagine enjoying seeing the dead shrunken heads of another race of people? Is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States Barrack Obama functionally insane? He takes pleasure and in seeing the heads of dead white people. That is unquestionably and most definitely a sign that Obama is not stable and of sound mind. It is irrefutable evidence of emotional imbalance and mental illness. He says, "I stared at them for along time" until his mother had to pull him away. So we can see Obama was transfixed and mesmerized by the sight of decapitated white people. The brutal fate and violent end of these white people gives Obama a feeling of "morbid glee." He wants to be our President? Obama makes an analogy between seeing mutilated white people to "eating tiger meat". What an incredible and frightening psychological revelation. A tiger in the wild is a natural enemy to man. Eating a tiger is eating your enemy. Obama describes that the joy he felt at the sight of the dead white people was "the same as eating tiger meat with Lolo." (Lolo is a Obama's Indonesian step father and his mother's second Muslim husband) Obama's own words clearly expose that he views white people as his enemy. The "gruesome fate" of these whites was so thrilling to Obama that he actually describes his macabre pleasure as, "a form of magic, of taking control." Question for Obama supporters: Are you not bothered by the fact that Obama admits he enjoys seeing the shrunken heads of dead white people and this morbid sight brought him such joy he considered it a "form of magic"? No, why not? Do you really feel Obama's admission to enjoying seeing decapitated white people is psychologically normal and not a sign of mental illness? If so, then would it be acceptable to you if John McCain was in a museum, saw the shrunken heads of black people and admitted it gave him got a thrill? Would you be okay with that as well? Note: Barrack Osama is a descendant of the Luo tribe in Kenya (page 9). Perhaps Obama's African tribe is head shrinkers and enjoying seeing shrunken heads is a "Roots" thing. It is very obvious Obama has hatred for white people, ethnic-Americans, and without a doubt it is sickness. Observation: The name of Obama's book is Dreams from My Father. Obama's black Muslim African father deserted him when he was two. His white mother and grandparents loved him, fed him, took care of him, nurtured and raised him. The maternal side of his family are Americans. If Obama is an American, why doesn't he identify with the American side of his family? Why isn't the name of his book, Dreams from my Mother? Question: Where do Obama's loyalties and allegiances truly lie? We have all seen the picture of Barack Obama on a podium during the national anthem with other Democratic leaders. All the other politicians patriotically have their hands over their hearts except for Barrack Obama. Why not Barack? Does Obama have a problem with America's national anthem? Doesn't Obama pledge allegiance to the United States of America and all her citizens — regardless of their race, creed or color? Obama's makes it clear that his allegiance is not to all of America's citizens. He admits his racism writing: "No it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names," page: 101. Note: In Obama's own words his loyalties are to blacks. The church he attended for twenty years repeats almost identically, practically verbatim Obama's totally exclusive, separatist, racist words and Black Nationalist doctrine. From Obama's church's web site in "About us"Obama's Trinity church pledge: We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community. Role models are important, they shape our lives. The people we admire, look up to and aspire to be like are an expression of our souls, our inner core values and describe who we are as human beings. So who are Obama's life time role models? On page 220, Barack let's us know, in no uncertain terms, who has shaped his political views and thinking: "Yet I had seen weakness in other men — Gramps (white grandfather) and his disappointments, Lolo (Indonesian Muslim stepfather) and his compromise. But these men become object lessons for me, men that I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men who do whose fates speak only didn't speak of my own, It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandella." Observation: Obama states he can never emulate white men and brown men — Obama admits he is incapable of admiring and aspiring to be like anyone outside of his race. What a great uniter of people Obama will be. His "father's image, the black man, son of Africa" (not American) that "I'd packed all my attributes". Obama seeks in himself the attributes of Martin and Malcom, Dubois and Mandella. That's funny I am an American and I admire and have always emulated men great men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, Abraham Lincoln, F.D.R. John F. Kennedy. If Obama is an American, why does he not aspire to be like great American leaders and patriots? The reason is obvious, Obama is not an American; if he were he would have American heroes like I do! Question: Does Barack Obama condone hatred of white people, ethnic Americans? Does Obama actually hate white people himself? A display of Obama's hatred, animosity and anger towards whites is on page 195: "The stories I had heard had been hearing from the leadership, all the records of courage and courage and strength and sacrifice and overcoming great odds, hadn't simply risen from struggles with pestilence or drought, or even more poverty. They had risen out of a very particular experience with hate. That hate hadn't gone away; it formed a counteractive buried deep within each person and at the center of which stood white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, some times just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives. I had to ask myself whether the bonds of community could be restored without collectively exorcising that ghostly figure that haunted black dreams." Question: Has Obama's hate gone away? Does Obama think whites are the ghostly figures that haunt, stifle and stand in the way of blacks fulfilling their dreams? If so, then give an example of how we do that? When he speaks of blacks "exorcising" the ghostly figure (white people) is he speaking separatism? Is Obama a time bomb? Does he have suppressed Black rage that could explode? On page 81 Barack Obama writes: Ray (Obama's friend) was winking at me, letting me in on the score. Our rage at the white world needed no object, he seemed to be telling me, no independent confirmation, switched on and off at our pleasure? Problem: We must ask ourselves: "Does Obama share his friend Ray's rage at white people?" I strongly suspect that he does. But if you overlook the evidence and think Obama does not actually have rage against whites; than he seems to have, throughout his life sympathized with those, who do hate America and feel that Black rage against whites is justifiable. This is a consistent pattern in Obama's life that repeats itself over and over again. He is constantly associates with and is in the company of anti-white racists. We must realize he feels completely comfortable in the company of, "haters of America." The only time Obama has ever broken ties with America haters is when the association with them becomes for HIM, a political liability. This treasonous pattern in Obama's close friends, associates, mentors, church, spiritual leaders and role models must be taken into account. Why? Because, it is a direction reflection of Obama's himself. The wise old adage, "Birds of a feather flock together" is relevant in Obama's case and it is justly applied. It must be, it is in fact a key to discovering who Obama really is. It is totally apparent in looking at Obama's life and reading his words that he has a predilection for militants, radicals and anarchists and that he gravitates toward those that hate America. It is impossible to deny this fact about him. One of the life stories Obama discusses in his book is an episode when his grandmother was harassed and frightened by an aggressive black panhandler asking her for money at bus stop. When Obama's grandfather tells him his grandmother was scared by someone that was black Obama describes his reaction to the news, "The words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my consciousness." Page 88. Obama is troubled by his grandparents fear of black and writes, "And yet I knew that men who might easily have been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fears." Page 89. When Obama tells his black friend Frank the story and of his grandparents fears of blacks Frank responds, "Your grandmother is right to be scared. She's at least as right as Stanley is. (Stanley is the grandfather) She understands the blacks have a RIGHT to HATE. That's just how it is. For your sake I wish it were otherwise. But it's not." Obama's friend tells him. Then Frank advises him, "So you might as well get used to it." Page 91. Question: Does Obama agree with his friend Frank's racist ideology that Blacks have a RIGHT to HATE white people? Has Obama taken his Frank's advice and gotten used to this idea? Notice: Obama's deafening silence! The man who wants to be the President of the United States does not resist, dissent, offer any argument at all, or protest even slightly the idea that: "blacks are justified in hating whites. An article in Life Magazine causes Obama to have a violent reaction. What is the cause of Obama's turmoil? On page 51 he describes it: "I came across the picture in life magazine of a black man who tried to peel his skin off. I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation. Perhaps it came sooner for most — the parent's warning not to cross the boundaries of a particular neighborhood, or the frustration of not having hair like Barbie, no matter how long you tease and comb, or the tale of a father's or a grandfather's humiliation at the hands of an employer or cop, overheard while your supposed to be asleep. Maybe it's easier for a child to receive the bad news in small doses, allowing for a system of defenses to build up — although I though I was one of the luckier ones, having been given a stretch of childhood free from self doubt. I know that seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush." Question: What does Barack consider the "bad news" for Black children to be? Black racial qualities, their hair? Who does Barack Obama's imagine are his "HIDDEN ENEMIES" — White people? Just how dysfunctional is, and exactly how much pent up anger does Obama really have? On page 110: He writes: I had stopped listening at a certain point, I now I realized so wrapped up in had I been in my own perceived injuries, so eager was I to escape the imagined traps that white authority had set for me. To that white world, I had been willing to cede the values of my childhood, as if those values were somehow irreversibly soiled by the endless falsehoods that white spoke black." "White authority?" Does Obama have a problem with Western Civilization? Is Obama bothered by "Law and Order?" Is Western jurisprudence the "white authority" that Obama complains about and rebels against? Obama has, "Perceived injuries," and he sees "imagined traps." Wouldn't a person with unreal, "perceived injuries;" and someone that sees non existent "imagined traps" be diagnosed as suffering from paranoia? Anyone with these kinds of bizarre thoughts has serious issues. He wants to be in the White House? These are not leadership qualities that we want to see in power! Questions: Does Obama Final Analysis: So what is the answer to the question: "Who is Barack Hussein Obama?" Without a doubt, Barack Obama is a racist. His own words make this an undeniable fact. He views the world and sees history as white suppression and oppression of blacks. He has a radical, militant Black Panther mentality and outlook on race. Obama has taken his fury against whites and channeled it into politics. I do not see why we should hope or try to imagine that his hatred for whites has subsided or gone away. By becoming the President of the United States, I believe that Obama sees this as his way of triumphing over and conquering the people he hates, — and this cloaked hatred for whites is the energy and driving force behind his run for White House! Do he mean America when he says "white world"? What childhood values did he have to give up and cede? And which values did he ever have that were in such drastic conflict with our American Democratic ideals? Has Obama masked his hatred for white people for political expediency" If he imagines whites as his "hidden enemy," would he use the position of the President of the United States to try to bring white Americans harm? Does he bear such an extreme malevolence for whites in his heart that it could result in him committing destructive acts against Americans and the United States? Question: Would Obama incite violence and like to see blacks attack whites? Does Obama thrive on racial tension? It would seem as though he does. On page 191 the torn and divided, plagued and troubled Senator Obama writes: "In a sense, then, Rafiq was right when he insisted that deep down all blacks were potential nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward." Obama reflects, "I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn't also right in preferring that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyalty above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task." Question: So are we to understand that Barrack Obama actually wonders, is undecided and thinks maybe Black politics should direct Black anger towards whites and encourage Black rage against whites? He thinks anything that fails to elevate Black race loyalty is inadequate? Obama is the man who is supposed to bring racial healing to our nation? Does Obama consider himself to be an American? On page 199 he writes: ‘All the Black people who it turned out, shared with me a voice that whispered inside them — "You don't really belong here." So Obama has voice inside him that tells him doesn't really belong in America? Than why is running for President of our country? On page 301 Obama reaffirms his unstable and insecure self identification: "but that for me only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers." Note: He identifies himself not as an American, but as an African. Question: If Obama says he does not feel "entirely at home in the West" Why does he delude himself into thinking he should be the leader of the Western World? Question: Where does Obama feel he belongs? On page 305 Obama tells us of his trip to the Kenya. At the Kenyan airport he is asked to fill out a form by an attractive black woman airline employee. Upon his reading his form, the woman recognizes his last name and asks Barcak if he is related to Dr. Obama. Obama says, "Well yes, that's my father." Obama states, "That had never happened to him before, I realized; not in Hawaii, not in Indonesia, not in L.A. or New York or Chicago. For the first time in my life, I felt the comfort, the firmness of identity that a name might provide, how it could carry an entire history in other people's memories, so they may nod and say knowingly, ‘Oh so you are so and so's son' No one here in Kenya ask how to spell my name or mangle it with an unfamiliar tongue. My name belonged so I belonged...." In Kenya Obama reveals for the "first time in his life" he felt he belonged. His wife Michelle has recently said that she the first time in her adult life she has been proud of America. Great Suggestion: Barack Obama should run for President of Kenya, not America. Question: What world leader was the greatest influence in Obama's life? You might think that since Obama wants to be the President of the Unites States, his biggest heroes in life would be great Presidents like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln, right? Sorry! The man who had the greatest effect on Obama's thinking seems to be the radical, racist, Black Nationalist Muslim leader Malcolm X. On page 86 Obama admits and confesses his identification with Malcolm X in a spiritual fervor that borders on religious idolatry: "Only Malcolm's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will." No compromise? A"New Order"? Martial discipline? Who does that remind you of? Zieg Heil Barack! Obama continues in his adoration, devotion and adherence to the militant Mr. X, "And yet, even as I imagined following Malcom's call, one line in his book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence might somehow be expunged. Expunging their white blood through acts of violence? That doesn't sound very well adjusted to me. How about to you, Obamanites? If Obama has answered the call to follow the Black Nationalism of Malcolm X; does America want Obama leading us? Like a man who is so angry that he is incapable of concealing his resentment or containing his wrath; Obama reveals more of his dangerous support for Black Nationalism and their extreme and radical views. Without control, Obama's fury bursts forth and he further exposes his marriage and concurrence with racist ideologies and potentially violent views. The threat against whites in Obama's book is on page 198: "Nationalism (Black Nationalism) provided that history an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady ATTACK on the WHITE RACE, the constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them. Rid them from your mind and find your true power liberated. Rise up, ye mighty race." Obama attended a Black Nationalist church for twenty years. With few exceptions, the leaders Obama follows and admires most are black militants, racists and violent radicals. Logic forces us, and reason compels us, to deeply suspect that Obama subscribes to the Black Nationalist's idea of a "steady attack on the white race." It would be extremely unwise for Americans to ignore Obama's own words. People didn't pay attention to "Mein Kamph" either. Obama heralds and promotes himself as, "Change we can believe in?" Is "The constant recitation of black people's brutal experience in this country" change? "Constant recitation" means repeating over and over the same thing. "The constant recitation of black's brutal experience" means never forgiving, never forgetting, and continually living in the past, never moving forward; it means: NO CHANGE! "The self loathing you (blacks) feel, what keeps you drinking, what keeps you drinking or thieving is planted by them (whites)." Pg. 198. Does Obama believe we, Americans, make Blacks hate themselves, drink, drug and carry out the crimes they commit? This sounds like a page out of Jeremiah Wright's playbook who accuses the US Government of giving blacks drugs. My fellow Americans, Barrack Obama want to be our President, but if we met Obama in college would Barack even socialize with us, have a drink with us, or be our friend? On page 100 Obama explains what kind of people are on his "list of friends": "To avoid being mistaken for a sell out, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets." Obama is an absolute extremist and a total radical. In college, his entire social life, all the people he surrounded himself with, were far left wingers, anarchists, communists and non-Americans. This is who Obama is. Obama surrounds himself with people who harbor intense anti-American feelings. These life long choices of "America haters" cannot be overlooked. We, Americans, would be fools not to presume that Obama is a radical who hides and conceals his far Left agenda, ideas and ambitions simply for political gain. Question for Obama supporters: Obama's association with and ties to William Ayres an anti-American, domestic terrorist doesn't trouble you? It doesn't matter to you that Obama launched his political career from William Ayres' home and Ayres bombed the US Capitol and police stations and is proud of it and said he didn't do enough? No problem with that huh? No guilt by association? Well how would you feel if John McCain had launched his political career from the home of a man who bombed black churches and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Would you be willing to say "no guilt by association" then? Question for Obama supporters: You are not worried by the fact that Obama attended an anti-American, racist church for twenty years that was lead by the anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright who screamed from the pulpit "God damn America?" No? Well would you be bothered if John McCain attended a church for twenty years and his pastor yelled, "God damn Africans!" If Senator McCain said he never knew his pastor hated Africans would you be willing to believe him? This is the "Black Value's" pledge that is on Obama's Trinity United church web site: click "About us" "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community." Question for Obama supporters: Would you give John McCain a pass if he was the member of a white racist church for twenty years that pledged its sole allegiance to the white race? Oh no, you would call John McCain a white supremacist, Ku Klux Klan Republican Nazi wouldn't you? Question for Obama supporters: Barack Obama like a loyal soldier, followed the hate filled, savage anti-Semite, anti-American "Nation of Islam" leader Louis Farrakhan in his Million Man March. That is not cause for alarm for Obamanites? What if John McCain followed David Duke in a march? Would that be alright with you? Barack Obama's own words in his books are overwhelming evidence that he has great anger towards whites and he possesses a troubled mind. His lifelong, extremely radical, anti-American friends and associations are an absolute reflection upon the man and who he really is. Personally, I wouldn't want Barrack Obama to be my local Community Organizer. God forbid he gets to sit in the Oval Office. Barack Obama will destroy America if elected President. Final Analysis: So what is the answer to the question: "Who is Barack Hussein Obama?" Without a doubt, Barack Obama is a racist. His own words make this an undeniable fact. He views the world and sees history as an ongoing racial conflict of white suppression and oppression of blacks. He has a radical, militant Black Panther mentality and a "Black vs. White" outlook on race. Obama has taken his fury against whites and channeled into politics. I do not see why we would hope or try to imagine that his hatred for whites has subsided or gone away. I believe that for Obama, being the President of the United States would be his way of conquering the people he hates. Becoming the President would be for Obama, the ultimate victory and final triumph over whites, whom he views as his enemy. Obama would cherish sitting in the Oval Office, it would be for him the supreme satisfaction of, "eating tiger meat" once again. I am convinced that Obama's cloaked hatred for whites is the burning energy and the driving force behind his run for the White House! "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in
sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits
you will know them." — Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:15.16
PS Following is the opening paragraph of a fundraising letter
written by Michelle Obama:
Both Barack and Michelle Obama are pro-Partial Birth Abortion. This
is a sign of people that are intrinsically evil.
Rock Peters is Director of Communications, ACT for America. Contact
him by email at rockpeters@aol.com
|
|
BARACK OBAMA'S STEALTH SOCIALISM
Posted by Howard L. Dyckman, October 12, 2008. |
|
This is from Investor's Business Daily
|
|
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code. During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati. And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval. It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series. "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism. In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state. In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all). Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns. It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor. Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old. Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means. Among his proposed "investments":
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for starters — first-term stuff. Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike. You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress. But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)? Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion. The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed. A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, Dreams From My Father, reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities." As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment. "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**." After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago. His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America. The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters. After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale. While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics. (A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.) Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa. As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans." His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all." "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development." Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine. (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.) In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro. With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.) With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer." He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud. Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice." He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington. Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington. The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word. But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words. Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk. Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster. Contact Howard L. Dyckman at dyckman@dyckman.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE SEASON OF OUR REJOICING
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 12, 2008. |
|
Tomorrow night begins the week-long festival of Sukkot, the most joyous of our holidays. The heartache of world events must not rob us of this joy, as we sit in our Sukkahs. Sit, and eat and sleep in these fragile but lovely structures, mindful of the fact that we are in the hands of the Almighty. In all likelihood this will be my last posting until after the holiday ends a week from Tuesday here in Israel. To one and all: Chag Sameach: Joyous Holiday! ~~~~~~~~~~ Don't be fooled. Don't imagine that what has been going on in Acre is no more than an innocent local disturbance. Yaakov Lapin, writing about the situation, cited on-the-scene residents: "This is our city. What happened on Yom Kippur was a pogrom. We had to hide in our own homes and turn off the lights as the mob passed," said Datya Bracha Malka... Pogrom. That's the term I've seen used in connection the Acre events several times now. What's different about this situation from many others that appear similar is the mindset of the particular Jews in Acre. For the most part they are working class Sephardi Jews who have little patience with the left wing elite of the nation, and who take no nonsense. Attacked, they attack back. Proudly. "They [the media] are making out like we are the aggressors. Why don't they come here to speak to us? We've had a Kristallnacht here." I daresay, we Israelis need a bit more of this attitude as we make our way within the world. ~~~~~~~~~~ I want to call your attention to a disturbing and important piece by Jonathan Rosenblum, which appeared in Friday's Post, "Ignore the Grandchildren." This is in reference to the deeply offensive and literally obscene YouTube video in which comedienne Sarah Silverman suggests that Jewish youth travel to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Obama. You don't have to convince them with facts, she tells the young people, make threats: "If you don't vote for Obama I'm not going to visit." And she suggests that the objection the elderly people of Florida have to Obama is his skin color. No thought that perhaps the older generation has considerably more wisdom with regard to the political issues than their grandchildren. This is what Rosenblum addresses. He writes: "My guess is that bubbie and zaidie will not be too impressed by such bullying; nor should they be. The grandchildren will seek to prove that Obama is good for Israel, but their identification with Israel bears no relationship to that of their grandparents... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017508878&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ It's worth noting that this disgusting Silverman video was produced by the Jewish Council for Education and Research. This is a group with a benign and elevated sounding name — who could be against education and research? — whose goal, in matter of fact, is the promotion of Obama. This is the same group that produced the video "Israel's Generals Speak," which gives the fallacious impression that those interviewed are for Obama. Two interviewees, Uzi Dayan, former deputy IDF chief of staff, and Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad chief, both say they were duped and their words taken out of context. Protested Dayan: "This was a lie and a deception since I never expressed support for Obama or for John McCain. I was told this was a movie about the issues the next president will have to deal with and that concern Israel. I responded accordingly without taking any side politically." |
|
BARACK OBAMA'S ACORN TREE
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 12, 2008. |
|
The original is available at http://www.gop.com/ObamaAcornTree/ It was distributed by the Republican National Committee, 310 First Stret, SE, Washington DC 20003. Email: info@gop.com. Tel: 202 863 8500 |
|
Obama has trivialized his connection to Acorn or denied
it, even though he trained their staff in Alinsky tactics. Here in the
video, he is caught saying Acorn and friends will shape his
presidential agenda. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
PHOTO DISCOVERED OF OBAMA WITH FELLOW CHICAGO SOCIALIST PARTY MEMBERS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 12, 2008. | |
|
This comes from today's Gateway Pundit website
| |
|
Great... We're two shakes of a lamb's tail from having a former(?)
A photo just surfaced from 1996 featuring a group of New Party Socialist candidates posing together after impressive election wins in Chicago. Bloggers New Zeal 
Winners! NP-endorsed candidates Patricia Martin (far left), Danny Davis (center), and Barack Obama (far right), celebrate with Chicago New Party members Ted Thomas and Ruth Schools after their victories in the Democratic Primary last month. Power Line reported that Obama is even quoted in this socialist newsletter. Obama actively sought the New Party's endorsement and urged the Marxist members to join his campaigns. The New Party went so far as to claim Obama as an official member of their organisation. The New Party socialists were affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. Of course, Obama has a long history of relationships with Marxists. His first mentor in high school was noted Communist Frank Marshall Davis. He admitted he attended socialist conferences during his college years in his first book, Dreams From My Father, page 122: "Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences that I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem or Brooklyn during the summers-a few of the many diversions that New York had to offer, like going to a foreign film or ice-skating at the Rockefeller Center." Obama also wrote that he selected his friends carefully, the more Marxist and radical the better, page 100: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." And, don't forget Obama's pastor, mentor and father figure of 20 years, G-D AmeriKKKa Jeremiah Wright, who brought the black liberation socialist theology to the alter. Previously: Surprise!... Obama Was Affiliated With National Socialist Party Throughout Most of the 1990's! ...Update: PROOF
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
GAZA'S SHOPPING HEAVEN
Posted by Aaron Lerner, October 12, 2008. |
|
"They smuggle very few weapons (no need, they have too much as it is.)" This is the problem with Israeli complacence — the incredible assumption that our enemies are not exploiting the situation to prepare to destroy us. Stand by for security reports of exactly how many bullets, kilograms of explosives, etc. were smuggled through the tunnel — as if Hamas is providing detailed reports to the Israeli. The truth is that we will only know what is actually going through the tunnels — thanks in part to the sheer volume of activity that can hide almost anything — until we suffer the consequences of the smuggling activity. And then it may be too late. A suggestion: think how we would be exploiting the tunnels if the roles were reversed and assume that the Palestinians are at least as smart as we are. This below is entitled "Gaza's shopping heaven: While world faces crisis, booming tunnel industry making Gaza merchants rich" and is by Smadar Peri. It appeared today in YNET. |
|
The youngest in the group is usually called Ahmed or Muhammad, and he must be short, skinny, and quick. Two people stand above him: One of them is the driver that will be transporting the bags, and the other is the "boss" — just like in the mafia. On a good day, the "boss" makes about a thousand dollars. On a bad day, Ahmad or Muhammad could end up dead, should one of Gaza's tunnels collapse. Forty seven Palestinians, half of them children, died this year while working underground. On a good day, Ahmed or Muhammad will finish their shift with 50 shekels (roughly $15) — enough to feed an extended family. At least 20 people depend on the dangerous labor of a 10-year-old and a 14-year-old who every morning embark on their studies in the school of life. Rub your eyes in disbelief in the face of the economic boom taking place in tunnel city: Stock markets are crashing and the world is facing a crisis, yet in Gaza 500 supermarkets flourish. A mega-store underground. Each tunnel has a manager, smuggler, diggers who travel from one site to another, merchants, intermediaries, a driver, and customers who provide a shopping list. If you ask for something today, you'll get it two days from now. They dig at night and pull out the merchandize during the day. Hamas charges a $200-dollar fee per bag. They smuggle very few weapons (no need, they have too much as it is.) Drugs and alcohol are also rarely smuggled, for fear of Hamas' watchful eye. They do smuggle plenty of computers and cellular phones, jeans, sneakers, cement, furniture, medicine, food, and mostly chocolate. The record took place two weeks ago: An Egyptian bride who got sick and tired of waiting at the Rafah border crossing passed through one of the tunnels. The "boss" was generous and only demanded $150 for the "goods." Meanwhile, Hamas forfeited the tunnel tax that was supposed to be paid by the groom's family and rushed to inform the media about it. Prada and Gucci Overnight, Gaza's tunnels were connected to the local electricity grid. Welcome to the ungrounded Palestinian mall system. If you walk into the living room, you will see a smuggler carrying a pile of laptops. If you visit the Egyptian Rafah, you will see a bag containing jeans and canned goods behind lowered into the backyard. Yesterday, a new glasses boutique was opened. Prada and Gucci frames arrived all the way from the Dubai, and prices are sky-high. Now, top Hamas leaders in Gaza are formulating new rules for this game. Boys below 18 years of age must not be used for digging tunnels. Those who are caught violating this regulation will be fined. Moreover, smugglers must not be employed more than 10 consecutive hours. Minimum wage will be introduced. Should a tunnel collapse, the tunnel manager will pay compensation to the victim's family. The exact sum is open for bargaining between attorneys and tunnel managers. The new ethical code is in Jordanian dinars, but trade underground is conducted in Israeli shekels. Israeli bills are even accepted in Egyptian Rafah. To be honest, everyone is satisfied. In Israel, we got rid of the bothersome talk about hunger in the Strip, while the Hamas leadership knows what to do with its cut of the "tunnel tax." Merchants on the Egyptian side, smugglers on the Palestinian side, and everyone associated with this industry are making the kind of living they could not imagine in their wildest dreams. Another year of such siege, and we'll see Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
JINSA CONFIRMS MY SUSPICIONS
Posted by Yisrael Medad, October 12, 2008. |
|
I have attempted to alert the interested parties that American training of Palestinian Authority policemen is not all it's cranked up to be. Israel's security, I wrote, (for example,
Well, JINSA confirms my thinking on their JINSA Report #816 of October 10, 2008, It is entitled "Missing Mandates, Part 2 (Palestinian Police). |
|
JINSA has commented over time about the American military mission to train Palestinian security forces. Under Oslo, the Palestinians were supposed to be police; counter-terrorism was left to the IDF. Training stopped during the second Intifada, but resumed in 2005. The Palestinians are now called "security forces," and receive counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency training and equipment. During the recent Flag & General Officers Trip, we questioned various IDF officials about these forces to understand the extent to which the Israelis believe the Palestinians accept the mission to provide security for Israel and "dismantle the terrorist infrastructure" — the heart of the Palestinian obligation under the Road Map. If the Palestinian security forces haven't agreed to do the job, it is irresponsible for the Americans to give them counter-terror capabilities. We met with the commander of the American training mission as well. The Israelis did not criticize the American military mission directly. We were told the Americans were "good people," but heard several times that the Palestinians have the capability, but lack the will to partner on security issues. A very senior IDF official also noted that Palestinians who participated in the first training mission were active leaders in the second Intifada. "I told (the Americans) we have experience with the Palestinian police since 1994. It is a big risk for us." And asked whether he worried about the Americans "making better terrorists," his one-word answer was, "Yes." A senior intelligence official said the Palestinians are "very frank about what they will do and what they won't. They don't have support from Ramallah (the seat of the Palestinian Authority government) to partner with us." Furthermore, he added, the Palestinian training mission makes U.S.-Israel security relations more complicated. "We used to talk to the Americans about issues that concerned both countries. Now, they talk to us about Palestinians." There are two problems here. First, the Americans are training Palestinians to do a job their leadership has not agreed they will do. They focus on providing skills to the Palestinians because that is a job they can do, and they ignore where those skills might be used because that isn't in the mandate. The American commander expressed faith in the troops he was training, and carefully defined his mission as being West Bank security (not, by the way, "Israel's security"). "Gaza," he said flatly, "can fall into the sea." And there is the second missing mandate. The Americans have nothing to do with Gaza — for good reason — but the result is that we can at best provide security forces for the West Bank, creating de facto three states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean: Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. That is not U.S. policy, but it is what emanates from the lack of mission for anyone — U.S., Israeli or Palestinian security forces — to deal with Hamas in Gaza. Yisrael Medad and his family made aliyah in 1970, He lives in
Shiloh. He is a columnist and a media talk show. This comes from his website:
|
|
THANK YOU ACORN FOR DEFINING THE TERM "COMMUNITY ORGANIZER" FOR US
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 12, 2008. |
|
Thank you ACORN for defining the term 'community organizer' for us. We were never quite sure exactly what Barack Obama did in Chicago.
This below is entitled "ACORN's role in the Mortgage Meltdown" and it was written by Mona Charen. It was published October 6, 2008 in the Washington Times. Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. |
|
The financial markets teetered on the edge of an abyss two weeks ago. The treasury secretary was literally on one knee begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the Earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. In addition, amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a, dandy little slush fund for ACORN. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and "direct action" that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where 1960s leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we are in. ACORN does many things under the umbrella of "community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare / workers (i.e., those welfare recipients obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts / (always for Democrats of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington State. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the "worst case of election fraud in our state's history?' As Fox News reported: The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms. ACORN explained this was an "isolated" incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Colorado — all swing states by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead. ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted "affirmative action" lending, and pressured banks to make sub-prime loans. Madeline Talbot, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of "dragging banks kicking and screaming" into dubious loans. In addition, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN found a remunerative niche as an "adviser" to banks seeking regulatory approval. "Thus we have J.P. Morgan and Co., the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN." Is this a great country or what? As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, "The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN?' ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community-organizing days. Madeline Talbot hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Mr. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler. Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non creditworthy borrowers could lead to. But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare that "the party is over" for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass. If Mr. Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist
Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website
|
|
GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED VOTING JEW
Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 12, 2008. |
|
Friends, There are those Jews who have already made up their minds about their vote in the Presidential election. Some will vote for Barack Obama, some for John McCain. From experience, it is impossible to change the mind of someone who is a true believer. They scorn facts, and are not open to information that is contrary to their beliefs. They blindly take endorsements from respected Jewish public figures, who, like Deborah Lipstadt, are admirable in their field of expertise, but clueless politically. I guess this e-mail is meant for the undecided, those who are searching for
the truth, and who have not been played like a violin by propaganda. It is
for those who want the facts. If you are one of those people, please read
what I've written below, then GO TO THIS WEBSITE:
I don't know what your final decision will be, but at least it will be independent and informed. Every blessing,
|
|
LEARNING THE HARD WAY
Sitting here in Jerusalem reading the poll numbers, I have a feeling of déjà vu. There was a time in Israel when the Oslo Accords and the sincerity of Yasser Arafat were, believe it or not, controversial subjects. More than that, anyone who was against Oslo, who believed Arafat was a terrorist and a liar, and that land for peace was a deception that would lead to terror and war, was vilified. What didn't they call us realists? War-mongers. Partners with Yigal Amir. There was no debate, just hysteria and vilification. I have to say that even my own family felt we should 'give peace a chance' and watched the handshake on the White House lawn (which I refused to watch and which made me ill) with hope. I was informed that since I wasn't going to be serving in the army, I had no right to suggest that signing this peace agreement was a bad thing. You know what? It intimidated me. I started to think: how could it be that everyone was so happy and enthusiastic, and I was miserable and depressed? How could they see doves and handshakes, and all I could see was terrorist bombs and dead bodies? So I tried to see the world through their glasses. I tried to be hopeful too. And when it came time to vote, I even voted for a Peace Now candidate, not because I thought there would be peace, but because I thought that it was better for the country to at least put into practice its wrong ideas, and to experience first hand how badly it was all going to work out. That there was no other way to have unity, because if they didn't get that chance, they would never shut up, and would always blame the opposition for not giving them a chance. I stopped speaking out. I went along. What we got, of course, was hell on earth. Thousands were killed, thousands more were injured as Arafat unleashed unbridled terrorist attacks, using the guns our government had given him to kill Israelis, many of them women and children; using the free access into Israel to blow up pizza parlors and discos and bar mitzvah celebrations. And then came my turn, sitting in the Park Hotel with my family, including my child and political opponent, who was all in favor of Oslo, when the building blew up. When I came out of that alive with my husband and children, I swore never to be intimidated again. I swore that next time when no-nothings asserted political beliefs that were blatantly wrong, and would lead to disaster, I would oppose them openly, come what may. I would also never again suspend my disbelief that other people knew better, including high level academics, intellectuals, and other elites. Including my closest family members. I would keep my common sense. The Presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America, a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors — all of whom side with Israel's Leftist enemies (including Israelis) as well as to anti-American, anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their 'liberalism' in money-lending, is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community's support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community who thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve "change" that will benefit it, my heart aches. I know that I am helpless to stop this juggernaut towards disaster. Perhaps it is America's turn to experience first hand what we in Israel experienced: the consequences of electing a leadership which does not have the best interests of the country in mind; which has an agenda that has nothing to do with those interests. Sometimes people have to make horrible mistakes in order to learn that they are horrible mistakes. In Israel, this included over 25,000 terrorist attacks. Children dying in the streets. Being afraid to walk to the bus stop, or enter a store. Americans have had a wonderful life in a wonderful country. Everybody in the world wants to live in America. Now, Americans want 'change.' They are about to get it. May God watch over them. Maybe this is how G-d intends to get them all to make Aliyah? I wonder how they'll feel when they are sitting here with the rest of us, Obama in the White House, and Iran with a atom bomb. Naomi Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
OBAMA AND ISRAEL. HIS FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS — OY! IS HE A
CITIZEN? OF WHAT COUNTRY?
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 11, 2008. |
|
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IF THE FATE OF ISRAEL HAS ANY MEANING TO YOU, I IMPLORE YOU TO READ AND WATCH THE VIDEO CLIPS CONTAINED IN THIS BULLETIN. THIS MATERIAL IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT, WORRYING AND OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE. Yuval |
|
Dear friends, This bulletin and attachments are of extreme importance, particularly to the Jewish readers among you and any friend of the State of Israel. As you all know, personal influences, the people you grow up with, your mentors, your friends and associates, leave indelible impressions on you as a person. It is almost impossible to shake off such influences. Despite promises by Senators Obama and Biden that they are strong supporters of Israel, all available evidence with regard to Obama points to the contrary. Every person of significance in his mature life espouses in one way or another anti-Israel feelings if not outright hostility. Obama's life long associations with anti-Semites and Palestinian
supporters, are well documented. Here is a link to FOX's broadcast on
the subject last night, Sunday, October 5, 2008. It is entitled "A
History of Radicalism". It shows Obama's relationship with the
notorious Palestinian Arab, Rashid Khalidi.
Obama's foreign policy advisors are almost all heavily anti-Israeli
pro-Palestinian advocates. An article by Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky on
the subject from October 6, 2008, can be found on the American
Thinker website. Go to:
Here is a quote from the article: Who are Obama's Foreign Policy Advisors? Among Obama's advisors was Samantha Power. Listen to her speaking about Israel's "major human rights abuses" and the need to land a "mammoth force" of US troops in Israel to protect Palestinians from genocide, even though it may "alienate a constituency of major political and financial import." Samantha Power was Obama's foreign policy advisor until she was
forced to resign because she called Hillary Clinton 'a monster.'
Listen to:
See also this video called "Episode 6: The October Surprise" which features Philip J. Berg, Esq., a lawyer who asks whether Obama is a natural born citizen of the U.S.A.? Obama could stop the contraversy dead by producing his real birth certificate (The one that was posted on his website has been proven to be a forgery. And his maternal grandmother claims she was in the delivery room when he was born in Kenya.) Berg is a "a life long Democrat" and formerly Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvia. The video and the series itself: Obama Citizenship: I Invented the
Internet" can be accessed from the same You Tube page. Click: Friends, There is enough material in the above for you to carefully re-evaluate your support of Obama. On the other hand, McCain and Palin's support of Israel is without question or blemish. Those of you, Jews and non-Jews, who love Israel have no choice but taking Obama's history seriously despite his verbal promises, one of which (united Jerusalem) he reversed within 24 hours of his promise. I often wonder about Jews who vote Obama despite all the evident negatives. Is it yet again the historic Jewish characteristic of brushing off danger even when it stares them in the eye? And one more personal point. I started writing my bulletins some six years ago. Without too much boasting, all my predictions on all the subjects I covered proved correct without exception. If Obama is elected and my assessment of Obama's danger to Israel proves correct, please do not come to me to tell me I was right. What you need to do is study all the facts about him and Israel before November 4, and then vote accordingly. Your Truth Provider
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is from Ben Shapiro, "The
Jewish Case Against Barack Obama," posted by Hugh Hewitt on
Townhall.com To the end of educating American Jews on Israel — as well as Israel's non-Jewish American supporters — I've produced a three-part YouTube video entitled "The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama. The trailer for the video (1 minute, 40 seconds) can be found at Ben suggests American Jews stop voting for Harry Truman and/or Bill Clinton and look at what today's Democratic candidate has said and done. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
HOW MUCH DID OBAMA PAY ACORN TO GET OUT THE VOTE
Posted by Avodah, October 11, 2008. |
|
This was written by David M. Brown, and it appeared in the Tribune-Review, Friday, August 22, 2008. David M. Brown can be reached at dbrown@tribweb. or 412-380-5614. |
|
Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of ACORN, the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports. The article was written in August about the Ohio primary. One must ask how much did Obama pay them to get out the vote in all states where ACORN is currently under investigation for voter fraud. An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in "get-out-the-vote." FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger said it is not unusual for campaigns to amend reports, even regarding large sums of money. But, said Blair Latoff, spokeswoman for the Republican National Com mittee: "Barack Obama's failure to accurately report his campaign's financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign's interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud. For a candidate who claims to be practicing 'new' politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the 'old-style' Chicago politics of yesterday." In response to the RNC's position, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail: "The RNC can concoct all of the outlandish conspiracy theories they want, but when we saw that our FEC report didn't accurately reflect the field work CSI was hired to perform we corrected it. It's pretty bold for the RNC to attack us for a clerical error after John McCain's campaign was just forced to return $50,000 raised by a foreign national through a number of contributors who weren't even supporting McCain." Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the campaign's error on FEC documents doesn't seem extraordinary, especially considering the huge amounts of money being spent. "It's rare that people don't file any amended reports. If he has a pattern of lots and lots of amended reports, that would be more noteworthy than an occasional one," Sloan said. Jim Terry, spokesman for a group that tracks ACORN, said Citizens Services Inc.'s involvement in the Obama campaign raises bigger questions. "All of this just seems like an awful lot of money and time spent on political campaigning for an organization that purports to exist to help low-income consumers," said Terry, chief public advocate for Consumers Rights League, a Washington, D.C., advocacy outfit with a libertarian outlook. Obama is the CSI's first national candidate, although the company has worked for several regional candidates in recent years, said Jeff Robinson, CSI's executive vice president. "Our contracts were relatively small for Obama," he said, declining to specify amounts because of "proprietary" rights of CSI's clients. The largest project for Obama was during the Ohio primary, he said. "That was a very short-term contract for one week of work. In Ohio, they asked us to do canvasses in five cities statewide," Robinson said. The Ohio primary was March 4. According to FEC records, the Obama campaign paid Citizens Services Inc. $832,598.29, from Feb. 25 to May 17. A Trib analysis of campaign finance reports showed Obama paid CSI for services that stood out as unusual. For example, CSI received payments of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent with other organizations was $558.82 per check on more than 1,200 entries classified as advance work. Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans. Citizens Services was established in December 2004 to "assist persons and organizations who advance the interests of low- and moderate-income people," according to paperwork filed in Louisiana. In a 2006 ACORN publication, Citizen Services Inc. is described as "ACORN's campaign services entity." ACORN describes itself as the nation's largest grass-roots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, operating in 110 cities across the country, including Pittsburgh. Founded in Arkansas in 1970, ACORN long has been considered a political ally of the Democratic Party. It has received praise from leading Democrats, such as Howard Dean and former President Bill Clinton, for its community activism, especially regarding efforts to increase housing for low-income people and restoration work after Hurricane Katrina. Early in his career, Obama worked as an organizer for Project Vote, an ACORN offshoot, and represented ACORN in legal actions, according to various published reports, including Associated Press articles. ACORN's political action committee endorsed Obama in the primary. The organization has sparked controversy. Accusations of voter fraud have followed ACORN's canvassing projects in about a dozen states. ACORN has dismissed the charges as politically motivated allegations from conservative groups, yet cases are pending and, in other cases, ACORN workers have entered guilty pleas. For example, three ACORN workers pleaded guilty to submitting phony voter registration forms in Washington, and eight ACORN employees pleaded guilty to federal election fraud in Missouri. ACORN is at the center of a scandal involving a $1 million embezzlement by Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. ACORN discovered the embezzlement in 2000 but did not alert law enforcement officials. ACORN's management committee instead negotiated an agreement to have the Rathke family repay the stolen funds, according to a report in The New York Times. The Rathke brothers resigned from ACORN this summer after news reports disclosed the embezzlement. A donor agreed to repay the most of the money, the Times reported. Sunday Alabi, an ACORN activist and spokesman in St. Paul, is one of CSI's three-person board of directors. Alabi described CSI as a nonprofit consulting firm related to ACORN. "I do not know the day-to-day work of what they do. I'm on the board," Alabi said, referring other questions to Robinson, the executive vice president. Robinson said CSI is a "not-for-profit political and campaign management firm, much like any political consulting firm."CSI is not tax-exempt under any IRS code, he said. Without tax-exempt status, the organization isn't bound by IRS restrictions for nonprofits on political activities. "We have a wide range of clients. We provide political campaign management. We provide field services," Robinson said. "Our clients are typically considered liberal. Our clients are labor unions, liberal to progressive candidates, nonprofit organizations on the liberal side of the political spectrum." In 2006, CSI collected all the signatures and managed successful statewide ballot measure campaigns in Missouri, Ohio, Colorado and Arizona to increase the minimum wage, he said. "We have a good reputation. We provide good services." Regarding CSI's nonprofit status, Robinson said: "We are organized specifically not to make money, but we make money. There are no profits. We have a staff of 60 people around the country, and that eats up our entire profit. We're not a for-profit corporation, but we are not a group like a United Way." CSI is a "separate organization entirely" from ACORN, he said. "ACORN is a client of ours," Robinson said. "ACORN has a lot of different partner organizations. We are a partner, but we are separate." Robinson is listed on several Web sites as national deputy political director for campaigns and elections at ACORN. He is also listed as political director at the nonprofit Communities Voting Together and as a consultant at Project Vote. He did not return phone calls or an e-mail request for a follow-up interview. Money flows back and forth between ACORN, Citizens Services Inc., Project Vote and Communities Voting Together. ACORN posts job ads for Citizens Services and Project Vote. Communities Voting Together contributed $60,000 to Citizens Services Inc., for example, in November 2005, according to a posting on CampaignMoney. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website: http://www.am-yisrael-blog.blogspot.com/ |
|
FLOOR TILES
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 11, 2008. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
see other examples of his graphic art at
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: ACRE RIOTS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 11, 2008. |
|
Acre, or Akko — an ancient Mediterranean port city in the north of Israel with a mixed Jewish and Arab population that has prided itself on coexistence — is currently in the midst of violence with most serious implications. The violence — which started on Yom Kippur eve — began with a car driven at high speed by an Arab resident of the Old City of Acre through the main street of the Jewish Ben Gurion neighborhood with his radio blaring. In the solemnity of Yom Kippur, cars are simply not driven in Jewish neighborhoods here in Israel, and certainly not with radios blaring. Acre police say this was clearly a provocation. According to the Post, when he was asked by local residents to leave, the man refused. And then what began as a verbal confrontation became more violent as Jewish residents began tossing things at the car. False rumors were then carried into the Arab Old City saying that Jews had killed the Arab, and a crowd of hundreds of Arabs marched into the Ben Gurion neighborhood saying "Kill the Jews" and Allah Allahu Akbar" [the traditional praise of Allah used when killing Jews], wielding axes and truncheons and smashing cars and store windows. According to YNet, there are suggestions that this was a planned attack by Arabs, some of whom didn't even live in Acre. This report indicates that the fasting Ben Gurion residents were unarmed — that the attack by the Arabs didn't occur because the Arab driver was attacked by the Jewish crowd. Police intervened that night to prevent severe Jewish — Arab clashes, for Jews had gathered in preparation for a response to the violence of the Arab mob. The city was actually shut down briefly. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tonight, however, is the fourth consecutive night in which Arab-Jewish clashes have erupted. This time an Arab home was set on fire. The mayor of Acre, Shimon Lankry, says he is determined to handle this with a firm hand. The mayor has brushed aside a conciliatory gesture made by the leaders of the Arab community of Acre. They have announced that they will be releasing a flier condemning the man's drive through the Jewish neighborhood on Yom Kippur. What I noticed, however, is that it was to be in Hebrew and distributed in the Ben Gurion neighborhood. That is, it is designed to placate the Jews and not to advise the Arab community regarding appropriately respectful behavior. ~~~~~~~~~~ From my vantage point, most serious is the statement by a spokesman from Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza: He said that the anger by "Jewish settlers" [settlers??] in "should serve as a wake-up alarm to those who are betting on reaching peace with an occupation that rejects everything Palestinian or Arab." He defined Acre — which is well within Green Line Israel — as having been occupied in 1948, and accused "extremist Jewish settlers [in Acre] of acts of terror that could be the start of the final phase of ethnic cleansing." This is an attempt by Jihadist Arabs to provoke Israeli Arabs to respond with hostility to Israel — to see Israel as the enemy — and it is something we are seeing with increasing frequency. This makes credible the claim that some of the Arab rioters that first night were not from Acre. The Jews were provoked and threatened on their holiest day and then their response is cited as evidence of "ethnic cleansing." It should not be taken lightly. ~~~~~~~~~~ There have been two attempted stabbing attacks by Arabs in Hevron: In one last night, a man at a checkpoint near the Machpelah (Tomb of the Patriarchs), when called on to submit to inspection of his package, then pulled out a knife and started to attack a border policeman. He was stopped. Tonight something similar happened in the Jewish neighborhood of Hevron. ~~~~~~~~~~ Egypt, which has been working on ways to heal the "rift" between Hamas and Fatah, has met with some tentative success — although I have no confidence that the factional tensions can be genuinely and permanently smoothed over. A Hamas delegation, headed by Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau, met recently in Cairo with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Gen. Omar Suleiman. Abu Marzouk has now announced that Hamas will be meeting with Fatah before the end of the month. Next month the Egyptians hope to convene a conference with all the Palestinian factions. "We want national unity," said Abu Marzouk. The last unity government lasted just months. Issues to be dealt with include: the status of the Palestinian government, reforming the PLO, reconstructing the Palestinian security forces, preparing for the next parliamentary and presidential elections and restoring the pre-June 2007 situation to the Gaza Strip. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SUKKOT (FEAST OF TABERNACLES) GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 11, 2008. |
|
Assembled from various Jewish Sages |
|
1. Sukkot commemorates various aspects of The Exodus. It is celebrated on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Tishrei — the day of launching the construction of the Holy Sanctuary in Sinai. It is named after the first stop of The Exodus — Sukkota. Sukkot is a derivative of the Hebrew word, Sukkah (hut), which was one of the dwellings of the Jewish People during the wandering in the desert. Sukkot stresses liberty from spiritual and physical slavery. 2. Sukkot honors the Torah, demonstrating that the Torah — just like the Sabbath — does not constitute a burden; it is a source of gratification and happiness. The day following Sukkot (Simchat Torah) is dedicated to the conclusion of the annual Torah reading by the "Torah Groom" and to the beginning of next year's Torah reading by the "Genesis Groom." 3. Sukkot is the holiday of Harvesting/Ingathering (celebrated around October). 4. Sukkot underlines the centrality of Jerusalem in Judaism. It is one of the three annual Jewish Pilgrimages — ever since the Exodus — to : Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. 5. Sukkot highlights the Land of through its seven-day-duration, symbolizing the Seven Crops/Produce, which praised the Promised Land of Israel: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. 6. Sukkot emphasizes the crucial connection between history, (attachment to the) soil and the of Jewish People. The Sukkah of the House of David has been a synonym for the People of Israel. 7. Sukkot is a holiday of Jewish unity and mutual-responsibility/caring, calling upon Sukkah owners to open their Sukkahs to strangers, in the best tradition of Abraham the Patriarch (who royally welcomed to his tent three miserable-looking strangers). The seven days of Sukkot are dedicated to the Seven Ushpizin (origin of the word Hospes): Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron and David, who had to struggle for their ideas. 8. Sukkot provides another opportunity to enhance humility and compassion toward the needy, while temporarily residing in the humble Sukkah during the relatively cold month of Tishrei/October. 9. Sukkot provides "over-time" for genuine repentance, which ends on the day following Sukkot (Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah). 10. Sukkot is the holiday of agricultural and national ingathering. The four sides of the Sukkah represent the global Jewish community, which resides under the same roof on Sukkot. 11. Sukkot is a universal holiday, inviting all peoples to come to on a pilgrimage. 12. Sukkot's "Hoshaa'na Rabah" (Hosha'a is the Hebrew word for rescue/deliverance and "Na" equals Gimatriya — 51 days following Moses' ascension to Mt. Sinai) — the seventh day of Sukkot — is a day of universal deliverance. 13. Sukkot's Four Species (citron, palm, myrtle and willow) — which are bonded together — represent four types of human-beings: positive odor and taste, positive taste but no odor, positive odor but no taste and those who are devoid of taste and odor. However, all are bonded by deeper values and history. The Four Species possess prerequisites for genuine leadership: the palm branch (Lulav in Hebrew) symbolizes the human backbone, the citron represents the heart, the myrtle stands for the eyes and willow reflects the mouth. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
BRAVERY AWARD TO SETTLER CHILD "SHOCKS" MEDIA
Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 11, 2008. |
|
Friends, The disgusting bandwagon mentality that has the Israeli left angry
at its brave residents who stand up against terrorist attacks is alive
and well in the Israeli media. Little Tuvia, who alerted his family
and neighbors to a terrorist attack, was pursued and stabbed by a
terrorist from a neighboring village, and then thrown off a 12 foot
embankment, was give an award for his bravery by the IDF. The media,
which love Palestinians, even terrorists who stab children and throw
them off cliffs more than 'settlers', if they are nine-years old,
religious, and live over the green line. Some talk-backs wrote in they
want the soldier in the IDF thrown out for giving this award. I see
the same mentality taking hold among American Jews, who are also on a
bandwagon, the media brainwashing them to believe their lies rather
than their eyes. It takes a strong-minded, intelligent, rational
person to keep sane and focused in such a time. Just remember, who is
on the side of the terrorists. It will help you focus.
|
|
Sunday, October 05, 2008
In a move that has shocked Israel's media, the IDF Shomron Brigade Commander, Itzik Bar awarded an IDF commendation to...a 9-year-old resident of the Yitzhar community, Tuvia Shtatman. Three weeks ago at 6 AM on a Saturday morning, a Palestinian terrorist infiltrated the Shalhevet community of Yitzhar and set fire to a home. Nine year old Tuvia ran outside to see what was going on and began to alert people that there was a fire. The terrorist saw Tuvia, ran after him, attacked him, and stabbed him repeatedly with a knife. Not losing his cool, Tuvia continued to yell for help, and bravely fought off the terrorist, breaking the knife and throwing it to the side. In response, the terrorist threw Tuvia off a 4 meter (12 foot) embankment, and fled. Miraculously, Tuvia only suffered minor injuries. This past Friday at the IDF Shomron headquarters, IDF Commander Itzik Bar presented an IDF commendation to Tuvia and stated, "I am astounded by the bravery and heroism of Yitzhar children — despite [this young child's] slight build, he determinedly fought with the terrorist." [source] For some reason, this story has not been picked up by Israel's mainstream media. Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
LETTER TO THE WORLD FROM JERUSALEM
Posted by Jack Berger, October 11, 2008. |
|
This letter below was written by Stanley Goldfoot On November 24, 2006 at the age of 92, Stanley Goldfoot passed away, but his memory and his words are truly for a blessing. His dream was to establish a Zionist English newspaper in Israel, called The Times of Israel. In his first issue he wrote words that are as relevant today as when they were first written — perhaps even more so. I have added the parenthesis portions. |
|
I am a Jerusalemite — like yourselves, a man of flesh and blood. I am a citizen of my city, an integral part of the Jewish people. I have a few things to get off my chest. Because I am not a diplomat, I do not have to mince words. I do not have to please you or even persuade you. I owe you nothing. You did not build this city: you do not live in it: you did not defend it when the Arabs came to destroy it. And we will be damned if we let you try to take it away. There was a Jerusalem before there was a New York. When Berlin, Moscow, London and Paris were nothing more than forest and swamp, there was a thriving Jewish community here. It gave something to the world, which your nations have rejected ever since you established yourselves — a humane moral code. Here the prophets walked, their words flashing like forked lightening. Here a people who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, fought off waves of heathen would-be conquerors, bled and died on the battlements, hurled themselves into the flames of their burning temples rather than surrender; and when finally overwhelmed by sheer numbers and led away into captivity, swore that before they forgot Jerusalem, they would see their tongues cleave to their palates, and their right arm wither. For two pain-filled millennia, while we were your unwelcome guests, we prayed to return to this city. Three times a day, we petitioned the Almighty: "Gather us from the four corners of the world, bring us upright to our land; return us in mercy to Jerusalem, Thy city, and dwell in it as Thou promised...Next year in Jerusalem." On every Yom Kippur and Passover, we fervently voiced the hope that next year would find us in Jerusalem. Your inquisitions, pogroms, expulsions, the ghettos into which you jammed us, our forced baptisms, your quota systems, your genteel anti-Semitism, and the final, unspeakable horror, the Holocaust and worse, your terrifying disinterest in it — all these have not broken us. They may have sapped what little moral strength you still possessed, but they forged us into steel. Do you really believe that after Dachau and Auschwitz we are frightened by your threats of blockades and other obscene U.N. sanctions? We have been to Hell and back — a Hell of your making. What more could you possibly have in your arsenal that could scare us? I have watched this city bombarded twice by nations calling themselves civilized. In 1948, while you looked on apathetically, I saw women and children blown to smithereens, this after we had agreed to your request to internationalize the city. It was a deadly combination that did the job: British officers, Arab gunners and American-made cannons. (Today again I have seen Jews blown to bits and all you can say is the peace process must go on. How little has changed). For too long we have been your victims, your moral vision is still non-existent. And in 1948 the savage sacking of the Old city: the willful slaughter, the wanton destruction of every synagogue and religious school; the destruction of Jewish cemeteries; the sale by a ghoulish Jordanian government of tombstones for building materials, for poultry runs, army camps — even latrines. And you never said a word. You never breathed the slightest protest when Jordanians shut off the holiest of holy places, the Western Wall [The Temple Mount is the holiest. The Western Wall of the Temple Mount still stands — BSL], in violation of pledges they made after the war — a war they waged, incidentally, against a decision of the UN. Not a murmur came from you whenever the legionaries in the spiked helmets casually opened fire upon our citizens, from behind the walls. Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift "to save the gallant Berliners." But you did not send one ounce of food when Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem. You thundered against the wall which East Germans ran through the middle of the German capital, but not one peep out of you about that other wall, the one that tore through the heart of Jerusalem. And when the same thing happened 19 years later (in 1967), and the Arabs again unleashed a savage, unprovoked bombardment of the Holy City, did any of you do anything? The only time you came to life was when the city was at last liberated by a Jewish army and reunited. Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of "justice". The truth is — and you know it deep inside your gut — you would prefer the city destroyed rather than have it governed by Jews. No matter how diplomatically you phrase it, the age-old prejudices seep out of every word. If our return to Jerusalem has tied your theology in knots; perhaps you had better re-examine you catechisms. After what we have been through, we are not passively going to accommodate ourselves to the twisted idea that we are to suffer eternal homelessness, until we accept your demands. For the first time since the year 70, there is now complete religious freedom for all in Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans put the torch to Temple, everyone has equal rights. We loathe the sword — but we are not going back to the peace of 1948, as you would like us to. (You now know that Oslo and the perfidious Roadmap was just another charade to try to once again drive us out of our Land and our city. Land for peace was land for the elimination of Israel. Children learning in Palestinian schools to be suicide bombers is not preparing for peace. Abbas eulogizing terrorists is not preparing for peace. These last 15 years have been land for terror. Rabin called it the peace of the brave; I call it the peace of the depraved. There was no peace of the brave — there was only a peace of the fools) but... We are at home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander for 2,000 years over the face of the globe, and we are not leaving ... for it was just 35 years ago on Yom Kippur that again you anticipated our demise. Sorry to disappoint you again. We have redeemed the pledge made by our forefathers: Jerusalem, the Jerusalem of the Jewish people, is being rebuilt. All of Jerusalem, east and west, north and south, our Jerusalem. "Next year" — and the year after, and the year after, until the end of time. A few weeks ago in the Torah we repeated the admonitions of the Tochacha. It would be instructive if our rabbis would put down their New York Times and pause in their cheerleading for Obama, and thoughtfully explain the Tochacha and its relevance in America today. As it is reflected in Parasha Ki Tavo that if you choose to be casual with your love of your G-d and turn your back on His land "... He will send into your midst (financial) confusion and worry... you will be stricken with madness ... and a confounding heart ... your sons and your daughters will be given to another people (assimilation)... and you will be a source of astonishment a conversation piece among all the peoples... you will serve your enemies... a nation whose language (suicide bombers) you don't understand, a brazen nation that will not (future tense) be respectful to the old nor gracious to the young... and among all the nations (that you have chosen in the galus), there will be no rest for the sole of your foot... you will have a trembling heart, longing eyes, and a suffering soul... you will be frightened night and day and you will not be sure for your livelihood... you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as slaves (in worthless peace agreements)... but there will be no buyers." (Deut. 28:15-68) In a few days we will recite the words of the Unsana Tokef — who will live and who shall die — who by fire and who by water — as we pray to have our sins of the past year forgiven, it was Rabbi Leo Jung from a Kol Nidre long ago who said, "Jews have been taught the obligation of ‘hesbon hanefesh' — to give an accounting of ones self... When under the tender care of our parents, it was impossible for us to consider that their blessed hearts could ever stop. But one day they left us and what ultimately mattered was not the agony of our pain, or the self-indulgence in our stunned mourning, but the fact that we had to take their place. One day... you and I will be called away and what will matter beyond tears and shock is that we have somebody willing to take our place...such care for the future (of our people) is a matter of wisdom and a cause of honor... we must learn to educate our youth (Zionisticly)...for without such task, they will have little chance to fill the gap between what they are and what they could be... The people of Israel lives." Our past has often been prologue. Our people have too often believed in the myth filled with "hopium" rather than reality. Yet we are a generation that has been blessed and have much to be thankful for in this the 60th year of our people's miraculous return to our homeland Israel. At a time of our greatest despair — when the whole world including Diaspora Jews believed that it was finally over for our people on the wings of eagles with love and compassion He brought us back and the people of the world exclaimed, "Look what their G-d did for them!" During these days of reflection, try to forget about the Chicago Cubs or the White Sox and enter Jewish history promising yourself that the gift of the dreams of your bubbies and zaydees is a gift worth giving to your children and grandchildren. No longer "Next year in Jerusalem." Today our oath must be "This year in Jerusalem" undivided and strong, eternally the capital of our Jewish people. Shana Tova
|
|
OBAMA-ACORN CONNECTION
Posted by Sultan Knish, October 11, 2008. | |
|
ACORN, Obama's real plan for winning the election is coming undone
with investigations into ACORN's fraudulent voter registrations being
conducted And this was how ACORN was doing business for Obama
And that's when you bring on junkie criminals and the identity theft. And at the ground level it's what's really behind Obama's election
campaign, GOTV through fraud by an organization paid for and to whom
taxpayer money was directed to by Obama himself. Even as Obama is
trying to lie about his ties to ACORN
Of course that's the beginning of the Obama meltdown. We now know
why Corsi was arrested and hurriedly deported from Kenya. For starters
Obama's own website now lists his supposedly former dual citizenship
in Kenya. This however still fails to explain Obama's Indonesian
passport At this point that puts Obama with three citizenships, only one of them American, and the books are still open on whether he's even American born. This of course is the classic way con artists operate, gaining your confidence with flattery and a confident easy manner while using multiple identities and moving around a lot and lying all the time. And then there's the Ayers issue that the McCain campaign is finally hitting Obama on Ayers. The Obama Ayers link keeps bearing new fruit despite attempts by the mainstream media to shout down the issue as irrelevant.It's not irrelevant. Ayers isn't simply some 70's radical, he was the leader of a domestic terrorist group that planned attacks on the US Capitol. The explosion you can see pictured above in the Greenwich Village was the worst terrorist attack in New York City until the World Trade Center bombings, and it occurred during a work accident when the nail bombs that the Weathermen had intended to use for a Fort Dix dance went off prematurely. If you can begin to imagine nail bombs going off on a crowded dance floor leaving 19 year olds and their dates in bloody shredded pieces on the floor, as has happened time and time again in Israel, you know why it's not irrelevant. The Weathermen was an attempt by privileged college kids to create their own terrorist group. Today they simply support terrorist groups like Al Queda while working to move "Hamas into the White House" via people like Obama. And at the American Sentinel, more coverage on Obama's missing role in Kenya This is not Barack Obama's first presidential campaign. He campaigned for a man who has boasted of being his cousin named Raila Odinga. His slogan was "Vote For Change." Sound familiar? Odinga's platform had a socialist ring to it. He also got the support of Kenyan Muslims by advocating "shaaria" or Islamic law in areas with large Muslim populations. The election was close, with allegations of fraud. Supporters of Obama's cousins staged violent protests which degenerated into pogroms.In one recorded case, a church was burnt down with women and children in it by Odinga supporters. The United Nations ended up rewarding Odinga's thuggery with a position in a national unity type government. Keep in mind that Obama's supporters have repeatedly threatened riots if he loses. Back during the primaries, Wilder threatened riots at the DNC if Obama loses. On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates. "There will be chaos at the convention," Wilder told Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation." "If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse." Now we've got James Carville suggesting riots if Obama loses the general election. Of course threatening riots seems to be the default Obama strategy. Speaking of riots, in Israel the situation is reverting right back to the Mandate era complete with Arab mobs wielding axes and chanting Allah Akbar and Ibtah Al Yahood (Death to the Jews). This time they've left out the cry Adowlah ma'ana or "The Government is With Us" that they used during the Colonial Mandate era, but the government of Kadima is of course with them. Meanwhile via Elder of Ziyon, it might appear that despite the billions that the US has invested in the Fatah gang, Fatah is going with the blowing wind and the wind is blowing toward Tehran. The ruling Fatah movement has been quietly moving toward Iran. Palestinian sources said senior Fatah members have been conducting a dialogue with Iran and its Hizbullah militia. The sources said the Fatah leaders have sought Iranian financing and diplomatic support. The New Centrist meanwhile addresses the repulsive Tom Segev's
attempt to suppress the Palestinian Arab alliance with Hitler via the
Grand Mufti. Segev is of course little more than a propagandist posing
as an historian, a problem all too common nowadays, particularly in
the U.S. and Israel.
Sultan Knish blogs at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
He specializes in stories behind the news.
|
|
HOW PRO-ISRAEL IS PRES. BUSH?; LYNDON JOHNSON'S HEROISM FOR JEWS; ISLAMIST INFILTRATES DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 10, 2008. |
|
IRANIAN DROUGHT Rainfall has fallen 67%. Rivers have dried. Crops and hydroelectric power are failing. The regime has to import food, including from the US (IMRA, 9/11). EGYPT VS. GAZA The Moslem Brotherhood sent a caravan of buses to break the blockade of Gaza. Egyptian authorities turned back the buses (IMRA, 9/11). Egypt does not want to lose control over the border or let the Islamists have too much scope. S. ARABIA VS. AL-QAEDA S. Arabia reports that it has crushed al-Qaeda in its kingdom. The government tries to wean youth away from al-Qaeda's ideology. Al-Qaeda is active in neighboring Yemen, which also has won victories against the terrorist organization. The two states cooperate in that endeavor. However, there are some de facto autonomous areas in Yemen, where al-Qaeda is able to operate, as it does in Somalia (IMRA, 9/11) and in Pakistan. I think that S. Arabia's version Islam is too close to al-Qaeda's to keep the youth from wanting to wage what they consider holy war. SEC. RICE CONSTRAINS NEGOTIATIONS She said that final status negotiations going on between the P.A. and Israel must stick fairly closely to the 1967 borders (IMRA, 9/11). Why? Those weren't borders but an armistice line between Israel and non-sovereign territory within the Palestine Mandate for a Jewish national home. Why does Rice insist that the new border be more restrictive on Israel than Security Council Resolution 242 requires? Why is she imposing her views upon Israel? Why is she facilitating an anti-Western, terrorist state alongside Israel and alongside Jordan? Unfortunately, her views match those of the anti-Zionist government of Israel, though not of the people of Israel. U.S. CRIMPS ISRAELI POSSIBILITY OF BOMBING IRAN The US delayed and finally rejected Israel's request for "a large number of 'bunker-buster' bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes." Israel needs those to raid Iran's nuclear facilities (IMRA, 9/11). The US approved the bombs (IMRA, 9/13). THE STATED & THE UNSTATED MISSION Sec. Rice sent Gen. Jones to Israel and the P.A.. His stated mission: define what vital Israeli security needs a final status agreement must define. His unstated, overriding mission: permit an Arab state to arise from Gaza and almost all of Judea-Samaria with a physical link between them. Unfortunately, a viable Arab state there would present an irreconcilable security menace to Israel. What is Gen. Jones to do? Will he come up with a theoretical plan that is not workable? Will he propose a plan that can withstand honest debate? [Not that Israel allows such debate. It enters crucial foreign agreements without giving the public time to absorb their meaning and the Knesset time to debate them. That's what Israel calls democracy — periodic elections of candidates who pretend to be patriots and cannot be stopped once in office.] Will his plan depend on Arab cooperation and behavior? If not, the US will have bolstered anti-US forces (Dr. Aaron Lerner, 9/11). But it will destroy Israel, long a State Dept. goal, despite that outcome harming US national security. PRES. LYNDON JOHNSON Various sources state that Lyndon Johnson was raised to care about justice for the Jews. As a young Member of Congress, he smuggled dozens of Jews away from the Nazis and helped smuggle a few hundred into Texas, risking jail in the process. He stopped Sen. Fullbright from punishing Israel. As President, he helped arm Israel, continuing Pres. Kennedy's precedent, when France stopped doing so. Then he arranged for the language in Security Council Resolution 242 that allows Israel to keep parts of the Territories, in any peace agreement. He said that the parties to a peace agreement should agree on the borders. He probably did not imagine that one of the parties would be Palestinian Arabs rather than Egypt and Jordan. He did not foresee that one of the parties would be Islamist nor that even if not Islamist, Muslim Arabs would not be reasonable. There isn't much deep thinking about justice and practicality in this issue. MORE ARMS FOR EGYPT The Defense Dept. is proposing that a US company "sell" [probably subsidized] TOW guided missiles and Black Hawk helicopters to Egypt, to promote regional stability and to bolster the security of a friendly state (IMRA, 9/11). Egypt is unthreatened but hostile and promotes regional instability. ISLAMIST INFILTRATES DEMOCRATIC PARTY? The Democratic Party invited Ingrid Mattson to a gathering of religious leaders in Denver, on convention eve. Mattson is a Canadian convert to Islam and president of the Islamic Society of N. America. Her organization has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in illegal financing of Hamas. She also is a professor of Islamic law and Islamic history at Hartford Seminary. She teaches that the Wahabbist movement of S. Arabia is like Protestant Reformism, whereas it is the backward, fascistic school of thought that promotes jihad. She falsely claimed that the Wahabbists denounced the very terrorism that many of them espouse. [Arab Muslims have deceitful ruses of denouncing terrorism but re-defining it as Israeli self-defense. Saudis may denounce terrorism against them but not against others.] She told a newspaper that there are no al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US. [How would she know?] Two months later, the US director of national intelligence warned about sleeper cells and al-Qaeda capabilities to mount more terrorist attacks here. She challenges the designation, "Islamic" terrorism, although most anti-Western terrorism has been Islamic for decades. Certain originators of Islamist thought, such as Qutb and Muwdudi, are cited by scholars as the font of danger. Mattson teaches about their writing as "ways in which the Quran functions as sacred scripture in Muslim history and contemporary life." She wrote that solidarity of faith transcends national solidarity. She is not a scholar but an apologist and propagandist for radical Islam. She is an example of enemy infiltration of our universities if not our political parties (MEFNews, 9/11). Was the Democratic Party being naïve or did Obama know what it was doing? Can't say better for Pres. Bush, who has had Islamists at the White House and whose FBI Director spoke at an Islamist organization's function. ABBAS TERM ENDS IN JANUARY Instead of new elections, Abbas is scheduled to be succeeded by the parliamentary speaker or else deputy speaker. Both of them are Hamas members. To forestall a Hamas takeover, Abbas may dissolve the parliament. That could set off a civil war. The winner may then turn on Israel. Israel is preparing for that. It may help Fatah against Hamas, now (IMRA, 9/12). Hamas is likely to win the war. Then the P.A. would be united. Would the US still aid the P.A. and demand that Israel reach a final status agreement with it? Suppose Israel were to turn more territory over to the P.A., and Hamas gets it? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHERE ARE WE HEADED?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 10, 2008. |
|
Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Twenty-six hours in which we are to be, according to the tradition, as angels: not eating nor drinking, not concerned with worldly matters, focused on Heaven. The prayers were strong and deep, at least in my shul — and I hope in all of them. But now we've returned to this world, and resume our roles as very flawed human beings. And I take a look around me and what I see from all sides is grievously worrisome. I wish I could say otherwise. ~~~~~~~~~~ The US is caught in a political situation that suggests deep problems and a lack of moral and political clarity. The financial crisis originally set off by the Lehman Brothers collapse is reverberating dangerously around the world — with economic instability having the potential to generate political instability as well. And more and more various international figures are saying they're not sure they can stop Iran from going nuclear. Has humanity learned no lessons? Is there no end to shortsightedness and greed? ~~~~~~~~~~ Here, Livni is inching closer to a coalition agreement with Barak, not a source of good news. They are having a major meeting today. And this week EU envoy Mark Otte told The Jerusalem Post that Olmert's recent statement — which was comprised just of spoken words and not anything on paper! — regarding Israel's "need" to pull back to the '67 lines will be a "reference point" in the future. This is the damage that it was feared Olmert could do. Although it should be noted that Livni has declared she does not support what he said, we're going to face international pressure based on his declaration. ~~~~~~~~~~ Over Yom Kippur, a riot by Israeli Arabs in Acre against the Jewish population there was deliberately instigated. This is deeply troubling as well as infuriating. After Shabbat I would like to deal with this is greater detail — it requires attention. In fact, as Shabbat comes early here now, much more will have to follow after Shabbat...
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
WHY WON'T OBAMA TALK ABOUT COLUMBIA?
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, October 10, 2008. |
|
This was written by Andrew C. McCarthy and it appeared October
7, 2008 on the National Review Online |
|
Barack Obama does not want to talk about Columbia. Not even to his good friends at the New York Times, who've so reliably helped him bleach away his past — a past neck-deep in the hard Left radicalism he has gussied up but never abandoned. Why? I suspect it is because Columbia would shred his thin post-partisan camouflage. You might think the Times would be more curious. After all, the Democrats' presidential nominee has already lied to the Gray Lady about the origins of his relationship with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Back in May, in a cheery profile of Obama's early Chicago days, the Times claimed (emphasis is mine): Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park's fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said. Now look, anyone who gave five seconds of thought to that passage smelled a rat. Ayers and Dohrn are passionate radical activists who lived as fugitives for a decade. There's no way they held a political coming-out party for someone who was unknown to them. Obviously, they already knew him well enough by then to feel very comfortable. They might have been sympathetic to a relative stranger, but sponsoring such a gathering in one's living room is a strong endorsement. And now, even the Times now knows it's been had. In this past weekend's transparent whitewashing of the Obama/Ayers tie, the paper claimed that the pair first met earlier in 1995, "at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper[.]" That storyline is preposterous too, but it is also a marked revision of the paper's prior account (which, naturally, reporter Scott Shane fails to mention). Why the change? The tacit concession was forced by Stanley Kurtz and Steve Diamond — whom the Times chooses not to acknowledge but who hover over Shane's sunny narrative like a dark cloud. Despite all manner of stonewalling by Obama, Ayers and their allies, these commentators have doggedly pursued information about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That's the $150+ million "education reform" piggy bank substantially controlled in the nineties by Ayers and Obama, who doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist radicals — radicals who, like their patrons, understood that control over our institutions, and especially our schools, was a surer and less risky way to spread their revolution than blowing up buildings and mass-murdering American soldiers. As Diamond observes, in a 2006 speech in Venezuela, with Leftist strongman Hugo Chavez looking on, Ayers exhorted: "Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!" Be clear on that much: Whether clothed as a terrorist or an academic, Ayers has made abundantly clear in his public statements, both before and after he established a working relationship and mutual admiration society with Obama, that he remains a revolutionary fueled by hatred of the United States. And while Obama now ludicrously pleads ignorance about Ayers's terrorism — the terrorism that made the unabashed Ayers an icon of the Left — understand that this rabid anti-Americanism is the common denominator running through Obama's orbit of influences. Yes, Ayers is blunter than Obama. As he so delicately told the Times, America makes him "want to puke." The smoother Obama is content to say our society needs fundamental "change." But what they're talking about is not materially different. Such sentiments should make Obama unelectable. So, when it comes to his own radical moorings, Obama is engaged in classic liar behavior. He changes his story as the facts change — and the burden is always on you to dig up the facts, not on him to come clean. Yesterday, asked to comment on the Ayers relationship, David Axelrod, Obama's top political adviser, hilariously chirped, "There's no evidence that they're close." Translation: Get back to us when you can prove more damaging information — until then, we don't need to further refine our perjury. And then Axelrod gave us still more lies: "There's no evidence that Obama in any way subscribed to any of Ayers' views." Oh yeah? Well, Mr. Axelrod, how do you explain Obama's breathless endorsement of Ayers's 1997 Leftist polemic on the criminal-justice system, A Kind and Just Parent? As Stanley Kurtz has recounted, Ayers's book is a radical indictment of American society: We, not the criminals, are responsible for the violent crime that plagues our cities; even the most vicious juvenile offenders should not be tried as adults; prisons should eventually be replaced by home detention; American justice is comparable to South Africa under Apartheid. Obama's reaction? He described the book as "a searing and timely account" — a take even the Times concedes was a "rave review." Obama and Ayers shared all kinds of views. That is why they worked so well together at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), funding the likes of Mike Klonsky, a fellow SDS and Maoist associate of Ayers who, as Steve Diamond relates, used to host a "social justice" blog on Obama's campaign website. With Obama heading the board of directors that approved expenditures and Ayers, the mastermind running its operational arm, hundreds of thousands of CAC dollars poured into the "Small Schools Workshop" — a project begun by Ayers and run by Klonsky to spur the revolution from the ground up. Precisely because they shared the same views, Obama and Ayers also worked comfortably together on the board of the Woods Fund. There, they doled out thousands of dollars to Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church to promote its Marxist "black liberation theology." Moreover, they underwrote the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by Rashid Khalidi, a top apologist for Yasser Arafat. As National Review' s David Pryce-Jones notes, Khalidi once directed WAFA, the terrorist PLO's news agency. Then, like Ayers, he repackaged himself as an academic who rails at American policy. The AAAN, which supports driver's licenses and public welfare benefits for illegal aliens, holds that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate "catastrophe." Khalidi, who regards Israel as a "racist" "apartheid" state, supports Palestinian terror strikes against Israeli military targets. It's little surprise that he should be such a favorite of Ayers, the terrorist for whom "racism" and "apartheid" trip off the tongue as easily as "pass the salt." And it's no surprise that the like-minded Obama would be a fan. Khalidi, after all, has mastered the Arafat art of posing as a moderate before credulous Westerners while (as Martin Kramer documents) scalding America's "Zionist lobby" when addressing Arabic audiences. The Obama who decries "bitter" Americans "cling[ing] to guns or religion" when he's in San Francisco but morphs into a God-fearing Second Amendment enthusiast when he's in Pennsylvania — like the Obama who pummels NAFTA before labor union supporters but has advisers quietly assure the Canadians not to worry about such campaign cant — surely appreciates the craft. Obama and Ayers not only demonstrated their shared view of Khalidi by funding him. They also gave glowing testimonials at a farewell dinner when Khalidi left the University of Chicago for Columbia's greener pastures. That would be the same Columbia from which Obama graduated in 1983. Khalidi was leaving to become director of Columbia's Middle East Institute, assuming a professorship endowed in honor of another Arafat devotee, the late Edward Said. A hero of the Left who consulted with terrorist leaders (including Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah) and was once photographed hurling rocks at Israelis from the Lebanese border, Said was exposed by researcher Justus Reid Weiner as a fraud who had created a fictional account of his childhood, the rock on which he built his Palestinian grievance mythology. We know precious little about Obama's Columbia years, but the Los Angeles Times has reported that he studied under Said. In and of itself, that is meaningless: Said was a hotshot prof and hundreds of students took his comparative-lit courses. But Obama plainly maintained some sort of tie with Said — a photo making the Internet rounds shows Obama conversing with the great man himself at a 1998 Arab American community dinner in Chicago, where the Obamas and Saids were seated together. Said had a wide circle of radical acquaintances. That circle clearly included Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. When they came out of hiding in the early 1980s (while Obama was attending Columbia), Ayers took education courses at Bank Street College, adjacent to Columbia in Morningside Heights — before earning his doctorate at Columbia's Teachers College in 1987. Said was so enamored of Ayers that he commended the unrepentant terrorist's 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days — the book in which the haughty Ayers brags about his Weatherman past — with this glowing dust-jacket blurb: What makes Fugitive Days unique is its unsparing detail and its marvelous human coherence and integrity. Bill Ayers's America and his family background, his education, his political awakening, his anger and involvement, his anguished re-emergence from the shadows: all these are rendered in their truth without a trace of nostalgia or "second thinking." For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in, this book is essential, indeed necessary, reading. Sorry mess, indeed. For his part, Ayers is at least equally enthralled by Said, of whom, even in death, Ayers says "[t]here is no one better positioned ... to offer advice on the conduct of intellectual life[,]" than the man who was "over the last thirty-five years, the most passionate, eloquent, and clear-eyed advocate for the rights of the Palestinian people." After they left Columbia, both Obama and Ayers went to Chicago: Obama to become a "community organizer" (the director of the Developing Communities Project, an offshoot of the Gamaliel Foundation dedicated to Saul Alinsky's principles for radicalizing society); Ayers, two years later, to teach at the University of Illinois. Diamond details how they both became embroiled in a major education controversy that resulted in 1988 reform legislation. Ayers's father, Tom Ayers, a prominent Chicago businessman, was also deeply involved in the reform effort. Interestingly, in 1988, while Obama and Ayers toiled on the same education agenda, Bernadine Dohrn worked as an intern at the prestigious Chicago law firm of Sidley Austin — even though she could not be admitted to the bar due to her contempt conviction for refusing to cooperate in a terrorist investigation. How could that happen? It turns out that Sidley was the longtime outside counsel for Tom Ayers's company, Commonwealth Edison. That is, Ayers' father had pull at the firm and successfully pressed for the hiring of his daughter-in-law. The next summer, though he had gone off to Harvard Law School (another impressive accomplishment he prefers not to discuss), Obama returned to the Windy City to work as an intern at Sidley. Dohrn was gone by then to teach at Northwestern. A coincidence? Maybe (Diamond doesn't think so), but that's an awful lot of coincidences — and a long trail of common people, places and experiences — for people who purportedly didn't know each other yet managed to end up as partners in significant financial and political ventures. In short, Bill Ayers and Barack Obama moved in the same circles, were driven by the same cause, and admired the same radicals all the way from Morningside Heights to Hyde Park. They ended up publicly admiring each other, promoting each other's work, sitting on the same boards, and funding the same Leftist agitators. You could conclude, as I do, that it all goes back to a formative time in his life that Obama refuses to discuss. Or you could buy the fairy tale that Bill Ayers first encountered an unknown, inexperienced, third-year associate from a small Chicago law-firm over coffee in 1995 and suddenly decided Barack Obama was the perfect fit to oversee the $150 million pot of gold Ayers hoped would underwrite his revolution. Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at haze@rcn.com. |
|
PULL THE HAIR PLUG ON BIDEN
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 10, 2008. |
|
I wish my Jewish readers a Happy New Year. I hope the fast was not too difficult. I also hope you had the time today to reflect about your choices and how to best preserve our heritage, history, traditions and our spiritual homeland, Israel. Dear friends, The subject here is Silence of the Media. Please read the following article and compare the media treatment of Sarah Palin to the silence about Joe Biden. The media bias is so glaring I strongly recommend you wear heavy sun glasses. Please, be courageous. Read the entire article and then write back to me with your comments. Is the article accurate? Can you find anything wrong in the article? Has the writer made mistakes? Is the writer biased? If you find any inaccuracies, I ask you please to point them out to me. This was written by Ann Coulter and appeared October 6, 2008
on Human Events of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," and most recently, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." |
|
In a fair world, Biden would've been ripped to shreds by the MSM after the VP debate ... but it's not a fair world. While Palin has to contend with withering MSM attacks for imagined deeds and statements, Biden gets a pass for real "dumb" statements made on live TV ... so desperate to elect Obama is the MSM, that all semblance of neutrality has been tossed: If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week's vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, "Which newspapers?") These weren't insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years." It turns out that Katie's restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times. Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden's errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end. For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: "When we kicked — along with France — we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon. He continued: "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.'" This is madness — Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon. Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy. Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can't use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year. Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama's answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no." And that's still not all! Obama's own Web site says: "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts. Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney's "dangerous" belief that "he's part of the legislative branch." The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney "works in the executive branch" and has "no authority relative to the Congress." Biden huffily added: "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid. Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president "has no authority relative to Congress," apart from breaking ties? The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress — the one Biden is in, for crying out loud — which is what you might call "authority relative to Congress." Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution. In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: "With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. ... We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we've spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden's calculations, we've spent only about $9 billion "on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." There isn't even a "9" in $172 billion. Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math. In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that "John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported." The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: "Last week, Senate Republicans thundered 'no' to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994." Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That's the treaty Biden says "every Republican has supported." Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to function as vice president. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
AN OBAMA ARTICLE REVIEW LIST
Posted by Kyle-Anne Shiver, October 10, 2008. |
|
Dear Readers, I just posted a list of every substantive, serious article that I've written about Barack Obama over the past year. The complete list is on my website now, and I hope that you'll visit, copy and paste the list, and forward it to your families and friends. This is the most important election of our lifetimes and it is a referendum on Obama, his socialist world view and his plans to take the Country as far left as he can. With possibly even bigger majorities in Congress, he would take us so far left, we might not recognize the Country we pass to our children and grandchildren. Go here for the complete list of articles with links:
And don't forget to pray for America's future! Best regards,
Contact Kyle-Anne Shiver at KyleAnneShiver@gmail.com |
|
THE U.N.: A VEHICLE PROMOTING EVIL
Posted by Barbara Taverna, October 10, 2008. |
|
This was written by Isi Leibler and it appeared Otober 7,
2008 in the
Jerusalem Post
|
|
Five years ago, I wrote that the civilized world would benefit from the dissolution of the United Nations, already then a dysfunctional assembly of nations dominated by tyrannies and dictatorships. Since then, despite the welcome replacement of secretary-general Kofi Annan by Ban Ki-Moon and aside from a few symbolic meetings in New York condemning anti-Semitism, the situation has dramatically worsened. The newly created UN Human Rights Commission, intended to be more balanced than its predecessor, shamelessly promotes medieval anti-Semitic blood libels and demonization of Israel at levels unprecedented even by UN standards. Many of the Israel-speeches dominating the agenda could have been delivered at Hizbullah gatherings. Israel is routinely condemned as the world's worst example of human rights violations by apologists for monstrous regimes like Sudan. Likewise, representatives from states such as Libya, Iran and Cuba hold key positions controlling the UN Durban II Conference agenda and are unabashedly displaying a determination to produce a replay of their first gathering in 2001 that became the springboard for the new global wave of ant-Semitism cloaked as anti-Zionism. It is no coincidence that the preparatory committee this year scheduled a meeting to review xenophobia on Yom Kippur. Although occasionally expressing concerns about anti-Semitism, most democratic countries have displayed a penchant to assume positions of neutrality in the face of toxic anti-Israeli hostility. So it is especially regrettable that when Canada courageously called for a boycott of Durban II, Israel hesitated when firm support might have tipped the US and other democracies to follow suit — a move which would have relegated Durban to a coven of discredited dictatorships and extremist NGOs. But it was at the last General Assembly plenum at the end of last month, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad transformed the podium into a launching pad for demonic Jew hatred unprecedented since the Nazi era, that UN hypocrisy and double standards reached their nadir. A similar diatribe from such a platform against any other religion or ethnic group would have been inconceivable. The obscene outburst paraphrased the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, accusing "Zionist murderers" of controlling international finance, the media and furtively manipulating global politics. The Iranian president who had repeatedly been calling for the elimination of the Jewish state reiterated that the world would soon benefit from the collapse of Israel, a member state of the organization he was addressing. The response from many of the government and UN officials will be recorded as a day of infamy for an organization established after the defeat of Nazism to create a new world order based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rule of international law. Not only was Ahmadinejad's tirade greeted by many representatives with enthusiastic applause, but the secretary-general, who only a short time earlier had condemned anti-Semitism, remained silent. The president of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a former Nicaraguan foreign minister and a Catholic priest, made a point of publicly embracing the Iranian Holocaust denier after his vile address, and then attending the bitterly protested dinner in honor of the Iranian president. If the Ahmadinejad diatribe fails to trigger a dramatic response, there is little doubt that similar depraved onslaughts by representatives of tyrannies will become the order of the day. Indeed, there is even a serious effort under way to elect Iran to a non-permanent seat on the Security Council. What does this say about the UN? That an organization dominated by tyrannies and dictatorships, not surprisingly, is being exploited as a platform for promoting evil. Moreover, the situation will continue to deteriorate if the tensions between Western nations and Russia degenerate into a new cold war, and the Russians intensify their existing support for rogue states like Iran and Syria. This horrific UN General Assembly session extending the welcome mat to Ahmadinejad, coincided with the 70th anniversary of the Munich agreement, when Britain and France betrayed Czechoslovakia in a vain effort to appease Hitler, paving the way for the most terrible war in history. Despite the fact that there is not a single recorded instance in which appeasement of terrorist regimes succeeded in achieving peace, the same blunders are repeated, even though the US-led democratic world is militarily far superior to those Islamic extremist regimes challenging Western civilization. What is lacking is the will, fuelled by a combination of cowardice and economic greed, to confront rogue states like Iran before they are able to evolve into immensely more dangerous nuclear powers. Needless to say, this has special relevance to Israel. Yet in recent weeks, just when some of the more powerful democracies might have been more inclined to back a firm principled stand, our policy toward the UN seems to have taken a step backward. Our newly appointed UN representative, Gabriela Shalev, while condemning the General Assembly's embrace of Ahmadinejad and capitalizing on the superb address delivered by President Shimon Peres, was reported to have dismissed the shocking behavior and passivity of delegates as traditional diplomatic behavior. She ludicrously added that some of the ambassadors applauding the Iranian president's Jew baiting had privately praised Israel to her. Even more bizarre were media reports quoting Shalev saying that in addition to defending Israel at the UN, she considers her job to be "correcting the UN's image in the eyes of the people of Israel." If these reports are true, we may have replaced our former outstanding ambassador Dan Gillerman with an unqualified academic. Our aspiring prime minister, Tzipi Livni, must be made aware that if her appointees to the UN are going to defend or make excuses for that body, even our allies will conclude that we have taken leave of our senses. We should initiate a global campaign highlighting the extent to which the UN has deviated from the original hopes and aspirations of its founders, transformed into an instrument for subverting democracy and undermining the civilized world. We should encourage the emerging view that challenges the validity of democratic states bearing the brunt of the cost of financing a global body exploited for the promotion of evil objectives by the numerically dominant tyrannies. Today, the case for the dissolution of the UN political framework while retaining those welfare agencies which make a constructive contribution has never been greater. What should be mooted as a substitute is a new multilateral association of countries limited to those who are broadly democratic and display respect for human rights. Such a body could serve as a vehicle to promote democracy throughout the world, simultaneously providing an inducement to autocratic regimes to reform to qualify for inclusion. It would also enhance constructive multilateralism; in the absence of destructive extremist blocs, it would also create a more realistic environment for improved superpower consultations and co-operation. Such an approach would undoubtedly now find increasing support among increasingly progressively more exasperated democracies including the United States. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
THE REAL OBAMA
Posted by Dr. Milt Fried, October 10, 2008. |
|
This was written by Dr. Thomas Sowell, who is is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and "Applied Economics" and "Black Rednecks and White Liberals." |
|
Critics of Senator Barack Obama make a strategic mistake when they talk about his "past associations." That just gives his many defenders in the media an opportunity to counter-attack against "guilt by association." We all have associations, whether at the office, in our neighborhood or in various recreational activities. Most of us neither know nor care what our associates believe or say about politics. Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands. Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama's election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers' money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance — but an alliance is not just an "association" from being at the same place at the same time. Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that. Unfortunately, all that most people know about Barack Obama is his own rhetoric and that of his critics. Moreover, some of his more irresponsible critics have made wild accusations — that he is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim, for example. All that such false charges do is discredit Obama's critics in general. Fortunately, there is a documented, factual account of what Barack Obama has actually been doing over the years, as distinguished from what he has been saying during this election campaign, in a new best-selling book. That book is titled The Case Against Barack Obama by David Freddoso. He starts off in the introduction by repudiating those critics of Obama who "have been content merely to slander him — to claim falsely that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag or was sworn into office on a Koran, or that he was born in a foreign country." This is a serious book with 35 pages of documentation in the back to support the things said in the main text. In other words, if you don't believe what the author says, he lets you know where you can go check it out. Barack Obama's being the first serious black candidate for President of the United States is what most people consider remarkable but how he got there is at least equally surprising. The story of Obama's political career is not a pretty story. He won his first political victory by being the only candidate on the ballot — after hiring someone skilled at disqualifying the signers of opposing candidates' petitions, on whatever technicality he could come up with. Despite his words today about "change" and "cleaning up the mess in Washington," Obama was not on the side of reformers who were trying to change the status quo of corrupt, machine politics in Chicago and clean up the mess there. Obama came out in favor of the Daley machine and against reform candidates. Senator Obama is running on an image that is directly the opposite of what he has been doing for two decades. His escapes from his past have been as remarkable as the great escapes of Houdini. Why much of the public and the media have been so mesmerized by the words and the image of Obama, and so little interested in learning about the factual reality, was perhaps best explained by an official of the Democratic Party: "People don't come to Obama for what he's done, they come because of what they hope he can be." David Freddoso's book should be read by those people who want to know what the facts are. But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts. Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
YOM KIPPUR RIOTS IN AKKO
Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 8, 2008. |
|
According to an eyewitness report published by YNET Soon after, a busload of Arabs bearing truncheons, axes and knives crying: "Death to the Jews" and "Allah u Akbar" cut a swathe through the crowd of peaceful, fasting Jews, uprooting trees and street lights, smashing car and store windows, and destroying everything in their path. Jewish residents, who were fasting and unarmed, fled, taking shelter in nearby buildings. When the police arrived (some reported Akko police only had Arab policemen on duty and they were slow to respond, but this isn't confirmed) and finally arrested a few of the rioters, several said that this had been a planned attack which had nothing to do with the specific incident with the cab driver. Arab residents said some of the rioters were not residents of Akko, but had come in from outside several days before. There is now a curfew on the city. Akko residents, who came under attack during the Lebanon War said that the destruction to their city was far worse than anything that happened during the war. Some Israeli reporters are trying to portray this as an escalation of tensions following an "accident," claiming that Arab residents feared the driver had had an innocent accident and was lynched by Jewish residents. Eyewitness reports and police testimony so far show a different picture. It seems to me that this might be a terrorist attempt to stir up trouble in the peaceful relations between Arab and Jewish residents. If so, Akko will not be the last city to experience unexplained "tensions." Keep posted. — Naomi Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
THE CONVENIENT WAR AGAINST THE JEWS
Posted by Dave Nathan, October 8, 2008. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared October 6, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
In the end, the global jihad, and the West's fickle response to radical Islam's assault on its civilization, is about hating Jews. This truth, never wholly hidden from view, was exposed in all its ugliness in recent months with startling disclosures by former Italian president and Senator-for-life Francesco Cossiga. In a letter to Italy's Corriere della Serra in August, Cossiga acknowledged that during the early 1970s, then Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed an agreement with Yassir Arafat's PLO and affiliated organizations that enabled the Palestinians to field terrorists, operate bases and store weapons in Italy in exchange for immunity from attack for Italy and Italian interests worldwide. Cossiga also acknowledged that even when the Palestinians murdered Italians, the government still protected them. Indeed, he admitted for the first time that the largest terror attack ever to take place on Italian soil — the bombing of the Bologna train station in July 1980 which killed 85 people — was the work of PLO-affiliated terrorists from George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. At the time of the bombing, Cossiga was Italy's prime minister. Right after it occurred, he blamed the atrocity on neo-fascists. In his words at the time, "Unlike leftist terrorism, which strikes at the heart of the state through its representatives, black terrorism prefers the massacre because it promotes panic and impulsive reactions." In August, he claimed that it was the work of the PFLP and asserted that the bomb exploded inadvertently. That is, the Palestinians hadn't meant to kill non-Jews — so Italian authorities protected them. On Friday, Cossiga expanded on his disclosures to Corriere della Serra in an interview with Yediot Aharonot's Rome correspondent Menachem Ganz. Cossiga admitted that it wasn't just Israeli targets that Italy permitted the Palestinians to attack with impunity, but Jewish targets as well. Indeed, in at least one and probably two incidents, the Italians colluded with the Palestinians in their attacks against Jews. On October 9, 1982, six terrorists opened fire on worshippers leaving Rome's Great Synagogue. Dozens of Jews were wounded and two-year-old Stefano Tache was murdered. Hours before the attack the Italian police detail charged with securing the synagogue was withdrawn. Then too, in December 1985, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on the El Al ticket counter at the Rome airport. Ten people were killed. Another seven people were murdered in a simultaneous attack against the El Al ticket counter at the Vienna airport. According to Cossiga, Italian intelligence agencies received prior warning of the attack but didn't bother to share the information with Israel. Cossiga explained to Yediot, "No Italian targets were hit. They attacked the Israeli airline at the airport. The murdered were all Israelis, Jews, and Americans." Then there was the hijacking of the Italian cruise liner Achille
Lauro off the Egyptian coast in October 1985. Palestinian
terrorists led by Abu Abbas [you read that right — the sweetie that
runs the P.A. — Ed.] commandeered the ship. They shot
wheelchair-bound American Jewish passenger Leon Klinghoffer and threw
him overboard while he was still alive. The Egyptians freed the
hijackers and sent them off on a flight to Libya. American jets forced
a plane to land at a NATO base in Sicily. The Italians refused to
permit the Americans to take the hijackers into custody and freed
Abbas. The Italians cast the standoff as a victory against American
bullies. But it really amounted to a surrender to Palestinian
murderers. As Cossiga explained, "Since the Arabs were capable of
harming Italy more than the Americans, Italy surrendered to them."
COSSIGA ALLEGES that his country's agreement with the Palestinians has recently been expanded to include Hizbullah. After the Second Lebanon War, Italy agreed to command the UNIFIL force charged with preventing Hizbullah from reasserting control over southern Lebanon and blocking its re-armament efforts. Yet Cossiga asserts, "I can state with absolute certainty that... Italy has a deal with Hizbullah according to which UNIFIL forces turn a blind eye to Hizbullah's rearmament so long as no attacks are carried out against soldiers in the force." Ganz notes ruefully that although Cossiga's statements provoked the Italian Jewish community to demand that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi investigate the government's collusion with Palestinian terrorists, no such investigation is likely to be forthcoming. Ganz explains that Berlusconi himself is not immune to the anti-Semitism that caused his predecessors to abstain from protecting Italy's Jewish citizens. When he addresses Italian Jews, Berlusconi often calls the Israeli government "your government," and so exposes his adherence to the view that Jews are not true citizens of any country other than Israel. The anti-Semitic belief that all Jews are Zionists and therefore all Jews are fair game in the war against Israel — itself simply another round of the age-old war against the Jews — allows anti-Semites to obfuscate the fact that their anti-Israel rhetoric is simply warmed over Jew-hatred. People like Iranian leaders Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, and Palestinian terrorists from the PLO and their progeny in Hamas and Hizbullah nearly always limit their threats to "Zionists," and so pretend that they aren't actually anti-Semites. Their razor-thin deception is eagerly embraced by their fellow travelers in the West — from university professors like Juan Cole, Steven Walt and John Mearshimer, to policymakers like Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Western decision-makers and European heads of state, and an alarming number of American politicians. This deception is par for the course of anti-Semitism. Throughout history anti-Semites have used Jew-hatred as a way to rally their troops. By attacking Jews as the collective enemy, tyrants have given their people a convenient, weak culprit to attack to deflect criticism away from their own failures or to hide real enemies from pacifistic publics uninterested in fighting. Anti-Semitism appeals to people's basest instinct. But people don't like to acknowledge how much they hate Jews, and Jews have always preferred to deny that they are hated. So anti-Semitic leaders have disguised their appeal to base instinct by pretending that they are actually appealing to sublime aspirations. In the case of the Nazis for instance, Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels appealed to Germanic pride and love for the Fatherland. Today, the Left appeals to people's aspirations for peace and justice. It is only by permitting and indeed enabling Jews to die and the Jewish state to be destroyed that "peace" can be secured and the Palestinians can receive "justice."
THIS STRATEGY appeals to European — and to greater and lesser degrees American — policymakers for two reasons. First, as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner made clear in an interview with Ha'aretz on Friday, while the West understands that Islamic jihadists seek the destruction of Europe and the US, they believe — in part because their own anti-Semitism leads them to exaggerate Jewish power — that they will get away with coddling the Arabs and Iran because Israel will protect them. Referring to Iran's nuclear weapons program, Kouchner said that no one is particularly worried about Iran's nuclear threat because everyone believes that Israel will attack Iran for them. In his words, "I honestly don't believe that [a nuclear arsenal] will give any immunity to Iran. First, you [Israel] will hit them before [they acquire nuclear weapons]... Because Israel has always said that it will not wait for the bomb to be ready. I think that they [the Iranians] know. Everybody knows." What is ironic about this view is that it exposes the inversion of anti-Semitic rhetoric. Five years ago, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed told an approving audience of Islamic heads of state, "The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." But the West's belief that Israel will protect it from Iran shows that
the opposite is true. The West is absolutely certain that Israel is
its proxy, and that Jews will fight and die protecting it from the
forces of global terror and jihad.
THE SECOND reason the Western champions of "peace" have opted to sell Israel and the Jews out to the jihadists is because as anti-Semites, Western "anti-Zionists" fear Jewish power and therefore want us to be weak. So it is that for the past 40 years, European governments and the US State Department have bankrolled anti-Zionist groups in Israel like Peace Now, B'tselem and Four Mothers. So it is that they have blamed Israel for Palestinian terrorism. And even when Israel succumbs to all their demands for territorial withdrawals, they always manage to demand still more. In the same interview with Ha'aretz for instance, Kouchner on the one hand praised Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for their willingness to surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, but argued that this is still not enough. Israel must also accept the free immigration of the hostile descendants of the Arabs who left Israel in 1948. That is, Israel must also agree to its own destruction in order to pave the way for "peace." In his words, "The main problem is the refugees and Jerusalem, but more the refugees. Olmert and Livni do not have the perception of this." Kouchner for one is certain that Livni will come around to recognizing the need to allow hostile foreign-born Arabs to move here. "I think she will change. This is always the case for people that are in charge for politics and for life," he claimed. Kouchner soothed the reporters' fears of national destruction by claiming that he's probably not talking about more than 100,000 hostile Arabs immigrants. But that's today. If Livni does form a government and comes around to this view, leave it to the West to explain that placing "arbitrary" limits on Arab immigration is a human rights abuse, and that Israel's Zionist racism is compelling the Arabs and Iran to kill Jews and Westerners around the world.
AND THIS brings us to perhaps the greatest irony of the West's collusion with the Arabs and Iran in their war against the Jews. The logical outcome of the twin delusions of anti-Semitism — that Jews are all powerful and that the Jews must be cut down to size — is the destruction of Israel. And if that happens, the West will find itself in jaws of the Islamic jihadists they have been feeding the Jews to for four decades. The West's subversion of the Israeli elite has fomented a situation where many Israeli leaders have embraced their anti-Semitic views of Israel. Leaders like Livni and Olmert, and the media and academia in Israel, have largely accepted the notion that Israel is to blame for the global jihad. Today these leaders uphold Jewish weakness as an ideal. The longer these Western-supported elites remain in power, the larger the chance that Israel won't attack Iran and that Israel will allow itself to be destroyed in the interest of pursuing "peace" with Palestinian terrorists. And if Israel is destroyed, the West won't be able to depend on us Jews to fight and die for them anymore. They will be all alone. Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com |
|
THE COMING COUNTERREVOLUTION TO HUSH THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 8, 2008. |
|
This was written by Brian C. Anderson and it appeared in Investor's Business Dailyhttp://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308354689539729 Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of A Manifesto for Media Freedom, just out from Encounter. |
|
Conservative-friendly media better get ready. Should Barack Obama win the presidency and the Democrats control Congress, as now seems likely, they will launch a full-scale war to drive critics — especially on political talk radio — right out of legitimate public debate. Signs of what the new environment will be like for the right are already evident: When the National Rifle Association recently released television and radio ads in Pennsylvania targeting Obama's history of anti-gun votes, the Obama campaign's general counsel fired off bullying letters to stations that ran the spots, implying that they may have violated public-interest obligations. These crude efforts are only a start. A Democrat-controlled Washington will use sweeping new rules to shush conservative political speech. For starters, expect a real push to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. True, Obama says he isn't in favor of re-imposing this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC junked it in the '80s, required broadcasters to give airtime to opposing viewpoints or face fines or even loss of license. But most top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, are revved up about the idea, and it's hard to imagine Obama vetoing a new doctrine if Congress delivers him one. Make no mistake: a new Fairness Doctrine would vaporize political talk radio, the one major medium dominated by the right. If a station ran a successful conservative program like, say, Mark Levin's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative, even if — as with Air America and all other liberal efforts in the medium to date — it can't find any listeners or sponsors. Then there are all the lawyers you'd have to hire to fend off the government regulators. Too much hassle, many radio executives would conclude; better switch to entertainment coverage or some other anodyne format. In 1980, it's worth recalling, talk shows of any kind numbered fewer than 100 nationwide, not thousands like today. And Obama does say he wants to tighten media ownership regulations and expand the public interest duties of broadcasters, including by imposing greater "local accountability" on them — that is, forcing stations to carry more local programming, even if the public isn't demanding it (which it isn't). This measure — aimed at national syndicators like Salem Radio that make conservative shows available from coast to coast — is just a sneakier way of shrinking the listenership of hosts like William Bennett or Hugh Hewitt, or even getting them off the air altogether. Obama, like congressional Democrats, also wants to regulate the Internet, the only other medium in which the right does well, via its influential bloggers. The means here: something called "network neutrality." Neutrality, if enacted, would give government overseers at the FCC the power to ensure that Internet providers treated equally all the information bits surging across the Web's "pipes" — its cables, fiber optics, phone lines and wireless connections. This measure makes zero economic sense. Broadband providers want to manage more actively — and thus profitably — those information bits. They'd like to offer, for instance, new superfast delivery for sites or users willing to pay more (not unlike how FedEx speeds delivery of packages for a fee), or other new services such as online video or telephony. Network neutrality would render all that illegal. But why, then, should broadband investors keep building the Web infrastructure needed to keep pace with surging use? Where's their financial incentive? Yet if that infrastructure isn't in place soon, the vast amount of data pouring online will begin to slow the Web to a crawl, many experts believe. Needless to say, neutrality also will be a gold mine to telecom lawyers, who'll have their hands full figuring out what constitutes "digital discrimination." But the biggest potential danger of neutrality is that its concern for equal treatment of bits will extend to sites' content, creating a kind of Fairness Doctrine for the Web, as FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has warned — and as Obama adviser and law professor Cass Sunstein once called for. Not coincidentally, hampering the alternative media with new regulations would leave the liberal mainstream press, which still enjoys full First Amendment protections, comparatively empowered. Given how the "MSM" has covered this presidential race — fawning over Obama and pummeling John McCain and especially his charismatic running mate Sarah Palin at every opportunity — it's easy to see why many liberals may be hoping for a media restoration. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
see other examples of his graphic art at
|
|
HOW THE MULLAHS KEEP POWER; OLMERT HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 8, 2008. |
|
FATAH T.V. EMULATES HAMAS T.V. Hamas set up Walt-Disney-like animation to sweeten children's programs indoctrinating in world Islamic domination. Now Fatah uses a Disney character to indoctrinate [among other things] in mass-murder of non-Muslim children. World protests prompted Hamas to stop using Mickey Mouse. Will the same protests be lodged against Fatah (IMRA, 9/9), which the world is pretending is moderate, so it can ask Israel for suicidal concessions and can avoid having to admit that how broad is the Islamic menace to civilization. I think the world protest was in defense against the perversion of Mickey Mouse, not much indignation against the drive to conquer the world. HOW IRAN'S REGIME MAINTAINS ITSELF The Revolutionary Guards originally was just military, used to maintain the "purity" of the Islamist revolution. It added political and cultural [and economic] missions. It checked economic and social reformist tendencies in prior presidencies. The current president has appointed its members to the Cabinet and governorships is such numbers as to fasten its grip on society and secure his re-election. Is it a Praetorian Guard out of control, as in ancient Rome? (MEFNews, 9/9). Does it prevent us from helping Iranians overthrow the clerical regime? If it does, we must bomb the nuclear plants and Iranian defenses against further bombing. FRANCE'S SYRIAN DIPLOMACY Pres. Sarkozy finds Syria a key to problems with Lebanon, the Arab-Israel conflict, and Iran's nuclear development. Hence his diplomacy with Syria. Sarkozy talks tough, but backs down. Syria finds the West weak and willing to accept declarations of amity along with practices of hostility. Sarkozy seems to settle for diplomacy for its own sake, regardless of results. [France looks good for a while, but gains little.] Sarkozy pulled Syria out of diplomatic isolation by endorsing the arrangement that Hizbullah imposed upon Lebanon. Israel helped pull Syria out by starting negotiations with it. Defying France, Assad pledged continued support for Hizbullah. Assad was supposed to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon, as if recognizing its independence, but has not done so. Sarkozy asked Assad to use his influence with Iran against its nuclear development, but Assad supports Iran (IMRA, 9/11). It is Iran that has influence with Syria! OLMERT HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME He was indignant about settlers who counter-demonstrated against Arab arsonists and murderers. "Olmert, against whom the police recently recommended a three-pronged criminal indictment...said, 'This phenomenon of taking the law into one's hands, of violent disturbances, of brutality by Jewish elements living in communities in Judea and Samaria, whether in recognized communities or in illegal outposts, is intolerable, and will be dealt with sharply and harshly by the law enforcement authorities of the State of Israel." [There was no brutality except by his "harsh" police and against the Jews.] Yitzhar spokesman Yigal Amitai said, "Arabs of Asira el-Kabaliye have set fire to the fields of Yitzhar seven times in recent weeks, yet the army and the police did not take action to prevent these attacks in advance, nor to thwart them as they were happening, nor to apprehend the guilty parties afterwards." (Arutz-7, 9/14.) WHERE IS OLMERT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOW? Rights activists demonstrated at a security fence construction site in support of the soldiers guarding the fence. Then pro-Arab protestors approached. The Arabs were lighting branches and used slingshots to fire rocks the size of baseballs at the officers. "Border Guard police responded to the riot first with gas grenades and then with shock flash-bang grenades." When those measures failed, security personnel fired rubber bullets at the rioting Arabs." "The village, which is located near...the Jewish city of Modi'in, has been the scene of increasingly bloody clashes..." (Arutz-7, 9/14). Rubber bullets? Is this a game? Why aren't the rioters arrested? Too difficult? Then shoot to kill! Weak means mean weakly riots. This is war. Why risk the soldiers' lives? Olmert did not inveigh against the Arabs' violence, which wasn't even taking the law into their own hands but attempted to thwart the law. ILLEGAL POLICE ACTION IN JERUSALEM When Jewish representatives of owners of Jerusalem property on which Arabs are squatting, try to enter the property and build on it, the police bar them but let the Arabs stay (even when there is a court order to remove the squatters). If the representative still tries, the police arrest him. Their excuse is that the presence of Jews there is liable to induce a riot. A judge recently ruled that the police rationalization is false; citizens' rights are to be protected (Arutz-7, 9/15). The Israeli regime's consistent response is punish innocent Jews rather than guilty Arabs, both squatters and rioters. This encourages riots! Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
BAZAAR STRIKES SPREAD THROUGHOUT IRAN
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 8, 2008. |
|
This is from the Middle East Media Research Institute
(MEMRI). It is Inquiry and Analysis Series — No. 468, issued today
and archived at
|
|
Strike Follows Introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) The Iranian news agency ILNA reports that following the Iranian government's introduction of a value-added tax (VAT) in the country, the gold marketplaces in the cities of Isfahan, Mashhad, Tabriz, and Shiraz launched a strike today, and other business owners have joined in. 
The strike began in Isfahan five days ago, and has now paralyzed the entire Isfahan marketplace, as well as other shops in the city center. The Iranian daily Etemad reported that shopkeepers in the Isfahan market were threatening to close their bank accounts, and that the leaders of the bazaar had already begun withdrawing their funds from banks. 
In an urgent report, the Iranian news agency Yari, which is close to supporters of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stated that the regime's special forces entered the Isfahan marketplace after 500 to 1,000 merchants launched a silent demonstration. It was also reported that the city center and the main streets of the city were closed to traffic. It should be noted that most of the media in Iran, and particularly in Tehran, have so far refrained from reporting on the strikes. Meanwhile, in an updated report titled "The Government is Capitulating," ILNA quoted business council president Mohammad Azad as saying that "tax authorities have agreed to postpone the tax for six months, because the strike is going to take political form. In that regard, the tax office director has gone to Isfahan to discuss the matter with merchants." This comes despite the fact that Iranian Taxation Organization spokesman Mohammad Matin announced yesterday, October 7, that it was not possible to postpone the date of the implementation of the VAT. [1] Historical Context The spread of the bazaar strikes throughout Iran is of significance, especially if the strikes continue to spread, since it attests to an internal crisis, with potential political ramifications. The leaders of the bazaar — Iran's biggest merchants — include senior ayatollahs, and are headed by Expediency Council chairman and former Iranian president 'Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the main political rival of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They have tremendous economic and political power. Recently, there has been increased opposition in economic circles to the economic policy of Ahmadinejad, who has been particularly concerned with supporting his associates in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Also, there has been increasing criticism of Ahmadinejad because of his inability to deal with the deteriorating economic situation in the country. Historically, the bazaar merchants have always had tremendous influence in Iranian politics, and they are close to the important pressure group that led the social revolutions that preceded the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Bazaar merchants also played a particularly prominent role in the 1905-6 tobacco revolt against Shah Nasseredin (of the Qajar dynasty), after the Shah decided to give the franchise of growing Iran's tobacco and marketing it at a very low price to an American merchant. The bazaar leaders, together with senior ayatollahs, launched a country-wide strike, forcing the Shah to back down from his decision. With the formation of a coalition of forces forming against Ahmadinejad, comprising bazaar merchants and ayatollahs who have been hard-hit economically and politically by recent economic decisions by Ahmadinejad's government, the power struggle in the Iranian leadership is heating up. This power struggle is reflected in the deep-seated personal
political rivalry between Rafsanjani, who is from the founding
generation of the Islamic Revolution and who holds many key posts in
the regime, and who is even considered the No. 2 man in the leadership
— and Ahmadinejad, who has challenged the traditional leadership of
the revolution and is trying to launch a "second Islamic revolution"
in Iran (see MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 430, "Power Struggle in
Iran — Part IV: Staged Majlis Elections, Elimination of Reformist
Political Representation, Abolition of 'Rule of the Jurisprudent,'"
April 2, 2008, These developments may also be a challenge to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who recently publicly expressed his support for President Ahmadinejad, and called for his reelection. End Note: [1] Yari, Etemad, Kargozaran, Iran, October 8, 2008; ILNA, Sarmayeh, Iran, October 7, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Update October 10, 2008 From Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran Halts New Sales Tax After Merchants
Strike", Washington Post
"TEHRAN, Oct. 8 — A series of private-sector strikes has forced the Iranian government to suspend the implementation of a new sales tax borne most heavily by the politically powerful merchant class, marking a setback for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's plans for economic change. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
YOM KIPPUR GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, October 8, 2008. |
|
Assembled from various Jewish Sages |
|
1. YOM (DAY OF) KIPPUR has been a breakthrough Jewish contribution to, and enhancement of, human-relations in general and leadership in particular. It highlights the most essential human attributes, which constitute prerequisites to positive leadership: humility (as featured in the very special Netaneh Tokef prayer), soul-searching, pleading fallibility, confessing wrong-doing, asking and granting forgiveness, magnanimity. Yom Kippur is not driven by punishment, but by behavioral-enhancement. 2. THE HEBREW WORD KIPPUR (ATONEMENT/REPENTANCE) is a derivative of the Biblical words Kaporet — which covered the Holy Ark at the Sanctuary — and Kopher, which covered Noah's Ark and the Holy Altar at the Temple. The reference is to a spiritual cover (dome), which does not cover-up, but rather separates between the holy and the secular, between spiritualism and materialism. The cover intends to intensify preoccupation with inner deliberations and soul-searching. The Kippa (Yarmulke), which covers one's head during prayers (or — in the case of observant Jews — at all times), reflects a spiritual cover (Dome). Thus, Yom Kippur constitutes the cover (Dome) of the Ten Days of Atonement (between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur), separating them from the rest of the year. 3. TESHUVAH IS THE HEBREW WORD FOR REPENTANCE. Its root is the Hebrew word for Return — returning to root/positive values, morality, and behavior). Yom Kippur is also called — in Hebrew — Shabbat Shabbaton (the highest level Sabbath), which has the same root as Teshuvah. The last Sabbath before Yom Kippur is called Shabbat Teshuvah (based on the prophesy of Hosea, chapter 4). While the Sabbath is the soul of the week, Yom Kippur is the soul of the year. 4. Yom Kippur is observed on the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tishrei, which is an ancient word for forgiveness. Ten has special significance in Judaism: G-D's abbreviation is the tenth Hebrew letter, Ten Commandments, Ten reasons for blowing the Shofar, Ten Percent Gift to G-D (tithe), etc. 5. THE PRAYER OF VEEDOOI (CONFESSION/CONFIRMATION/REAFFIRMATION IN HEBREW) is recited Ten times during Yom Kippur, re-entrenching the genuine plea for forgiveness. The prerequisites for forgiveness, according to Jewish Sages, are the expression & exercise (talking & walking) of confession (assuming full-responsibility), repentance and significantly altering one's behavior through the heart as well as through the head (no "buts," no "ifs" and no plea for mitigating circumstances). King Saul sinned only once — ignoring the commandment to annihilate the Amalekites — but was banished from the crown and killed. King Saul raised mitigating circumstances, while responding to Samuel's accusation. King David sinned twice (The "Bat-Sheba Gate" and "Census Gate"), but was forgiven. full-responsibility and unconditional blame and the death sentence (as expressed by Nathan the Prophet), which was promptly rescinded. 6. TEFILA ZAKA, THE INITIAL PRAYER on the eve of Yom Kippur, enables each worshipper to announce universal forgiveness. While transgressions between human-beings and G-D are forgiven summarily via prayers, transgressions among human-beings require explicit forgiveness. Ill-speaking of other persons may not be forgiven. 7. The Memorial Candle, commemorating one's parent(s), is lit during Yom Kippur. It reaffirms "Honor Thy Father and Mother," according another opportunity to ask forgiveness of one's parent(s), as well as asking forgiveness on their behalf. 8. G-D's forgiveness and G-D's Covenant with the Jewish People are commemorated by Yom Kippur. It reflects the end of G-D's rage over the sin of the Golden Calf, and it was the day of Abraham's own circumcision, signifying G-D's covenant with the Jewish People. 9. The Fast of Yom Kippur aims at clearing the body and the mind — in order to facilitate genuine repentance and one's empathy with the needy. 10. Yom Kippur underlines unison, while synagogues become a platform for the righteous, as well as for the sinner. 11. THE SCROLL OF JONAS IS READ ON YOM KIPPUR. Its lessons demonstrate that repentance and forgiveness is universal to all Peoples, commanding one to assume responsibility, to get involved socially-politically, to sound the alarm when wrong-doing is committed anywhere in the world, to display compassion to all peoples and to adhere to Faith and Optimism, in defiance of all odds. 12. A LONG SOUND OF THE SHOFAR CONCLUDES YOM KIPPUR. It commemorates the covenant with G-D (the almost-sacrifice of Isaac), the receipt of the Torah on, Liberty and anti-slavery (Jubilee) and the opening of G-D's gates of forgiveness. The Hebrew root of Shofar means to enhance/improve oneself (Shafar). A Hebrew synonym for Shofar is Keseh, which almost means cover-Kaporet-Kippur. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
GIVING UNTIL IT HURTS
Posted by Barry Rubin, October 8, 2008. |
|
In response to a casual question, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dropped a historical bombshell, an offhand remark telling more about how the Middle East works than 100 books. And a former Marine commander adds an equally big revelation about long-ago events quite relevant for today. Almost thirty years ago, President Jimmy Carter tried to show what a nice guy he was by pressing the Shah not to crush the revolutionaries. After the monarch fell, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met top officials of the new Islamist regime to pledge U.S. friendship to the government controlled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. At the time, I wrote that by approaching some of the milder radicals, the administration frightened the more militant ones. U.S.-Iran relations must be smashed, they concluded, lest Washington back their rivals. In fact, as we'll see in a moment, the Carter administration offered to back Khomeini himself. Three days after the Brzezinski meeting, in November 1979, the Islamist regime's cadre seized the U.S. embassy and its staff as hostages, holding them until January 1981. This was our introduction to the new Middle East of radical Islamism. Carter continued his weak stance, persuading the Tehran regime that it could get away with anything. So we've long known that undermining U.S. allies, passivity toward anti-American radicals, and inaction after a massive terrorist act against Americans didn't work. The hostages were only released because Iran was suffering desperately from an Iraqi invasion and feared Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher. The lesson of being strong in defending interests and combating enemies has not quite been learned. Today, the opposite is the mainstream prescription for success and the United States may be about to elect a president whose world view parallels the way Carter worked. Here's where Gates comes in. On September 29, while giving a lecture at the National Defense University in Washington DC, someone asked him how the next president might improve relations with Iran. Gates responded: "I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years." Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski's meeting, in which he participated, summarizing Brzezinski's position as follows: "We will accept your revolution....We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah....We can work together in the future." The Iranians demanded the United States turn over to them the fugitive Shah, who they would have executed. Brzezinski refused. Three days later Iran seized the embassy and forever changed the Middle East. The road thus paved led to the Iran-Iraq and Iraq-Kuwait wars, the power of Hamas and Hizballah, September 11, 2001, and a great deal more. Many thousands would die due to American timidity and Iranian aggressiveness. Had the United States been a mean bully in its treatment of the new Islamist Iran? The On the contrary, Washington did everything possible to negotiate, conciliate, and build confidence. We'll do almost anything you want, Carter and Brzezinski offered, just be our friend. Far from being appeased Iran demanded such a total humiliation — turning over the fatally ill, deposed Shah for execution — even that administration couldn't accept it. Far from persuading Khomeini that the United States was a real threat, the U.S. government made itself appear a pitiful, helpless giant, convincing Tehran — as Khomeini put it — America couldn't do a damn thing. His revolution and ideology was too strong for it. So why should we expect such a tactic could work today? How long does it take to get the message: this is an ideological revolution with huge ambitions to which America is inevitably a barrier. Appeasement, talks, apologies, confidence-building measures won't convince Tehran that America is its friend, only that it's an enemy so weak as to make aggression seem inevitably successful. The only U.S. precondition has been that to get a high-level dialogue, Iran must first stop its drive for nuclear weapons, at least temporarily. Gates understands what happened: "Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed....The reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship." This situation is quite parallel to efforts to have reasonable preconditions with the Palestinians — stop terrorism, incitement, clearly accept a two-state solution — or with Syria — stop sponsoring terrorism, cease trying to take over Lebanon, and accept normal relations with Israel as the outcome of peace. Similar bargains have been offered Hamas and Hizballah. Yet even this is too much for the other side and too much for those who continue trying to undermine any Western leverage on radical forces. If the other side won't give anything, they insist, merely offer more. And if the other side takes those concessions, pockets them, gives nothing in return, and continues their behavior, this merely proves you have to give still more. Here's more evidence why that's wrong. Former U.S. Marine Colonel Timothy Geraghty was Marine commander in October 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 U.S. intelligence intercept showed Iran's government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack. Three decades after the miserable failure of the make-friends-with-Islamist-Iran policy — including offering Khomeini continued U.S. arms' supplies for goodness sake! — isn't it time to learn this simple lesson? Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com |
|
J'ACCUSE...!
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, October 7, 2008. |
|
(A Hebrew translation of this article will be posted on our Hebrew site after Yom Kippur). The article below was written by Dan Barkye, writer ("Spirituality and Meditation — The Quest for the Divine in Us"), poet (nominated twice for the "Best Poem of the Month" on "The Critical Poet" poetry online board) and participant (occasional) in the right-wing Zionist website Israpundit. |
|
(NOTE — When I wrote this article under the present title, I did not know about Mr. Carlo Strenger's article "I Accuse", which appeared in Haaretz of 28.9.2008. It was brought to my attention on 5.9.2008. After careful consideration, I decided not to change the title of my article. Under the given circumstances, I leave it to the reader to decide who the true voice of accusation is.) * * * When, a little more than 110 years ago, Emile Zola wrote his famous letter to the newspaper L'Aurore in defense of a Jewish French Army officer, captain Alfred Dreyfus, he didn't imagine, I'm sure, that his famous declarative and accusative expression will be used by a Jew against a fellow Jew. But here I am, doing exactly this: Accusing my conationalists, my compatriots, my Jewish brothers, Professor Zeev Sternhell et al., of blatant, blind double standard, double talk and utter, conspicuous discrimination. And against whom? Against other Jewish brothers. I point my pen toward Zeev Sternhell and the clique that surrounds him and shares with him the actual act of discrimination, and, exactly as in Zola's times, of judicial wrongfulness and distortion, of premeditated and purposeful lies, all documented: The Israeli academicians that profess extreme anti-Zionist notions and stances — Zionists and anti-Zionists alike — such as Professor Ilan Pappe, Professor Yehuda Kupferman, Professor Adi Ophir, Dr. Aim Duelle Luski and others; the turncoats Dr. Uri Davis of old and Uri Avnery, the old Revisionist Zionist, member of the Irgun once, now the patriarch of the extreme anti-Zionist Israeli left, Jonathan Cook from the vitriolic anti-Semitic newsletter "Counterpunch", which published articles defending Holocaust-deniers, the rabbinical educated American Jew Richard Silverstein, from the liberal anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian group "Tikun Olam", and more, the Israeli and foreign Jews in this unholy alliance being a Fifth Column among us. Yes. Without mincing my words, without any inhibitions. A Fifth Column. Our very own, disgraceful Quislings. But, mainly, I shall point it towards Zeev Sternhell, the academician who, with his stature, gives them the sophisticated academic umbrella of extreme anti-Zionist, destructionist and revisionist ideology and theory. In this regard, all the others are irrelevant. The fountainhead from which they drink is Zeev Sternhell's words and stance, and they couldn't be clearer. Why so? Because of a very simple, basic logical reason. Sadly, when an avowed Zionist like Sternhell opinionates that the settlers have to be uprooted by violent means (see below), the distance between him and the extreme Left anti-Zionists, Jews and gentiles alike, and certainly our mortal enemies, the Palestinian Arabs, the unlawful occupiers of this land of ours, is a stonethrow. Nothing and no one can eliminate this connection. One may say that there is a difference between pre-67 Israel and the Israel of post-67, the pre- one legitimate, while the later, not, but really there isn't. Not in Ilan Pappe's eyes, the one who calls us "enemy", and not in the most moderate Palestinian eyes. In this regard, what Sternhell says, gives legitimacy to our rivals and invigorates, energizing and reenergizing their aggressive enmity and stance. The Professor is one of the main personages to blame for this act of personal and collective injustice against the true, authentic patriots and pioneer Zionists, the settlers of our ancestral father- and motherland, the Land of Israel. And words are potent, very potent. Witness the totalitarian tool of media control or just plain, law-enacted censorship. If words were impotent, there would have been no need for such means against them. Witness the opera censored by the Austrians in occupied Italy or the stageplay censored by the Russians in occupied Poland, both acts enforced in the 19th century. Not to mention the Talmudic saying "Life and death, in the hands of the tongue are". I accuse you, Zeev! I accuse you of two grave, extremely serious acts. I accuse you of naming the criminal before he was found, a grave judicial wrongdoing, a plain 'no-no' in any democratic, law abiding country. Until now, at the time of writing these words, no one knows who attacked you. Has it occurred to you that it was, maybe, an act of provocation? The interested parties are there in plain sight. The Palestinians could do it for the obvious reasons, and if they did it, they succeeded. You and your friends reacted exactly as planned. Arranging a field-trial for the Right wing, in the worst Fascist and Communist fashion, is a crime in itself. Of which you are guilty. You, before anyone else, should have been aware of this very real possibility and of the dire implications of jumping the gun on someone. I accuse the clique that surrounds you, Zeev, and you as their mentor, of a typical attitude of "What's good for the goose is not good for the gander". This shameful tactical approach is characteristic of Internet chat forums and other dark corners, in which some preach mindlessly to others about things of which they themselves are guilty, but couldn't care less. Why would I care if I lie, as long as I can say that you lie, so they think and do. And to say, as you did just the other day, that the protests against your behavior are unworthy of attention? To dismiss the perfectly warranted protests with a nonchalant wave of your hand and a sarcastic, arrogant smile? You should have known better, but apparently all is fair in demonizing the enemy, in delegitimizing him; all and everything is permitted in the most Machiavellistic fashion. You position yourself squarely as the abstract and concrete enemy of the most patriotic and enthusiastic section of the nation, the "ha-Shomer ha-Tzair" of yore, calling for their annihilation, pure and simple, naming the means with which to do it — to invade Ofra with tanks, and you dare call them violent and fascist? Apparently, you are of the opinion that this call of yours ("Davar", 5.4.1988) for their physical liquidation is legitimate. After all Ofra is a settler nest and your call is the voice of the self-crowned, "holiest than thou" Left, so why wouldn't it be legitimate? But when they raise their voices and even, God forbid, dare defend themselves, you are all righteousness and sainthood, preaching to them the "right" way of action, all the while denouncing them as the No. 1 enemy of the people. For all we know, the tanks on Ofra can be Palestinian. Now you tell me, how should this be perceived? As The Call for the preservation of democracy in Israel by its self-crowned gatekeeper or a naked instigation on the Right wing compatriots settlers? When "Israel Academia Monitor", a watchdog group focusing on the extreme anti-Zionist actions of the Leftist Israeli academia, exposes, in the most legitimate manner, the extreme Left's actions, thoughts and words, to your clique's mind this is an instigation call on the Left perpetrated by the Right, but when you or your ideological aliases call for the annihilation of the right by any means, this, this is all right. No, Zeev. I will not denounce the act of violence against you before you denounce, clearly and loudly, the terrorist act of the Palestinian woman who took advantage of humanistic considerations in a checkpoint and threw acid in the eyes of a soldier a few days ago. I will not denounce the act of violence against you before you denounce, clearly and loudly, the lies perpetrated by the Israeli Left against the Jewish patriots. I will not denounce the act of violence against you before you apologize to the Right, clearly and loudly, for the unwarranted accusation that you expressed and pointed against it just now. I will not denounce the act of violence against you before you retract your call for naked violence against the true modern Zionist pioneers, clearly and loudly. Until then, I accuse you — Je t'accuse! I accuse you, and the howling clique that surrounds you, of Left Fascism and back-stabbing.
|
|
HEBRON TO BE AT MERCY OF FATAH AND TANZIM TERRORISTS
Posted by Buddy Macy, October 7, 2008. |
|
CALL SHAS. Eli Yishai's phone number at home is 02-651-0259 (till midnight
tonight — 5 EDT, or till 3 PM — 8 a.m. EDT before Yom Kippur) Tell
him: Shas ministers can easily handle this problem by shouting loudly
that they will go to early elections if the Government of Israel
dares to put Jewish lives into the hands of a bunch of killers for a
third time. If everybody could please contact Eli Yishai and say he
cannot just stand by and let Israelis and Jews get killed by giving
Hebron as a present to terrorists — that will be very helpful. Remind
him 29 people got killed last time — this must be on his conscience.
Received this email tonight from Mattot Arim — Cities of Israel. In their typical blundering, suicidal political expedience, it appears that the Olmert/Livni Regime is intent wreaking havoc upon the Jews of Hevron, Again. — BM Emergency update. Very soon, crazy as this may seem to you, the Israeli Government intends to transfer responsibility for security in Hebron to the Palestinian Authority. This, the Israeli government assures us, is going to ensure that the Hamas terror organization does not take control of of Hebron. Related report; PA Official: Israel Has Agreed to Allow Over 1,000 PA Troops into Hebron [During Chol HaMoed Succot], by Dr. Aaron Lerner (IMRA) Now, there are 2 things that we actually know about the PA: First, their own "policemen" have numerous times been involved themselves in terror attacks against Israelis — by some accounts, more terror attacks than the Hamas initiates. This is the third time that an Israeli government is trying to put Hebron into the hands of the Palestinians, hoping that a miracle will happen and the Palestinians will have miraculously turned into Belgians or Canadians. The first time, the Palestinians shot at Jews in Hebron for a year and a half. When the Palestinians shot Baby Chalhevette to death, the government finally realized that the IDF had to take over, but it was too late for the little baby's grieving parents, of course. The second time, 12 Israeli soldiers and security men lost their lives in one day — including the renowned Aluf Mishne Dror Veinberg. The government hastily sent the army to re-enter Hebron, however it was too late, a Hebron suicide bomber had already made his way to Haifa and 17 more Haifa people were killed when this Hebron bomber exploded himself a little while later in their city. 29 dead due to one foolish and avoidable government decision. As usual, the Shas ministers can easily handle this problem by shouting loudly that they will go to early elections if the Government of Israel dares to put Jewish lives into the hands of a bunch of killers for a third time. So, as we have done in the past, we need to persuade Shas to take a stance here. If everybody could please contact Eli Yishai and say he cannot just stand by and let Israelis and Jews get killed by giving Hebron as a present to terrorists — that will be very helpful. Remind him 29 people got killed last time — this must be on his conscience. Eli Yishai's phone number at home is 02-651-0259 (till midnight tonight, or till 3 PM before Yom Kippur; or from 1 hour AFTER the fast till midnight, or any time Friday till Shabbat comes in, or any time Motsei Shabbat night till midnight, or of course any time Sunday on). Almost always, an answering machine is on. Leave a message — even in English. Or use all 3 of the following fax numbers: 02 6513655 026662909 02-6662907 Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
DON'T AGAIN ABANDON ISRAELIS TO FATAH TERRORISTS
Posted by The Jewish Community of Hebron, October 7, 2008. |
|
WE WERE ASTOUNDED AND STUNNED to learn of plans to transfer security of the city of to the Fatah and Tanzim terrorists, a.k.a. 'the Palestinian authority.' WE WARN: similar actions in the past always led to terrible bloodshed. These terrorists are notoriously known as criminal and terror gangs, whose nature has already been proven from previous murderous terror activity. The infant Shalhavet Pass HY'D, was murdered by a terrorist identified with the Palestinian authority, and was trained by them as a sniper. Twelve warriors, among them the Commander Brigade, Col Dror Weinberg, HY"D, fell as a result of transfer of security of Hebron to the PA in 2002. Another eleven Jews were murdered a week later when Bus 20 exploded in Jerusalem as a result of the reckless plan called 'Judea first.' A wave of terror swept through all of Israel, as terrorists from Hebron reached as far away as Haifa, all as a result of removal of IDF troops from and transfer of security authority to the PA. The most recent victims of Arab terror from our vicinity, David Rubin and Achikam Amichai HY"D, were killed less than a year ago by PA policemen. Transfer of security responsibility into the hands of
Fatah terrorists will endanger the lives of thousands in the Hebron
region, of hundreds of thousands who arrive to visit the holy sites
in the city of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and the lives of all
the citizens of Israel wherever they are.
Anyone and everyone who participate in this
derelict, irresponsible act will not be able to say, "Our hands have
not spilled this blood." Signed: Rabbi Dov Lior — Chief Rabbi, Kiryat Arba-Hebron
You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886. |
|
AFSI SUPPORTS THE LEGAL FORUM FOR THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN CONDEMNING EHUD OLMERT
Posted by Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI), October 7, 2008. |
|
Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI joins supports the The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, located in Jerusalem, in condemning the head of the transitional government in Israel, Ehud Olmert, and the cabinet for its decision regarding the Sergei Courtyard in Jerusalem. Ehud Olmert intends to gift the property to the Russian government this week on his trip to Russia. The Legal Forum has announced earlier that it will take the matter to the Supreme Court in order to try to halt the transfer. AFSI praises The Legal Forum for bringing the matter to the Supreme Court and bringing it to the attention of the public and media. It was the intent of Mr. Olmert to do this without publicity and without public opposition. Here are the main points of The Legal Forum: 1. The current government in Jerusalem has been deemed a "transitional government" by the Supreme Court Attorney General and has power to do "maintenance actions" only; as such it does not have the right to effect policies or changes that are irreversible by future governments. On the first point AFSI adds that: A) The transfer would set a precedent for the transfer of other properties that foreign governments may make similar claims to. The public discussion that has resulted from the work of The Legal Forum has raised several other issues that are unanswered by the Olmert government: 1. Russia is currently actively supporting those who seek to destroy Israel and has, therefore, not earned any favors from Israel. Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1751 Second Avenue., New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Barry Freedman is Executive Director. |
|
ANOTHER SECRET ISRAELI GIVEAWAY; FACTS VS IDEOLOGY; BEFORE NEGOTIATING; WHEN IN FRANCE
Posted by Richard A. Shulman, October 7, 2008. |
|
HOW ABBAS DEALS WITH THE U.S. & ISRAEL On al-Arabiya TV, Abbas told the Arabs that neither Hamas nor Fatah need recognize Israel. Next day, he told Sec. Rice that he had demanded that Hamas recognize Israel. He gives conciliatory speeches in courteous English, and war-mongering speeches in Arabic on the same topics. His speeches in Arabic negate the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state with which to make peace. The government of Israel claims it releases convicted Arab terrorists to secure goodwill from the P.A. and to strengthen Abbas' internal position so that he could negotiate a final peace. Abbas' media presents the releases, some of which include people who participated in murdering Israelis, as a victory over a weak-willed foe, preparatory to final victory (Arutz-7, 9/9), not final peace. Rice gives no indication she realizes she is being lied to. The NY Times pretends that Abbas is moderate, a fitting negotiator for peace. ISRAELI GOVERNMENT SECRET DIPLOMATIC MANEUVERS The government is negotiating clandestinely to cede to Russia the "Russian compound" neighborhood of Jerusalem before the public realizes it. Lawyers preparing a brief against the move aren't sure it can be ready in time (Op. Cit.). This would be another step in dividing Jerusalem, the first being de facto Muslim control of the Temple Mount. What is the difference between Israeli ruling class treason based on antisemitism and treason based on stupidity? This is no time to be giving more land to what I shall resume calling the Soviet Union. JEWS NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND AGAINST ARSON A large group of Arabs and Jews came to a small Jewish community in Judea-Samaria, with obvious intent to provoke trouble. They set the Jews' crop on fire. One ran at some Jews with a hoe. The settlers caught him and turned him over to security forces. Troops arrested another arsonist. The arrested arsonist changed his story. Although that indicated guilt, he was released. The Jews who had caught the assailant with the hoe were arrested for kidnapping, and the assailant was released. That Arab produced papers alleging that he required medical attention from his capture, but the papers were forgeries. A fellow settler submitted a complaint to the police, who tore up the complaint and arrested him for assault. What did the judges rule? They let the Arabs go and put the Jews under house arrest indefinitely — until the whole issue is settled — depriving their families of income. The settlers see all this as an effort to uproot them (Ibid). Isn't it? FACTS VS. IDEOLOGY OBAMA & MCCAIN RELY ON DIPLOMACY
Both Obama and McCain would use diplomacy with Iran. To Iran, however, diplomacy means deceit. It engages in "taqiyya, religiously-sanctioned lying." As a former spokesman for the supposedly reform-minded ex-President Khatami admitted, diplomacy was to give the impression that Iran's nuclear program was for energy, while Iran surreptitiously developed bombs. Some Democrats blame Iran's nuclear program on recent US wars, but the program came first. Estimates of how soon Iran could prepare a bomb fail to take into account how much Iran's effort would be expedited by N. Korea or Russia. Eventually, the next President would have to deploy force (MEFNews, 10/-3). FACTS VS. IDEOLOGY A far leftist friend who spends half the year in Paris assured me that Muslims don't attack Jews in France. When I said that I know they do, almost every day, and started to prove it, she amended her statement to say they don't attack Jews in Paris. That also is false. In a recent incident, about a dozen Muslim youths wearing brass knuckles attacked three Jewish youth group counselors outside their building. The Muslims expressed their bias verbally, too. Police arrested one perpetrator. In a similar attack, they set upon a youth leaving a synagogue. A youth group spokesman said it happens all the time (Arutz-7, 9/8). Viva what France? WHAT MAKES AN AREA SECURE, FOR ISRAEL? Israel withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon. Terrorists took over. Those areas have become dangerous fronts against Israel. Israel retains the Golan, and controls Judea-Samaria. Terrorists cannot take over the Golan, and Israeli troops minimize terrorism from Judea-Samaria. Those areas do not threaten Israeli security. Nevertheless, the Olmert-Livni regime wants to withdraw from them, too (IMRA, 9/9). INFILTRATION BY STOLEN CARS & TERRORIST DRIVERS Israel uses checkpoints, for one thing, as an opportunity to intercept stolen cars being driven out of Israel. For another, it uses them to apprehend terrorists driving into Israel, sometimes in cars with Israeli, rather than P.A., license plates. This delays settlers. To end the delay, Israel is testing a system whereby settlers key in a code that vouches for them (IMRA, 9/11). Not as sure as retina testing. BEFORE NEGOTIATING The most prudent way for Israel's ruling elite to advance a strategic move would be: (1) Draft basic assumptions describing reality; (2) Outline and rank Israel's interests, including security interests; (3) Chart what the various "players" want; (4) Define the desirable and possible negotiation outcome and get Cabinet approval for it; and (5) Only then negotiate. Elementary! Israel starts negotiating without professional assessment and political approval. [The military goes along under the theory of civilian rule, but the civilian rulers fail to think through their objectives which the military knows are militarily untenable.] Nine years ago, Israel negotiated with Syria on the premise that Israel must control the Golan. PM Barak offered Syria the Golan by contending that the Syrian Army would be stationed far back from it, giving Israel time to conquer the Golan instead of being conquered from the Golan. This was not a tenable notion. [Military capabilities change with technology. In any case, as Syria would gradually violate those terms of a treaty, would Israel rush to war? Suppose Syria pulls right back, and the crisis is called a false alarm. Repeated, eventually Syria would wear Israel out. My military doctrine: possession is nine-tenths of the law.] Foreign Min. Living is offering Syria the Golan without analysis or a rationale for military alternatives [nor for Jewish national rights she is scuttling.] Israeli negotiators draw a new border without evaluating these problems. [They assume, contrary to Syria's record, that the Syrian government now and in the future will be honorable and not part of an Iranian or imperialist attack on Israel. Syrian doctrine considers itself entitled to control Lebanon and Palestine {Israel, Jordan, and the Territories}]. Again, Israel is rushing in secret negotiations without preparation and without even securing US concessions. After negotiations conclude, the regime would present some document about it, not before. It did this with Oslo, and got war and security threats as a result. When the public and experts saw the superficial assumptions behind Oslo, the government side claimed it was too late, it already had committed itself to promises. [Promises not yet in treaties are not commitments. It is not too late to declare mere proposals contrary to national security. Dishonorable Israel regimes exaggerate pretended honor as a pretext for sticking with folly.] Israel's approach is undemocratic and dangerous, because it fails to consider fundamental issues before negotiating their outcome (IMRA, 9/10). The government motive is anti-Zionist. It arrogantly and falsely assumes that peace is up to Israel making concessions to the enemy. This treasonous leftist ideology is unthinking, psychotic, and a proven failure. Hence it fears public discussion. Israeli regimes plot rather than govern. WHEN IN FRANCE My observations were limited to three weeks in Paris and Normandy. PRESIDENTS: U.S. VS. OTHERS Mercifully on this trip, no Europeans belabored my President as the world's worst. On my previous trip, to Britain, some did. They were like a European version of the "ugly American," arrogant in the days when the dollar commanded respect and finding fault with their hosts. Indeed, the best surprise of the trip was the pleasant and polite helpfulness of Parisians. We did encounter people who sneered at Pres Bush. They were fellow Americans. They had no specific comments, no explanation of problems he allegedly made or exacerbated, and no definition of satisfactory leadership. Their gripes combined partisan sniping with psychological venting. What did they want of him? They wanted him to emulate the rest of the world. This desire assumes a global commonality that does not exist and a respect that is unwarranted. It should be enough to be tactful. Which foreign country's leader is their model? Russia: Imperialistic and a life expectancy a third below ours? China: Censors health reporting of food adulteration, letting it kill tens of thousands of babies? Cuba: Holds and abuses political prisoners? (We have one, Pollard.) Israel: Ceding defensive borders to an enemy bent on conquering it? France: Sells anything to anybody, and keeps proposing melodramatic reforms of trifles, for publicity? Iran: Getting ready to bomb everybody else? TRANSPORTATION Like the streets above, Paris subway lines radiate, rather than flow straight. As a result, one can reach almost any point swiftly, after one or two transfers. Maps of pertinent lines are posted at each transfer point and throughout the rather quiet coaches. The seats face each other with insufficient room not to keep bumping into other people's legs, making it uncomfortable. Main roads radiate outwards from plazas and traffic circles and often into other circles having perhaps 8 choices. Many roads are unmarked, identified by small print on the side of buildings, or named differently along the same route. The plazas may be lovely, but it is easy to get lost there. Normandy roads often end in a fork whose prongs are unidentified. Driving in Normandy, one had to slow down to read the signs for the many directions, when there even were signs. Walking on the outer sidewalk around the Arch of Triumph takes so long, it emphasizes the enormity of the Arch. The symmetry of the structure and the radiating roads make the Arch appear almost the same from every angle. BUILDINGS The thousand-year-old cathedrals, as in Caen, are awe-inspiring. So are the architectural ornamentation of the Paris Opera and the ceiling of Lafayette Dept. store. If you can climb the many steps to the top of Mt. St. Michel, the English-language tour is fascinating and amusing [depending on the guide?). Old Paris apartments are small but have many internal doors. They possess a homogeneity and quality of design not found in the new, residential tower areas, which resemble American urban development. After a couple of weeks, the older districts seemed uniform and dull. Confusing roads and the similarity of Parisian houses make it difficult to find one's way back to the bed-and-breakfast. Normandy housing is more varied and, I thought, prettier. Little hotels alongside farms lend a leisurely air and a comfortable pace, what a vacation should be like. Most people's constant and hectic traveling between major cities turns their vacations into a form of work. If you are as lucky as we, you have friends who include you on their class field trips of architecture and landscape architecture. They gave us a greater appreciation for Versailles, Vaux Le Compte, and an overhead park like the "high line" park coming to Manhattan. MUSEUMS, FROM A FOREIGNER'S PERSPECTIVE We found few English captions at most museums, but some had English audio phones. In France, the native language is not the same as I practiced in school half a century ago. It certainly is spoken faster. However, I could understand some of the museum explanations if I read in French without trying to translate into English. After a while, my schoolwork came back to me. I still can't always tell whether an announcement is in English or in French. Get what guided tours your can. The Battle Bus tour of WWII invasion beaches and the full explanation in the tastefully presented American Military Cemetery's Museum in Normandy, both in English, afforded information and outlook about that war beyond what I had gotten from living at that time and reading about it afterwards. I am going to thank a veteran friend for what his generation did for ours. It matched what I had thought the movies only exaggerated. FOOD Farmers markets offer bargains, but the produce from stores was delightfully fresh, too. They offer more varieties of potatoes, tomatoes, cheeses, etc. than do US stores. Finding prices high in France, we kept our expenses down by having a picnic a day. The meals can be superb, but the barbecued chicken was hard on my digestive tract. How delicious Normandy blackberries are in September! OUTDOORS Paris is north of New York; Normandy, further. They say that in between summer and autumn, Paris is grey and Normandy is windy and rainy. Fortunately for us, a high pressure front kept it warmer and drier. The sun was low but long-lasting. It took a couple of hours to warm up. Bring a warm jacket to the landing beaches, not a bathing suit. Not counting crows, pigeons, and sparrows, we saw almost no wild animals. The flowers are somewhat different, sometimes larger. Dogs abound, half of them being Jack Russell terriers. City trees mostly were horse chestnut and London plane (like sycamore). Public places can be smoky. I appreciate that New York is less so, and I appreciate what France has to offer. That's the value of travel. SOCIAL There seems to be an upsurge of childbirth in Paris, despite demographic reports of depopulation of native French. The fathers are tender, their children are cute. We enjoyed the children. Multi-culturalists criticize the French government for Muslims not integrating. We witnessed extensive integration and easy relations among the races. On the other hand, certain areas have masses of unassimilated blocs of Muslims. Why blame the government for the problem of people who don't make use of the schooling offered them and whose preachers increasingly urge separatism and hostility? Recent immigrants' Islamic religion and class must have much to do with the problem. The proposed solution of more government programs may derive more from "liberal guilt" than from analysis. To conclude, we were lucky in our choice of friends and fortunate in the weather, but best of all for me was having a loving wife to share it with. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
CLOUDS GATHER ABOVE A COTTON FIELD IN CENTRAL ISRAEL
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 7, 2008. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: "Cotton has a bad rap in Israel because it is an intensive water consumer in a region short on water supplies. Israeli scientists are trying to develop high-quality strains that require less water, but in the meantime, we'll have to imagine the wads of fluff melting into the soil and replenishing our aquifers. I like this photo because it presents an unusual view of Israel from two perspectives. First, a foreboding sky is atypical in a country with a very mild climate. Secondly, this scene resembles winter more than late summer when it was taken, and certainly differs from the olive orchards that typify this country's landscape. "Once again I had to venture off road to find this viewpoint. Passersby might not even notice the field as it is obscured from view by roadside vegetation. I did spot it and drove headfirst into the thick of it as I had never before stood in a cotton field and wanted the additional thrill of admiring it up close. There was nothing prominent on the horizon so I grabbed my widest lens in order to accentuate the vastness of the field. I raised the camera to its highest point on my tripod, which is over my head, so I stood on the doorsill of my car in order to focus and compose the image. To bring the closest plants into prominence, I pointed the camera down slightly and fired off the self-timer, a useful feature to avoid the shake that results from pressing the shutter release. "Gmar Chatima Tova!"
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY "JEWS FOR JESUS" TARGETING JEWS IN NORTHERN ISRAELI TOWN OF KIRYAT SHMONA
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 7, 2008. |
|
Many non-religious or tepidly religious Christians admire and love Israel for the miracles Israelis have been able to accomplish in agriculture, technology, science and democracy in an area of the world not noted for innovations in any field except terrorism. Israelis have truly come back and redeemed their ancient homeland. Of those that are involved because of religion: The Christian Zionists with whom I am most familiar respect and love Israel because they appreciate that Judaism is the foundation of their own religion. They can understand themselves better as they understand Jesus in his Jewish context. After all, Jesus was born Jewish. He practiced Judaism. And he died Jewish. The ones I know are wonderful people. True, some in this group have an additional motive — Jews need to be in Israel for the 'End of Days' to come about. Meantime they help Israel survive and thrive. I can live with this. I have nothing but contempt for the stealthy and dishonest missionaries that prey on Israelis who are poor and/or ignorant. They are willing to lie blatantly and distort and misinterpret texts. The article below is about a particularly pernicious and dishonest missionary group. It was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com). One guy in this group told me "everything is go" if they can "save one soul." I asked him why, if he was willing to do anything to save people, why didn't he go do salvation in Arab countries. It was cowardly of him to work only where he was safe from being beheaded. |
|
The Christian missionary organization "Jews for Jesus" is specifically targeting Jews in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona on Tuesday, according to an internal proselytizing directive acquired by Israel National News. The memo informs the reader that on Tuesday the group is "beginning to send a team everyday to Keryat Shmoneh (a small town in the north) where a Rabbi and his students have been causing trouble..." 'Each Number Represents a Person' According to the memo, which was sent to the group's supporters in Israel and abroad, "The first full week of the campaign is over.... Please remember that each number represents a person and these serve for our encouragement. The memo goes on to boast that the missionaries "handed out 21,700 gospel tracts" and "have contact information of 995 Jewish people who told us that they want to know more about Jesus." Moreover, the group proudly proclaimed that it succeeded in "leading 18 Jewish people and 3 Gentiles to Y'Shua" — [Jesus in Hebrew is Yehoshua or Yeshua), with its double play on the Hebrew word for "salvation." 'Aggressive Effort to Evangelize in the Holy Land' Anti-missionary activist and Israel National Radio talk show host Rabbi Tovia Singer warns that "as a result of their multi-million dollar campaign, many Jews have been affected by their aggressive effort to evangelize in the Holy Land." In 2006, Rabbi Singer made a 20-part counter-missionary series available for free on his website. He is an author of the book and accompanying audio CD series Let's Get Biblical, as well as the founder and director of the anti-missionary organization "Outreach Judaism." Rabbi Singer says that close to 20,000 Jews have been persuaded by evangelical missionaries in Israel to abandon their faith and convert to Christianity since 1970. The so-called "Jews for Jesus" appellation, he adds, is really a clever misnomer used by missionaries to mislead Jews into thinking they will still be practicing their Judaism even if they believe in Jesus. "Nothing could be further from the truth," he adds. "It's a Baptist mission to the Jews," explains Singer. "The group is an arm of the Baptist church, plain and simple, devoted to converting Jews to Christianity. Although it is one of the more aggressive evangelical organizations, the group — which Singer estimates has approximately two thousand volunteers in Israel alone — is only one of more than a thousand Christian efforts to convert the Jews. And more are on the way. "Thousands are coming in the next couple of weeks for Sukkot," Singer says, "for a big Christian evangelical parade. Each one is willing to volunteer in the effort to lead a Jew away from his faith." |
|
JUST BEFORE YOM KIPPUR
Posted by Judy Balint, October 7, 2008. |
|
The Days of Awe are drawing to their climactic conclusion, and signs of the impending Day of Judgment may be seen all over the country. In the days before Yom Kippur, thousands of Torah observant Israelis rush to finish the ritual of kapparot, where human sins are symbolically transferred to a fowl — generally a chicken. It's a custom that does not appear anywhere in the Talmud, but whose origin seems to come courtesy of several 9th century rabbis. In a parking lot near Jerusalem's Machane Yehuda market, dozens of
live chickens are whirled above the heads of men, women and children
while a pronouncement is made declaring: "This is my substitute, my
vicarious offering, my atonement: This chicken will meet its fate
while I will proceed to a good, long life of peace." [See
Kapparot photos from Machane Yehuda at
Meanwhile, curious secular Israelis by the hundreds take part in pre-dawn Selichot tours, where they look in on dozens of congregations where the faithful are immersed in penitential prayers chanted to ancient melodies. In the streets later in the day, men hurry along with towels to the nearest mikveh (ritual bath). Many have already started building their sukkot (booths) in readiness for Sukkot, the one-week festival that starts the week after Yom Kippur. Sukkot structures of all kinds have sprung up on balconies, street corners and in front of cafes. The final decorations and the schach covering will be added right after the conclusion of Yom Kippur. The busiest kiosks on the streets are those selling shoes made from fabric or plastic — to comply with the prohibition against wearing leather on Yom Kippur. Strains of chazanut waft out of many windows, as many radio and TV stations broadcast operatic renditions of the well-known Yom Kippur prayers in a variety of styles. Almost every radio and TV channel also features a physician prescribing pre-fast measures to stave off headaches and ensure an easy fast, and advice on the best type of food with which to break the fast. Many of the rabbis providing commentary on Yom Kippur in the Israeli media emphasize the festive nature of the day — not only the obvious solemnity. Be happy, we're told, that God grants us this grand opportunity to get a new lease on life — the possibility of teshuva (return) shows that Judaism is optimistic and forward-looking and allows for the reformulation of both our interpersonal relationships and our relationship with God. Singing and dancing are the de rigueur ways in which many congregations here, especially those at yeshivot, end the Yom Kippur day, expressing joy at the soul having been uplifted. Non-observant Israelis are also getting ready for Yom Kippur. As the one day in the year when TV and radio shuts down, they're looking for entertainment. A woman in a halter top and shorts stops at my local newspaper stand to buy three books of crossword puzzles. Video stores are doing brisk business, and bicycle shops are working overtime. There are virtually no motor vehicles on the streets of Israel on Yom Kippur, so it's become a traditional time for mass outings on bikes — new and old. Kids and adults enjoy the one-time freedom of movement for two-wheeled transportation. There's also the obligatory rehash of stories from the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the press. Every year, commentators review the intelligence failures and questionable political decisions that brought Israel to the brink. "The War That Never Ends," blares the headline of the Magazine section of Haaretz, in a lead-in to an article about a Yom Kippur War vet suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder who finally committed himself to a psychiatric ward after more than 30 years of agony. As the siren sounds marking the start of the Day of Reckoning and
reports of the Iranian threat and the world financial disaster are
quieted for at least 25 hours, you may be sure that our prayers will
include a plea for a better year than the one before. Beyond that, who
knows?
Judy Lash Balint is an award-winner investigative journalist and
author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). It is available
for purchase from www.israelbooks.com. Contact her at judy.balint@gmail.com
|
|
EXCAVATIONS NORTH OF REVEAL SARCOPHAGUS FRAGMENT INSCRIBED "SON OF THE HIGH PRIEST"
Posted by Israel MFA Online, October 7, 2008. |
|
This was communicated by Antiquities Authority |
|
The fragment, made of hard limestone, is engraved with an inscription in square Hebrew script, characteristic of the period that reads: "Ben HaCohen HaGadol" — "Son of the High Priest." 
A unique discovery was revealed in excavations that were conducted north of Jerusalem: a fragment of a sarcophagus cover was found that is engraved with square Hebrew script, characteristic of the period. The fragment (length 0.60 m, width 0.48 m) is made of hard limestone, is meticulously fashioned and bears a carved inscription that reads: "...Ben HaCohen HaGadol..." — "Son of the High Priest." Numerous high priests served in the temple during the latter part of the period and there is no way of knowing which of the priests the inscription refers to. However, it should probably be identified with one of the priests that officiated there between the years 30 and 70 CE. Among the high priests we know of from the end of the period were Caiaphas the priest, Theophus (Yedidiya) Ben Hanan, Simon Ben Boethus, Hanan Ben Hanan and others. The excavations were conducted by the Unit of the Archaeological Staff Officer of the Civ Administration in Judea and Samaria, under the direction of Naftali Aizik and Benyamin Hareven, within the framework of the salvage excavations that are currently being carried out along the route of the security fence and underwritten by the Ministry of Defense. During the course of the excavation public and residential buildings, agricultural installations, pools and cisterns were discovered which range in date from the end of the period to the Early Islamic period. The Land of Benjamin is known in scientific literature as the place where the priests resided during the Second Temple period. This region is analogous to the peripheral settlements of modern Jerusalem where an affluent population dwelled that was active and earned its living in the central city of Jerusalem. The site that was exposed is an estate of one of the high priests who served in the temple in Jerusalem. One can assume that the son of the high priest passed away for some unknown reason at the time when his father still officiated as the high priest in Jerusalem. It can further be assumed that this high priest, as well as the rest of his family, was interred at the same estate located north of Jerusalem; however, no other artifacts have been found yet that verify this theory. It should be noted that the fragment of the sarcophagus cover was not discovered in the estate itself, rather it was recovered from the debris of the later remains. It seems that the fragment was plundered from its original location approximately one thousand years ago and was used in the construction of a later Moslem building that was erected atop the ruins of the houses from the period. The high priest was first and foremost among the priests in the temple, but his greatest importance was the role he played on Yom Kippur. This was the only day of the year when the high priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. In the Yoma Tractate (Yom Kippur) of the Mishnah the process which the high priest underwent seven days prior to Yom Kippur, before he entered the Holy of Holies, is described in detail. He would walk between the ornamental curtains that separated the hall of the temple and the inner sanctum of the Holy of Holies. Here he would burn the incense about which it was said "...the entire temple filled with the smoke of incense." Until the Hellenistic period (the time of Antiochus Epiphanes IV) the
high priesthood was a position that was passed on hereditarily;
however after this period the high priest was appointed by the ruling
authorities. During Herod's reign individuals who were not
Jerusalemites were appointed as high priests and it reached the point
whereby the priesthood became an office which was purchased with
money.
Contact MFA at feedback@mofa.gov.il
|
|
INSCRIBE US IN THE BOOK OF LIFE
Posted by Friends of ZAKA, October 7, 2008. | ||
|
|
|
COMEUPPANCE FOR AMI AYALON
Posted by Steven Plaut, October 7, 2008. |
|
This was published in Arutz-7 and is archived at
|
|
Ami Ayalon, the ultra-leftist cabinet minister without portfolio (meaning without a job) and composer of his own program for Israeli annihilation to rival the "Geneva Misunderstandings" program of Yossi Beilin, was almost arrested this week in Holland for "war crimes." Seems the Dutch believed a local Palestinian terrorist who filed a court claim in which he alleges that he had been "tortured" by Ayalon when the latter ran the SHABAK. Never mind that Ayalon is far better known for appeasing Palestinians than torturing them and has never heard of a terrorist demand to which he does not wish to capitulate. Now the Israeli far Left has long been lobbying European anti-Semites to arrest and try Israeli public figures as "war criminals." In some cases Israeli officers were prevented from entering European countries lest they be arrested, thanks to the campaigns of vilification by Israeli far leftists against them. Consider the malicious campaign of Israel-hating and Norman Finkelstein shilling leftist lecturer Neve Gordon from Ben Gurion University against his own army officer Aviv Kochavi. General Kochavi had to cancel plans to study in Britain thanks to Gordon's false slanders against him. Now the idea that far leftists themselves are now being targeted by the Eurotrash Israel bashers is truly delicious. Indeed, if this new trend continues, it could save Israel from destruction. Let's send the entire leadership of Meretz, Gush Shalom, Betselem, and Ben Gurion University to Holland and let the local jihadocracy indict them all as war criminals! It just might produce peace! Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
Z CATS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 7, 2008. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
see other examples of his graphic art at
|
|
THE PATHOLOGY OF DURBAN II
Posted by Marcia Leal, October 6, 2008. |
|
This was written by Joseph Klein and it appeared today in Front
Page Magazine
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN's Stealth Assault on America's Freedom. |
|
The planners of the 2009 United Nations Durban II Review Conference, which is purportedly aimed at combating racism, have been busy crafting their anti-Semitic and anti-Western agenda. Their latest manifesto is an intergovernmental working group report, issued by the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee on September 29, 2008. It includes regional annexes from Latin America, Africa, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The report and annex materials will all become part of the Durban II Conference's final "outcome document." The new UN human rights chief, Navanethem Pillay, cannot understand why the United States, Canada, and Israel have already decided to withdraw their support for this hatefest, and why other Western countries are considering boycotting the conference, as well. She gives the benefit of the doubt to the conference planners, even though their documents in preparation for Durban II associate racism and xenophobia solely with Western democracies while they give a free pass to regimes who commit crimes against humanity in the planners' backyard. The American historian and author Dr. Richard Landes has coined the term "demopaths" to describe the characteristics we find in those who are responsible for the Durban II agenda.[1] Dr. Landes points out the demopaths' most salient traits:
Dr. Landes goes on to say that "a demopathic organization would protest the media portraying its ethnic/religious affiliates as ‘terrorists' (inadmissible negative stereotyping), but would not protest the terrorist acts perpetrated by members of their ethnic/religious group (permissible wanton murder of civilians)." The planning documents coming out of the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee so far, including the latest working group report, are the product of such demopathic organizations, including the Organization of the Islamic Conference, authoritarian regimes in Africa and Latin America and radical leftist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accredited by the United Nations to participate in Durban II. Thus, it is no surprise that the symptoms of demopathology which Landes describes are manifested so clearly in the demonization of Israel and in the obsession with Islamophobia. They are the key organizing principles that will animate Durban II. It is also no surprise that the Durban II planners talk abstractly about the virtues of cultural diversity but want to legislate against a fulsome diversity of ideas that come from anyone whom they perceive as their enemies. Their latest working group report states, for example, that "freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, the promotion of national security or public order, or of public health and morals." The report lashes out in particular against what it calls the "ideologies" of "extremist right-wing groups." Of course, nothing is said about the hateful "ideologies" of the extreme Left or of the Islamic fanatics since they are the driving force behind Durban II and are incapable of self-criticism or self-restraint. We see in action the radical imbalance between their insistence on asserting their own rights, and their lack of interest in defending the rights of others, which Dr. Landes so astutely observed to be a characteristic typical of demopaths. Consequently, writing the truth about how self-described practitioners of Islam are responsible for the vast majority of terrorist killings around the world today is considered hate speech that must be banned, according to the demopaths running Durban II. Yet, these same demopaths believe that Muslim clerics are entitled to incite violence against ‘infidels' and to make death threats against authors of materials critical of Islam with impunity. Cartoons like those published in the Danish press mocking Islamic fanatics' exploitation of their prophet's teachings are an abuse of free expression, which deserves death for their publishers. Yet a book published by members of Iran's Islamist Basij militia featuring dozens of cartoons cruelly mocking Jewish victims of the Holocaust and school books used in Saudi Arabian schools referring to Jews and Christians as apes and pigs are perfectly alright. In addition to their assault on their enemies' right of free expression, the planners of Durban II are calling for current and future generations of Westerners to bear the burden of the sins of long ago generations. The planners demand "formal apologies" and "collective compensation" for the "victims of historic injustices." This continues on a path set during the Durban I Conference in 2001, where the final declaration stated that "Slavery and the slave trade were appalling tragedies...a crime against humanity, and should always have been so." Now the Durban II planners intend to make sure that we pay reparations to people who may not even be descended from the victims of crimes that were committed by other people who profited from slavery more than 140 years ago — and who may not be our ancestors. At the same time, the planners gloss over the enslavement of black Sudanese women and children occurring in Africa today. They also ignore the fact that slaves were used by Arabs for more than 1,000 years (far more than in the West) and that there is still slavery in the Arab world today. The demopaths are incapable of introspection, only demonization. For good measure, the Durban II intergovernmental working group report makes a conspiratorial reference to the "victims of racism who are infected or presumably infected with pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS." No doubt compensation for the victims of an imaginary racist conspiracy to spread these diseases to black Africans will be added to the reparations bill. Reparations, of course, are nothing more than another crass attempt to bring about massive wealth redistribution from the prosperous democratic societies of the West to corrupt, anti-democratic regimes in the under-developed world, some of which enslave their own people today. Depending on how they would be calculated, the total of reparations due could be over 100 trillion dollars, according to one estimate published in Harpers' Magazine. The next president of the United States may be tempted to make some symbolic gestures of compromise in the United Nations in order to improve our country's image in the eyes of the world. Deciding to participate in Durban II may turn out to be one of those symbolic gestures, which would be a tragic mistake. We should not care about being popular so long as we are doing the right thing and living up to our best ideals. Participating in Durban II in order to curry some favor in the United Nations would symbolize surrender to the demopaths who want to destroy us because of our core beliefs in freedom. ENDNOTES: 1. Richard Landes, The Augean Stables.com and The Second Draft.org weblog. Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN's Stealth Assault on America's Freedom. Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: MOVING PAST SILENCE!!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 6, 2008. |
|
The issue is Sergei's Courtyard, which is of considerable importance from many aspects. Sergei's Courtyard is the portion of the Russian Compound in the heart of Jerusalem — right off Rehov Yaffo — that is now being transferred to the ownership of the Russian government by the Israeli government. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Russian Compound, which was for many years owned by the USSR, was bought by Israel in 1964. Sergei's Compound was not part of that purchase because it was not owned by the USSR — it had been owned privately by one Count Sergei. Until just months ago, Sergei's Courtyard was managed by the Israeli Administration for Unclaimed Properties, because the descendants of Count Sergei — who would have been the inheritors of the property — could not be located. Israeli law says that if property remains unclaimed for 15 years, it can be transferred to Israeli ownership, but for a long period of time this was not done. Meanwhile, the government of Russia, expressed a desire to acquire it. This past January, letters were exchanged between Israel and Russia regarding the transfer of ownship of this Courtyard. There was no quid pro quo proposed in the letters: Israel was not demanding anything of Russia, not even a purchase price. The property was to be given as a gift. In late July, the government went to the court and legally acquired ownership of Sergei's Courtyard. The matter could have stopped there, it was now fully Israeli. But the government had an ulterior motive: This was a step towards transferring it to Russia. ~~~~~~~~~~ On Sunday, Olmert brought the issue before the Cabinet, which approved the transfer. Olmert is now on his way to Russia. There he will discussing issues of the greatest import: Russia's possible willingness to sell arms to Syria and Russia's lack of cooperation with regard to sanctions At the same time, Olmert will be symbolically making the gift to the Russian government of the Courtyard — symbolically, because the deal is already done for all practical purposes. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, greatly disturbed about what is going on, took two actions: One, it wrote to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, protesting that Olmert's government, as a transition government with limited powers, should not be permitted to do this. As of this writing, Mazuz has not responded to the Forum. Two, it registered a brief with the High Court requesting that this be stopped. The Court will hold a hearing after Olmert has already gone to Russia. Legally, according to Forum lawyers, it is possible for the Court to say that the transfer was invalid. But it is considered highly unlikely that this will happen. ~~~~~~~~~~ A note as this goes out: There is some news that the Municipality of Jerusalem is objecting to this action, but where this will lead is unclear. ~~~~~~~~~~ Very often we hear that Israelis are passive and will not respond to any political situation with an outcry. This is the silence that cannot be acceptable any longer. And here is an opportunity to make your voices heard. This is not a case of crying out to change things (hopefully there will be many times for this), but to protest as loudly as possible a situation that is not acceptable. The offending parties in the government have to hear from the people. Where there is silence, the message is delivered to the parties in the government that no one is watching and they can get away with whatever they please. NOW is the time to start delivering another message. No time to be defeated! No time for cynicism or passivity! ~~~~~~~~~~ There are several reasons why this is an unacceptable situation: * It is a form of appeasement. Olmert has indicated that he hopes this will help convince Russia not to arm Syria and to work towards blocking Iran from going nuclear. This is laughable, and makes a joke of Israel. It weakens us, as appeasment never works. With all of this, there is still another reason: The government of Israel doesn't play by the rules. It proceeds as it wishes and manages to get away with it. If nothing else, a transition government is restricted in its ability to act — it is to behave with restraint, doing only what is necessary to keep the country going and taking no action that will bind its successors to an agreement that need not be made immediately. In this case, as in many others, the Court turns a blind eye, as does the Attorney General. This is painful to discuss. But it must be discussed. And protested. ~~~~~~~~~~ This appeal is to Israeli citizens (others, keep reading). This is an Israeli issue and must be addressed by each of you. Please contact the persons listed below and register your protest, briefly and clearly — as citizens. Then forward this message to everyone else you can think of inside of Israel who might respond. Either copy this and paste into a new e-mail text. Or hit "forward" for this message and clean it up, eliminating all the "forward" information. Where it is appropriate, translate this into Hebrew, or French, or Russian, before sending it on. Those outside of Israel: Please, following the same technique, send this to everyone you know inside of Israel — friends, relatives, business acquaintances — who might respond. Numbers will make the difference. ~~~~~~~~~~ Keep in mind that faxes are the most effective means of getting your message across, and e-mails are the least effective. Send to: Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, because she is head of Kadima now and has to get the message from the people loud and clear. Phone: 02-530-3531 or 02-675-3285 Fax: 02-675-3792 E-mail: zlivni@knesset.gov.il
_________ MK Binyamin Netanyahu, head of Likud, because he is leader of the opposition and he needs to know that people expect him to take a strong stand. Phone: 03-606-8000 or 02-640-8456 Fax: 02-649-6659 E-Mail: bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il
_________ Minister of Industry and Trade Eli Yishai, head of the Shas faction, because he always tells us that Shas is concerned about the status of Jerusalem and he needs to know we want him to be serious about this. Phone:02-666-2252 or 02-6408406/7 Fax: 02-666-2909 E-mail: eyishay@knesset.gov.il
_________ Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz of Kadima, because he is disgruntled now, knowing well how unfair things can be, and just might be ready to hear concerns of the people. Phone: 02-666-3004 or 02-649-6115 Fax: 02-649-6421 E-mail: shaulm@knesset.gov.il
___________ Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, who had it within his capacity to stop this and should have stopped it on legal grounds, as the current government is a transitional government with limited powers. Phone: 02-646-6521/2 Fax: 02-646-7001
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHAT THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE SAYING ABOUT HEALTH CARE AND TAXES, ENERGY AND AYERS
Posted by Ted Belman, October 6, 2008. |
|
This was written by Aaron I. Reichel, Esq. and it appeared
yesterday in Canada Free Press (CFP)
Aaron I. Reichel, Esq., a member of the Federal and State Bars in New York and New Jersey, is the author of Fahrenheit 9-12 — Rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11, a moderate and reasoned response to critics of some significant policies of the prior Republican ticket. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com |
|
I find it most frustrating that Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, and most of their surrogates and ad writers, have failed to put forth many of their strongest and most persuasive arguments most of the time. Were they to only set forth their strongest arguments, they would easily turn the campaign around. I offer the following points which I hope readers will be able to bring to the attention of the Republican leadership, or at least to the attention of their own friends, relatives, colleagues, and other acquaintances. [In one of my recent posts I wrote that the MCain/Palin ticket had a winning case to make. This author sets it out. — TB] How to Rebut Obama on Taxes First and foremost, I respectfully believe that the response to Obama's claim to advocate lowering the taxes of 95% of the people should NOT continue to be met with the simple response that he stands for raising taxes or even that his past record shows that he does NOT stand for lowering the taxes of 95% of the electorate. Rather, what Republicans must point out, I respectfully believe, is that when Obama says he will lower taxes for 95% of the people, he will NOT really be reducing what they have to pay because: At the same time, Obama will tax rich people and companies, but if pressed to the wall, the rich people will just move their primary homes and money out of the country (to the extent they haven't done so already) where none of their money (or much less of it) will be taxed at all, so that the 5% of the people that Obama claims to want to tax will only be paying less than what they are paying now, if anything. Obama will tax companies that will (1) pass off their tax increases to consumers by charging more money for everything, so that they (the companies) can pay the higher taxes, So the result will be much less money in taxes collected by the federal government, but the federal government will then have to pay welfare, health care, and other entitlements to all the workers who will have lost their jobs, so the government will have to raise taxes even more, whether from the 95% or the 5%, or from both. Plus many people won't be able to pay their mortgages, making the current economic crisis even worse than it is now. Obama wants to pay huge health-care costs, for free, to millions of illegal immigrants and to millions of Americans now too lazy to work or unwilling to work at the low-paying jobs that are available. Where will Obama get the money to do this? Which leads us to the next critical topic: How to Respond to Obama on Multi-Billion Dollar Bailout To blame President Bush alone is absurd; to point out that many parties from both political parties are responsible for the economic fiasco is fair; to point out the involvement of the Democrats is necessary. The mainstream media are simply covering up or ignoring the facts that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were instituted and bloated by Democrats, first under Jimmy Carter and then under Bill Clinton. Financial institutions were pressured by government agencies into lending money to people who couldn't afford to pay back the loans if conditions would change, or be branded as racist or red-liners. The ties of many financiers who were at fault, to Barack Obama, were strong. McCain was among the politicians who blew the whistle long ago, warning of the need for regulation; Barney Frank is on tape asserting, fairly recently, that Fanny and Freddy were basically sound; the economy began to collapse only during the past two years, when the Democrats took control of Congress. Chris Dodd tried to funnel 20% of the profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund that Democrats have used to fund political action groups like ACORN, which Obama had represented in the past as an attorney. How to Respond to Obama on Health Care On the surface, free health care for everyone sounds very appealing, especially to Americans who don't work for a living and who are here illegally. But even those of us who happen to be citizens in good standing and who DO work for a living should be told that there are some fundamental problems with the concept of free health care for all the people who reside in America: 1) It would bankrupt our country even more than it is already bankrupted; The same applies to health care. Delaying operations that are needed immediately will not just inconvenience the recipients, but will cause many of them to die or suffer irreparable setbacks before they will be able to be treated. How to Respond to Obama on Iraq Had the United States followed Obama's prescription for surrender when he said we should have pulled out of Iraq long before the surge took place, we would have lost the war, and set a precedent of failure so that Al Quaeda and other terrorist entities would have been emboldened and enabled to take over Iraq and every other country the United States needs as an ally and an oil supplier. Were this to have happened, the United States would have been unable to import any oil, and would have become a third rate country in short order, completely unable to implement any other part of the agenda of Obama or any other candidate. Because our generals in Iraq did not heed Obama's call for surrender, America and the Iraqi government are now winning the peace, so that our troops will be able to return to America with honor and victory. As to sending troops into harm's way, nobody can be more sensitive to the significance of such actions than a national hero who was tortured for years as a prisoner of war and then gave up an opportunity to leave because he felt duty-bound to honor his commitment to America and to the prisoners who preceded him. How to Respond to Obama on Off Shore Drilling and Anwar The off shore and Anwar drilling proposals are not instead of alternate energy but in addition to it, as a bridge not to nowhere but to the time when we will have enough alternative means of energy to sustain our economy. Speaking of bridges, the "Bridge to Nowhere" has gotten a lot of press. But the pipeline that already exists in Anwar leads directly a good part of the distance from the oil fields to the locations from which the oil can be shipped to the other states in our union, so the estimates of 10 to 20 years to reach their destinations are far in excess of the time that will be needed. Some experts have estimated close to 3 years for the additional oil to start flowing. And of course, let us not forget that Clinton's veto of off shore drilling on the basis that it would take 10 years for the oil to reach its destinations took place more than 10 years ago. You can fill in the blanks — and the barrels of oil. Allowing off shore drilling only 50 miles out, as cynically proposed by the Democrats, is absurd, in light of the waste of time and resources it would require and in light of the modern technology enabling drilling to be much closer to shore without danger of significant leakage. It has even been pointed out that there is natural leakage of oil from the ocean floor, and were we to set up drills in these locations, we could actually REDUCE oil leakage into the ocean. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of off shore drilling is that not only wouldn't it necessarily take a decade or more to have a positive effect, but it could have a positive effect almost immediately since if the oil producers in the Middle East would realize that we are serious about drilling locally and thereby lowering the price of oil and possibly reducing or eliminating future orders for Mideast oil, the Middle East producers would increase their production to lower the prices so that we in America will no longer have the incentive to drill locally! How to Respond on the Issue of Palin's Experience Governor Palin arguably had more traditional significant executive experience after her first day as governor than the other major candidates combined, and she has been the chair of INTERSTATE energy entities despite her youthfulness and lack of seniority, and has had some dealings with Canada as well. What does Biden have to show for his seniority besides the chairmanship of a Congressional committee on foreign affairs, based on how many years he served with old timers of the past, many of them now dead and forgotten. He was against the first Iraq war, which most of our Congress people and allies supported, and then FOR the second Iraq war, which Obama and many other Democrats opposed. Biden has made more gaffes per month on the campaign trail than all the other candidates combined; not just cumulatively; so his experience does not exactly stand him in good stead. Nor does his experience as a plagiarist which contributed to his pulling out of an earlier campaign. He has experience accumulating the confidence of less than 1% of the electorate in the first presidential caucuses this year, and an even more negligible percentage after that; he has conceded he was not the best person for the job. As for Obama, since most of his time in the Senate has been spent campaigning and shaking people's hands rather than shaking up Washington, his experience represents under-achievement in the Senate, whereas Governor Palin by all accounts has been a high achiever as governor, with the highest approval rate of any governor, junior or senior, man or woman. This also indicates she wasn't chosen merely because of her gender or as a gimmick, but rather because she is a conservative maverick with a great track record; the fact that she happens to be a woman is a plus rather than a primary or only reason for being selected for a place on the ticket. Above all, those who believe that Palin's alleged lack of experience is a drawback have to concede that Obama has a dearth of traditional experience as well, but the difference is that Palin can afford to learn on the job as vice president, but Obama, and all of America, can't afford to have a president who has to learn on the job as of Day One. Biden himself, and Hillary, have noted that Obama will not have the necessary experience on Day One. Pollsters have been asking whether Palin is ready to serve as president NOW. What they SHOULD be asking is whether Governor Palin, a proven "quick study," will be ready to serve as Vice President as of January of 2009. Other governors such as Clinton and Reagan vaulted directly into the presidency after only serving as governor. Palin will be more experienced than they were — in terms of experience that matters — if she will ever become president because she will first have served as a vice-president with on-the-job training in the White House itself. How to Respond to Those Who Say Aye to Ayers The mainstream press has been echoing Obama in ridiculing the claim that Obama has or had ties to anti-American terrorists such as William Ayers. They point out that Obama was just a boy when Ayers was a terrorist, and that Obama has condemned the terrorism against the United States. What the press fails to point out is that: (1) as recently as in 2001, Ayers went on record that his only regret was that he didn't cause more damage in his terrorism; (2) Obama was on not one but two Boards together with Ayers, and not as mere members of a huge Board but as co-leaders of these Boards; (3) Purportedly, they remain friends despite Obama's suddenly announced differences about Ayers' terrorist acts, and, above all, (4) as pointed out by Stanley Kurtz in the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 23, 2008, as posted on the Internet, based on documents in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois), Obama launched his first run for the Illinois State Senate at a gathering in Ayers' house; from 1995 to 1999, Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of a radical education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), which was the brainchild of Ayers, who co-chaired the the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy. Obama and Ayers weaved a web of "external partners" like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn, referred to in the discussion of the bailout scandal, above, as a proposed recipient of funds indirectly), the South Shore African Village Collaborative, and the Dual Language Exchange, the latter two of which focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. "CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement." According to Kurtz, The Daley documents show that Ayers was a member of the board that Obama chaired through the CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee wit h Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Obama. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. I agree that Palin was wrong in merely saying that Obama "palled around" with Ayers and his cohorts; she was "guilty" of understatement. As Kurtz concluded his article: "This is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago. How to Respond to Those Who Say Obama Was Wrong about Reverend Wright Obama gave a few conflicting excuses about Reverend Wright and Obama's relationship to him, but Obama's final excuse, that he didn't know what Wright stood for despite sitting in his pew for 20 years indicates that Obama, unlike Palin, is a pathologically slow learner, at best. Obama's record of 100 votes of "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" likewise is unacceptable for a person who might have to press the button for a nuclear attack on a moment's notice. How to Respond to This Article The best response to this article will be to bring it to the attention of Republicans in high places, immediately if not sooner, as well as people of all parties in all walks of life. The life of our great country as we know it is on the line — a life line. Every responsible American should do what he or she can to keep the reins of power away from a person who, if elected, even if he has the best of intentions (which is subject to doubt) will change the United States of America into a really bankrupt third rate country, and will take liberty away from every inhabitant of the land of the free and the home of the brave. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
SHOULD AMERICA BAIL OUT 'SHARIA' FINANCE?
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 6, 2008. |
|
This was written by
Jeffrey Imm and it appeared in Family Security Matters
Jeffrey Imm, formerly of the FBI, has his own counterterrorism research web site at UnitedStatesAction.com and is a part of the Anti-Jihad League of America. |
|
On September 17, 2008, the U.S. News and World Report magazine reported on how the "Federal Reserve extended an $85 billion loan to American International Group to be paid back as AIG sells off some business in the biggest government takeover so far in the ongoing credit crisis." What the American public hasn't seen yet is what AIG is going to sell off in terms of its business. According to the September 16, 2008 press release by the Federal Reserve on this bailout, the "U.S. government will receive a 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and has the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders. But while the U.S. taxpayers are loaning money to AIG and the U.S. holds a nearly 80% equity interest in AIG, no one in the government seems concerned that AIG is continuing to expand its Sharia finance business. Less than a week after the government bailout of AIG, Reuters reported on how AIG's unit American International Assurance Co (AIA) was awarded an "international takaful (Islamic insurance) license" by the Malaysian government. AIG's American International has been selling Sharia-based "Islamic insurance" for at least two years, through its AIG Takaful division, since its October 1, 2006 announcement, with a stated goal to sell such Sharia financial instruments in the United States. AIG SunAmerica, AIG Financial Services Corp, and other divisions of AIG also are dealers in Sharia mutual trusts. The AIG bailout came two days before Congressman Tancredo's introduction of the "Jihad Prevention Act" (H.R. 6975), which "would deny U.S. visas to advocates of 'Sharia" law, and expel Islamists already here." This House bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Yet as the AIG bailout shows, the challenge of Sharia is more than an immigration problem, and the U.S. federal government is not yet taking any action on Sharia finance. While we should be concerned about "Islamists" coming to the U.S. to promote Sharia, shouldn't we be really concerned that the U.S. taxpayers own a nearly 80% equity interest in a company promoting Sharia finance today? Shouldn't the first assets that AIG should have sold two weeks ago have been their Sharia finance businesses? The day before the AIG bailout was being announced, the Center for Security Policy's (CSP) Frank Gaffney published his concerns about this growing financial institutional problem of "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SCF)" in an article entitled "Into the Fire." In his article, Mr. Gaffney references David Yerushalmi's study "Shari'ah's Black Box: Civil Liability and Criminal: Exposure Surrounding Shari'ah-Compliant Finance," which details the lack of financial transparency inherent in Sharia finance, and how such lack of transparency could lead to financial institutions being used to support terrorism and reverse money laundering. Moreover, as Mr. Gaffney, the current financial crisis will allow Islamist nations to buy "up engines of our capital markets for pennies on the dollar," and "[w]orse yet, they are, in the process, putting themselves in a position to promote Shariah-Compliant Finance and the seditious theo-political agenda it serves." Sharia finance is not just "business." Sharia finance exists to promote an expansionist, supremacist ideology; it is not merely "business," but is "business with an agenda." As I addressed in my November 14, 2007 article "Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing," organizations promoting Sharia finance have employed individuals such as former Dow Jones' advisor Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who have called for Jihad. As Alex Alexiev has stated, "far from being an innocent venture in free market capitalism, Islamic finance was conceived and is practiced as one of the key instruments of the militant Islamist movement in its struggle against the West." As reported by Alex Alexiev, Alyssa A. Lappen, Lt. Col. Jonathan D. Halevi, and others, Shariah finance zakat can be used to promote Jihad warfare. As addressed by Allyson Rowen Taylor and others, Sharia finance is anything but simply "business," as has been addressed in multiple articles on this subject. Role of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to Protect America's Interests With the passage of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 1424), a key part of its implementation is described in Section 104 of the legislation, "Financial Stability Oversight Board." The Financial Stability Oversight Board is comprised of the U.S. Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This oversight board has the responsibility to ensure that policies enacted under this legislation are "in the economic interests of the United States. As major financial organizations are receiving loans and other U.S. federal government bailouts, there have been no expectations set that they should be divesting their Sharia finance divisions and businesses. Why not? Certainly it is not the responsibility of American taxpayers to fund the efforts of financial organizations to promote Islamic supremacist financial instruments, any more than American taxpayers should be asked to fund any business that supports financial instruments that are geared exclusively to promote an identity-based supremacist ideology. Under this Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, will this Financial Stability Oversight Board protect the American taxpayer from funding financial institutions that have or promote Sharia finance divisions?Clearly this did not happen with the September 16, 2008 bailout of AIG, where American taxpayer dollars are being used to fund a company supporting Sharia finance.Isn' Congress and this Financial Stability Oversight Board should state that there are consequences to American taxpayers' support of such financial institutions, and a key consequence should be the elimination of Sharia finance that is rampantly supported among such financial institutions ranging from AIG's Takaful division to J.P. Morgan's MENA Islamic banking group (see page 6 of MENA brochure). While dealing with the legitimate challenges of our financial problems and marketplace issues, the U.S. government has the responsibility to also protect America's interests and the tax dollars of the American public to ensure that they are not funding Sharia finance businesses, and not funding an ideology that calls for and funds Jihad (using Sharia finance zakat). The American public must demand that U.S. government withholds financial support to those financial institutions that continue to undermine our national security interests by supporting Sharia finance. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
DOES GOV'T BLUSTER REASSURE; MISLED/UNIFORMED RE ISRAEL; THE YEAR FOR "CHANGE" & FOREIGN ACCEPTANCE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 6, 2008. |
|
DOES GOVERNMENT BLUSTER REASSURE ISRAELIS? Do the constant but unfulfilled government threats to fight back against the Arabs impress Israelis? My Israeli associate replied that most Israelis recognize the threats are mere propaganda for domestic politics. Anybody can see that, despite the threats, the rockets keep blasting at Israel, even if slower than usual, and that the enemy is building up its forces. DEFAMING SETTLERS & ENCOURAGING TERRORISTS An Arab burned down a Jew's house on a hilltop settlement. He also stabbed a 9 year-old child, who nevertheless threw away the knife. The Arab tossed the boy over a 9-foot high balcony onto rock-strewn ground. The child fell onto a bush, sparing his life. He returned with a firebomb and two knives, menacing soldiers. They shot him dead. My associate said that PM Olmert, the Israeli newspapers, and the NY Times ignored the attack on the settlers. A few days later, my associate smelled the smoke and saw the burnt prayer books. Reacting to the arson and attempted murder, the men of the attacked community broke windows of the assailant's town and shot into the air. Israeli police arrested the Israeli who shot into the air. PM Olmert, the Israeli newspapers, and the NY Times, who earlier had failed to condemn the Arab's arson and attempted murder, called the Jews' forceful counter-demonstration a pogrom. Their warped and selective indignation reveals their anti-Zionism. If the government did its job, there would have been no need for community residents to take to the streets. Whom to blame: the government, for failing to maintain law and order in favor of attempted murderers; the attempted murderer; and the media, for one-sidedness and bias. Siding with the arsonist is despicable. In Jerusalem, Arabs wipe car windows, no thank you. When my associate waves them away, they spit and bang on the car. My associate refrains from retaliating, to avoid being arrested by the police, who do not stop the Arab vandals. My associate describes Israeli government appeasement and antisemitism: "We are going from bad to worse. When I think it can't get worse, it does." My associate saw an Arab pull a knife on a soldier at the Hawara checkpoint. The soldier cocked his gun, so the Arab dropped the knife. The soldier arrested the Arab. Human rights and other leftist lawyers probably plead the Arab's youth and poverty, so he gets released and wields the knife more effectively, next time. Israel ignores minor transgressions until they build up to major ones, releases terrorists early from prison, and doesn't shoot them if they can be captured. This works out badly. For example, at that same checkpoint, a woman threw acid at a soldier, missed, and ran away without getting shot. She returned next week with more acid, and permanently blinded an 18-year-old soldier. REPORTING ONE'S PREJUDICES IN IRAQ It will take years of research before anyone can report comprehensively about the Iraq war. Those who think they are dong that probably have a narrow experience with the war. Many bring along their prejudices, and report through that distortion. Iraqis discerned their prejudices, and fed them reports they wanted to hear. It took a savvy reporter to realize that local "eyewitness" accounts of a US rocket attack on a civilian car were false; the car had been rigged to explode. Most Americans who got the "news" about that explosion were left with a poor impression of our military instead of the enemy's evil. The US got little credit for having deposed a mass-murdering dictator. It is a mean prejudice that demeans our troops, who probably are more idealistic than the reporters. One book calls them kids and hicks. They are older than in past wars, however, because they are professionals. They are brighter than most Americans, who could not pass the entrance requirements [at least as of a few years ago]. They urged successful tactics upon their commanders, who had the sense to listen. Some of the officers, however, were prejudiced against Iraqis, whom they therefore failed to train well. Officers who worked side-by-side with Iraqis developed competent units and got life-saving tips from civilians. Iraqi civilians often enough went shopping or hung laundry out to dry, during firefights. That cost some of them their lives. Not realizing this, the media tend to blame event those civilian casualties on over-aggressiveness by US troops (Jonathan Foreman, Commentary, 10/2008, p.42). The same is true of US and Israeli reporting about the Arab-Israel conflict. I've seen films of Palestinian Arab children playing during firefights. Their consequent deaths are blamed on Israel [as if the Arabs were not the aggressors]. Innocent religious Jews, settlers, and Israeli troops are depicted negatively, but the Arab murderers are not. MISLED & UNDER-EDUCATED ABOUT ISRAEL The US Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. "...event went so far as to expunge from its exhibits virtually any reference to other contemporaneous expression of ant-Semitism, whether the role played by the Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini in Hitler's program of genocide or Stalin's anti-Jewish campaigns before and after WWII. By focusing on the only variety of anti-Semitism that went down to defeat, Holocaust education made it that much harder to confront new forms of anti-Semitism." Those forms are spreading among leftists. The "poor Palestinians?" The Arabs have 640 times the land as Israel (Ruth R. Wisse, Commentary, 10/2008, p.30). They tried genocide. Don't pity them! PHONY TYPES OF ARGUMENTS Some commentators dismiss opposing arguments as "tired." The argument isn't tired, it either is valid or not. Commentators may be tired of hearing it, but that doesn't justify dismissing it. The sun has set on the NY Sun. That leaves me with the NY Times, whose bias I consider raving mad, whether against the GOP V.P. candidate or praising Israel's admitted crook-in-chief Olmert, whose appeasement-mindedness cost it a war and security on all fronts, praising him for still trying to bring Israel down while he is going down for corruption. He said what the Times calls "truths," that Israel must cede all the Territories, part of Jerusalem, and all of the Golan, while retaining secure borders. Those are not truths. Those are positions and untruths. Those positions are anti-Zionist, like the Times, the truth of which the Times does not tell. The mention of "secure borders" is cynical, because the borders that would be left would be insecure. As a US Chiefs of Staff report once explained, Israel needs to retain almost all of those lands in order to have secure borders. The Golan is a natural tank barrier whose heights would give Syria its old advantage of being able to shoot down on defenseless Israeli valleys. Same for the Judean hills in Judea-Samaria. Mountains also provide early warning posts. Israel does need warning posts, because the Muslims still want to conquer it. The Times phony argumentation fails to acknowledge that appeasement of persistent aggressors encourages persistent aggression, not peace. So beware of phony lip service arguments, such as ceding territory and retaining "secure borders." THE YEAR FOR "CHANGE" & FOREIGN ACCEPTANCE Liberals claim the US has alienated foreign countries, especially W. European ones. The liberals there have repudiated Western civilization in favor of atavistic barbarism. They have alienated themselves from us. They should emulate our better qualities. We should tighten our belts (and gas tanks) and mouths. Yes, Barak Obama would bring us change. Aren't liberals curious what change? They accept his vague generalities. His biography indicates that he has a radical agenda. He would inaugurate class and racial strife and sic big government on us, stumbling, as usual, as it goes. Incidentally, his plan to tax the rich overlooks the falling incomes of the rich. My friends resent the excessive pay for CEOs, but resentment is not a justification for policy. I suggest that corporations make extra compensation contingent on success and five years of it. It would stabilize them. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ENDLESS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 5, 2008. |
|
The idiocy of Ehud Olmert. He wishes to transfer to the Russian government rights to the Sergei Compound, which is part of the Russian Compound, in the heart of western Jerusalem, right off Jaffa Street. Of course, we cannot blame him alone for this, for he brought it to the Cabinet today, which approved it. And it was, weeks ago, approved by a committee that consisted of Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Justice Minister Daniel Friedman, and Finance Minister Roni Bar-On. Olmert is going to Russia next week, where he will meet with Russian president Dmitry Medevev; he hopes to present title to the building to Medevev then, as a gesture that will help persuade him not to sell arms to Syria and to back sanctions against Iran. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here we see the mind (such as it may be) of an appeaser at work. Foolishness. Medevev will thank Olmert for the building and then proceed to do as he wishes. If he decides not to sell arms to Syria, or to back Iranian sanctions — both of which are unlikely — it won't be because of that building. ~~~~~~~~~~ There is an historical connection between the Russian Compound and Russia; it fell under Israeli guardianship in 1952, and 90% of it was bought by Israel in 1984, but this particular building apparently fell into the 10% that was not purchased. There are some very strong arguments for not setting the precedent of turning property in the heart of Jerusalem over to foreign governments. With all of the other arguments, there is one that pertains in particular to our current situation: The Olmert government is a transitional government, legally bound to only take routine actions to sustain the functioning of the State. Attorney General Mazuz has made this clear. Thus, the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel is protesting this action. They have written a letter to Mazuz in this regard. If Mazuz plays it straight — not in any way a given — he cannot allow this to go through. But the issue is also being put before the High Court. Also no guarantee of anything. ~~~~~~~~~~ French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who was here for meetings, made a statement on Israel Radio today, regarding the fact that his country is worried about Iran. He knows, he said, that "something must be done about Iran," either peacefully or by means of a military operation. Well, I thought, a bit of logic at play in a crazy environment. That's what I thought for a brief interval of time, anyway. For he had more to say today. He urged Israel to proceed with the "peace" negotiations even during this turmoiled political time. The reason? Solving the "Palestinian problem" would make it easier to resolve the "Iranian crisis." Oi! Just one more person who doesn't have a clue. Such persons are legion. I would love to have him explain how putting a terrorist entity at our eastern border will so mollify Iran's leaders that they will decide to halt their nuclear development. ~~~~~~~~~~ Later, Kouchner made a statement at a Foreign Ministry meeting regarding Tzipi Livni: "I have confidence in her because I know her. She will manage to create ... a vital Palestinian state bordering the State of Israel, guaranteeing the security of Israel." Confidence in her? He thinks she's a miracle worker. While he's doing explaining, I want to hear how he imagines the mess that is the PA today can be turned into a "vital" Palestinian state. Vital? And exactly how its creation would guarantee Israel's security. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to a top IDF officer cited by the Post, the PA is gearing up for a major action against Hamas in Judea and Samaria in a few weeks time, as Hamas challenges Abbas, whose term is scheduled to end. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet another sign of the PA's lack of moderation (such signs also being legion): Ahmed Qurei, chief negotiator for the PA, has met with Sheikh Raed Salah of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement of Israel, a radical Islamist movement tied to Hamas. According to the Palestinian news agency Maan, Qurei said that the PA would never sign an agreement with Israel that didn't include Jerusalem, and that delays in finalizing such an agreement simply permits Israel to advance its plans to "Judaize" Jerusalem. Note, please, that he didn't say "eastern Jerusalem," but simply "Jerusalem." ~~~~~~~~~~ Two pipe bombs were found by the IDF in a parcel of an Arab man crossing the Hawara checkpoint in Samaria. This is the same checkpoint where a youth attempted to stab a soldier with a knife two weeks ago, and where a woman threw acid into the face of a soldier just days before that (with the soldier's vision in one eye still in doubt). Aaron Lerner in his headline on this today on IMRA reminds us that this sort of checkpoint is labeled "humiliating." We must never forget that these checkpoints are up for a life-saving reason. ~~~~~~~~~~ Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz has returned from his brief "time out." He has resumed his tasks as minister and attended today's Cabinet meeting. However, he did not attend the Kadima faction meetings; his aides say he is in doubt about his political future and does not intend to participate in political activities. This cannot please Livni, who was hoping for a boost from him. Livni met tonight with Labor head Ehud Barak, but nothing definitive came out of that meeting. The issues are economic. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S DANGEROUS PALS
Posted by Evelyn, October 5, 2008. |
|
This was written by Stanley Kurtz and it appeared September 29,
2008
in the New York Post
Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. |
|
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit. In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes — and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers. In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it.
THE SEEDS OF TODAY'S FINANCIAL MELTDOWN LIE IN THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT — a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades. CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA — and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions. Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets. Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards has been financial disaster.
ONE KEY PIONEER OF ACORN'S SUBPRIME-LOAN SHAKEDOWN RACKET WAS MADELINE TALBOTT — an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies. Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" — organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans. In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans. IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate. Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting — for example, by overlooking bad credit histories. By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirmative-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities. And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed — Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae — which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans." Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history. IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff. He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.
IN THOSE YEARS, HE ALSO CONDUCTED LEADERSHIP-TRAINING SEMINARS FOR ACORN'S UP-AND-COMING ORGANIZERS. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks. More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers — and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift. That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.
MORE, THE OBAMA-SUPERVISED WOODS FUND REPORT acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN — whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations. Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship." Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar? The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the
intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her
pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit
standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He
trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he
consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in
foundation funding for her efforts.
AND, AS THE LEADER OF ANOTHER CHARITY, THE CHICAGO ANNENBERG CHALLENGE, OBAMA channeled more funding Talbott's way — ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts. In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer." IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama. Then you'll truly know what community organizers do. Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at haze@rcn.com. |
|
THE REPORT OF ROK-19 FROM MARS
Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, October 5, 2008. |
|
Rok-19 is from Mars. He has been sent to the earth by the Martian Board of Celestial Inquiry. Alights in England day after the 7/7 Muslim terrorist attack in the London tubes. Wonders what this is all about. Goes to Oxford University, its great library. Digests one book an hour on Islam: the Quran, Muhammad, the Hadith (Islamic tradition), Saladin, Khomeini, the Islamic Revolution, about the "Great Satan" (America) and the "Little Satan" (Israel). Decides he must go the US, and Harvard library. Same stuff plus 9/11. Off to Israel and its National Library. Reads about formation of PLO in 1964 (about Arafat and the PLO Charter); about the Six Day War of 1967; about Israel's policy of "land for peace" leading to the Oslo Agreement of 1993 and the Wye River Memorandum of 1998 — and 10,000 resulting Jewish casualties, Reads about unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005 followed by rise of Itranian proxy Hamastan and 5,000 Arab missile attacks on Sderot. Reads about the government's policy of releasing Arab terrorists — 7, Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem. Reads how the policy of land for peace prompts willingness to withdraw from the strategic Golan Heights after 31 years of no conflict with Syria. Comes to the conclusion that Israel's political elites are:
Rok-19 examines Israel's governmental system:
Rok-19 returns to Mars and issues report of his findings to the Board of Celestial Inquiry. The Board consigns Rok-19 to a mental institution Professor Paul Eidelberg an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached by mail at 244 Madison Avenue, Suite 427, New York, NY 10016, Tel: 212-372-3752, and by email at Constitution@usa.net |
|
OLMERT'S PARTING BLOWS
Posted by Avodah, October 5, 2008. |
|
This is by Caroline Glick and it appeared October 2, 2008 in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has never been a shrinking violet. And on Monday, he made clear that he has absolutely no intention of leaving the public stage quietly. In a Rosh Hashana interview with Yediot Aharonot, Olmert admitted for the first time that he is negotiating deals with Syria and the Fatah-led faction of the Palestinian Authority committing Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, from dozens of neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, as well as from all or nearly all of Judea and Samaria. Olmert noted that he is the first prime minister to state explicitly that he supports Israel's geographical contraction to the 1949 armistice lines. Indeed, none of his predecessors were ever so explicit. And his likely successor in office — Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni — loses her voice every time she is asked whether she believes that Israel should withdraw from Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and all of Judea and Samaria. Olmert's willingness to spell out the expanse of the territorial handovers he supports makes him unique among Israel's premiers. But his stated view that Israel has no choice other than to withdraw from almost all the lands it took control of during the Six Day War has been the common view of every Israeli prime minister except Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu since 1993. Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon all signaled their support for this view. Indeed, all of their central policies while in office were predicated on it.
THE QUESTION is, why has this been the case? Why is it that for the past 15 years, at a certain point in their tenures every prime minister aside from Netanyahu has come to the conclusion that Israel must turn over its land to those sworn to its destruction? Like Rabin, Peres, Barak and Sharon before him, Olmert makes no rational argument for withdrawal. He simply asserts it. And like his predecessors, Olmert uses three rhetorical tricks to support his assertion. First, he notes the uniqueness of his position as prime minister. Olmert knows Israel must surrender its land simply because he is prime minister. Sharon expressed this most clearly when he intoned, "What you see from here, you don't see from there." Second, Olmert and his predecessors — and his likely successor Livni — all claim that "everybody knows" that Israel must withdraw. That is, you have to be completely out of your mind not to agree with me because every right-minded person agrees with me. Olmert made this intellectually intimidating point explicitly on Monday in reference to the Golan Heights when he said, "I want to see if there is one person in the State of Israel who believes that it is possible to make peace with Syria without conceding anything on the Golan Heights." Finally, Olmert and his predecessors — and his likely successor — argue that it is inevitable that Israel withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines. And since it is inevitable, it might as well be done right now. As Olmert said — again of the Golan Heights, — "I put it to you, say in the next year or two a regional war erupts and we find ourselves in a military confrontation with Syria... I ask myself, what happens after we beat them? First of all we will pay a price [for victory] and it will be painful. And after we pay what we pay, what will we say to them? 'Let's talk.' And what will the Syrians say? 'Let's talk about the Golan.'" The assertion that a prime minister knows more than regular people is true. But no secret information in the world counterbalances empirical evidence that is open for all to see. While it may or may not be true that Israel can live at peace with the Palestinians and Syrians without returning to the 1949 armistice lines, it is manifestly true that neither the Syrians nor the Palestinians are interested in living at peace with Israel. So while an interesting theoretical question, the issue of whether Israel needs to give up land for peace is completely irrelevant today. Both the Syrians and the Palestinians know that Olmert — like his predecessors since Rabin — is willing to go back to the 1949 armistice lines in exchange for peace. And operating on this knowledge, over the past 15 years, both societies have gravitated into the Iranian axis. Today, at the same time as Syrian President Bashar Assad holds indirect talks about an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights, he has amassed 25,000 soldiers on his border with northern Lebanon. He is rebuilding his nuclear program with Iranian money and North Korean scientists. He has pledged to the Iranians that he will continue arming Hizbullah and Hamas and that his negotiations with Olmert will be coordinated ahead of time with Iran. As for the Palestinians, at every stage of their relationship with Israel for the past 15 years, every one of their leaders — from Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad alike — has been categorical in his refusal to accept Israel's right to exist. Moreover, insofar as Fatah is concerned, the violent conflict with Israel was supposed to have ended in 1993. In 1993, Yasser Arafat pledged that from then on, all of the Palestinians' issues with Israel would be resolved through negotiations and that terror would be combated, not fostered. While calling for immediate territorial surrenders to enemies uninterested in peace, Olmert — like his predecessors — also claims that the risk involved in surrendering the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is minimal because Israel is so strong. As Olmert put it, "We are stronger than they are. I tell you, Israel is the strongest country in the Middle East. We can handle all our enemies and we can handle all our enemies together and win." Yet Olmert — like his predecessors — fails to acknowledge that if
we give up the lands we took control over in 1967 we will be much
weaker. And our ability to deter our enemies from joining together to
attack us will be severely curtailed. He ignores the fact that it was
Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 that inspired the
Palestinians to attack us in September 2000. He ignores the fact that
Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 inspired Hizbullah to attack us
in 2006. And he ignores the fact that Israel's failure to defeat
Hizbullah in 2006 inspired Hamas to take control of Gaza in 2007. And
in all of this, he ignores the fact that Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria
are controlled by Iran.
AS FOR Iran, when the issue of Teheran's nuclear weapons program comes up, the leader who says we can beat all our enemies at once is suddenly singing another tune. Israel, "the strongest country in the Middle East," is crazy if it thinks it can defend itself against its most formidable foe. In Olmert's view, "Part of our exaggeration of our power and our lack of any sense of proportion is found in the statements being made here about Iran... The assumption that if America, Russia and China and Britain and Germany don't know how to handle the Iranians that we the Israelis do know — this is an example of a loss of proportions." So Olmert, like Sharon, Barak, Peres and Rabin before him, has made
the determination that the only strategy that Israel can follow is one
of utter defeatism and surrender. And he — like they before him — has
made this strategic calculation in the face of empirical evidence that
shows that whatever the costs of retaining the status quo — or of
actually defeating our enemies — the cost of surrender and defeatism
is surrender and defeat. That is, the cost to the country of following
their lead to surrender is higher than the cost of not surrendering or
subcontracting our survival to outside powers.
SO IF the view that Israel's only option is surrender has no basis in empirical evidence, what accounts for Olmert's baseless assertions? The answer, unfortunately, is clear. Quite simply, life is easier for premiers, and much better for former premiers on the Left than on the Right. As Olmert considers his options going forward, he knows two things. First, he knows that the international lecture circuit is eminently more generous to former Israeli prime ministers who speak ill of Israel than it is for former premiers who defend Israel. Second, he knows that if he ever hopes to return to politics, he will only be able to return as the head of the Left. His explicit statements on the need for Israeli capitulation will serve him well in both ventures. Then there is the issue of Olmert's legal woes. While Olmert's policy decisions are the same as all of his predecessors, the circumstances in which he is leaving office are analogous only to those that confronted Ehud Barak. Like Olmert, Barak left office under a cloud of criminal probes. And in his final months in office, he cast all remaining vestiges of strategic rationality to the seven winds in his desperate negotiations with Arafat. Despite the fact that his government had already collapsed, neither the Supreme Court nor the Attorney-General's Office told him he lacked the legal right to concede Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem. And in recognition of his embrace of post-Zionism, once Barak was out of office, all the criminal probes against him were quietly closed. Like Barak, Olmert probably won't be around long enough to conclude the surrenders he strives for. But that doesn't mean that his statements are not dangerous for the country. Far-left politicians and their counterparts in the media claim that Olmert is brave to speak as openly as he has. And this is true. It does take some bravery to stick your finger in the eye of the general public — which doesn't support your views. Olmert's statements and actions, which contradict the pledges he made to voters in 2006, are a slap in the face of the Israeli electorate. Unfortunately, the public has grown all too used to such blows. Rabin, Barak and Sharon were all elected on the basis of hawkish platforms. And they all abandoned their platforms after they were elected. This constant deceit has made the public cynical and engendered a sense of powerlessness among Israeli citizens. This sense is merely exacerbated by the sight of Livni working madly to avoid standing for election by attempting to form a new government. This is all the more true given that she rests her claim to governing legitimacy on her narrow victory in a tiny primary race riven by allegations of corruption. So by ignoring the basic reality of Israel's strategic challenges and speaking of irrelevant concessions to imaginary peace partners while demonstrating his abject contempt for the public, Olmert is causing us great harm. He is reinforcing our belief that we have no option other than deceitful leaders who ignore our rights and reality. And this is a dangerous delusion. Because the truth is that not all of Israel's leaders are defeatists. There are still leaders who put the country first. They are simply not friends of Olmert's. Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website: http://www.am-yisrael-blog.blogspot.com/ |
|
MY PRAYER FOR ROSH HASHONAH — 5769
Posted by Bernard J. Shapiro, October 5, 2008. |
|
Each year for the past many years, I have re-issued this prayer. Unfortunately my prayers don't seem to be answered. I know they are the prayers of many of my readers also. What to do? |
|
As I survey the fragile planet we call home, my mind makes note of the chaos, blood, and tears. The cries of a million lost souls shatter the night in a million corners of the earth. The sensitive, compassionate among them try to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked. One by one their energies dissipate. They try to hold back the tide with a teaspoon and then see the impossibility of the task. The Jewish people are but a cosmic speck in this universe. To many Jews who feel deeply about their own people, that speck becomes the whole world. Other Jews are irrevocably tied to non-Jewish pursuits. May we as a people open our eyes and begin to see the world as it really is. Without becoming depressed and morose, we must realize that there are powerful forces in the world that wish us ill. May we mobilize our strength to fight our enemies until they are defeated. May we not succumb to false prophets of peace. We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls. It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a pseudo-peace. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. Why did some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated "peace" with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers? Why do many still believe that it is possible to make peace with the barbarians who surround Israel and wish only to destroy it. (Santayana said and it is true today: "Those who do not learn from history are forced to repeat it.") The Jewish people must learn from history and learn the value of unity in the face of so many enemies who wish them ill. I pray that Israelis who have fought in countless wars will understand that there is no magic cure, though they crave to be free of constant conflict. As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. I have a vision and a dream that I must reveal. In the name of G-d, the Almighty, Defender of His People, Israel, I say to my people's enemies: Beware of the thing that is coming, that will take what you would not give. That will free the people of Israel from your atrocities. I say to Israeli Prime Minister Limor Livnat and her Kadima/Labor/Shas mafiaosa: Be aware of the Risen People who will sweep you and the Arab scourge into the dustbin of history. Know that the Jewish soul will be set free. The spectacular victories of the Israeli army and the return to Zion demonstrated that power. But it wasn't a miracle. It was just the soul of the Jew coming to its own. It was just the Jewish soul freed at last to be itself. And I see it coming, the Jewish soul released to be itself. I see a new proud Jewish government coming to power in Israel. A government that reclaims the Jewish Holy Places and restores Jewish sovereignty in all of Eretz Yisrael. I see Moslem control and Islamic sites removed from the Temple Mount to make it ready for Moshiach. I see the enemies of Israel, who raise up their hands to murder or injure Jews, driven from our Holy Land. I see the secular Jews of Israel and the world becoming more observant and returning to the Torah. I see religious Jews becoming more tolerant of diversity in Jewish practice. I see a new Israeli foreign policy that grovels before no nation, no matter how powerful. I see Israel's Foreign Minister informing every nation that their embassies must be in Jerusalem. If they don't respect Israel's capital, then they will be given permission to have a consulate in Tel Aviv. I see the government demanding that the Vatican return all the property it has stolen from the Jewish people during the last 2000 years. Maybe they will refuse and we could always hold their property in Israel as a down payment. The Vatican has been used to dealing with obsequious groveling Jews, but now they would see proud fearless Jews. I see an Israeli government that would change its relationship with America from one of subservience to one of equal alliance. Yes, I have a dream (apologies to MLK) that Jews will no longer debate the obvious: like whether to hold onto what is theirs or trade it away; whether to struggle for survival or to give up from fatigue. I have a dream that the Jews of the kibbutz and the Jews of YESHA will be reborn as brothers and patriots. From the Galilee to Eilat, all the people of Israel will share the same dream of a powerful independent Zionist nation. I have a dream that this strong, proud independent Israel will win the respect of all the nations of the world, including the Arabs. Instead of the contempt it has earned in recent years, Israel will again be a light unto the nations. And finally, I have a dream that this new Israel will find the peace it so dearly deserves. A peace with strength and self-respect. As I look back at 4000 years of Jewish history, I have but one urgent hope and prayer: We must make this dream a reality. There is no alternative. May the Lord, bless the leaders of Israel with the courage to pursue peace, and the wisdom to know when it is not attainable. May the Lord bless the Jews who return to Zion and give them jobs and new friends to ease their transition into Israeli life. May the Lord bless the war-weary Israeli people with the stamina to bear up under the strain, if peace is not just around the corner. May they understand that their fate may be that of endless struggle to survive in a hostile world and may they have the strength to understand that there is still no alternative (ein brera). May the people of Israel prosper and go from success to success never forgetting that their destiny lies in their might, their righteousness and their faith in HaShem. Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of The Maccabean Online and the Freemanlist. Contact the Center at Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, Texas 77235-5661. Phone or Fax at 713-723-6016 |
|
WHERE IS THE INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM? MORE ON OBAMA
Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 5, 2008. |
|
To All My Friends, This is long, but, please take the time to read it. This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. |
|
I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question — Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack — not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association" About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans — Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy? On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas ", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East? And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake! All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it — Wikipedia encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times — Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times — September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question — If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear — "Beware of the enemy from within"!!! Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. |
|
WHY IS IT STARTING TO LOOK LIKE THE 1930s ALL OVER AGAIN?
Posted by Bryna Berch, October 4, 2008. |
|
It's the economy. It's blaming the bad economy on the Jooz. They are never responsible for a good economy, even though they are supposed to control international finance. It's people wanting a change in their lives. It's wanting a Messiah who will bring about this change. It's longing for this Messiah. It's think Obama is The One. It's mass mesmerism. It's having millionaires whose money is protected back someone who says he's going to redistribute the wealth. (Which way, in the long run?) It's Jews willing to let him win even though his nearest and dearest all hate Jews. His pals are pro-Palestinian or Muslim or Marxists, or all of the above. So is his wife. So were his role models and tutors. So are his friends. So is his family — on both sides. It's otherwise sensible Americans not looking closing at Obama's (non-achievement) record and his Marxist agenda because they've been intimidated by his followers.
It's the youth singing songs of adoration and practicing thuggery. This video is on propagandizing children for political gain. This video is called: Hitler Youth Nazi — Hitler Youth bands and parades.
The little girls sing: "Obama is gonna change it. We're gonna change the world."
Obama Youth — the Junior Fraternity Regiment. Boys in camoflauge pants
Comparing Youth Singing for Hitler and for Obama
|
|
U.N. ANTI-BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION CURTAILS FREE SPEECH, CRITICS SAY
Posted by Doc Milt Fried, October 4, 2008. |
|
Please read this article. The UN, dominated by vicious Islamofascists like oil rich Saudi Arabia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran, and other Moslem terror-exporting Islamic Facist states, has passed a resolution making it illegal to report anything that would expose Islamic murderers. This proves the danger involved in subjugating the legal system of the USA to foreign supernational courts, which would bypass our constitutional rights as Americans. Barack Obama, and his handlers,favors putting the American judicial system under the jurisdiction of a world court. That idea is a favorite of so-called progressives, and advocates of one world supergovenment, like Barack Obama, who want to do away with the American constitution. Obama launched his political career as a darling of the radical Marxist wing of the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine, in the home of a man and woman who bombed Amercan public places and killed policemen, and who still brag about it. Obama got into and through Harvard Law School with the backing of a shadowy, powerful Saudi Prince. Obama applied for his bar examination under an alias. He has used a number of different names through the years. Who is Barack Obama? He has not allowed us to see his birth certificate or any of his college or law school papers. He is hiding something. Obama spent 20 years as a an accolyte of the "Reverend" Wright, who spewed anti American and anti Israel speeches, who went to see his friend Ghadaffi with his friend Farrakhan, who gave an achievement award to Farrakhan, the anti Semite, America hater Black Muslim. Obama is backed by al Jazeera, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Hamas, the PLO, Hezbollah, Achmadinajad, Farrakhan and his Black Muslim Party; The Socialist Workers Party, Cynthis McKinney, The Black Panther Party, and their ilk. Birds of a feather stick together. Obama is mysterious and dangerous. Barack Obama is for the continuation of preferential treatment of Black Americans in employment, in getting into College, and in advancement in civil service jobs, and in getting business contracts. Obama advocates racial set asides for blacks over whites. He favors taxing white people to pay black people reparations for slavery. Vote for our country, please. Pull the lever for McCain and Palin. This was written by Jennifer Lawinski and it appeared
yesterday on Fox News
|
|
Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam. The non-binding resolution on "Combating the Defamation of Religion" is intended to curtail speech that offends religion — particularly Islam. Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since. In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. Now the 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again. The non-binding Resolution 62/145, which was adopted in 2007, says it "notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001." It "stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular." But some critics believe the resolution is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech everywhere. The U.S. government mission in Geneva, in a statement, told the U.N. Human Rights Council in July that "defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights" around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web. Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. "blasphemy resolution" has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners: — On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel "The Jewel of Medina," which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that "credible and unrelated sources" said the book could incite violence by a "small, radical segment." "It's obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States," said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. Passing the resolution year after year gives it clout, Bolton said. "In places where U.N. decisions are viewed as more consequential than they are in the U.S., they're trying to build up brick-by-brick that disagreement with this resolution is unacceptable." Kevin "Shamus" Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm in Washington that opposes the resolution, said it is a slap in the face of human rights law. "The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a Trojan horse for something else," Hasson said. "When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can't be defamed. Ideas don't have rights, people have rights." He said the resolution is a shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers religious minorities in Islamic countries. "Who could possibly be in favor of defamation?" Hasson said. "God may well punish blasphemy in the hereafter, but it's not the government's job to police in the here and now." Paula Schriefer, advocacy director for Freedom House, a member of the Coalition to Defend Free Speech, agrees. "You have to remember that many of the governments that are pushing forward this idea are not democratic governments," she said. "Citizens of Pakistan or Egypt, who have been two of the ringleaders of this movement, are frequently put in prison or arrested. Even if they're not arrested, the fear of being arrested creates an environment of self-censorship." Floyd Abrams, Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, said that while Americans are protected by the Constitution at home, the U.N. resolution could affect those who travel to countries with anti-free-speech laws and isolate Westerners who oppose restricting religious dialogue. Neither the Pakistani, the Indonesian nor the Egyptian missions to the U.N. responded to requests for comment. All three are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Contact Dr. Milt Fried by email at docmiltfried@mindspring.com |
|
OBAMA GAFFES
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 3, 2008. |
|
Dear friends, If the liberal media has not relentlessly and brutally attacked Sarah Palin over her two insignificant gaffes to Charlie Gibson and Katie Curic, you would not be receiving this bulletin. If the liberal media repeated the following (click on the links below) Obama gaffes as many times as they did the Sarah Palin gaffes, you would not be receiving this bulletin. So, here is to prove not only that Obama is prone to stupidities and lies, much worst than Palin's, but more importantly, to prove that you, the consumers of CNN, NBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, BBC and other such biased media outlets, have all been exposed to lies, falsehoods, misstatements, omissions and distortions to the extent that prior to last night's debate you really believed Sarah Palin was a stupid empty headed nitwit. Now you know better. In fact, now you know the truth I do not approve all the connecting titles in the first clip. I am sending it for the actual gaffes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU&feature=related Your Truth Provider,
Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
NOT YOUR TYPICAL WEDNESDAY IN NYC: ACHMADINIJAD, HIS NETOREI KARTA BUDDIES AND ME
Posted by Daisy Stern, October 18, 2008. |
|
This essay was forwarded by Jack who wrote: "Can you explain the Netorei Carta? I cannot. They are the same "rabbis" who appeared in full Haredi regalia carrying placards, on Shabbat, to pay homage to Arafat." It was written by Elise S. Kayfetz (elisekayfetz@gmail.com ). |
|
I want to share my Wednesday with you. An astute scholar in Medieval Philosophy and a well-known publicist approached me yesterday. My first assumption was that this man was a simple Jewish man from Long Island (that's obviously before he told me his name). He first started talking to me about the chicken and the egg and which came first. We were then interrupted by what could have been a simple phone call from his wife. But then I overhead him say 'elle presidente' and ended his conversation with 'I'll see you tomorrow, I love you'. I asked him what was going on and what president he was referring to. He then proceeded to tell me that the president of Iran, Achmadinijad, would be speaking to 350 students. (You have to understand that my trip from Hofstra University into Manhattan is about an hour and twenty min commute, and by chance, he was headed in the same direction. This 74-year-old professor was my entertainment for the next 84 min of my life). He told me he was coordinating the lecture with Achmadinijad and immediately asked for my attendance. And before I rsvp'd, I said, I was just at a rally against him. What else could I have said at that moment? I was nothing but honest. We began talking and he was extremely inquisitive and very intrigued by my studies in aging. He even asked me for advice about how to prepare for his older years. I gave him my usual shpeal. Use it or lose it. In any event, the train ride consisted of him telling me that I was like steak and vegetables and that I looked like a shiksa among a variety of other things. Just when he told me I was like a beautiful melon, I decided to direct our conversation to Achmadinijad. I asked him a million questions and he answered them as if he was talking about a great Gd. Our journey together had finally come to an end and I ventured home. sent me an email at 6:30am the next morning and told me where Achmadinijad would be speaking. Since I was out late the night before, I forgot to set my alarm and slept through the lecture. However, I decided to take a long shot and see if I could catch the tail end. I rushed to Grand Central station on the 6 train and walked into the lobby of the Grand Hyatt on 42nd St. The first man I saw was an Orthodox Rabbi draped in propaganda. His pins said 'Anti Zionist' with a big red X crossing over the flag of Israel. I was clearly at the right place. I asked him if the lecture had begun, and he said it had not. I was sure that the lecture I was talking about and the lecture this Rabbi was talking about were two different things. He directed me to the mezzanine and introduced me as media to the coordinator of the event. I suddenly found myself fronting as a journalist from the Toronto Star who just "happened" to be in New York City for vacation. Unbeknownst to them I was a Jewish girl from Toronto living and studying in New York. Before I knew it, a 300-pound Russian security guard confronted me. He asked in his thick accent, "You on de leest?...if not on list, can't go in." I was clearly not on the list but somehow I was immediately directed into a small room with about 30 seats around a "U"-shaped table. This was 100% not the lecture the man from the train had invited me to. He was not even there. I waltzed in there like a true media relations person, along with press from The New York Times and other revered media groups. We sat at the back of the room. 
And then, Achmadinijad walked in. A man not much taller than myself with big glossy brown eyes. My own eyes popped out of my head and I could not get over the fact that a man who holds identical values to Adolf Hitler was 10 feet away from me. I remained strong although I was in great shock. At one point I had full eye contact with this villain, a man whom the black hats saw as a 'distinguished man' and I wanted to be sick. As soon as he entered the room, he was immediately swarmed by the black hats who greeted him with great admiration and gratitude. I must make it very clear that when I say "black hats", I am ONLY referring to the anti Zionist black hats that I saw, Neturei Karta. I do not want anyone to feel misrepresented. Trust me, I know a good "black hat" when I see one. When everyone finally adjusted in their seats, I quickly realized that this was a private meeting between Rabbi Dov Weiss and his comrades and President Achmadinijad; and somehow, this small Jewish/ Zionist Toronto girl who just recently moved to New York had made her way in. I became a witness to one of the most disturbing meetings of all kind. I took notes and captured the essence of the meeting just like a true media relations person. Rabbi Dov Weiss spoke of how happy he was that Achmadinijad understood the 'difference between Zionism and Judaism and that this made for a happy occasion.' Rabbi Weiss further said that the more 'Jewish you are, the less Zionist you are'. How does that make sense? I think I'm pretty Jewish and I am a damn proud Zionist. But that does not mean anything to these black hats. He kept repeating how happy he was that Achmadinijad understood the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Rabbi Weiss also said that Achmadinijad respected Jews and tried to justify that Achmadinijad did not want to see the Jewish people wiped out! Rabbi Weiss also said that the Iranian president never denied the Holocaust. These dudes are seriously delusional. Sick to my stomach, Ahmadinejad began to speak. He started off reciting a prayer for peace, which was probably the biggest oxymoron I could witness. And then he went on to say that "Jews are the first victims of Zionism." He concluded his speech and reassured the black hats that he sees a bright future where Zionism will no longer exist. This was just a snap shot of what he said. The rest I recorded on my camera. I don't know who poses a larger threat on the State of Israel and to the Jewish people. However, what I do know is that Achmandinijad and these anti Zionist Jews are equally manipulative and evil and that I have never been more afraid for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. Furthermore, I also know that I have never been more proud to be both a Jew and a Zionist. I was reminded of a time when Irwin Cotler addressed me and my fellow peers on the March of the Living on the 60th Anniversary of VD-day. Cotler said, not only do we need to stand up, but we need to stand up and be counted. And this my friends is what we must do. Just like you, I can't believe I was witness to this. This was not a
typical Wednesday in New York City.
Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com
|
|
JERUSALEM: THE DANGERS OF DIVISION
Posted by Boris Celser, October 3, 2008. |
|
This essay is a propos the article by Nadav Shragai called "The
Dangers of Division: An Alternative to Separation from the Arab
Neighborhoods |
|
It is an excellent article, and all the concerns mentioned are valid. There are religious, logistic, and security reasons to keep Jerusalem Jewish, but lack of affordable housing and good employment are driving Jews away. Investments by the government and by others must be made to attract Jews back to Jerusalem. So, where do we start? Well, if one believes Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, and only of the Jewish people, then Jerusalem should never be divided. So, what's the first step? The first step in my mind is to create two capitals for Israel. Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv, where the embassies are. Many countries in the world have two capitals, although in this case it would be for different reasons. Note: This has nothing to do with conceding to the world that they were right in moving their embassies out of Jerusalem. Quite the contrary, this is to stick it to them and keep Jerusalem Jewish. The distance between Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem is very small. It is no big deal to make the trip. Faster than driving from one end of Manhattan to the other. The only reason to move embassies to Jerusalem is ego. But it would do more harm than good. Jerusalem being Jewish requires a military and security solution, not diplomatic. If Israel declares Jerusalem the religious capital of Israel and of all Jews, it should at the same time forbid diplomatic representations from being based in the city. There is no need. The political capital can be Tel-Aviv, and, if necessary, the Foreign Ministry can move there. Even if the world were to recognize Jerusalem as the Jewish capital and decided to reopen their embassies there, it would cause more harm than good, and chances are more Jews would move away from Jerusalem. Embassies don't create jobs, or create only poorly paid jobs (maids, drivers) for the locals. Thousands and thousands of diplomats moving there with their families would cause Jerusalem real estate prices to go up even more, deterring younger Israeli families from moving there. It would do nothing to create the infrastructure needed, other than maybe a few expensive restaurants, beauty saloons, and the like. Indeed, it would congest the Tel-Aviv — Jerusalem highway over the weekends, since the diplomats and their families would try to get to the beach. Creating the proper industrial basis and infrastructure to generate jobs in and around the city and attract Israeli Jews to the city can be done by the State, the private sector, and even by foreign investors, but moving embassies to Jerusalem is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It'd make real estate prices go even higher. Even for those Jews who already own homes there, the news would not be good if they were planning to stay. All they would get would be higher property taxes and insurance bills to reflect the higher value of their homes, which doesn't do them any good if they're not selling to capitalize on it. This is what I think. Boris Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
GEERT WILDERS SPEECH AT THE FOUR SEASONS HOTEL IN NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 25TH
Posted by GWY, October 3, 2008. |
|
Topic: America, the last man standing. This is the speech by Geert Wilders., Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands. He is the Dutch Parliamentarian who produced Fitna. Robert Spencer calls him a "Warrior for free speech." The speech was given at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute of Washington, D.C. |
|
Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that's new to me. 
It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and the will of man made visible." Of course, without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done. I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the Old World. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This is not only a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself; it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality. My short lecture consists of 4 parts: first, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem. The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks: the Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see — and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. Mosques stand on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city. There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule. Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore." Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France, school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can, in many cases, no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization. A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century. Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks. Muslims demand what they call "respect." And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in — to give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey. Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence — for example, against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim Intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers," because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers. Much of this street violence I mention is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping Sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored. Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself. Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent. The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim; Islam is to rule the world — by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs. The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed, the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages — at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side. Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence, Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means "submission." Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is Sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to Communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies. This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims, the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guides every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world," and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. Which brings me to my movie, "Fitna." I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism, but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes. Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out. A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of "Fitna." Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel, because, very soon, we will get together in its capital. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense. Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders." Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming. Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel. It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as "right-wing extremists" or "racists." The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam. This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us, to stand up for centuries of civilization — to defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom." If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment. Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries. Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are gaining a foothold in the political arena, one voter at a time. Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big, something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance. This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch "Fitna" in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic. This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support. This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and Sharia. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America — as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem. Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom; it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed. These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942: "Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." EDITOR'S NOTE: See also a conversation between Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Part 1 is at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022975.php Part 2 is at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022985.php Part 3 is at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023016.php Part 4 is at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023061.php
Contact GWY at GWY123@aol.com
|
|
OBAMA PULLING A "PUTIN?"; ISRAEL IGNORES OWN SECURITY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 3, 2008. |
|
OBAMA PULLING A "PUTIN?" One article in October Commentary traces the rise of Vladimir Putin, the other, the rise of Barak Obama. What a striking parallel I found! When Boris Yeltsin freed the Soviet economy, it became chaotic. He turned for help in restoring order to Putin, a former law student who, although having been in the KGB, declared the need for rule of law and for "change." Yeltsin made Putin his Prime Minister. Putin then eliminated democratic restraints and opponents one after-the other, by means of law, deception, and murder. The West made excuses for him, especially because he talked about saving democracy. I found his action much like Castro's original subversion of the Cuban revolution into a leftist dictatorship. Obama as a high school student, writes Joshua Muravchik, citing mostly leftist sources, themselves, came under the influence of a black Communist. The radical ideology Obama adopted blamed blacks' problems on whites. He proposed racial preferences and greater government power. He became a community organizer, gathering people over local issues as a cover for indoctrinating them in radical politics. He presented himself as seeking "change." He did seek out Rev. Wright for his radical views, but pretends not to have known of those views. No wonder he didn't disavow Wright until pressed by Hillary Clinton to do so! He worked in several small organizations closely associated with the terrorist/radical William Ayers and on some boards with him. Obama's campaign pretends he did not know Ayers except from the neighborhood. It wouldn't do to let voters realize that they shared radical views. People are making excuses for him. Thus a friend told me he changed his views. No, he changed his excuses. As a legislator, Obama absented himself from many votes and originated little. Otherwise, he voted one of the most consistently along partisan lines. I interpret this as saving himself for the final push, which is his current effort. I think he is pulling a "Putin," presenting himself as in the democratic tradition rather than admitting his real views, which are too radical for the electorate. I see him as a great danger to our freedom in both domestic and foreign policy and giving government too great a role to keep our economy afloat. A clue about where he stands was revealed in the snippet that I watched of the Veep debate. His stand-in, Sen. Biden, blamed the financial crisis on "de-regulation" of banking and demanded more regulation. Yes, banks were allowed to develop conflicts of interest. But the government ordered them to give out sub-prime mortgages! By contrast, Palin noted that government often is the cause of economic problems and that Obama tax hikes would hit small business. ISRAEL IGNORES OWN SECURITY Israel negotiates extravagant withdrawals. Its security agencies scramble to figure out how to maintain security. The proper sequence would be the reverse. Set security goals, and then negotiate to keep within their guidelines (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/7). The government doesn't care about security. It cares only about its sick ideology. WANTS PLANES WITH IDF UPGRADES The latest and perhaps best warplane is the F-35. Israel is afraid that if the USA sells them both to the Arabs and to Israel, the Arabs would buy more, and having more of a better weapon would give the Arabs the military edge. To gain an advantage, Israel wants to install its own, exclusive improvements on the planes. The USA usually refuses permission to do this (IMRA, 10/1). Why does the USA refuse an ally permission to add an improvement that the ally's enemy won't have? Remember, the Muslims are the aggressors, seeking to wipe out Israel. Is the USA acting in good faith? It does not keep its promise to maintain Israel's qualitative edge or at least its promise not to change the regional balance of power. Israel blundered in discontinuing development of its own airplanes. US companies must export more of these costly weapons, to absorb some of the cost of development. The main trouble with the weapons industry is, aside from traditional service rivalry, that it goes in for over-complexity and is driven by Congressional desire for jobs in favored districts. There also is a lack of long-range strategy balancing needs for fighting conventional forces and for anti-terrorist insurgencies. The USA seems to practically ignore cyber warfare. ISRAEL TO BUY OWN COUNTRY'S CLUSTER BOMBS Israel has been stung by criticism over its use of US-made cluster bombs. Many of those bombs fail to explode until some civilian stumbles on them, after the war is over. An Israeli company produces a model that explodes reliably against its military target. The IDF, however, didn't buy them. It spent its aid on the product, because the aid agreement requires it to spend all or some of the subsidy on US products. Now it decided to buy its own model, to avoid the criticism and the casualties (IMRA, 10/14). The aid program is as much a subsidy of business as it is of Israel's military. It also undermines Israeli companies' Israeli market. MUSLIM MENTALITY In Egypt, as in the Muslim world as a whole, the people are sure that Al Qaeda and bin Laden could not have planned 9/11 and certainly not from Afghanistan. They reject their government media claims that Al Qaeda did, because they think their media writes what the US tells it too. [Their media criticizes the US. Is that, too, at the orders of the US?] They are sure that the US must have planned the attack, perhaps to serve its master, Israel. They think the US is not a fair broker in the Arab-Israel conflict and never has good intentions. Why are they sure? Because their media kept repeating the accusation. After all, they argue, Jews didn't go to work that day. They don't know that in the US, nobody keeps track of the religion of workers. Jews got killed on 9/11, too. Nor would Jews have kept the news from their fellow workers. The Muslims don't know that Jews are not like them in this regard. Why did the US want 9/11? They think it was to make a pretext to invade Iraq, to seize Iraq's oil. They also think that the war is a crusade against Islam. How can we defeat terrorism (Islamism), the author asks, if the Muslim masses don't believe the terrorists attack? (Michael Slackman, NY Times, 9/9, A16). Mr. Slackman's article brought out good points but little analysis that would leave readers understanding what is wrong with Muslim way of thinking. That thinking is not factual and not logical. It is conspiratorial and suppositional. It does not ask embarrassing questions. Nor does Slackman. Recently, the masses started getting fed up with terrorism, because terrorists attack them, and the masses feel it. Mr. Slackman was not fully factual. The US fought for Muslims, as in Yugoslavia, so how can it be on a crusade against Islam? The US makes Israel give the Arabs concessions and not the reverse, so yes, the US is not a fair broker, but no, it does not favor Israel. Then Israel is not the master of the US. The notion that it is, is just antisemitic. At the US war museum in Normandy, Gen. Eisenhower is shown calling the war on fascism a crusade. He was not criticized for using the term. Recently, Pres. Bush called the war on Islamo-fascism a crusade, he was criticized for upsetting Muslims. It probably does upset them, but the term is legitimate in its meaning of struggle. Only in regard to the Medieval Crusades has it a religious meaning. The Muslims should leave correct English to us. And what about their "holy war against us?" To argue that Muslims couldn't mount a successful attack, after there have been many such attacks, is overly humble. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
JEWISH US SOLDIER BRUTALLY ASSAULTED BY ANTI-SEMITE SOLDIERS
Posted by Marc Samberg, October 3, 2008. |
|
This is from The Public Record, Yeshiva World News
|
|
U.S. Army soldier was brutally beaten by other soldiers in his platoon earlier this month following two incidents in which a drill sergeants allegedly used anti-Semitic slurs to address the soldier. Pvt. Michael Handman, 20, who has just completed his fifth week of basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia, was recently released from a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, facial wounds, and severe oral injuries following the attack, according to the boy's father, Jonathan Handman. The soldier's father said he received a disturbing telephone call last week from his son's commanding officer "to tell me that my son is OK and out of the hospital." Jonathan Handman said his son was lured into a laundry room at the Fort Benning Army base by other soldiers, knocked unconscious and beaten while he lay on the ground. Michael Handman enlisted in the Army earlier this year. He wears a yarmulke with his uniform, which apparently led his drill sergeants to refer to him as a "kike", various anti-Semitic slurs, and a demand that he remove the yarmulke during dinner, according to his father. The soldier recently wrote a letter to his mother Randi recounting the anti-Semitism he has endured by his drill sergeants and members of his platoon since arriving for basic training at Fort Benning. "I have just never been so discriminated against/humiliated about my religion," Michael Handman wrote his mother. "I just feel like I' m always looking over my shoulder. Like my battle buddy heard some of the guys in my platoon talking about how they wanted to beat the daylights out of me tonight when I'm sleeping. And the only justification they have is [because] I'm Jewish. Maybe your dad was right.....The Army is not the place for a Jew." A Fort Benning public affairs representative would not comment on the incidents saying the attack and the anti-Semitism are under investigation. Michael Handman's father said in an interview he fears for his son's safety and is worried that his son may continue to endure additional beat downs and taunts about his faith by drill sergeants. "I'm scared he will become a victim of friendly fire." Jonathan Handman said. "The Army is not doing enough to protect him. They have mentally broken him to the point that he is willing to ruin his life by getting a dishonorable discharge." After he was released from the hospital, Pvt. Handman was sent back to the same platoon to face the soldiers who attacked him. He was then moved to a different company within the same platoon. But Jonathan Handman said his son told him the anti-Semitism has continued, according to a conversation he had with his son. A week ago Jonathan Handman took action and began a fierce letter writing campaign in an effort to get his son some help. He reached out to his state's U.S. senator, Saxby Chambliss, the Republican of Georgia. Chambliss immediately contacted the Pentagon to investigate and, surprisingly, the Department of Defense sent Chambliss a detailed letter last week confirming that Pvt. Handman was the victim of anti-Semitism. "Based on [Private] Handman's statement and the seriousness of the allegations, the command immediately initiated a commander's inquiry," stated a Sept. 26 letter sent to Chambliss by Samuel Selby Rollinson, the Department of the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff. "Based on the inquiry, the Army found that two [non-commissioned officers] inadvertently violated the Army Regulation concerning the free exercise of religion by requiring the Soldier to remove his yarmulke and by using inappropriate terms when referencing the Jewish faith. "While the actions of the NCO's were not meant to be malicious, and were done out of ignorance for regulations and cultural awareness, this does not excuse their conduct. The command intends to reprimand both NCO's for their conduct; require them to present formal blocks of instruction on what religious are authorized for wear; and finally, the battalion chaplain will instruct all cadre members on the Army policy concerning religious accommodation." The investigation by the Pentagon was limited to the anti-Semitism and did not include an inquiry into the beating. Prior to receiving a copy of the letter from Chambliss, the elder Handman contacted Mikey Weinstein, the president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a nonprofit government watchdog group that aims to keep a close eye on the military to ensure its adherence to the law mandating the separation between church and state. Weinstein spent a decade working as a U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), was formerly legal counsel in the Reagan White House and was General Counsel to Texas billionaire and two-time Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot. This is not the first incident of anti-Semitism that Weinstein's organization has exposed that has resulted in the Army running for cover. Weinstein and MRFF exposed a pattern of anti-Semitic Biblical teachings by chaplains at Fort Leavenworth. He also signed on to help defend former Army Chaplain, Rabbi Jeffrey Goldman, a Toronto native, who was taunted by senior military officers at a prayer breakfast one morning in May 2001 as his chaplain colleagues had placed Nazi uniforms and swastikas on the wall of the officers' club at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Georgia. Meanwhile, Jonathan Handman and his wife, Randi, continue to worry about their son's well being. Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
WHO ARE WE?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 3, 2008. |
|
I devote this entire posting to an article of mine that just went up on YNet. This was a cry of the heart. This is the link to it so you can readily share it with others.
|
|
Do we know any longer? The signs are strong that here in Israel we have lost our way. We have now entered the period between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. If ever national soul-searching was called for, it is now: We are an ancient people, with a bond to the land that is 3,000 years old. Driven out two millennia ago, we did what no other people has ever done — what the historians had thought was impossible: We returned to the land, with identity intact, and with the sanction of international law. We revived our ancient language and have flourished beyond all expectations. Time and time again, we defeated enemies against odds that were considered insurmountable. In the course of a defensive war over 40 years ago, we once again acquired the cradle of our heritage: The Old City, with the Temple Mount; Hebron and the Machpelah; Shilo; and more. A Jewish presence was returned to our ancient areas that had been rendered Judenrein by Jordan.. But we have a government that is apologetic about our possession of what is ours. We are being told we must give away areas that are historically Jewish, and quickly, because the "window of opportunity" is closing. What will happen if we don't pull back to pre-'67 lines (lines, it should be noted, that were only meant to be temporary armistice lines)? The world won't accept our legitimacy. Excuse me? We are legitimate, in every sense of the word. The notion that we might require the present-day sanction of the United Nations would be farcical if it were not so serious; the UN, which may elect Iran to the Security Council. The simple, unalterable truth is that the world respects us as legitimate when we respect ourselves. If there is a window of opportunity closing, it is the window to our own dignity and sense of who we are. We are meant to be a light unto the nations. With regard to hi-tech and medicine, we are precisely that. We have gifted the world with our advances far more than most people care to acknowledge. We deserve better But our national reputation has been sullied of late because of unprecedented levels of corruption. It matters not whether Ehud Olmert is ever indicted; the investigations and the testimonies have done their damage. The image is a dirty one, not befitting us at all. A light unto the nations must have sterling integrity. We breathed a collective sigh of relief when Olmert submitted his resignation. As the process has since unfolded, Tzipi Livni, by a margin of 431 votes, won a primary that makes her the head of the Kadima party; if she is able to put together a coalition she will become our next prime minister. A fresh start, you imagine? Hardly that. Multiple charges have surfaced of irregularities within that primary — charges that are particularly significant because Livni's margin of victory was so slight. These accusations have been made by supporters of Shaul Mofaz, the candidate who came in that very close second in the election, and by Avi Dichter, who was also a candidate, as well as serving as internal security minister. These charges are too serious to ignore. There are complaints that hours of the polls were extended at Livni's request because some of her supporters had not had time to vote. Meanwhile, Dichter has charged that "in quite a few polling stations, people who hold official positions in Kadima were walking around and crudely getting involved not in how to vote, but rather, whom to vote for." Right now we are running the risk that Olmert will be replaced by someone who achieved her position via improprieties. Are we so inured to "irregularities" — have we sunk so low — that we accept this without a murmur? A great cry should go up now from the people. We deserve — we must have! — Better. Demanding this would be a huge step towards reclaiming ourselves and who we are meant to be. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
LEFT-WING RIGHTS GROUP B'TSELEM TO ESTABLISH U.S. OFFICE
Posted by Naomi Ragen, October 3, 2008. |
|
I regularly get mail from B'TSELEM, an Israeli far-leftist, anti-Israel group which touts itself as a "human rights" organization. That would almost be true if Israeli Jews weren't human and didn't have any rights. That, at least, is how B'Tselem sees it. And I regularly dump whatever they send me, unopened, into the trash for the propaganda it is. Below, journalist Tom Gross explains how B'Tselem's outright lies are often used as the basis for New York Times stories. Now the group is planning to open up shop in the U.S. Just what we need. I'm sure they'll soon be asking you for money, unless the European Union or George Soros is funding them. This was written by Tom Gross and it appeared on his website:
|
|
The Jewish left is further bolstering its position in the U.S. After the introduction of the new J Street lobby, aimed at countering AIPAC, B'Tselem, the left-wing human rights organization based in Israel, has sent two official staffers to Washington and New York for the first time. Jewish left-wing activists are said to be buoyed by what they believe will be an impending Obama presidency's willingness to put significant pressure on Israel. The well-funded self-described human rights organization B'Tselem has sent out invitations welcoming journalists and politicians to a Capitol Hill reception. According to their press release, the B'Tselem staffers "intend to inform the policy makers, American public and the American Jewish community about human rights conditions in the Palestinian territories." The B'Tselem board consists of nine far-left Israeli academics, some of who believe in the so-called one state solution which would see Jews live as a minority in a future Palestinian state. CALLING THE BAT MITZVAH TERRORIST A "CIVILIAN" Writing last week on the website of Yediot Ahronot, Israel's biggest selling daily, Tamar Sternthal pointed out: "Human rights group B'Tselem's statistics are far from being trustworthy. B'Tselem's unreliable statistics are already regularly used by prominent American media such as The New York Times to try and make it look like Israel has killed more Palestinian civilians than it has. If you search The New York Times's online archive, you can see the Times has relied on information from B'Tselem in as many as 1,180 articles in recent years.[emphasis added] Now B'Tselem is likely to have even more impact in Washington and New York, even though their information is unreliable. PHONY STATS IN B'TSELEM PRESS RELEASES Here are a few more of the many examples of B'Tselem misleading journalists and the public alike, as related by Sternthal in Yediot Ahronot:
B'TSELEM BOARD MEMBERS: David Kretzmer, Professor of Law, Hebrew University Anat Biletzki, Professor of Philosophy, Tel-Aviv University Orna Ben-Naftaly, Head of the Law School, College of Management Academic Studies. Tamar Hermann, Dean of Academic Studies, the Open University of Israel Menachem Klein, Lecturer in Political Science, Bar Ilan University Alla Shainskaya, Senior Staff Scientist, Weizmann Institute of Science Oren Yiftachel, professor of political geography and urban planning, Ben-Gurion Univ. Menachem Fisch, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science, Tel Aviv University and Senior Fellow, Shalom Hartman Institute Rayef Zreik. Co-founder of Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University Oren Yiftachel, professor of political geography and urban planning, Ben-Gurion Univ. Anat Biletzki, Professor of Philosophy, Tel-Aviv University Orna Ben-Naftaly, Head of the Law School, College of Management Academic Studies. Rayef Zreik. Co-founder of Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University Menachem Klein, Lecturer in Political Science, Bar Ilan University Alla Shainskaya, Senior Staff Scientist, Weizmann Institute of Science
|
|
PLANET EQUALITY AND THE ECLIPSE OF NATION
Posted by LEL, October 3, 2008. |
|
On the eve of the Tory Party conference, the shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve issued a blunt warning. In the name of multiculturalism, he said, Britain had done something terrible to itself. It had downplayed British cultural identity, leaving long-standing inhabitants fearful and new immigrants alienated, creating a vacuum ripe for exploitation by extremists. His warning could not be more timely or appropriate. Multiculturalism and its allied doctrines of human rights and anti-discrimination are acting as a kind of corrosive acid eating away at our institutions, values and national identity. What's more, they are also actively preventing us from defending our own country. Just look what happened when the Army said it wanted to put a 15 per cent cap on the number of recruits it takes from overseas. The decision was taken because it believes that any more foreign soldiers would dilute the British Army's cultural identity. No less troubling, there is also the risk that foreign soldiers in British ranks might be banned by their own governments from taking part in certain conflicts, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. So much, you might have thought, is obvious. But not to the Equality Commission, which says the move would fall foul of the Race Relations Act by treating foreigners less favourably than British citizens. Really, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. It surely doesn't need to be said that to defend Britain, the armed forces must reflect and share the culture and values of British society — which means their members have to remain predominantly British. This is not a matter of treating foreigners less favourably — simply that a country has to be defended by those who are, overwhelmingly, part of it and thus loyal to it. It is because they identify with their country that they are prepared to lay down their lives for it. For sure, there have always been foreign nationals who perform exemplary duty in our armed forces and have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. But if there is no longer a critical mass of soldiers whose first loyalty is to Britain because they are not British, then that sense of a common struggle must dissipate. This obvious truth cuts no ice, however, with those ideologues who believe we should no longer identify with a nation because we are part of it, but must owe our allegiance instead to some nebulous, utopian fantasy supra-nation to which all cultures and creeds around the world apparently belong. The head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, objects to the Army's proposal on the grounds that it `raises large issues of principle'. You bet it does: the largest is the principle of citizenship itself, at the very heart of which lies the duty to fight for one's country. It is that principle which the Equality Commission now wishes to destroy. On Planet Equality, it seems it is racist to have an Army consisting of Britons committed to defending their own country. That's because multiculturalism holds that no one culture can lay claim to be the custodian of this nation's values. Mass immigration is regarded, instead, as the means to transform this green and pleasant land into the nursery slope of the brotherhood of man. As a result, the country is increasingly resembling some kind of mass transit camp, in which fewer and fewer inhabitants have any permanent attachment or identification with Britain. That's why almost two-thirds of all applicants wanting to join the Army in London are now foreign nationals — hence the Army's concern. This attempt to change the very nature of our country is now also affecting the most fundamental of our institutions. The Government is considering proposals to amend the 307-year-old Act of Settlement because it breaches human rights and sex discrimination law by not allowing a Catholic on the throne and by giving male heirs priority over older sisters. But Catholics aren't barred because of some nasty prejudice. The monarch is defender of the Protestant faith. Britain is a Protestant country. Protestantism infuses its institutions, culture and history. It is inseparable from British identity. Allowing Catholics onto the throne is tantamount to tearing up that identity. As for the priority for male heirs, this derives not from sexism but the need to protect the royal dynasty and prevent inheritance disputes which would harm the Crown. But then the real aim of all this is to destroy the monarchy — the embodiment of the nation — and snuff out Britain's Christian heritage which Dominic Grieve rightly says must not be `magicked out of the script' if Britain is to be defended against the attack by radical Islamism. Multiculturalism is actually undermining that defence in an even more immediate andalarming way. The Metropolitan Police is currently all but paralysed by the sustained onslaught from ethnic minority officers who are suing it for discrimination. Many of these cases, backed by the Black Police Association within the Met, are clearly deeply mischievous and unfounded. But what on earth justifies a `Black Police Association' in the first place — or indeed any of the Met's other `minority rights' police associations? The fact is that ever since the police were accused of ` institutional racism' after the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, they have been paralysed by the fear of being labelled racist — a terror which has indeed driven the whole of government to genuflect disastrously to multiculturalism and minority rights. This has even affected those in the counter-terrorism world, who are so petrified of being accused of racism that they are reluctant to use the phrase `Islamist terrorism'; and under instruction to boost the number of ethnic minorities in their ranks have furthermore turned a blind eye to extremist views. So the multicultural rights agenda, which is progressively destroying the effectiveness of our armed forces, police and security service, means Britain cannot be defended. No surprise there — because it is all about destroying the historic identity of this country. Of course, any civilised society should be mindful of the need to be tolerant towards people from different cultures and to ensure that they don't suffer on account of those differences. But multiculturalism and the rights agenda have fashioned these decent instincts into a weapon of war against majority values and the very identity of our nation. Far from promoting harmony, this simply destroys the most powerful thing that binds us together — our national identity. In place of a common project to support and defend the nation, it sets the strong against the weak and tears society apart. This Labour Government which talks so much cant about Britishness has, in fact, hollowed it out with quite catastrophic consequences. Among the public, the rage and grief over this transformation of their country and the destruction of all they have held dear is exceeded only by their despair that no politician will have the courage to stem the tide of cultural collapse. The Tory leadership is well aware of this mood, but is nervous. It is putting a toe in the water — hence the Grieve interview — but fine words don't necessarily translate into brave deeds on such toxic issues as immigration, the EU, human rights and multiculturalism. But if Conservatism is all about defending what is good and valuable against those who would destroy it, what more important treasure to be defended can there be than the integrity and historic identity of this nation? If David Cameron seizes this opportunity, he may create the defining moment when he turns from Opposition leader into Prime Minister-in-waiting. Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com This appeared in the Daily Mail, September 29, 2008. |
|
COURIC, PALIN, BIDEN — AND BIDEN'S FDR GAFFE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 2, 2008. |
|
While Gov. Sarah Palin is being grilled on her position on mark-to-market accounting rules, the press can't bother to ask Joe Biden if he could give us a ballpark estimate on when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president — or maybe take a stab at guessing the decade when televisions were first available to the public. Being interviewed by Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" For those of you who aren't hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed that a president who wasn't president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs. Here is Couric's full response to Biden's bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and (b) going on TV in 1929: "Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden's strong suits." But when our beauteous Sarah said that John McCain was a better leader on the economy than Barack Obama, Couric relentlessly badgered her for evidence. "Why do you say that?" Couric demanded. "Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama? ... Can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?" The beauteous Sarah had cited McCain's prescient warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Couric, the crackerjack journalist who didn't know FDR wasn't president in 1929, demanded more examples from Palin. We are currently in the middle of a massive financial crisis brought on by Fannie Mae. McCain was right on Fannie Mae; Obama was wrong. That's not enough? Not for the affable Eva Braun of evening TV! "I'm just going to ask you one more time," Couric snipped, "not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?" This would be like responding to someone who predicted the 9/11 attacks by saying: OK, you got one thing right. Not to belabor the point, but what else? Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae — the government-backed institution behind our current crisis. How does the Democratic ticket stack up on other major issues facing the nation, say, gas prices? Shockingly, Sen. Joe Biden was one of only five senators to vote against the first Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973. This is like having been a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. If Sarah Palin does nothing else, she has got to tie that idiotic pipeline vote around Biden's neck. The Senate passed the 1973 Alaskan pipeline bill by an overwhelming 80-5 vote. Only five senators voted against the pipeline on final passage. Sen. Biden is the only one who is still in the Senate — the other four having been confined to mental institutions long ago. The stakes were clear: This was in the midst of the first Arab oil embargo. Liberal Democrats, such as senators Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church and Hubert Humphrey, all voted for the pipeline. But Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation's oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation's enemies by about the same amount. The only argument against the pipeline was that it would harm the caribou, an argument that was both trivial and wrong. The caribou population near the pipeline increased from 5,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 by 2002. It would have been bad enough to vote against the pipeline bill even if it had hurt the caribou. A sane person would still say: Our enemies have us in a vice grip. Sorry, caribou, you've got to take one for the team. But when the pipeline goes through and the caribou population sextuples in the next 20 years, you really look like a moron. We couldn't possibly expect Couric to ask Biden about a vote that is the equivalent of voting against the invention of the wheel. But couldn't she have come up with just one follow-up question for Biden on FDR's magnificent handling of the 1929 stock market crash? Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il |
|
I SANG IN OUR SYNAGOGUE CHOIR ON ROSH HASHANNAH
Posted by Batya Medad, October 2, 2008. |
|
No, I'm not a member of a Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, Nouveau, Post or one of those Modern Orthodox shuls which stretch Halacha, Jewish Law, into yoga-like visions. In our small neighborhood shul, in Ramat Shmuel, Shiloh, neighbors lead the prayers and we all join in. Yes, even the women from our perches in the balcony sing along. Our prayers aren't performances. We all participate; that's why I said that I was in the choir. Those who lead the prayers aren't supposed to wow us into awed silence. They're supposed to enthuse us into joining. And that's what happens most of the time. Don't think of it as anarchy. Think of it as a jam session dedicated to G-d. There was nothing boring about it. If I had more space, I probably would have danced a bit. Some people clap and tap, a spiritual percussion. I like to move, since standing and sitting for long aren't comfortable. My neighbors understand the prayers, and that adds to the spirit of the Holiday. Sometimes that can cause difficulties, as when the man reading the Torah portion about Abraham taking his only son, Issac to be sacrificed was a bereaved father, and it was hard for him to get the words out. I have no doubt that prayers are supposed to be participatory and not a performance. Baruch Hashem, Thank G-d, it was a good way to start the year. Gmar Chatimah Tovah
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh.
She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il
This article is archived at
|
|
O'S DANGEROUS PALS
Posted by Daisy Stern, October 2, 2008. |
|
This was written by Stanley Kurtz and it appeared September 29,
2008 in the New York Post
Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy
Center in Washington, DC.
|
|
WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit. In the name of fairness to minorities, community organizers occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes — and thereby force financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions of dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers. In other words, community organizers help to undermine the US economy by pushing the banking system into a sinkhole of bad loans. And Obama has spent years training and funding the organizers who do it. THE seeds of today's financial meltdown lie in the Commu nity Reinvestment Act — a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades. CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in "subprime" loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers. Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA — and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN. In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions. Banks already overexposed by these shaky loans were pushed still further in the wrong direction when government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began buying up their bad loans and offering them for sale on world markets. ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott — an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies. Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" — organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans. In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans. IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate. Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting — for example, by overlooking bad credit histories. By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirmative-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities. And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed — Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories." What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae — which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans." Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history. IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama. When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff. He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks. More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers — and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift. That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted. MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report ac knowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN — whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations. Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship." Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar? The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts. And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way — ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts. In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer." IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mort gage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama. Then you'll truly know what community organizers do. Fannie and Freddie acted in response to Clinton
administration pressure to boost homeownership rates among
minorities and the poor. However compassionate the motive, the
result of this systematic disregard for normal credit standards
has been financial disaster.
Contact Daisy Stern by email at daisystern1@gmail.com
|
|
SECRET, FOREIGN MONEY FLOODS INTO OBAMA CAMPAIGN; BIDEN'S TIES TO PRO-IRAN GROUPS QUESTIONED
Posted by Kenneth R. Timmerman, October 3, 2008. |
|
More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose. And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate. Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report. But because of Obama's high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money. But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret. Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold. "Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed," said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. "They don't appear anywhere, so there's no way of knowing who they are." The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified. It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002. Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama's coffers with no public reporting. But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money. "We feel comfortable that it isn't the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign," he told Newsmax. But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors. Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers. "We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors," he said. "The Obama campaign never responded," whereas the McCain campaign "makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online." The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fund-raising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud. But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse. "While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center. Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum. FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign's finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor. Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to "re-designate" contributions in excess of the finance limits. Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can "re-designate" the contribution to the general election on its books. In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good" from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You." A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit. There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama's Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will's cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375. In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there's no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election. Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad," from "Nando, NY," gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You," just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn't even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX" and that his profession was "VCVC." Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date. In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each. Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad's cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965. Foreign Donations And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about. The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their "state" as "IR," often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as "UK," the United Kingdom. More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680. But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France. Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike McCain's or Sen. Hillary Clinton's online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton's presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted. With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fund-raising by foreigners. In July and August, the head of the Nigeria's stock market held a series of pro-Obama fund-raisers in Lagos, Nigeria's largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners. At one event, a table for eight at one fund-raising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000. The sponsors said the fund-raisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter. Concerns about foreign fund-raising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities. In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign. "All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," the Libyan leader said. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..." Though Gaddafi asserted that fund-raising from Arab and African nations were "legitimate," the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200. Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to "root out fraud," including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fund-raising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online. One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store. In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store. Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza. The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign. A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show. Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign's year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned. The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30. The Edwan brothers listed their address as "GA," as in Georgia, although they entered "Gaza" or "Rafah Refugee camp" as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms. According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made. Many of the Edwan brothers' contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups. The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December. A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the re-designation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million. But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date. Many of the small donors participated in online "matching" programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs. The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fund-raising drive. "Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight," campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. "And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate." FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, "the two people must agree" to do so. This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said. Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, "We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program." Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out. BIDEN'S TIES TO PRO-IRAN GROUPS QUESTIONED Sen. Barack Obama and his newly-picked running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, may have sparred during the primaries. But on one issue they are firmly united: the need to forge closer ties to the government of Iran. Kaveh Mohseni, a spokesman for the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, calls Biden "a great friend of the mullahs." He notes that Biden's election campaigns "have been financed by Islamic charities of the Iranian regime based in California and by the Silicon Iran network," a loosely-knit group of wealthy Iranian-American businessmen and women seeking to end the U.S. trade embargo on Iran. "In exchange, the senator does his best to aid the mullahs," Mohseni argues. Biden's ties to pro-Tehran lobbying groups are no secret. But so far, the elite media has avoided even mentioning the subject. Just recently, Biden was one of 16 U.S. senators who voted against a bill that would add Iran's Revolutionary Guards corps to the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations, because of its involvement in murdering U.S. troops in Iraq. Rather than sanction those in power in Tehran, Biden and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel have argued that the United States should offer Tehran a greater role in Iraq's domestic affairs. At a March 2002 conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Biden made the case for closer U.S. ties to the government of Iran. "I believe than an improved relationship with Iran is in the naked self-interest of the United States of America," Biden said. At that same meeting, top Bush administration official Zalmay Khalilzad — today, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations — poured cold water on Biden's hopes. "We had hoped that after the 11 September attacks, the Iranian regime would end its support for terrorists", Khaliazad said. "But Iran did not stop its support for terror. Indeed, the hard-line elements of the Iranian regime facilitated the movement of Al-Qa'eda terrorists escaping from Afghanistan" and sheltered them in Iran. Biden offered to sponsor a meeting of Iranian and American parliamentarians in Washington — or any place else, if the Iranians had problems coming to the United States. No one in Iran ever took up his offer. Several Congressional Democrats attempted to travel to Tehran last December to meet with Iranian parliamentarians, but were denied visas by the Iranian regime, one of the Members of Congress involved in the initiative told Newsmax. While Biden has condemned the human rights abuses of the Iranian regime, his decision to address the American-Iranian Council and other pro-Tehran groups has angered many Iranian-Americans. "Biden has been too cozy with the supporters of the Iranian regime, which is anti-American, anti-Iranian, and has a horrendous human rights record," said Sardar Haddad, an Iranian pro-democracy activist based in Texas. The American-Iranian Council was founded by Hoosang Amirahmadi, a Rutgers University professor of urban studies who tried to run for president of the Islamic Republic in 2005. Funded in part by oil giant CONOCO, which hoped to secure lucrative oil contracts, AIC has lobbied consistently to get U.S. trade sanctions on Iran eliminated. In a recent interview with the popular Persian-language netzine, Tabnak, run by the former head of the Revolutionary Guards, Amirahmadi complained that he wasn't getting enough credit for lobbying Washington. "This is because the Iranians, instead of empowering the lobby supporting them, undermine it," he said. Biden's ties to the pro-Iranian regime lobby are not a haphazard affair, but a matter of conviction. Biden told Boston Globe columnist H.D.S. Greenway in 2005 that the United States should address Iran's "emotional needs" and conclude a "nonaggression pact" with the Tehran regime. "Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact," Greenway wrote. Biden hasn't shied from asking wealthy Iranian-Americans with known sympathies for the Tehran regime for campaign cash. When Iranian-American pro-democracy activists learned that Biden planned to attend a fund-raiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, they phoned his U.S. Senate office to warn him about the group's pro-Tehran sympathies. But the Delaware Democrat swept aside their concerns and attended the Feb. 19, 2002, event at the California home of Dr. Sadegh Namazi-Khah, which brought in an estimated $30,000 for his U.S. Senate re-election campaign. Several people who attended the fund-raiser said that Biden delivered a sweeping condemning of President Bush's recent State of the Union speech, which identified the Iranian regime as part of an "axis of Evil." "He really impressed us by his grasp of world affairs," Namazi-khah told me at the time. "He encouraged us to make our views known and to get more involved in American politics." Biden also impressed many of those present with his friendly attitude toward Iran. The senator said that "Iran always wanted to be an ally of the United States and to have good relations with the U.S.," said Housang Dadgostar, a prominent lawyer who wrote Biden's campaign a $1,000 check. "As Iranian-Americans, we don't want anything to happen to the Iranian government or to the Iranian people as a result of this war on terrorism," said Mohsen Movaghar, a Los Angeles businessman who also attended the event and contributed $1,000 to Biden. Both men belonged to the 70-member board of directors of Namazi-khah's Iranian Muslim Association of North America (IMAN), which hosted the event. Namazi-Khah and other IMAN board members told me that the idea for the fundraiser came from Biden, who apparently learned about the group after attending an earlier event sponsored by the AIC. Both Namazi-Khah and Movaghar also belong to the Board of the American-Iranian Council, the Washington, DC-based lobbying group pressing for an end to U.S. sanctions on Iran. So does Japeh Youssefi, who traveled from Scottsdale, Ariz., with his wife to attend the 2002 fundraiser in California. Between the two of them, the Youssefi's gave $4,000 to Biden's U.S. Senate campaign, the legal limit at the time. "Mr. Youssefi has earned the reputation of being a vocal supporter of Iran-US rapprochement and detente," a biographer on the AIC Web site reads. "In March of 2000 he created FAIRPAC — the Foundation for American Iranian Rapprochement, a political advocacy council — as a means of informing and educating interested persons everywhere of the benefits of improved U.S.-IRAN relations," according to the bio. Another key Biden contributor is Hassan Nemazee, a New York money-manager who chaired Hillary Clinton's finance committee, personally raising over $500,000 for her campaign. Nemazee also has served on the board of the American-Iranian Council, and more recently set up the Iranian-American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) along with a group of Silicon Valley billionaires, many of whom have close ties to the Iranian regime. Because of the controversy Nemazee and IAPAC members have generated within the Iranian-American community, the PAC's Web site includes a bald disclaimer of any ties to Tehran. "IAPAC has no relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran ... and is not focused on U.S. policy towards Iran, establishing ties with or legitimizing the government of Iran," it says. Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate "highlights the need to really investigate the web of Iranian influence in the United States," Iranian-American political analyst Hassan Daioleslam told Newsmax. "What you have here is a group of people who have been working together through different groups and organizations for the past ten years" to promote the interests of the Iranian regime. "It's deeply troubling to have a vice-presidential candidate raise funds from people whose ties to the Iranian regime raise such serious questions," Daioleslam said. Ken Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc., and author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and go to his website: www.KenTimmerman.com |
|
57 STATES IMPORTANT
Posted by Warren Manison, October 2, 2008. |
|
Fascinating slip that escaped almost everyone. Not sure what it
means, most likely nothing, but worth sending around.
|
|
Please read....this is scary. We need to forward
this to everyone!!!!
What's in the heart comes out via the tongue! From Rush Limbaugh's radio show yesterday.... Hey, folks, you want to tweak the Drive-By Media with me right now? You are aware, probably, that Barack Obama lost his bearings recently and said that he was going to campaign in all 57 states. You heard this? And most everybody chalked it up to, 'Well, he's tired.' You know, this is a Dan Quayle moment. I mean, Dan Quayle goes out there and misspells 'potato,' and we still hear jokes about it. Barack Obama says he's gonna go out and campaign in 57 states! He was just tired, you know, it's been such a long campaign, he's been so many places, he probably thinks there are 57 states. Well, I have here a printout from a web site called the International Humanist and Ethical Union. And here is how the second paragraph of an article on that website begins. 'Every year from 1999 to 2005 the organization of the Islamic conference representing the 57 Islamic states presented a resolution to the United Nations Commission on human rights called combating....' Obama said he's going to campaign in 57 states, and it turns out that there are 57 Islamic states. There are 57 Islamic states! So did Obama just lose his bearings, or was this a more telling slip, ladies and gentlemen? KEEP IT GOING, FOLKS! Our future is at stake...Make no mistake about |
|
ANTI-ISRAEL OUTFIT TURNS TO AMERICA FOR FUNDS
Posted by Barbara Taverna, October 2, 2008. |
|
This was written by Mark D. Tooley
and it appeared yesterday in Front Page Magazine
Mark Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy. |
|
The Friends of Sabeel in North America, which professes to be the "voice" of Palestinian Christians, is raising cash for the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). Sadly for apologists of the Palestinian cause, the European Union axed its funding for ICAHD because of "pressure brought to bear by right-wing Israeli neo-cons who have campaigned obsessively against our funding while threatening publicly to close us down." Or at least that version comes from ICAHD's Jeff Halper, as he described his group's dire straits without Euro cash. Halper, an anthropology professor and American by birth, was a 1960's-era student radical in the U.S. until he relocated to Israel, where his radicalism simply shifted focus against the Israeli Government. He founded ICAHD in 1997. In 2005-2006, the European Union Partnership for Peace Programme gave nearly a half million Euros to ICAHD for an education program called "Re-Framing: Providing a Coherent Paradigm of Peace to the Israeli Public." Ostensibly, this EU funding funnel "supports local and international civil society initiatives that promote peace, tolerance and non violence in the Middle East." But most of the cash seems to flow towards groups like ICAHD that simply repeat the standard anti-Israel narrative. Friends of Sabeel did not explain why the European Union cut off ICAHD's funds. But apparently it was because of Halper's role in the "Free Gaza Flotilla," in which "peace" activists broke the blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza by sailing in from Cyprus. Upon returning to Israel, Halper was arrested and incarcerated overnight. Apparently even the normally tolerant European Union was unimpressed. Last year, when it apparently was more flush with funds, ICAHD published a full-page ad in The New York Times with the headline: "Who Will Stop this Bulldozer from Destroying the Chance for Peace?" Included was a large photo of a Palestinian woman holding up her arms in the face of a presumably onrushing Israeli bulldozer. Naturally, ICAHD portrays the Israeli house demolitions as merely a nasty ploy to force Palestinians off their land. That destroyed homes usually housed terrorists, tunnels, or arms caches goes unmentioned, of course. Despite this indifference to Palestinian terrorism, ICAHD professes to oppose all "forms of violence" between Israelis and Palestinians. It insists that a "lasting peace" depends on full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, but not necessarily any change in attitudes by Palestinians. ICAHD specially focuses on Israel's "ongoing policies of Palestinian home demolitions, relentless development of large settlements, and building of the 'Separation Barrier' deep into the West Bank area." The group is also distressed by America's "uncritical political support" for Israel and Israel's chronic "violations of basic human rights." So ICAHD's allies at Friends of Sabeel in North America are appealing to anti-Israel religious activists in the U.S. to help contribute $30,000 towards ICAHD. Friends of Sabeel is the American branch of Jerusalem-based Sabeel, which is a think-tank for Palestinian Liberation Theology. The American Sabeel helps to organize U.S. church officials who believe that Israel is the primary villain in the Middle East. In recent years, Sabeel has advocated that U.S. churches divest their pension funds from firms doing business with Israel, but that campaign has largely collapsed, having been rejected even by liberal denominations. Board members of Friends of Sabeel in North America include former Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning, radical Catholic eco-feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether, and Christian Century magazine contributing editor James Wall. Friends of Sabeel forwarded to its own supporters Jeff Halper's urgent appeal for American dollars to replace the lost Euros. "So we now face a real crisis," Halper glowered. "That said, those who want us 'gone' make a mistake in assuming that we will close if our funding is withdrawn." Halper promised to keep his office open and work on a voluntary basis, with two staffers to help him. He thanked his American supporters for having provided an "important supplement" to the now cut off European Union funding, which had helped launch the "Constructing Peace Campaign." ICAHD launched the "Constructing Peace Campaign" last year to rebuild demolished Palestinian homes, so as to spotlight Israel's supposedly senseless destruction. As a sort of pro-Palestinian Habitat for Humanity, the peace campaign also hosts an annual two-week summer camp, in which international volunteers help rebuild Palestinian houses as a "symbolic gesture of peace and opposition to the Occupation." In between the construction work, the volunteers take field trips to observe what Halper calls Israel's "Matrix of Control," including the Wall, the "massive check points," and "one of the many refugee camps created in 1948." All of this important anti-Israel work must continue, of course. So Halper defiantly concluded his appeal to American supporters: "I promise you, no matter what, ICAHD will not be silenced." Trying to rescue ICAHD, the Friends of Sabeel in North America have pledged to raise at least $30,000. The fundraising includes inviting Halper to the U.S. for a fall tour, during which he will presumably address sympathetic church groups. "We, along with Jeff, promise you that ICAHD will not be silenced," the board members of Friends of Sabeel earnestly promised. "Together, we will continue to be a loud and persistent voice for justice." Potential American religious supporters of Sabeel and ICAHD will have to ponder whether a group too radically anti-Israel even for European Union support should merit dollars from among U.S. churches. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IDIOCY
Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 2, 2008. |
|
After two days of Rosh Hashana, with heart-felt prayer and deep contemplation, I have returned to my computer to find more of the same from Olmert — as if he haunts us and we can never quite be done with him. It is certainly not what I hoped to return to, but his comments must be answered, and so I do this posting now... ~~~~~~~~~~ Put simply, Olmert granted a "farewell" interview to Yediot Ahronot, which has made press in several places. He warns us that if we want peace with the Palestinians we must leave most, if not all, of the West Bank (i.e., Judea and Samaria) and eastern Jerusalem. The Palestinians won't settle for less, you see. So we have to do the compromising, the surrendering of what is ours. It boils down, again, to the question of who needs this agreement. Olmert behaves as if we must have it, and thus must give them what they want — which is exactly the wrong position to take. They have to want it, and, as it is, there is precious little evidence that they do. I will not belabor here what we would get in return for surrendering all that Olmert suggests we give up. I've covered that ground a hundred times before and undoubtedly will a hundred times again. Olmert says we will get "peace." I say that we will get terrorism that makes the Kassams coming out of Gaza seem like child's play. Hamas is breathing down Abbas's neck, and he is powerless to enforce any agreement. The entire thought of negotiating with him is unmitigated nonsense. What Olmert does is not only advance a position that weakens us from a security position, he also weakens our sense of ourselves, and of our rights. He is a destructive force. Allow me here to simply quote Olmert with regard to the fact that the Palestinians don't meet our readiness to compromise: "Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have the necessary courage, strength, internal determination, will or enthusiasm." With this he makes the argument for giving them nothing. And yet he persists. Idiocy. ~~~~~~~~~~ Unfortunately, he continues to represent a danger, although a diminishing one. He talks about "finishing the job" (i.e., negotiations) before leaving office. This is grandstanding: A deal is not going to be struck before he leaves office, even if that is a few months away. If he were to put his signature to something of an partial nature — outlining what had been agreed to so far — it might be binding down the road. That shouldn't be permitted to happen, because he is now heading an interim government that the attorney general has cautioned to act with "restraint." Besides which, that would require the Palestinians to also sign off on progress, and this they do not intend to do, whatever the calls from the likes of negotiator Saeb Erekat now for Olmert to put something on paper. Abbas has made a comment, however, that he hopes Olmert's statements are a "deposit" for the next government. Therein, too, lies a danger — that the Palestinians will demand that any future negotiations be based on what Olmert said, even if it was not in writing. ~~~~~~~~~~ Some of us have been in synagogue the last couple of days, and some of us have been having meetings. Reportedly, Livni and Mofaz have had their first meeting since the primaries. What, if anything was promised to Mofaz is not clear. What amuses me is that the meeting was referred to as "clandestine." How clandestine if it was being reported in the news? Livni and Barak also met. But the word here is that Labor's demands are not being met and that no progress was made in forming that coalition. ~~~~~~~~~~ The US Defense Department, I am pleased to note, has agreed to sell the Israeli Air Force 25 F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters. According to the Post, a Pentagon official has said that "the sale of the stealth jets to Israel was essential to American national interests and was meant to ensure that Israel maintained its qualitative edge over armies of neighboring countries." This is a plane that is not only stealth, it can hover, and land vertically and take off vertically is lightly loaded and in a few hundred feet if fully loaded. ~~~~~~~~~~ I wrote recently about violence that is being presumed — without solid evidence — to be from the right wing here, and I alluded briefly to the left-wing bias in this country. Evelyn Gordon has written a very powerful and painful piece on this subject, that tells it absolutely straight. I urge you to read it. She has addressed an issue that has been too much hidden:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISLAM THE PACKAGE
Posted by Michael Devolin, October 2, 2008. |
|
In my last article to the Magic City Morning Star I pointed out, for the express sake of Haroon Siddiqui and other apologists for Islam who are wont to accuse Canadians like me of Islamophobia that the religion of Islam as evidenced in the Middle East, Indonesia, and Africa is the Islam ordinary Canadians are afraid of. Ours is not Islamophobia but common sense. The term "Islamophobia" was created by those journalists who, subjugated by the tyrannical advocates of Multiculturalism, wish to hide the stark reality that veridical Islam — the real Islam, the Islam that created the terrorism we read about in the papers every day, casts a frightening image to all honest and thinking human beings. Canadians do not fear the Islam these apologists promise us is the true Islam — the as yet unseen Islam they proclaim is "the religion of peace." We are afraid of the present Islam, or rather, veridical Islam, which is to say, the Islam we see not only in every act of terrorism or intended act of terrorism, as exampled in the designs of "the Toronto 18," but also the Islam we see in countless religiously egotistic litigation cases (all at taxpayer's expense) in the Western world, many of these cases right here in Canada and the United States. Regardless the religious tolerance Muslim apologists and sophists like Haroon Siddiqui predict for Canada, we see these acts of terrorism (whether actual or intended) and "human rights abuse" cases in defence of Islam's tender masses as attempts to impose upon non-Muslim Canadians and Americans (or "infidels", as they refer to us) a culture not our own, a culture we have never consented to, and, most unfortunately, a culture of hatred and religious supremacy patently antithetical to those societal criteria and values to which Muslims were welcomed upon their arrival in this country. The Islam the West is fearful of is not the religion promised by Islam's apologists. We are fearful of the Islam as defined in the Koran, the Islam incumbent upon every "real" Muslim. Oriana Fallaci pointed out that there could never be a "moderate Muslim" simply because there is not a moderate Islam. Sam Harris writes that the non-Muslim world has a problem with Islamic fundamentalists because "we have a problem with the fundamentals of Islam." And this is the point the very few honest journalists and politicians of the Western world are trying to articulate to a seemingly obtuse and blindly pluralistic audience: the Islam much of the Western world is anxious about is the very Islam being smuggled here from those countries where it exists predominantly as an intolerant and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian culture. Brigitte Gabriel writes about Western ignorance of "the viciousness of the militant Islamic fundamentalist," that we "refuse to see it even when they look today at video footage of churches being burned in Iraq or different parts of the world or synagogues being destroyed in Gaza." Although it's very politically incorrect to say so, we must accept the fact that every Muslim being ushered through Canada's gates today is carrying with him/her a potentially dangerous ideological "package" existent in every Koran and in every country whose culture was created by the furious tenets of Islam. Both the Canadian and American governments are overlooking this reality to the peril of its citizens. For example, Canada now has as one of its politically active citizens an NDP candidate for the riding of Montreal-Bourassa, a certain Samira Laouni. She is a member of the Canadian Islamic Congress' leadership, an organization whose president is the notoriously peculiar Mohamed Elmasry, the Canadian Muslim who once declared that all adult Israeli Jews were legitimate targets for Palestinian terrorists. Samira Laouni, in her capacity as a member of CIC's leadership, petitioned the Federal Government to remove Hezbolla and Hamas from it official terror list. And as Barbara Kay reveals in the National Post, she served as an organizer and contact person for a CIC fundraiser at which the British journalist and convert to Islam Yvonne Ridley spoke. This is the same Yvonne Ridley who publicly defended the Chechen terrorist massacre of Russia's Beslan schoolchildren and who advocates that British Muslims disregard the authority of Britain's constabulary. Whether or not Ms. Laouni is a landed immigrant is irrelevant. What is both relevant and frightening is the fact that she is now obtruded upon the citizens of Quebec as the cognitive model of a normal Muslim. What is being obfuscated by the media and Immigration Canada is the fact that she is an immediate creation of the religion of Islam, the same religion that also created Hamas and Hezbollah, the terrorist groups Ms. Laouni is so wont to have legitimated as no more than Muslim visionaries. Relevant and frightening also is the fact that Islam has effectuated within Ms. Laouni and countless other Canadian Muslims a religious potency which makes them not so dissimilar from those Muslim immigrants who carry with them from distant Islamic cultures and countries the same ideological "package" responsible for spawning the Islamist terrorist and the exclusively Koranic ideal Western journalist commonly refer to now as "Islamic Jihad". This is the same Islam Wafa Sultan was speaking of when she stated to the writer David Horowitz that she had "decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself...Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem.... (Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed." Mark Twain wrote, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness." This might have been true in Mark Twain's time, but for the Muslim immigrant in today's world, intent on transmogrifying Western accommodative culture into something more applicable to Islam's culture of hatred, there exists no valid fear of an extirpation of his Koranic ideals: for the Muslim zealot willing to travel abroad, his religiously imbedded prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness has prepared him impervious to the Western democratic concept of tolerance by virtue of the innate obduracy of his faith, which is precisely the problem that I have with the "fundamentals of Islam." Also contributing to the sempiternity of Islam's racist tenets regarding Jews and non-Muslims ("infidels") is the fact that the open-ended and blindly pluralistic nature of Western Immigration laws provides an easy entry for those adherents of Islam who, at their religious zenith, overtly advocate the prohibition of the presence of Westerners and all other religious in certain Muslim countries by pain of death. Israel is continually excoriated by Islamic dictatorship member-states of the UN for erecting a wall to prevent Islamist terrorists from causing death and destruction within its borders proper. But countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can, without any criticism from the UN and its Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, openly deny freedom of movement to, and threaten loss of life against, all those human beings the religion of Islam identifies as non-Muslim. I sleeplessly hope that Western intelligence agencies are taking notice that many of the Muslim immigrants arriving on our shores from countries such as these bring with them an uncorrupted Islam, a "package" far more threatening and dangerous than the imaginary version promised by its apologists. Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net This letter appeared yesterday in Magic City Morning Star. |
|
A PICTURE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!
Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 2, 2008. |
|
Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
RECOMMENDED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, October, 2008. |
|
From Avodah (avodah15@aol.com) Obama — Fact/Fiction: This contains a lot of biographical information on Obama that the press has ignored or underplayed, and is worth watching even if you don't agree with the conclusion. I suggest you watch it and forward it because the mainstream media is not doing its job. http://sparkleplenty27.wordpress.com/ If you want a taste of what Barack Obama is capable of, watch this
video. It includes praise for Obama from Louis Farrakhan — who calls
him the Messiah — The Hamas political advisor, Iran's President
Amadinehjad, and Syrian Leader Bashar al-Assad. While a little rough
at some spots it contains material that tells us we are very close to
losing the United States of America. — In order to get your brain
around the ending, YOU MUST WATCH THE ENTIRE VIDEO because in order to
understand the future, you need a solid understanding of past up
through the present. ###. For more Obama videos, go to:
From Shamuele Seifu (samethio_jew@yahoo.com) Shalom from Israeli Member of Knesset, Jerusalem! Please check out this very short video clip http://www.aish.com/heroesOfIsrael/heroesOfIsraelDefault/From_Ethiopia_to_Israels_Knesset.asp or go to http://www.shlomomolla.com We all are Jews and Zionist from all part of the world and origins! The Children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel)! We all stand one nation of Israel! Amen! I work as volunteer and personal adviser to Member of Knesset Shlomo Molla for up coming Israeli election. I am writing this email behalf of Shlomo Molla the Ethiopian Jew Israeli Member of Knesset. Member of Knesset Shlomo Molla needs a lot of moral and financial and support. As you heard by the mass media the Israeli general election will be held in early February and the primary election for Kadima party will be held on December 16. The time is very short from now to December 16, he needs the financial support as soon as possible to conduct a proper election campaign that way he can represent our Ethiopian community in Israeli parliament. If he is not able to conduct good campaign we Ethiopian might lose our seat in the Knesset and we will be without representative. Please find the attached document (his detail personal letter to you), he strongly encourages you to pass this letter to all lover of Israel in your community who support Ethiopian Jews to have representative in the Israeli parliament! This GOD given opportunity to have our representative in the Knesset! Please support our community by what you can and by spreading this information that we can have representative in Israeli Parliament! We Ethiopian Jews and MK Shlomo Molla appreciate your great support. He will send you his official Thank you letter and receipt as soon as your gift is received. We are looking forward to hear from you. Sincerely,
From Esther Green (eil100@zahav.net.il The Jewish case against Barack Obama part 1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQdlzBNosU part 2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odIkj78IYEw part 3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTrUYQCQceQ From Gabrielle Goldwater (III44@aol.com) Please view this video Subject: Shalom It is truly beautiful. Please view this video and forward it onto everyone you know. The
hope is to get 1 million views. It has only been on the web for 1 day
and is about to hit the first 1000. It is truly beautiful. A friend of
mine got it from a friend in Israel.
From Boris Celser (celser@telusplanet.net) The Money Masters — How International Bankers Gained Control of America It is "only" 3 1/2 hours long but it gives information that is absolutely critical for you to know so that you understand what is happening. It's purpose is to explain how a few have taken complete control of the world financially. Extremely well done. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q =The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA From Zalmi (Zalmi@zalmi.net) Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski In a HARDtalk programme broadcast on 14th October, Stephen Sackur talks to the former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Opinion polls show that the world beyond America's borders overwhelmingly wants Barack Obama to win the Presidential election. But does he have the experience and insight to make a real difference to America's foreign policy? Zbigniew Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter and a sometime adviser to the Obama campaign. Will Obama set America on a different course? START the video from:
"Foreign Powers Fund Peace Now" Interview with David Bedein. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offgBOGwYVo From Jenny Weisberg of JewishMoms.com (jenny_weisberg@yahoo.com) October 12, 2008 Don't miss this unforgettable and inspirational video about the
marriage of a rock star and his former groupie. When faced with a
life-threatening illness, their lives are changed forever. This video
gets my vote for The Best Jewish Mom video so far... ENJOY!
It features Ilana and Meir Soloman of the Moshav Band The Best Jerusalem Eema Video Every!
|
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |