Friday, October 11, 2013

Mordechai Kedar: The Speech of his Life and Ours

by Mordechai Kedar

Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)
Read the article en EspaƱol (translated by Shula Hamilton)
In his speech at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat center on Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu the politician disappeared, and in his stead Netanyahu the statesman came to the podium; Netanyahu the leader, who stands in front of his nation and the world to speak the truth, his and ours, like a prophet or a preacher at the gates.

He did not attempt to emulate the United States’ President by spreading false hopes of an agreement with the Iranians, but gave a harsh, biting speech that would have made Barack Obama squirm in his chair. Netanyahu did not overlook the Iranian problem, but took hold with both hands and presented it to the world in all its naked, painful truth. Netanyahu opted to risk his relationship with Obama in order to tell the world: Beware the machinations of the Iranians.

Netanyahu spoke specifically about the evidence for the existence of a military nuclear program -- including both centrifuges and a plutonium reactor-- in his best effort the throw a wrench into the negotiations with Iran. With such evidence made public, no negotiations could demand less than what Netanyahu demanded in his speech, or so he hopes.

With regards to the Palestinian, we again saw the proud Jew, who against all opponents unequivocally demands the existence of the Jewish people in their land: You must recognize Israel as the Jewish state with a right to its country. If you do not recognize it you will not have peace. This is a legitimate demand, important, honest, and truthful, but the Arabs will never agree to it for several reasons.

1. Muslims believe that the religion of Judaism was cancelled out when Christianity arose, and the same happened to Christianity when Islam arrived. And if Judaism is null and void, then how can the Jews come and say that they have a holy land all for themselves?

2. For the Arabs, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community assembled from various ethnicities and countries where Jews have lived for hundreds of years. So if they are not a nation why do they need Israel?

3. According to the Quran, the land of Israel is an Islamic holy land, therefore no Muslim authority will recognize a Jewish state in Israel.

4. Jerusalem is the eye of the storm: According to Islam, there cannot be Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem, because such an event would signify that Judaism has risen from the grave after Islam had abolished it.

All these reasons prevent an Islamic recognition of Israel as a Jewish state from ever taking place. By insisting on recognition and stalling negotiations in a single spot, Netanyahu has succeeded in delaying the rise of a Palestinian state via an agreement with Israel for several years.

Without a doubt, this was the heart of Netanyahu’s speech, a speech which positions him as a leader and a statesman with a worldview suited to the Middle East, one that both our friends and enemies can value and cherish. To give up on one’s rights is contemptible, while to insist on them is honorable. Netanyahu, and us along with him, stands worthy of respect in the Middle East, and his opinion and positions must be considered.


Dr. Kedar is available for lectures

Dr. Mordechai Kedar
( is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Additional articles by Dr. Kedar

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the author.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

New Extremist Foxes Welcomed into U.S. Chicken Coop

by Douglas Murray

Say hello again to two of the most over-promoted and sinister figures involved with the current U.S. government: Mohamed Elibiary and Dalia Mogahed. If you were one of those Christian Copts standing in the ruins of your village or church, what message would you take from all this?

Imagine that in recent weeks alone, dozens of Muslims around the world had been murdered by Christian extremists armed with suicide belts and similar paraphernalia.

Imagine that at the same time, around other parts of the world, Christian mobs had set fire to, and burned to the ground, the holy places of some of the oldest and most established Muslim communities in the world.

Do you think there would be a reaction to such events? Probably yes.

Would that reaction be wholly negative and unceasing in its condemnation? Probably yes.

Would it be remotely conceivable that a senior U.S. government official or advisor would have used the opportunity to claim that Muslims who had been targeted had brought it upon themselves? Probably no.

Welcome then to the mirror-image of the real-world persecution of Christians that is going on across the globe today.

And say hello again to two of the most appallingly over-promoted and sinister figures involved with the current U.S. government: Mohamed Elibiary and Dalia Mogahed.

Of course, you may not want to: as the terror goes on worldwide, and the situation around the globe slips continuously in the Islamists' general direction, there is a growing and terrific ennui among much of the West. Among much of the Western world, terrorists' marauding is another case of, "Oh, just that Islamism again." You say a person is not good? Well, we can't be bothered to find out. The very condition that so few people can raise themselves to be bothered is part of the problem: "The trouble with all the nice people I knew in Germany," the British author Stephen Spender wrote in his Berlin diary in the 1930s, "is that they were either tired or weak."

Thankfully there are a number of people who can still rouse themselves to point out how outrageous Western governments' hiring policies are these days -- as when Mohamed Elibiary was promoted to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Advisory Council. Yet despite these heroic individuals pointing out Elibiary's track record of support for Islamists worldwide, the appointment held -- and so it was that the U.S. government welcomed another fox into its chicken coop.

Now an American official can not only fail to stand by America's friends – he can actually blame them for the persecution they are suffering.

Over recent days, one of the effects of this has already been felt: in September, when violence against Egypt's Copts had reached another peak, the new Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security Advisor, Elibiary, used his twitter account to blame American Coptic activists for the murder of their co-religionists by Muslim Brotherhood extremists of the type Elibiary has a track record of supporting.

On September 15, he wrote, "For decade since 9/11 attack extremist American Coptic activists have nurtured anti Islam and anti Muslim sentiments among AM RT wing." A day earlier, Elibiary blamed American Copts for protesting against attacks on their relatives in Egypt, and recommended an article "on need to reform #Coptic activism in #US including stop promoting #Islamophobia."

So while Copts were actually being targeted and killed in Egypt, Mr. Elbiary chose to try to switch attention onto the fictional persecution of Muslims in the U.S. There is nothing quite like someone excusing one crime-in-progress by citing a non-existent other crime -- except for, of course, a U.S. government official doing the same.

Unfortunately, thanks to our enthusiastic, politically-correct attitudes and radical Islamist ideologies, Elibiary is not alone in the U.S. administration.

It was Dalia Mogahed, you will recall, who helped President Obama draft the 2009 Cairo Speech -- a "reset" speech, regarded as seminal across several rooms in the White House. It was Mogahed who helped draft the address which apologized for America's past actions while giving the benefit of the doubt to most of its self-stated enemies.

Dalia Mogahed, advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Mogahed is not only one of the geniuses credited with that speech; her record also includes other glowing occasions. Such as the time, that same year, in which she cropped up on a U.K. television program, which aired on the most notorious satellite Islamist channel. Mogahed took part in a discussion about the empowerment of women through Sharia. She participated, seemingly happily, in the program hosted -- and introduced as such -- by a member of the radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Mogahed also seemed unfazed when, for instance, passionate fellow participants called for the restoration of the Caliphate (a key pipedream of Hizb-ut-Tahrir).

Incidents like that have been used against her. But these things have a tendency to come and go. A little flare-up of bad publicity here, the rebuttal of legitimate concerns and an accusation of "Islamophobia" there -- it is all part of the mood-music.

Dalia Mogahed's latest popping-up however, makes all her previous ones not only explicable but mild:

After 80 Coptic churches had been burned down by Brotherhood supporters, Ms. Mogahed decided to single out for criticism not the perpetrators but --- the Egyptian media! "The Egyptian media took advantage of the Copts to achieve many personal/political gains which has angered the West," she wrote on one of the Facebook pages to which she spends her time contributing: "Egyptian Americans for Democracy and Human Rights." All of which adds up to one of the strangest sets of messages any American government has surely ever given out.

If you were one of those Christian Copts standing in the ruins of your village or church, what message would you take from all this? If the officials of the current U.S. administration are managing to blame the media, or even fellow Copts in the U.S., for your slaughter and the desecration of your churches, would it be any surprise if they took the message that the current U.S. administration is not just indifferent to the suffering of Christians across the Middle East and the rest of the world, but actively asking them, "Would you mind dying quietly, please?'

Douglas Murray


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran Getting Set to Con the West

by P. David Hornik


The difference between ordinary people and Western leaders is that while the former are wary of con men, the latter seem to seek them and need them. As State Department official Wendy Sherman said last week, “We know that deception is part of the [Iranians’] DNA.” It seems all the more reason for Western leaders to hurry to Geneva for the October 15-16 nuclear talks with Iranian representatives.

Chamberlain was eager to be conned by Hitler, paving the way to 60 million dead in World War II. In the early 1990s the Israeli left anointed Yasser Arafat as Israel’s peace partner even though not a single Arab leader would have believed a word out of his mouth. Israel then lived with Arafat’s terror right up to his death over a decade later.

The North Korean case was highlighted in Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN last week. North Korea, he noted, detonated its first nuclear device in 2006—a year after “agreeing” to give up all its nuclear activities. It remains a dangerous nuclear power to this day.

What U.S. and European leaders seek from con men is the message that there is no such thing as implacable, ideological hostility and never a need for military operations or even credible threats of them. There are no enemies out there, just grievances that can be satisfied. Everyone is ultimately reasonable and shares Western values, and the easy, luxurious life of Western elites can go on unruffled.

On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran was preparing proposals for the mid-October talks. They are said to include ceasing uranium enrichment to the 20% level, allowing “more intrusive” international inspections of its nuclear sites, and possibly closing down its underground enrichment site near Qom—in return for the easing of Western sanctions.

Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz called the proposals “a joke.” He pointed out that “closing the Qom facility means Iran will be able to produce five instead of six nuclear bombs in the first year, and giving up enrichment at 20% is less meaningful now that Iran has 20,000 centrifuges.”

In other words, even if Iran really did give up 20% enrichment, it now has such numerous (and such advanced) centrifuges that it could quickly and clandestinely convert part of its 3%-enriched stock to bomb-grade material.

And yet Western voices are already starting to sing in harmony with the seductive song. The Wall Street Journal article quotes a “former Western diplomat who has discussed the incentives with senior Iranian diplomats in recent weeks,” and who says “The Iranians are preparing to go to Geneva with a serious package.”

The Journal notes that:
By falling short of a complete shutdown of enrichment, the anticipated Iranian offer could divide the U.S. from its closest Middle East allies, particularly Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who have cautioned the White House against moving too quickly to improve ties with Tehran. 
The momentum, however, may once again be on the appeasers’ side. AP already reported this week on a possible thaw in British-Iranian relations, with Foreign Secretary William Hague telling the House of Commons:
It is clear that the new president and ministers in Iran are presenting themselves and their country in a much more positive way than in the recent past. There is no doubt that the tone of the meetings with them is different.
Hague added:
We must not forget for one moment that as things stand today Iran remains in defiance of six UN Security Council resolutions…and is installing more centrifuges in its nuclear facilities. In the absence of change to these policies we will continue to maintain strong sanctions.
But with an opportunity to be conned beckoning, can prudence prevail over recklessness?
That will be the question as the P5 + 1 countries and Iran convene in Geneva on Tuesday. Sunni Arab states—which are themselves part of the conning culture and can’t be conned by Iran—and Israel—which has existed in the region long enough to shed Western illusions—will be watching. It is hard to be optimistic.

P. David Hornik


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Cairo Condemns Washington for Suspending Military Aid

by Ahram Online

Egypt lashes out at the US administration for halting military hardware and cash assistance deliveries in a signal of concern over the country's democratic transition

 Jen Psaki
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki (Photo: AP)

Egypt Thursday condemned a decision by the United States to suspend deliveries of major arms and cash assistance to the Egyptian government, despite assertions of continuing support for interim authorities.

Washington said on Wednesday that it had halted deliveries of large-scale military systems, as well as $260 million in cash aid to the Egyptian military, amid concerns over the country's democratic transition and mounting violence following the ouster of Islamist leader Mohamed Morsi.

The US review was launched in August after a security crackdown on Islamists left hundreds of people dead. The freeze, which the state department said was not meant to be permenant, would remain in effect "pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically-elected civilian government through free and fair elections," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement.

The US is halting the shipments of Apache helicopters, missiles, fighter jets and tank parts, officials said.

Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman lashed out at the move, despite it being "temporary and entailing no cut or reduction of aid," and "was accompanied by US assertions of keeping up support for Egypt's transitional government."

"The decision was wrong in terms of content and time. It raises serious questions about US readiness to provide stable strategic support to Egyptian security progammes amid threats and terrorism challenges it has been facing," spokesman Badr Abdel Atty said in a statement Thursday.

Abdel Atty, who said Egypt is keen on maintaining good relations with the US, asserted that his country will manage its own security needs.

"Egypt will take domestic decisions independently and without external influences and will work towards securing its vital needs ... namely those related to its national security."

The decision to freeze major military hardware deliveries was marked in a Wednesday call between US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Egypt's military chief, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi.

The United States, however, will keep up assistance to counter terrorism activities, "to help secure Egypt's borders" and bolster "counterterrorism and proliferation, and ensure security in the Sinai," Psaki said.

Egypt has been fighting a growing militant insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula since the army ousted Morsi 3 July following mammoth protests against his rule. The surge in militant activity in the region has raised international concerns, as it adjoins major US ally Israel, and strands the Suez Canal, a vital global waterway between Asia and Europe.

The State Department also said it would continue its support for health programmes, education and private sector development, as well as some aspects of military equipment as well as military training and education.

Washington has trodden carefully on the matter of Morsi's removal, shying away from calling it a "coup." But the US administration has repeatedly condemned growing violence following his removal and a deadly crackdown on his supporters.

Egypt has been engulfed in violent turmoil that has killed over 1,000 since 3 July. In renewed bloodshed, some 57 people, mostly Morsi-loyalists, were killed Sunday as they clashed with security forces and opposing civilians.

Ahram Online


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Steinitz: Iran's Proposal to Cap Nuclear Work 'a Joke'

by Shlomo Cesana, Yoni Hirsch, Eli Leon and Israel Hayom Staff

Even with limits, Iran would still be able to make bombs, says strategic affairs minister • Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon meets with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and says: We cannot fall into the trap of lifting sanctions as trust-building steps.

Will Iran shut down its Fordo enrichment facility?
Photo credit: AP

Shlomo Cesana, Yoni Hirsch, Eli Leon and Israel Hayom Staff


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Psychology of Apocalyptic Hostage Takers

by Riccardo Dugulin

Nairobi mall attack 

The slaughter perpetrated by members of the al-Shabaab terrorist organization in the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi left approximately 67 innocent people dead. While the ramifications of this incident are still being investigated, the crisis generated by a small unit of a radical Islamist militia is in itself instrumental in highlighting the psychology of those who may be considered as apocalyptic hostage takers.

The Dubrovka Theater in late October 2002, a public school in Beslan in September 2004 or the Westgate Mall in September 2013 are all tragedies that led to the same conclusions. While Chechens holding spectators hostage in an Opera House, Arab foreign fighters massacring children in their classrooms and Africans killing shoppers in the middle of a random day may have nothing directly linking them, their modus operandi and especially the psychology behind their actions establish a direct bridge between those diverse groups of Islamic terrorists.

The concept of apocalyptic hostage takers may be defined by three key aspects intrinsic to the crises mentioned above. The first and most straight-forward point is the choice of targets that, in this case, represent the terrorists’ will to destroy the key to intellectual and social life of a world they do not understand and cannot integrate into. The second aspect stemming from the choice of targets is the need to destroy life in its most natural form. For this, Islamist hostage takers do not simply torture and kill but also express no willingness to live. The last notion central to this idea of apocalyptic hostage taking is that Islamist terrorists see the process of leading dozens of innocent people to death as an irrational spiritual experience linking the group of self-proclaimed righteous to the early followers of the Muslim prophet Mohamed.

The first step necessary for understanding the nihilistic and apocalyptic vision of the world present in the hostage takers’ minds is the analysis of the objectives chosen by the Islamist terrorists for their attacks. In the fall of 2002, approximately 50 armed elements of the Riyad As Salahideen took control of the Moscow Dubrovka theater. The hostage taking of hundreds of innocent spectators during a representation of the Nord-Ost opera underlines an essential element revealing the disregard Islamist terrorists have for culture and arts. In an end of the world mentality built upon a dogmatic understanding of a totalitarian ideology, opera houses are part of a freedom of mind that cannot be tolerated. While adults are not supposed to indulge themselves in the pleasures of music and dance, children are not free to study and learn. The massacre in Beslan was the outstanding proof that, pushed by their irrational understanding of life, militiamen are unable to grasp the sanctity of a school and its classrooms. In the apocalyptic state of mind no one is out of reach from the wrath of God, a wrath meant to destroy every aspect of individual freedom and brought forward by men and women armed with automatic weapons and strapped with explosive vests. The Westgate mall is the latest example pointing in that direction. Al-Shabaab militiamen did not only target civilians, they perpetrated an attack on an infrastructure constituting an utter blasphemy in their corrupted mindset. Leisure and self-appreciation found in shopping are elements highly incompatible with the ultra-conservative understanding of Islam espoused by these terrorist groups.

The second element essential to the Moscow, the Beslan and the Nairobi hostage taking crisis is the absolute will to destroy life. Hostage taking incidents led by radical Islamists differ from any other event of this kind as they are based on abuse of the victims, an apocalyptic discourse and utterly unattainable objectives. The overall irrationality of the goals stated by terrorists, may it be the independence of Chechnya or the supposed act of war against Kenyan policies, underlines the inexistence of a clear strategy pursued by the perpetrators. Neither al-Shabaab operatives nor Arabs and Chechens wish to obtain a clear strategic victory out of these hostage takings. In addition, the assailants clearly express their will to die. Their discourse, their attire and their tactics set them at the margins of the society they intend to demolish. For this, the arbitrary execution of innocent spectators and the gruesome torture of random shoppers is only part of the hostage takers’ macabre walk toward a certain death. Since the victims do not and objectively cannot enter the exclusive spiritual circle of the terrorists, any act of brutality is apparently justified to destroy the social fabric of the radical Islamists’ perceived enemies.

The psychology of apocalyptic hostage takers may better be understood by linking it to the modern intellectual fathers of radical Islam: Sayyid Qutb and Ayman Al Zawhiri. These two Egyptians have contributed in developing the concept of a Muslim vanguard using physical and aggressive Jihad to lead fellow coreligionists toward the real meaning of Allah’s precepts. In this vision, all those who are not part of the vanguard movement are to be considered legitimate targets whose death would serve the goal of cleansing the world’s sins. In this theory, the amount of dead cannot be limited and the final objective cannot truly be quantified leading it to be an irrational way of preaching the apocalypse. Both Al Qutb and Al Zawahiri have developed their theories by building on the much fantasized experience of early Muslims, the Muhajireen, who performed hijra from Mecca to Medina with Mohammed. Detached from its motherland, the community is meant to fight for a sacred cause and rely solely on its members.

The utter detachment from any temporal and earthly reality along with the unwillingness to set clear and attainable goals are the key elements setting radical Islamist hostage takers at the margin of a society they do not want to be part of. Since, in their understanding, only the destruction of human life can bring out the truth of the Quran’s teachings, their resulting apocalyptic views are key to understand and counter the tactics used in Moscow, Beslan and Nairobi. Shall other incidents of this kind occur, no negotiations, no socio-political understanding and no indirect support should be allowed as all of it reinforces those who disregard the core of human life. In fact, only the direct destruction of these nuclei of irrational killers may save the lives of innocent men and women.

Riccardo Dugulin holds a master's degree from the Paris School of International Affairs (Sciences Po) and is specialized in International Security.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The New Left: A Purposeful Assault on Order

by Jeffrey T. Brown

Humans succeed in the administration of a society only when there are neutrally applied rules to protect its citizens, the rules are followed, and rule-breakers are punished. Society can only function to the benefit of its members when the actions of those members are governed, even if involuntarily, by a spirit of objective justice. We were blessed at the inception of our country with brilliant men and women, on the verge of creating a country in which they could have given themselves vast power, instead whose principles guided their hands. They influenced and wrote the most balanced, ordered blueprint for a civil society the world has ever known. 

That system has been eroded over the last century by the inexplicable attraction of socialism to those too narcissistic to allow others to freely prosper, though it was not until the administration of our current chief executive that we understood the determination of the left to fully destabilize the country by attacking its fundamental order. That is where fundamental transformation actually happens. When the moral framework of a nation is purposefully assaulted to the benefit of the attackers, the survival of the ordered society is threatened. What we see as the near daily occurrence of political affronts to our traditions and history is intended both to overwhelm us, making it nearly impossible to respond to so many affronts at once, and distract from the eventual result. It is a constant war of manufactured crises waged against the founding principles of our society by those who seek to destroy and replace them.

Before the ascendency of the left in the last half century, hundreds of years of trial and error, guided by both malice and charity, gave us a society continually striving for equality and fairness in treatment under the law. Given the innumerable variables in human nature, any other form of equality or fairness is not attainable. Free will has always been the wild card. Before now, the freedom to exercise one's will was considered a basic American right, so long as it was not exercised to purposefully or carelessly do harm to others. If applied in good conscience, the Constitution and those laws devised through an ordered legislative process were the ultimate bulwark against the malicious indulgences of human nature and free will.

An entitlement culture will, sooner or later, breed parasitic members whose mere existence is considered by them so meaningful that it is deserving of the reward of other peoples' property. Indeed, one of the foremost tools in the left's war on America is the redefinition of historically applied and understood principles, particularly equality and fairness. Everything that has been done in the last 50 years by the left, and particularly in the last 4, has been falsely done under the dual banners of equality and fairness.

"Equality", in the economic sense, has been warped by the shiftless, envious, and greedy to become a unilaterally determined entitlement to what others have paid for with time, labor, risk, and determination, absent any contribution from the claimant. As applied to rights, "equality" means the entitlement to preferential treatment over fellow citizens who have done no wrong. "Fairness" has simply come to mean the right to extort or steal to achieve the new equality.

These irrational conversions, focusing exclusively on grievance rather than merit, are promoted in the mental fever-swamp of the left's cultivated victims as the alternative to actually curing their own inadequacies. This is the bread and butter of community organizers. Victims suffer due to others, never due to their own qualities or choices. They suffer from the right of others to exercise free will, not due to the exercise of their own.

Acting on the premise that transformation is required to restore equality and fairness, as reinvented by the left, there is no moral structure, framework or institution of an ordered society that is not thereafter a justifiable target. The laws and traditions that previously kept people morally ordered are targeted for destruction by the left. The left cannot advance where there remains moral order; leftism and moral order are mutually exclusive. Like other cults of power, leftism must destroy traditional morality in order to replace it with the apparent wisdom of the ruling elite. When leftists act, therefore, they do so in purposeful violation of the established order, both structural and personal. They refuse to adhere to the rules they swore to uphold, and conduct themselves in ways clearly apart from the established moral order. They both subvert and overwhelm the system, knowing it is not equipped to respond to perpetual immorality.

The president came to power professing his belief in the restoration of equality and fairness, knowing full well that neither were fundamentally missing from our society, and that in truth he would seek neither. Aware that his enemy, decent Americans, would not define those terms as leftists do, he understood that his false invocation of those principles would provide cover, at least for a period of time, for actions designed to strike at the foundations of the country, weakening and collapsing it.

The administration of this president, and the legislative malfeasance of his party, have been a ceaseless attack on the order of our society, aided by a media that sees in Democrats the heralds of forced conversion to a uniformly anti-American worldview. Reason, the objective check on illogic and evil, has been relegated to a bygone era by the president's servants, a quaint but undesirable remnant of a free America. The president shares nothing with us of our traditions, our beliefs, our history, or our morality. Even if an American by birth, he is not an American by experience. What he believes of this country was implanted by those bent on disordering it, and then destroying it. Thus, claims to equality and fairness are nothing more than disingenuous appeals to moral people, while acting to defeat them.

In this latest foray into malicious infliction of harm on Americans, the government shutdown, those who have yet to see the light may finally glimpse the mindset of this country's most determined destroyers. Of course, one must have slept through the early stages of the Sequester not to have begun to see it then, even if one ignored the countless legal and moral indignities imposed on the country in the preceding three years. Tours of the White House, belonging to the public, were stopped on the basis of funding, though there was enough money to send the president's daughters on vacation to the beaches of the Caribbean and the slopes of Colorado in the same week. Public services were cut, but there was enough money to fly the president's dog to Martha's Vineyard on its own plane. There has always been money for golf, and entertainment, and vacations, and the luxuries due a monarch.

Until now, with open air parks, private sites, and shrines to American Exceptionalism being needlessly barricaded, no American president has acted so overtly to punish Americans for the impertinence of seeking order. No prior president has acted to deprive them of the exercise of the benefits of citizenship for which they have paid dearly to a government designed to serve the country rather than own it. To inflict this level of harm, he has angrily rejected all appeals to order and structure. To the credit of the Republicans, they, at least, have employed the mechanisms of the system. They have invoked rules and tradition to seek an orderly resolution of political differences.

This president and his party, however, will have none of that. If this current impasse is to be resolved, it will only be through pain and the surrender of those few politicians left who are finally defending the American people, the target of the president's loathing. Only when those remaining radicals, the advocates of Constitutional order, are defeated will the way be clear for the new America. This president has made unmistakably clear that he will not compromise with those who seek or promote order over chaos. Either he "wins" and the country is irreparably damaged, or.... nothing. Either way, ordered solutions are unwelcome as the demands of "terrorists" and "hostage takers".

Without rules, there is no order. Without order, there is chaos and crisis. When there is chaos, there is opportunity to direct newly-disordered people into whatever the controlling forces desire. Until now, our laws have served to limit the historic inclination of emotionally and intellectually malformed citizens to enslave others whom they perceive as vulnerable to an assault by government. In our Constitutional history, nothing is more disordered than an American president who daily promotes chaos in open warfare against his own country's founding principles.

Jeffrey T. Brown


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

'Israel Believes and Hopes US Aid Cut will not Affect Peace with Egypt'

by Israel Hayom Staff and Reuters

Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan cites "constant contact" between Israel and Egypt following U.S. announcement it plans to scale back military aid to Egypt • Senior Israeli official quoted as saying U.S. decision could have "dismal consequences."

"I hope this decision will not have an effect," Homefront Defense Minister Gilad Erdan
Photo credit: Uri Lenz

Israel Hayom Staff and Reuters


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.