Sunday, June 24, 2012

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible


by Doug Books

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”

In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.

In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.

On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.

Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.

At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.

Doug Books

Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/dems-admit-obama-not-eligible-dont-care/

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

Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Murfreesboro


by Robert Spencer

Why is a huge Muslim compound going up where there are very few Muslims? And who is paying for it? Eric Allen Bell asks tough questions about the mysterious mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee: "Mysterious Money and Motive Behind Monster Mosque in Murfreesboro," by Eric Allen Bell at Global Infidel TV, n.d.:

Why is it such a big deal that a Muslim community is simply trying to build a house of worship?

Let’s start with a little math. Murfreesboro, TN is located in Rutherford County which has just over 100,000 residents. According to estimates provided by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, there are 200 to 300 Muslim families living in the area. When they announced their plans to build a 53,000 square foot mega mosque, a lot of questions came up. One subject of concern was why they needed such a huge compound for so few families. What is particularly disconcerting is that, according to their own documents (attached 2009 annual report) the ICM only has 45 active paying member families. Naturally this begs another question – who is paying for this massive compound?

And, what will it really cost to build something that looks like this, per square foot, at 53,000 square feet, when the project is completed? How many millions of dollars will these “45 active members” be coming up with – and where is all this money coming from?

Now the question of who is paying for this Islamic compound and why is it so big, begs another question:

Why is it that after 9/11, mosque construction in America has nearly doubled?

It’s not as if the population of Muslims in America suddenly spiked – not even close. Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the United States population. So is there any logical explanation for the rapid expansion of new mosque construction?

One need only look to the history of 1,400 years of Islamic conquest to understand that according to the Hijra, the Islamic doctrine of cultural invasion, Muslims are required to build mosques following a successful attack.

But shouldn’t the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro have the right to build anyway? Is this not a right, given to all religions and protected under the First Amendment?

In order to understand what Islam is and is not, it is important to note a few basic facts. Well under 20 percent of Islamic scripture talks about religion in any way. The rest concerns itself with fighting the infidel, conquest, spreading the tyrannical Islamic political system and enforcing brutal Islamic Law (Sharia) on the non-believers.

Another glaring detail that our last few Presidents left out, when telling us that “Islam is peace” is that Islam is sort of obsessed with hating the Jews. In fact, the Prophet Mohammed had an entire Jewish tribe murdered. Here is a bit of Islamic scripture that I find to be very revealing, when it comes to “the religion of peace”:

“The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

So actually, Islam is a political and legal system with a thin veil of religious doctrine, thus giving it just enough cover to be protected by our laws, provided no one shine the light of truth and thus exposes to Americans what Islam actually is.

And the glaring fact that the Islamic scripture is a hate manifesto with a blueprint for worldwide domination of the infidel, well, who wants to confront the elephant in the room and be labeled “intolerant”? That said, until someone successfully challenges this in court, Islam has been deemed a religion in the United States, and when that premise is questioned in a court of law, Eric Holder sends officials from the Department of Justice to intervene on behalf of Islam.

However, when applying a little common sense, one can look at Islam’s place in America in the following way: “Islam” means submission. “Liberty” means you own you. Liberty is one of the major founding principles upon which America stands. Liberty and submission cannot coexist. Therefore, Liberty and Islam cannot coexist. Islam runs counter to our American values.

But the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro says it’s just a place of worship, right?

According to a passage on the ICM website from 2008, since scrubbed from the web, but preserved in the attached documents, here is what the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro website used to say about an objective of their presence, in Tennessee (before they scrubbed this from the web):

“The main focus is to insure the masjid (mosque) stronghold on our community and to expand beyond religious teachings… We must work hard so that the ICM have a prominent role in the development and progression of not only Mufreesboro, but of Middle Tennessee.”

I’m sure the mosque has a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. I guess it’s really up to you to decide for yourself, whether they mean “expand beyond religious teachings” when they explicitly say “expand beyond religious teachings”.

To put the next passage in context, know that the author of the Koran, “Prophet” Mohammed (asserting it was an angel who came to him) spoke only Arabic, and coincidentally the god he created, Allah, speaks only Arabic too. And Allah only hears prayers in Arabic. That said, the scrubbed passages from the old ICM sitego on to say:

“And to add one more, the Rutherford County school system currently offers French, Latin, German and Spanish, as a second language, to see our community work with the school board to establish a program that also offers Arabic as a second language would be a great achievement in the name of Allah.”

When it comes to applying pressure on the County to teach Arabic to the children of this area, remember that the population of Rutherford County is only about 100,000 residents. And the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, by their own count, is representing around 200 to 300 families....

There is much more. Read it all.

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/mysterious-money-and-motive-behind-monster-mosque-in-murfreesboro.html

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

Arab World: Siege Mentality


by Jonathan Spyer

This week, the Hamas rulers of Gaza chose to abruptly shatter the fragile framework of assumptions which have governed relations between Israel and Gaza since the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead in early 2009. By taking responsibility for the launch of a barrage of Kassam rockets into the Negev, Hamas essentially announced the birth of a new phase in its long war of attrition with Israel.

Operation Cast Lead purchased a period of relative quiet for Israel, through the imposition of deterrence upon Hamas-controlled Gaza. The movement, however, has now indicated that it considers that period to be at an end. What led it to this decision, and what may it portend? The Arab upheavals of 2011 posed particular dilemmas for Hamas and have produced significant changes in the balance of power within the movement. These changes underlie the current decision toward greater militancy in Gaza.

Hamas can be considered both a winner and a loser from the Arab Spring. The Hamas leadership in Gaza and in particular the leaders of the armed wing, the Kassam Brigades, however, have derived only benefit from the changes.

The movement’s external leadership, formerly centered in Damascus, has now scattered across the region.

Hamas’s supposed leader, Khaled Mashaal, is in Doha, Qatar. His main rival, Moussa Abu Marzouk, is in Cairo.

Other significant former Hamas residents of Damascus are now as far afield as Istanbul and Khartoum. One important Mashaal rival and advocate of armed militancy, Imad Alami, has taken up residence in Gaza.

A veiled power struggle between the Gaza leaders and Mashaal has resulted. Each side holds to a particular preferred strategy which, while presented in terms of principle, would serve to maximize its own power and influence.

Mashaal’s power has been much compromised by the disappearance of the Damascus base and the reduction of Iranian funding as a result of the failure to back Syrian President Bashar Assad. His preferred strategy for a return to relevance has been to push for reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority in the hope of achieving a political triumph for Hamas.

The Gaza leadership understands that this direction would require reconciliation with the Ramallah-based PA, and therefore the ceding of their independent power base in the Gaza Strip.

They advocate a rival strategy of holding on to “fortress Gaza,” maintaining links both with Iran and with the growing Muslim Brotherhood power in Egypt and thus enabling Hamas to play a central role in a new era of expected ongoing confrontation between Israel and an Egypt led by Hamas’s natural allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.

In recent internal elections in Hamas, the Gaza leaders scored significant gains. Very few Mashaal-associated figures in the strip attained positions on the district shura councils, the Gaza shura council and the 15-member Gaza Political Bureau. Senior figures within the Kassam Brigades, such as Ahmed Jabari and Marwan Issa, meanwhile, were elected to the Gaza Political Bureau.

Mashaal’s control over the budget of the Kassam Brigades is reported to have been removed.

Gaza-based leaders have consequently felt able to simply ignore his supposed reconciliation agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, signed in Doha in February.

Despite a flurry of recent media reports suggesting that the Gaza leadership had begun moves to help facilitate elections, nothing concrete has happened. Informed sources suggest that the talks on reconciliation have hit stalemate again. Simply put, giving up tangible power isn’t on the agenda of the ascendant Gaza Hamas leaders.

The Iranians appear to be firmly backing the Gaza leaders and their strategy of confrontation.

Fatah leaders have in fact alleged that the Gaza Hamas leadership was paid by Iran to prevent reconciliation.

The Iranians are interested in tangible geographical areas from which to exert proxy military pressure on Israel. They have little use or interest for long political campaigns in which the Palestinians debate and argue over their preferred path. They appear for now at least to have gotten what they wanted.

So a confident, militarized Hamas leadership in Gaza has retained the support of Iran. It is looking forward to a new era of militancy, in which it will maintain a direct land link to Egypt, where it expects its fellow Muslim Brothers to soon be in control.

This will open up new possibilities in which, far from being under Israeli siege, Gaza Hamas hopes to itself form an advance element in a siege to be imposed upon Israel.

The first confident shots in this new phase were fired this week.

The fact that the Hamas Gaza leadership appears to have maintained the Iranian link while keeping its ties to the Muslim Brothers in Cairo should concern Israeli planners.

It should serve to dispel any easy assumption that Shia and Sunni Islamists will continue indefinitely to tear one another apart, conveniently leaving Israel to enjoy the role of spectator.

It should also be remembered that on at least one occasion in the past (in 1956), war between Egypt and Israel became inevitable as a result of a process begun by terrorist activity emerging from Gaza.

The lull in conflict between Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza was made possible because of Israel’s imposition of a balance of terror in Operation Cast Lead. The rise of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and the decline of the Hamas external leadership have reset this balance.

The birth tremors of this new phase were felt in southern Israel this week.

This article was also published in the Jerusalem Post.

Jonathan Spyer

Source: http://www.gloria-center.org/2012/06/arab-world-siege-mentality/

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

Reinvigorated Islam


by Amil Imani

Trauma, viruses, or bacteria cause the death of a biological entity. Viruses and bacteria are major killers of human beings and present great challenges to medicine. They can be deadly and have the uncanny ability to mutate. Yet they are there for their mission of ending life.

Life exists due to balance: body and soul, good and evil, and life and death. This holds true even to the lesser foundations of our lives, and how we spend our time. The small, seemingly trivial ripples that we create each day eventually build into a wave -- the wave of mankind. The moment a new entity is formed, an array of forces work to end it. Death, in effect, is pre-birth. Without death, everything freezes in place. Death often provides the raw material for the new birth. The death and decay of a tree, for instance, supplies the needed nutrients for the seed to grow; the Newtonian physics' obsolescence provided the foundation for Einstein's relativity theory.

Death and renewal are also fundamental to religion. It is for this reason that many religions promised renewal in the person of a savior. The Jews, for instance, expect the Messiah; the Christians long for the second coming; and some Muslims pray for the appearance of the Mahdi, while other Shia Muslims supplicate God for the return of Imam Hussein.

Poorly understood and little-appreciated are psychosocial viruses -- PSVs. As is the case with their biological kin, psychosocial viruses also work to corrupt any idea, mental functions, or belief and help supplant them with new ones. Various forms of mental disorders are the result of interaction between the PSVs and the person's predisposition to the condition. Not all mutations caused by PSVs are pathological. Many serve to advance the human enterprise. Without contributions of the beneficial PSVs, humanity would still be stunted in its development at the level of day one.

In the case of Islam, a special group of PSVs set out to work the minute Muhammad launched his faith, and mutation rapidly followed. First, there was the Islam of Mecca, or the Islam of Meekness. For thirteen years, Muhammad's teachings, as recorded in the early Suras of the Quran, were about many good things. Very few people became attracted to what he preached. In fact, the people scorned the man, harassed him, and eventually made him flee his hometown of Mecca for Medina. Then a major mutation took place: the Islam of Medina, or the "Islam of Tyranny," arrived on the scene. The Quran Suras of Medina are replete with exhortations of intolerance, exclusivity, and sanctioning of violence against non-Muslims. This mutation deeply appealed to the temperament of the Arab Bedouins, and they flocked to Muhammad's faith.

The PSV of the time of Muhammad continued to mutate as it reached other peoples and other lands. Each people's own ideas and beliefs -- their cognitive immune system -- responded differently to the invader. Some completely resisted the assault and defeated it. Others were overwhelmed and forced into submission. Yet some of the vanquished, over time, managed to repel the invader, while others incorporated it to various extents into their own systems of belief. In due course, the mutation among the vanquished people became so divergent that some of the variants can hardly be recognized as the progeny of the original.

Islam of today is composed of a dozen major sects and hundreds of sub-sects and schools. Just two examples should demonstrate the fact that Muhammad's Islam has decomposed.

One branch of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi, has interbred with the Pashtun culture of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the result has been the Taliban version of Islam: a most reactionary, repressive, and savage "religion."

On the Shiite side, for example, there is a sect of the Ghulat Alavi that holds only to one of the five pillars of Islam: the Shehadah, an Islamic credo that says, "I testify that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." This sect does not subscribe to the remaining four pillars of praying five times a day, fasting one month a year, pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and paying the religious tax of zakat. The Alavi women are allowed participation in all religious events and are not required to don the hijab -- a stark contrast to the Taliban, who deny even rudimentary education to women and forbid them from leaving home without the accompaniment of a male relative.

The Ghulat Alavis deify the Imam Ali and the other Imams. They particularly revere the Imam Ali and worship him as a co-rank of God. They profess, " Ali khoda neest, valee as khoda joda neest" -- Ali is not God, but he is not apart from God. This very same sect places Imam Ali above the Prophet Muhammad.

Ideas and beliefs should thrive or fail on merit only, and not because someone says that they are the best and that everyone must accept them without questioning. Let the meritorious and the fittest survive, and let the phony and the unfit die. It is this form of freedom that has been the engine of progress in all fields of human endeavors. And it is the exact opposite practice of stifling free inquiry in many organized religions; that is the main cause of much superstition, stagnation, and even untold suffering.

What needs to sink into the Western people's minds is the realization that, to the Muslims, the idea of freedom and free thinking is largely an alien concept.

From birth onward, a Muslim's brain is packed with the notion that everything in life is predicated on the will of Allah. Allah is in charge of all things at all times. Allah is very much a hands-on God. He does the thinking, he does the ordaining, and he decides the outcome for everything large and small. And since Allah is the all-knowing as well as the all-everything, the duty of the faithful is unquestioned obedience in all matters, irrespective of any and all contradictory evidence.

Islam presently has its stranglehold over a billion humans, posing an existential threat to all non-Muslims. When this billion and a half adhere to the pathological belief of Islam and use it as their marching order of life, the rest of humanity can ignore the threat only at its own peril.

Once again, Islam has risen from the ashes and is on a campaign of conquest throughout the world. Hordes of life-in-hand foot-soldier fanatical Muslims are striving to kill and get killed. All they want is the opportunity to discharge their homicidal-suicidal impulse, on their way to Allah's promised glorious paradise. And in the background, granting the foot-soldiers' wishes, are their handlers, the puppeteers, who pull the strings and detonate these human bombs. Those who cherish life must recognize these emissaries of death -- what makes them, what motivates them, and how best to defend against them.

The campaign of death waged by the Islamist jihadist, be he a puppet or a puppeteer, is energized by the belief of delectable rewards that await the faithful implementer of Allah's dictates. Through highly effective indoctrination, the jihadist has come to believe firmly in Islam's grand delusion. He believes that Allah is the one and only supreme creator of earth and heavens, that it is his duty and privilege to abide by Allah's will and carry out his plans at all costs. He believes firmly in a gloriously wonderful immortal afterlife in paradise, for which a martyr's death is the surest, quickest admission. Although the dominating theme of the delusion is quasi-spiritual, the promised rewards of the afterlife awaiting the martyr are sensual and material. All the things and activities that the jihadist desires and cannot attain or practice, and rejects in his earthly life, will be purified and proffered to him in the paradise of the next life. Thus goes the promise.

It is also important to understand that the human mind is not a perfect discerner of objective reality. In actuality, reality is in the mind of the beholder. The outside world supplies only bits and pieces of raw material that the mind puts together to form its reality. Depending on the type and amount of bits and pieces that a given mind receives, its reality can be very different from that of another mind.

Nonetheless, it is time for Islam to shed its "burqa." The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. In the age of instantaneous communication and with rising literacy, the task of keeping this stone-age belief called Islam under cover is an impossibility.

No belief system or set of ideas, be it religious, scientific, philosophical, political, or otherwise, should be protected from open, honest criticism. It is up to the individual consumer to decide for himself, to the best of his ability and the compelling nature of the information, the value and veracity of any offering in a marketplace of free ideas.

None of the numerous contending Islamic sects is indeed the Islam Muhammad launched. That original Islam died with Muhammad, and the belief immediately started splintering and kept on splintering, with each splinter claiming to be the true Islam and renouncing and fighting every other splinter. This time around, the invigorated Muslims are using the immense amount of petrodollars they extract from oil-addicted non-Muslims. The sword is temporarily replaced by just as deadly a weapon, the petrodollar. Before long, the fanatical Muslims running Iran aim to add a more deadly modern version of the sword: the Islamic bomb. With the bomb in one hand and the other hand on the oil spigot, the religion of peace and brotherhood will have the power to bring the non-Muslim world to its knees.

Amil Imani

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/reinvigorated_islam.html

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

Staying Out of Syria


by Shoshana Bryen

Here are the questions on Syria: what is the American obligation? What is the American interest? What is the American capability?

There is no obligation. Where there is a treaty, the United States has an obligation to spend American blood and treasure. The seriousness of the commitment is why Congress has to ratify a president's desire to create new ones. "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doesn't exist. It was created as a stick with which to beat people into using the military for non-strategic purposes and used to justify the president's desire to join the French and the British in/over Libya without engaging in a discussion of war powers or treaty obligations. It worked, but the attempt to pursue American obligations based on the emotional tug of potential victims has failed in the face of more than 12,000 actual dead people.

It surely is in the U.S.'s interest to discomfit Iran, Hezb'allah, and Russia. Overthrowing Assad would do that, but continued fighting does it as well. No country in the region wants to be Russia's friend as heterodox Shiite Alawite Assad kills Sunni children. Iran and Turkey have fallen out over it. Iran may not get along with a replacement Syrian government, but the current one isn't much of an ally, either. Hezb'allah fears the next war with Israel because it won't be able to resupply overland and because Syria won't be the threat behind the curtain. Hezb'allah fears the seepage of sectarian fighting into Lebanon as well.

The ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood in the region, while a fact, should not be mistaken for a process that the U.S. should advance or one it can control. The newly elected head of the Syrian National Council (SNC), Abdulbaset Sieda, said recently that the Brotherhood "is an essential faction of the Syrian opposition," even as he asserted that the SNC does not control the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The Saudis are funding and equipping the FSA -- these would be the Saudis who fund Wahhabi fundamentalist organizations around the world in pursuit of religious hegemony. They are not bankrolling an army of friends of ours.

As for capabilities, the U.S. could certainly drop a bomb on Assad's military headquarters or the presidential palace -- and to punish the regime would be satisfying. And the U.S. military has plans for a great many contingencies, possibly including how to secure non-conventional weapons if the U.S. believes there is a danger of their movement or use. Israel likely has similar plans in case a military emergency in a foreign country threatens its own citizens.

But to believe that the U.S. has the knowledge or ability to choose the players in the opposition, or to create and train a rebel army on the fly, is to believe a myth. The idea that the CIA is vetting opposition groups is not comforting.

The U.S. is not an operative player inside Syria. We never had leverage with Assad, although we bribed him with the partial lifting of sanctions, an ambassador, and nice words about his role as a "reformer." (You can imagine the State Department -- or Hillary herself, perhaps -- calling Vogue editor Anna Wintour1 and suggesting that greasy piece about Asma Assad that appeared in the magazine last year. "We want to encourage his reformist tendencies, and this would be so helpful!") But when it comes to real influence -- the kind that determines who lives and who dies -- Vogue didn't stand a chance against the Russians and the Iranians, Assad's sources of money, weapons, and political support.

As for training, the U.S. was/is the undisputed boss in Iraq and Afghanistan, occupying both countries -- which would not be the case with Syrian rebel forces -- creating armies and police forces over years, with professional training cadres and billions of dollars' worth of equipment. Yet both Iraqi and Afghan capabilities are still suspect and their leadership still corrupt, and most important, it is possible that in both places we are training and equipping people who do not share our interests.

Similarly, we have been working on the Palestinian Security Forces (PSF) for years, despite concerns that we may be providing capabilities to a nascent Palestinian army that has no intention of living peacefully next to Israel. The U.S. handed over $113 million in security assistance to the PA even after the PA formed a (short-lived) "unity government" with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. Had the unity government held -- as the U.S. wanted it to -- the Fatah-led PA would be sharing its U.S.-trained security force with Hamas.

That would be the Muslim Brotherhood Hamas, cousin to the Brotherhood that is an "essential part" of the SNC, organized and cosseted by the Turkish government -- itself leaning toward the Brotherhood. Would a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syria, along with a Brotherhood dominated Egypt, Gaza Strip (and maybe the West Bank if they ever permit elections there again), and Turkey, be our friend? Better or worse than an Alawite regime? Could we prevent it from taking power if it rolled into Damascus? Would we want to? Could we influence it afterward? How much influence do we have in Egypt -- where U.S. aid is counted in billions, not millions?

People fight for their own interests, not ours. The Iraqis will remake Iraq in their image, not ours. Afghans the same. Libyans, too. Egyptians and Tunisians and Yemenis as well. And Syrians.

While the pictures from Syria are horrific, the United States has neither the obligation nor the capability to field a Syrian army to overthrow Assad or to do it ourselves. And our strategic interests suggest that the fighting isn't all bad for us as long as we continue to monitor the threat of its spread. A realistic appraisal indicates that we will be facing a Muslim Brotherhood wave for at least the foreseeable future, and that wave will not work in our favor. Rather than a futile attempt to co-opt what cannot be co-opted, the U.S. should determine how to deal with that threat in a way that secures our interests and our friends -- none more than Israel -- and help them do what they need to do to protect themselves and their people from danger and chaos.

1Wintour is now a bundler for the Obama campaign and hosted a major fundraiser for the president in New York.

Shoshana Bryen is senior director of The Jewish Policy Center. She was previously senior director for security policy at JINSA and author of JINSA Reports from 1995-2011.Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/staying_out_of_syria.html

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

Israel, the Start-Up Nation


by Ronn Torossian

With all of the daily political happenings surrounding Israel, it’s quite easy to overlook Israel’s booming economy. And while the great book “Start-up Nation” has rightfully received tremendous accolades as no discussion about Israel today can be complete without recognizing Israel’s great economic accomplishments, it must not be overlooked that indeed the nationalist camp, and the ideology of Ze’ev Jabotinsky are to thank for Israel’s economy.

Recently, Facebook announced it was buying Face.com, the Israeli company that now provides facial-recognition technology used by the world’s largest social network to help users identify and tag photos. The transaction is believed to be close to $100 million. The same day, in this tiny nation Google chairman Eric Schmidt said that the company’s development centers in Israel are among the company’s most efficient and that Google is constantly expanding them. Schmidt said that the quality of Israel’s engineers is very high, said local salespeople are among the best in the world – and to loud applause proclaimed, “We love Israel.”

A country of 7.1 million, only 64 years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, with no natural resources – produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations. In the past 10 years, Israel’s stock market produced better risk adjusted returns than all other developed stock markets in the past decade. The Tel Aviv TA-25 returned 161 percent, including dividends, over the past 10 years. What a beautiful Israel public relations success story.

It must not be overlooked that it is precisely because the nationalist camp is in power that the economy has thrived – as the ideological leader of the right, Ze’ev Jabotinsky had clear support for economic freedom. Jabotinsky believed “every individual is a king” and the state should not impair his freedom. He noted that freedom of speech and assembly, majority rule, equality for all – are ideals that socialism combats. Practically, he advocated an end to the Histadrut’s monopoly over labor in Eretz Israel, which was preventing non-socialists from getting work.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote that the Bible is full of social protest, but not socialism. Its economic and social policy is one of freedom; rather than forbid or control economic activity, it deals with any negative results by means of institutions such as the Sabbath, tithing, the gleanings and corners of the field that were left for the poor, and the Jubilee.

Jabotinsky believed in a competitive market and explicitly wrote that Israel’s economy must be a free market – could one imagine the catastrophe Israel would have today been facing if the socialist unions and left-wing controlled the State? Israel is a remarkably resilient country and while naturally the nationalist camp is best for the security of the Jewish people, its also best for the pockets of the Jewish people — and the world.

So when you hear Eric Schmidt of Google say “We love Israel,” all of Israel should proclaim, “We love Ze’ev Jabotinsky.”

Ronn Torossian

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/22/israel-the-start-up-nation/

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

Hatred of Israel Brings the KKK and Democrats Back Together


by Arnold Ahlert




A primary contest taking place in New York next Tuesday portends yet another embarrassment for the Democrat Party. In the newly re-drawn 8th Congressional District, City Councilman Charles Barron is running against state Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries for the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring Rep. Ed Towns. Yesterday, the African-American Barron picked up an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. How is this possible? As Duke explained, “The possible election of a dedicated anti-Zionist to the U.S. Congress, has thrown the Zionist-influenced media and the Zio-political establishment in a tizzy,” he said in a web video.

Duke, a self-described “white nationalist,” clarified his reasoning for backing one black American against another black American in a race far away from his home state of Louisiana. “In a race for Congress between an anti-Zionist black activist and a black activist who is a bought and paid for Zionist Uncle Tom, I’ll take the anti-Zionist any day,” Mr. Duke continues in the video. “In this election of limited choices, I believe that Charles Barron is the best choice. Why? Because I think there’s no greater danger facing the United States of America and facing the world than the unbridled power of Zionist globalism.”

The reason for Duke’s support is obvious: Since Barron’s election to City Council in 2001, he has associated himself with anti-Israel groups and regularly demonized the State of Israel. In a 2009 interview with the Amsterdam News, he referred to the Gaza Strip as “a virtual death camp, the same kind of conditions the Nazis imposed on the Jews,” further claiming the Jews “massacre the Palestinian people, bomb their homes, churches and schools, and then block anybody trying to deliver aid to them. What this amounts to is genocide.”

He has also insisted Israel should never have been created, asking Brooklyn churchgoers in June 2010, “Where should we start? Should we start with the 1906 Zionist Convention, or in 1914, with the Balfour Declaration? With Menachem Begin, the terrorists, all the wars, you want to discuss Israel becoming a state in 1948 when it should not have? Who are the terrorists? You want to talk about the definition of terrorism? How do you define acts of piracy?”

In the same month, at a rally opposing Israel’s raid of the flotilla trying to break the Gaza blockade during which nine activists were killed on the Mavi Marmara, Barron compared conditions in Gaza to “a concentration death camp.” “Israel is out of control,” Barron fumed. “They’re off the hook, they’re out of line…There’s too many children and women and innocent men of Gaza dying because you’re isolating them and not allowing anything in. It’s like having a concentration death camp. It’s horrible, and the whole world is and should be outraged.”

When questioned about the death camp reference, Barron continued, “Any time that you deliberately cause the death of innocent children, whether you are a government or a non-government organization, you’re participating in genocide and you’re in participating in a violation of the human rights,” he said. “And if you allow for this death and destruction to go on for years because you’re blocking humanitarian aid from coming in, you have set up a death camp.”

In August 2010, he appeared in Harlem with members of the leftist New Black Panther Party (NBPP). During the rally, NBPP members referred to Fox New as “Fox Jews” and New York City as “Jew York City.” Shortly afterward Barron expressed his allegiance, saying he and the NBPP “are embracing each other with unity…” In 2010 he complained to a reporter that Jews “only make up 20 percent of the population, but they’ve always walked these streets (in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Crown Heights) as if they owned them, and acted as if they are the only ones in the community that matter.”

David Duke heartily concurs with this worldview, all too common on the Left today (see here for a list of many others). “I certainly agree with Barron that Israel is the worst rogue terrorist state on Earth. It’s not Iran folks,” Duke contends. “Barron is certainly right about Zionist control over the media and our government, and the treason that’s existed in our Congress and he’s right about the fact that Zionist wars have caused the death or harming of hundreds of thousands of Americans and cost you trillions of your tax dollars. Barron’s opponent, on the other hand, is a complete Zionist sellout of both the black people and all the people of America.”

Duke’s endorsement notwithstanding, whoever wins the Democrat primary nomination is a virtual shoo-in in the November election, due to the 8th Congressional district’s overwhelmingly Democrat composition. And while most of New York’s Democrat establishment, including powerhouse New York Senator Chuck Schumer, is backing Jeffries, retiring incumbent Rep. Edolphus Towns has endorsed Barron. Towns has been the incumbent since 1983, and it remains to be seen how much influence he still wields.

Barron is also receiving considerable support from two major city government worker unions, District Councils 37 and 1707 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). “He’s always been there when we asked him to be there,” said DC 1707 political action director G.L. Tyler. Barron’s track record of remarks? Tyler insisted issues outside New York City government are “not our concern.” They might also be of little concern to parts of the new district, such as East New York and Brownsville, that Barron has represented on City Council since 2001. Still another X factor in the primary is turnout. It is expected to be low, and the political speculation suggests that Bedford-Stuyvesant, with as many as 9000 votes up for grabs, could turn the election one way or the other. Both campaigns have flooded the area looking for support.

Jeffries has a vastly superior amount of money to spend, and the backing of progressive groups like MoveOn, the Working Families Party and most of New York’s government unions. Barron has superior name-recognition and a devoted fan base. No polls have been taken in this race, and this is the first time the primary vote will be held in June, exacerbating efforts to get out the vote for either side.

Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/22/hatred-of-israel-brings-the-kkk-and-democrats-together/

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

Canadian Television Erroneously Omits Over 300 Gaza Rocket Attacks


by Algemeiner Staff

Qassam rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Photo: wiki commons.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), recently reported on this week’s conflict between Israel and Gaza based terrorists, claiming that the hundreds of rockets which have flown into Israel this week “were the first rockets fired from Gaza in more than a year”.

Member’s of the CBC staff who worked on this story missed the March rocket attacks on Israel, perpetrated by members of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad, based in the Gaza Strip.

While over 130 rockets have been fired at Israel in the past week, during a conflict which began when an Israeli worker was killed in a Palestinian terror attack near the Egypt-Israel border, more than 281 rockets have been fired at Israel in 2012.

To watch the CBC’s erroneous report, click below.





Algemeiner Staff

Source: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/06/22/canadian-television-erroneously-on-gaza-rockets-flying-into-israel-video/

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

Gulf States Hope for US Action on Iran


by Yoram Ettinger

A nuclear Iran would be a clear and present threat to pro-U.S. regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, and would lead to a regional and global slippery slope of violence that would severely undermine the U.S. economy and national security.

A top official from Bahrain told me, at the office of a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, that “Saudi Arabia and Bahrain expect the U.S. to alter its policy and resort to steps which are required to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.” A national security adviser to a senior member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee shared with me that “Pro-U.S. Persian Gulf leaders are panicky about the rising Iranian nuclear threat.”

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf regimes, which are considered apostates by Teheran’s ayatollahs, are aware that, unlike nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, Iran’s leaders have imperialistic, megalomaniac aspirations to dominate the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and, at the very least, the entire Muslim world.

The Gulf states realize that “effective sanctions” is a contradiction in terms, since Russia and China, as well as India and Japan, and probably parts of Europe, do not cooperate with the U.S. Forty years of diplomacy and sanctions have paved the road to a nuclear North Korea and are paving the road to a nuclear Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states presume that the current multilateral policy on Iran leads to a lethal slippery slope, featuring a belligerent nuclear Iran, a meltdown of pro-U.S. Gulf regimes, a breakdown of the oil supply system, a collapse of global economies, an escalation of nuclear proliferation in the Middle Eat and beyond, a radicalization of Islamic terrorism against traditional Muslim regimes and Western democracies, and an eruption of local, regional and possibly global wars, or, a submission by pro-U.S. Gulf regimes and Western democracies to Iranian demands.

The Gulf states are convinced that a unilateral U.S. policy is required to prevent the slippery slope. They want massive military pre-emptive action to devastate Iran’s nuclear, air defense and missiles infrastructures, minimize Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, and preclude the calamitous ripple effects of a nuclear Iran.

The Gulf states are concerned that avoiding pre-emptive action would further erode the U.S. posture of deterrence and military power projection that constitutes the backbone of their national security, would fuel fanaticism on the Arab street, and would doom pro-U.S. Saudi and Gulf regimes.

They assume that a decisive pre-emptive military strike – with no ground troops – is a prerequisite to a regime change in Iran, which failed in 2009 due to Western vacillation. One cannot expect the domestic opposition to defy the ayatollahs while the U.S. and Israel refrain from defiance.

In 1978 and 2011, the U.S. deserted the shah of Iran and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak respectively, facilitating anti-U.S. regime change. In 2012, pre-emptive military action would expose the vulnerability of the ayatollahs, providing a significant tailwind to a pro-U.S. regime change.

During the 1960s, the U.S. failed in its attempt to appease then Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and snatch him from the Soviet bloc. It was the 1967 Six Day War, and not U.S. diplomacy, which devastated Nasser and aborted his efforts to topple the pro-U.S. regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

In 2012, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states expect the U.S. to recoup its posture of deterrence and avoid past critical errors which have jeopardized their survival and have advanced the nuclearization of North Korea and Iran.

Will the U.S. fulfill such expectations by altering its policy? Or will it sustain the failed policy of sanctions and diplomacy, which will force Israel to take pre-emptive action to avert a clear and present danger to global sanity?



Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2110

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

Oil Pipeline Bypasses the Strait of Hormuz


by Daniel Pipes


The Habshan-Fujairah oil pipeline under construction.

Abu Dhabi, one of the United Arab Emirates' seven member states, has prepared for the possibility of an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway through which about 17 percent of the world's energy passes; today marked the opening of the Habshan-Fujairah oil pipeline that carries its crude to another UAE state.

Started in 2008, the 225-mile-long pipeline is four-feet in diameter, it cost about US$2.7 billion and it carries 600-700 thousand barrels per day with the goal of increasing that to 1.4 million or even 1.8 million barrels per day. Along with the pipeline, Abu Dhabi's government is building a US$3 billion, 200,000-barrel-a-day refinery at the pipeline's termination, Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman.

Comment: Not only does the pipeline insure the export of Abu Dhabi's Murban blend crude, but it also protects it from hiked up insurance premiums in case of hostilities. This little-noticed news item is fraught with implications for the future of the energy market and for Gulf Cooperation Council relations with Iran. (June 21, 2012)




Daniel Pipes

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/06/oil-pipeline-bypasses-the-strait-of-hormuz

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