Sunday, September 9, 2012

Rocket Fired from Gaza Scores Direct Hit on Netivot Home


Israel Hayom Staff


Damage to a home in Netivot caused by the direct hit of a Grad rocket on Saturday night.
|
Photo credit: Dudu Grunshpan


Israel Hayom Staff


Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5739

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

An Officer and a Muslim Zionist


Michal Yaakov Yitzhaki

From the age of zero I was told that Israel stole Palestine from us, but when I was 14 I woke up. I discovered that Jews are not bad," says Ala Wahib, an operations officer at a key IDF training base, and the highest-ranked Muslim officers in the Israeli army.


Maj. Ala Wahib in the field.
|
Photo credit: Osnat Krasnansky

Michal Yaakov Yitzhaki

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5727

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

Obama Screws our Soldiers - Again


Ed Lasky

Investors Business Daily reports in "Obama to Soldiers Overseas: No Voting for You":

Military: The administration thanks the troops for their service by failing to comply with a law requiring that it help soldiers deployed overseas cast ballots in their home states.

The administration has taken various states to court to block voter ID laws on the grounds it will disenfranchise voters. But it has no qualms about the disenfranchisement of military voters overseas through its failure to comply with and enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The law acknowledges the difficulties caused by time and distance for deployed soldiers in exercising the right to vote they put their lives on the line to protect. One of the key provisions required each military branch to create an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) for every military base outside an immediate combat zone.

Last week, however, the Pentagon's inspector general reported that attempts to locate and contact IVAO offices at overseas military installations failed about half the time.

"Results were clear. Our attempts to contact IVAOs failed about 50% of the time," the inspector general reported. "We concluded the Services had not established all the IVAOs as intended by the MOVE Act because, among other issues, the funding was not available."

The estimated cost of establishing functioning IVAOs at all overseas military bases not in combat zones is estimated at between $15 million and $20 million a year. We wasted $530 million on Solyndra but can't afford a relative pittance to ensure our soldiers are not disenfranchised.

Soldiers, who risk their lives, are prevented from exercising their right to vote because Barack Obama knows they will support Republicans. Meanwhile, back in America, Barack Obama and Eric Holder stir up racial animosity with fictitious claims that Republicans are racists and want to impose Jim Crow laws in order to prevent minorities from voting. Large majorities of Americans agree with the need for Voter ID laws to ensure the integrity of the vote.

But when was the last time Barack Obama cared about integrity?

The Inspectors General have once again reported that behind the scenes Barack Obama is failing to fulfill his responsibilities as President and Commander-in-Chief. This is his modus operandi, of course. There is a litany of his deliberate failures that have been found by Inspectors Generals that have somehow escaped the attention of most of the media.

For example:

There's an inspector general's report that the number of green jobs generated by Obama's green schemes has been a figment of his and his campaign-spinners' imagination; that the drilling moratorium in the Gulf that has been subject to much scandal (the experts behind the report that was used to justify the ban denied that they had called for such a halt) was engineered at the last minute at the behest of Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar; one IG has found that the Obama team and GM have been conspiring to create a rosy image (cooking the books) behind the purported success of the auto bailout, according to the IG reviewing the bailout; and the inspector general monitoring the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on green energy programs found that the money was directed to projects linked to big Obama and Democrat donors - the inspector general said that they were steered to friends and family. Solyndra is just one example.

This desire to escape scrutiny of his actions is also shown by the manifold ways he has broken his promise to run a "transparent" administration by his and the media's assault on Darrell Issa, the Republican Congressman who heads up Government Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whose dogged pursuit of the truth had led to an almost unprecedented media attack against him (see "Liberal Operatives have launched an anti-Issa Crusade). Obama only likes to grade himself. And, he likes to surround himself with sycophants who will boost his ego (as if it needed boosts).

But the media could care less about our soldiers. Very few journalists have ever served in the military. Furthermore, these facts would tarnish the image and hurt the reelection prospects of Barack Obama.

Screw the soldiers-there is an election at stake!

Ed Lasky

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/obama_screws_our_soldiers_-_again.html

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

God, Jerusalem and American Foreign Policy


Caroline Glick

Western-Wall.jpg
Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama and his supporters have been dogged by criticism of his position on Israel. From the very outset of his tenure in office, critics and supporters alike have not been able to shake the sense that Obama is deeply hostile to the Jewish state.

Obama and his supporters have responded to every criticism of his treatment of Israel by pulling out a list. Every time his record on Israel is criticized, Obama and his supporters pull out a list of the things he has done for Israel. Just this week, in an op-ed in The New York Times, Democratic donor Haim Saban pulled out the list to justify his support for Obama.

As the list notes, Obama has given billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel. He has gotten stiff sanctions passed against Iran by the UN Security Council. He has agreed to sell F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Israel. During his presidency, they say, the US has expanded its intelligence and military coordination with Israel. Obama has opposed some anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.

Obama's critics respond to Obama's list with a series of points. They note that in approving increases in US military assistance to Israel, including for the Iron Dome rocket defense system, Obama is simply carrying out a pledge made by his predecessor George W. Bush. They note that the UN Security Council sanctions have had no impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So, too, Obama opposed even stronger sanctions against Iran passed with the overwhelming support of both houses of Congress.

He had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to sign those sanctions into law. And since he signed the sanctions law, he has used his presidential power to water them down.

Obama's critics mention that due to his insistence on appeasing Iran, last week Iran enjoyed its greatest diplomatic triumph since the 1979 Iranian revolution. More than a hundred nations sent representatives to Tehran to participate in the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit. And in the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon, those nations expressed support for Iran's nuclear program.

And while it is true that Obama has blocked two anti-Israel initiatives at the UN, he has been more supportive of the inherently anti-American and anti-Israel UN system than any of his recent predecessors.

As for Israeli-US intelligence cooperation, under Obama for the first time, the US has systematically leaked Israel's most closely guarded secrets to the media.

Indeed, critics of Obama's policy towards Israel have their own list. It includes Obama's repeated humiliations of Israel's prime minister. It includes the multiple clashes Obama has initiated with Israel with regards to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. It includes Obama's adoption of the Palestinians' position on Israel's borders.

But still, as Obama and his supporters will say, facts are facts and they have a list. And because the list is true - as far as it goes - they can argue that Obama is supportive of Israel.

Given its superficially compelling argument, it is remarkable that Obama's list has failed to end the debate about his position on Israel. Today Americans have no interest in foreign policy.

They don't want to hear that by leaving Iraq as he did, Obama squandered everything that the US fought for. They don't want to hear that he effectively handed the country over to Iran, which now has the ability to use Iraq as its forward base for operations in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.

They don't want to hear that Obama's surgeand- leave strategy in Afghanistan is fomenting a US defeat in that war and setting the conditions for the reinstitution of the Taliban government.

They don't want to hear about how Russia and China view the US with contempt and challenge its economic and strategic interests every day.

They don't want to hear how Obama played a key role in overthrowing the US's key ally in the Arab world, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They don't want to consider the implications of the fact that the US is now bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an anti- American, radical Islamic regime.

And yet, in the face of this absence of interest in the world outside their borders, Americans remain interested in the question of whether or not Obama is supportive of Israel.

There are two reasons for Americans' enduring interest and concern about Israel. And they were both revealed this week at the Democratic National Convention when the story broke about how this year's Democratic platform differs from its 2008 platform. First it was reported that the platform contained no mention of God.

Then it was reported that unlike the 2008 platform, this year's Democratic Party platform made no mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This year's platform watered down the language on Israel in other significant ways as well.

It did not refer to Israel as the US's "strongest ally" in the Middle East. It did not call for the continued eschewal of the Hamas terror group by the international community. It did not mention US opposition to the Palestinian demand for the so-called "right of return" - through which Israel would be destroyed by an influx of millions of foreign Arabs in the framework of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. But whereas these other deletions were generally ignored, the platform's silence on Jerusalem generated a maelstrom of criticism that exceeded even its deletion of God.

Significantly, rather than treat the deletions of God and Jerusalem as separate issues, the media and the Democrats themselves presented them as two sides of the same coin. When on Wednesday the party's leadership decided to restore the language of the 2008 platform on God and Jerusalem - but not on Hamas, the so-called "right of return," and Israel's strategic significance to the US - they opted to do so in the same amendment.

The widespread perception of God and Jerusalem as related issues tells us something important about the American character. And it tells us something equally important about Obama and the party he leads.

Prof. Walter Russell Mead described Israel's place in the American mindset last year. As he put it, "Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America."

Mead continued, "Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don't 'get' Israel also don't 'get' America and don't 'get' God."

By removing both God and Jerusalem from the platform, Obama and his fellow Democrats stirred the furies of that American soul at its foundations.

They showed they don't "get" Israel or God. And by extension, they don't "get" America.

The intellectually confusing decision to lump Jerusalem and God together in the same amendment no doubt owed to the fact that someone in the party recognized how disastrous the deletions were for their ability to convince wavering voters that the Democratic Party has their back.

And this brings us to nature of the Democratic Party today. For the amendment to the platform to pass, it needed the support of two-thirds of the convention's delegates. And so, on Wednesday morning, the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, brought the amendment to the floor for a voice vote.

Much to his obvious shock, the amendment did not receive the requisite support. Calls supporting the amendment were met by at least equally strong calls opposing it. Villaraigosa was forced to call the vote three times before declaring - contrary to the evidence - that the amendment had passed.

More than anything else, the floor vote showed how out of step a large and significant constituency in the Democratic Party is with the basic character of their country. The spectacle should raise concerns among all supporters of Israel who believe Obama's pro-Israel list is proof they have a safe home today in the Democratic Party.

Jerusalem's conflation with God in the American imagination is not the only reason so many people attacked the platform's watered-down language on US-Israel ties. The second reason for the uproar explains why the issue of Obama's support for Israel is the only foreign policy question that has dogged his administration since he took office. It explains why American support for Israel is a more salient issue for Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, Britain, Turkey or Russia.

Here, too, Israel's symbolic importance in the American imagination is central for understanding the matter. Beyond its religious significance, there is a widespread perception that Israel is on the front line of the war against America. As a consequence, Israel is the only foreign policy issue that telegraphs messages about the nature of America's foreign policy to an otherwise disengaged and largely indifferent American public.

For most Americans - if not for most Democrats - support for Israel is the most important plank of US foreign policy because it indicates the nature of that foreign policy as a whole. A president who supports Israel is a president who has his priorities straight. A president who is hostile to Israel is a president who can't be trusted on Iran or Russia or China or anything else.

In an apparent effort to end this state of affairs, Obama has adopted a policy towards Iran - whose nuclear program represents the greatest rising threat to US national security - that frames the issue as Israel's problem.

In so doing, Obama seeks to achieve two goals. First, he seeks to decouple Israel's national security from America's national security in the popular imagination. And second, he seeks to diminish popular support for Israel by presenting Israel as a country that is pushing America into an unnecessary war.

Obama's list of pro-Israel actions is essential to his ability to achieve this specific goal, and through its achievement to convince Americans of the overall success of his foreign policy. The list is essential because it transforms Israel in the public mind from a strategic ally into a strategic basket case in need of America's constant assistance.

In line with this, it is telling that the amendment of the Democratic platform did not return the 2008 platform's characterization of Israel as America's "strongest ally" in the Middle East.

But as the outcry the platform changes provoked demonstrated, Obama has failed to achieve this goal. And this is wonderful news.

On the other had, as long as he has supporters willing to publish op-eds and give interviews devoted to repeating the list, Obama will continue to make the case that he can be trusted on foreign policy despite his abandonment of God, Jerusalem and America's most vital interests.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.carolineglick.com/

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

Relying on US Intelligence


Shoshana Bryen

Jerusalem and the resettlement of Palestinian refugees disappeared from the Democratic Party platform; language that characterized Hamas as unacceptable to the United States -- not only to Israel -- disappeared. Jerusalem is back. But the crucial part of the Democratic Party Platform for Israel is related only tangentially to Israel. It is about Iran:

(The) window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options -- including military force -- remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime...

The crucial questions are:

  • How much time and how much space exist before the window slams on our fingers?
  • What is the U.S. track record on recognizing, assessing and timing an emerging threat?
  • What is the consequence to us and to others if we miss?

The answers are not comforting. There were important intelligence misses -- Pearl Harbor, the 9-11 attack, Saddam's WMD, the outbreak of the Korean War, the third stage of North Korea's rocket capability, and the Russian atomic bomb among them. We knew about India's nuclear program, yet were surprised by the 1998 Indian nuclear weapons test, followed by a surprise Pakistani test emerging from a program we had been watching.

In The Washington Post, intelligence officials said of Syria's nonconventional capabilities:

"We think we know everything, but we felt the same way about Libya. We had been on the ground in Libya, yet there were big surprises, both in terms of quantities and locations." The Post continues, "The stockpile appears to be larger and more widely distributed than originally suspected, according to two officials who have seen the intelligence reports."[1]

This is the central issue between the United States and Israel. They agree on what Iran is doing, they agree that an Iran with nuclear weapons poses an intolerable threat to Israel, the region and the world. And Israel may indeed be grateful that the President has announced himself a staunch defender of Israel. But even if Israel was willing to permit the President to assume responsibility for its security as he insists he will not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon -- and Israel is anything but willing to cede sovereign responsibility for the security of its citizens -- America's history makes it clear that we could fail as well as succeed.

For better understanding, The Center for the Study of Intelligence paper "How the CIA Missed Stalin's Bomb" is a "must read." Excerpts will have to suffice here:

[The Office of Research and Estimates/ORE] sat at the peak of an intelligence pyramid and was responsible for "national" judgments based on analyses from the "departmental" intelligence services located below it in the pyramid. The resulting products were the reports commonly known as intelligence "estimates" - finished analyses that drew upon the resources of the entire Intelligence Community.

Although ORE had very little evidence on which to base its analysis, it made a fairly definitive judgment:

It is probable that the capability of the USSR to develop weapons based on atomic energy will be limited to the possible development of an atomic bomb to the stage of production at some time between 1950 and 1953. On this assumption, a quantity of such bombs could be produced and stockpiled by 1956. [Italics in original]

The projection contained in ORE 3/1 persisted, without major alteration, until 29 August 1949 when the first Soviet nuclear test - "Joe-1" put an end to speculation. In the nearly three years between the appearances of ORE 3/1 and Joe-1, ORE revisited the question on a regular basis and refined the judgment, but the principal effect was to increase the weighting toward 1953. In other words, with analysis, ORE's projections became more precise but less accurate. [Emphasis added] In 1946, a simple date range of 1950-53 had been identified. On 15 December 1947, a memorandum by ORE reported, "it is doubtful that the Russians can produce a bomb before 1953 and almost certain they cannot produce one before 1951. A probable date cannot be estimated." Over the winter of 1947/48, CIA analysts became both more confident - and more wrong-headed - in their judgment, so that, by 1 July 1948, "the earliest possible date" was being identified as mid-1950, with mid-1953 given as "the most probable date." The same projection last appeared in a report disseminated on 24 August 1949, five days before the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb.

The importation of calcium into Russia from eastern Germany should have been a tip:

In December 1946, a chemical engineer from the former I. G. Farben complex near Bitterfeld (southeast of Berlin) reported that the plant had started producing 500 kilograms per day of distilled metallic calcium. Boxes of this pure calcium were trucked everyday to Berlin, thence onward to Zaporozhe on the Dnieper River in the Soviet Union.

In mid-January 1947, further reporting from Bitterfeld showed that the plant was shipping the phenomenal quantity of 30 tons of distilled metallic calcium per month -- at the time, total US production of calcium was 3-5 tons per year. Research had shown that exceptionally pure calcium could be used to separate uranium metal from uranium ore. There could be no non-nuclear use for so much calcium in such a pure form. [Emphasis added] The nuclear connection was confirmed in mid-1947, when a source at Bitterfeld produced shipping manifests that showed three rail cars loaded with distilled calcium leaving for Riehl's uranium production plant at Elektrostal on 26 July 1947. Later that year, CIA analysis of samples of Bitterfeld-produced calcium confirmed that it was suitable for uranium production.

And yet, calculations of Russian capability relied solely on estimates of Russian stockpiles and ignored the imported calcium.

[the] indication from metallic calcium production... appears to be the construction of two plutonium producing reactors... with 500 megawatts [of total power]... particularly significant [is] that a project of this size cannot be supported by the estimated reserves of uranium ore available to the Russians... 514 tons uranium oxide already available and 2200 tons of uranium in reserves... The best information indicates that this program is not proceeding well, and in fact uranium metal appears to have been produced in insufficient quantity to operate more than a very small pilot reactor, such as that first operated in this country in December 1942. Thus, if it is assumed in the worst case that Russian progress from this date will proceed at a rate comparable to that of the American project... then to produce a single bomb, January 1950 represents the absolute lower limit. [Italics in original.]

In retrospect, it seems incredible that ORE should have paid so little attention to information such as that coming out of Bitterfeld. The reporting was timely, detailed, and derived from a source with excellent access that was undeniably compatible with the kind of data he was providing. Moreover, it was corroborated by wartime aerial photographs of the Bitterfeld complex, in which photo-interpreters could not only identify the facility used to manufacture calcium, but also verify the production data provided by the source inside the complex.

This brings us to the question, "What is the consequence of being wrong?" It isn't always bad news. The former U.S. Commander in Berlin tells the wry story of his daily CIA briefing on November 9, 1989. He noted that when nothing was happening, a low-level analyst would present the brief; when things were "hot," it would be a high-ranking official. On the morning of the 9th, it was a junior officer. By evening, well...you know.

In the case of Iran -- as in the case of Russia -- wrong, late or sloppy can be devastating.

In 2007, The Washington Post trumpeted a US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iranian nuclear progress that appeared to disparage President Bush's view.

The new findings...reflected a surprising shift in the midst of the Bush administration's continuing political and diplomatic campaign to depict Tehran's nuclear development as a grave threat. The report was drafted after an extended internal debate over the reliability of communications intercepts of Iranian conversations this past summer that suggested the program had been suspended.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," a declassified summary of the new National Intelligence Estimate stated. Two years ago, the intelligence community said in contrast it had "high confidence that Iran currently is determined to have nuclear weapons."

The new estimate, prepared by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies, applied the same "high confidence" label to a judgment that suspected Iranian military efforts to build a nuclear weapon were suspended in 2003 and said with "moderate confidence" that it had remained inactive since then.

It was, of course, the NIE that was wrong not President Bush. The latest NIE, presented just last month, shares Israel's view that Iran is making "surprising progress" toward nuclear capability. NIE analysts -- from the 16 intelligence agencies hailed by The Washington Post -- would have been less surprised now if they had been more correct in 2007.

The NIE was nearly simultaneous with a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that shows that since May Iran may have as much as doubled its enrichment capacity at the hardened Fordow site, and continues to stockpile uranium enriched to 3.5% and 20% -- bomb-making levels.

There is, then, perhaps still a window and President Obama may be determined to act against Iran before it closes. But Israel, the designated target of Iran's wrath, would be derelict in its duty to its citizens to rely on the work of the American intelligence community in the formulation of its policies toward Iran. And foolish indeed to rely on the Democratic Platform or the President's good will for its defense.

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.


[1] Is it possible that Iraqi WMD - which U.S. Army intelligence reported in 2003 had crossed the Iraq/Syria border in trucks - accounts for the extra volume and depots? Are these intelligence officers surprised because they had already "decided" those weapons didn't exist, and so were closed to the possibility that the Army was right? Of course it is possible, although it remains to be seen whether it's true.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/relying_on_us_intelligence.html

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

How the Court Made a Bad Bill Worse


Rick Richman

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett provided a concise summary of the “saving construction” Chief Justice Roberts used to uphold the Obamacare statute. By changing the requirement to buy insurance into an option to pay a penalty, and by making the Medicaid mandate on the states optional as well, the Chief Justice created a revised law he could then deem constitutional. As Prof. Barnett wrote:

By converting the now infamous “individual mandate” into an “option” to buy insurance or pay the remaining “penalty,” he could then uphold the “penalty” as a tax. Then, by similarly rewriting the Medicare requirement being imposed on the states, he was able to “defer” to Congress and uphold the rest of Obamacare. In short, Justice Roberts rewrote the statute so that he could save it in the name of “judicial restraint.”

So what was saved — in the cause of judicial restraint — was a statute judicially re-written, materially different from the one Congress wrote. No one knows if Congress would have passed the rewritten statute in the first place, had it been presented in the form that emerged from the Chief Justice’s opinion: the number of uninsured people covered, the financial cost of the law, and the likely impact on health care are all different from the law Congress enacted. Moreover, in the process, the Chief Justice endorsed a new shared responsibility payment power for Congress that we may see again in the future.

In the current issue of Commentary, Tevi Troy in “The ObamaCare Debacle Deepens” demonstrates that:

Quite simply, the Roberts opinion took a bad bill and made it worse. If ObamaCare continues to exist in the form Roberts has devised, with much of the mechanism for funding its requirements stripped out, the consequences for the country and for our health-care system may be even more disastrous than they would have been had the problematic law simply been allowed to stand as it was.

But at least the Chief Justice preserved the reputation of the Court from criticism for judicial activism — what a former University of Chicago law school lecturer alleged would have been “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it were to “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

The fear of such criticism may have been exaggerated: the same week that the Court upheld Obamacare, it overturned a total of 32 out of 33 state and federal statutes — every one of them a duly constituted and passed law. The Court’s reputation apparently suffered no significant damage from enforcing the Constitution in those cases, and in retrospect if might have been better, as Tevi Troy’s essential article shows, if the Court had applied the Constitution to the 33rd as well.

Rick Richman

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/09/how-the-court-made-a-bad-bill-worse-obamacare-john-roberts/

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

Muslim Clerics Conducting Pedophile Marriages


Daniel Greenfield


Good news for pedophiles, if you’re looking to marry that eligible twelve-year-old at your local elementary school, you will need to convert to Islam first.

But another retired Imam, Abdul Haque, who worships at the Shoreditch Mosque in east London, agreed to carry out the ceremony on the condition the parents kept it a secret from the authorities.

The Imam urged the undercover reporter to lie about the marriage and keep it a secret. Haque said: ‘Tell people it is an engagement but it will be a marriage.

‘In Islam, once the girl reaches puberty the father has the right, the parents have the right, but under the laws of this country if the girl complains and says her marriage has been arranged and she wasn’t of marriageable age, then the person who performed the marriage will be jailed as well as the mother and father.’

He then warned: ‘Nobody should know about this and the girl must not complain… If she talks in school they will take the girl, social workers will take her and afterwards you and I will be in trouble.’

Those darn infidels, interfering with a father’s solemn right to sell off his daughter to be raped in exchange for a reasonable gratuity. But 12-year-olds aren’t the worst case scenario here. Try 9-year-olds.

IKWRO, which made headlines last month when they revealed there had been almost 3,000 “honour-based” violence cases in 2010, has shown the Tribune records which revealed at least three 11-year-old girls and two nine-year-olds had been forced into marriage with older men within Islington. The oldest girls involved were 16.

Dianna Nammi, director of IKWRO, explained that the girls are married in a mosque’s sharia court. This means they are not legally married according to British law, rendering the Home Office unable to recognise or prove the abuse.

“They are still expected to carry out their wifely duties, though, and that includes sleeping with their husband,” she said.

“They have to cook for them, wash their clothes, everything. They are still attending schools in Islington, struggling to do their primary school homework, and at the same time being practically raped by a middle-aged man regularly and being abused by their families. So they are a wife, but in a primary school uniform.

“The reason it doesn’t get out is because they are too terrified to speak out, and also the control their families have over them is impossible to imagine if you’re not going through it. The way it is covered up is so precise, almost unspeakable

But the Archbishop of Canterbury has a plan to fix that.

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4′s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/muslim-clerics-conducting-pedophile-marriages/

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

Racism! Racism! Racism!


Mark Tapson

This past February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the late great Andrew Breitbart correctly predicted that this would be the year of the “dog whistle” election, that the media would hurl charges of racism at President Obama’s opponents at every opportunity. How right he was.

When the Republican National Convention got underway with great fanfare last week, the now-openly leftist media went all out to perpetuate their narrative that candidate Mitt Romney is “stoking the racial politics of yesteryear.” The ever-reliable propaganda organ known as The New York Times, for example, accused the Romney campaign of making the election about race, a case of psychological projection if there ever was one. It’s the progressive left that is doing their damnedest to make this election entirely about race. It’s the only weapon they have in their impotent arsenal.

In order to paint Republicans a whiter shade of pale, the media cut their RNC coverage of conservative speakers of color, and when they did acknowledge non-white conservatives, it was only to dismiss them as patronizing tokens. After all, to the left, non-white conservatives are white “on the inside” anyway – hence such derogatory labels as “Oreos” and “coconuts” – and are therefore just as racist as their white counterparts.

Even actor Clint Eastwood’s harmless and much-discussed performance art at the RNC was deemed racist by someone named Jay Fernandez at IndieWire. How was Eastwood racist? Fernandez doesn’t say, except to note that Eastwood’s public “criticism of a sitting president” was “disrespectful” and “crass.” (Since when is the public criticism of a sitting president not allowed? When he’s a black Democrat, that’s when. Or when totalitarians are in charge.) So where was the racism? Nowhere except from Fernandez himself, who, in a racist (as well as agist and sexist) spasm of his own, called Republicans “the party of old white men.”

And the (now former) Yahoo! News Chief David Chalian snidely remarked on a live mic that the Romneys “are happy to have a party while black people drown” – an insane and hateful reference to the New Orleans victims of Hurricane Isaac. As Newsbusters’ Matthew Sheffield noted, Chalian neglected to mention that “the Republican National Committee canceled the entirety of Monday’s program or that President Obama did not cancel any of his regularly scheduled campaign fund-raising parties that night.”

The media salivated over a suspicious incident in which two conventioneers tossed peanuts at a black camerawoman and made racist remarks, for which they were thrown out. (Seriously now, does anyone believe that those two were anything but progressive plants?)

Adding fuel to conservative momentum this election is Dinesh D’Souza’s remarkably successful documentary 2016: Obama’s America, which posits that Obama is driven by a deep-seated anti-colonialism. So of course, it was targeted as racist by the media. Entertainment Weekly’s avowed lefty movie reviewer Owen Gleiberman writes: “The basic thesis of 2016: Obama’s America makes almost no sense, to the point that a lot of viewers may be tempted to laugh it off.” (Actually, not only is the thesis very easy to comprehend, but D’Souza’s is an exceedingly well-crafted argument; perhaps Gleiberman is simply incapable of understanding it.) He goes on to say that:

By now, most of us understand that the “birther” theory — the preposterously unfactual notion that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States — is really a code for race. And what’s insidious about 2016: Obama’s America is that the whole movie, in a sense, is code for the birther theory.

It’s unclear how the “birther” theory could be “preposterously unfactual” if there is no factual evidence to disprove it, which is precisely why the birther theory persists. But what really “makes no sense” is how it’s a “code” for race. What does being born in or out of the United States have to do with race? Absolutely nothing, except in the race-obsessed minds of progressives who are fanatical about manufacturing racism where there is none – and they have seized upon the brilliant practice known as racial coding to do that.

Racial coding allows progressives to point to anything a conservative says, or doesn’t say, and call it racism. This is what enables them to dismiss all criticism of Obama as racism, and to divert attention from their own raging racism. How can the left condemn criticism of Obama as racist and yet attack black Republicans Allen West, Mia Love, Condoleeza Rice, or Herman Cain? Because the left holds itself to be incapable of racism; hence there will be no outcry from them about purported comedian Bill Maher’s comment that Rep. West belongs to “the Party of the Apes.” Imagine the media feeding frenzy if Rush Limbaugh had said that about Obama.

Gleiberman’s frothing attack on 2016 reaches an insane crescendo when he labels it “the moral equivalent of the old anti-Semitic propaganda hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” So an intellectually defensible critique of Obama’s worldview is just as heinous as a fake document designed to demonize Jews and justify their genocide. You have to give Gleiberman credit for creativity, if not a sense of moral or historical proportion.

As I’ve written before, opposition to Obama’s “otherness,” as the left is fond of calling it, has nothing to do with his skin color and everything to do with his rejection of American exceptionalism and his anti-capitalist, anti-American, pro-Islamist, divisively racist, agenda. There is not a single shred of evidence, outside of the fevered imagination of increasingly desperate progressives, that Mitt Romney is running a race-baiting campaign.

If I were a Democrat, I would be mortified that my team had nothing more politically and philosophically substantial to offer in this upcoming presidential contest than perpetual, phantasmic accusations of racism directed at the opposition. But the left has nothing else. They cannot tout Obama’s disastrous economic policies. They cannot claim that the world “likes” us more now, in the wake of his abominable treatment of our allies and his contemptible embrace of and/or submission to our enemies. They cannot defend his racial polarization of a nation that elected him to be a unifier. They cannot point to the election promises he failed to keep. They have nothing positive to attract voters to their policies, so their platform must consist only of smears.

Mark Tapson

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/racism-racism-racism/

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

Trashing New York’s September 11 Memorial


Bruce Bawer


It wasn’t a big deal – but it was a small sign that time moves on.

The other day I went online to buy airline tickets. I looked at several websites, typed in the dates on which I wanted to fly, found the cheapest available fare, booked it, scribbled down the flight information, printed out the travel documents, made notes on my calendar, and then resumed my work. Not until a few hours later did I glance at the printout and realize that my departure date was September 11 – the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.

Yes, I’d known throughout my ticket-booking procedure that the date was September 11, but somehow it hadn’t registered in my mind as September 11. All along, I’d thought of it as if it were, well, just another date.

I was stunned by this, and a little – or maybe more than a little – saddened. I was immediately put in mind of Wordsworth’s sonnet “Surprised by Joy,” in which the poet, after a long period of mourning for his young daughter, is appalled to catch himself experiencing pleasure and even forgetting, for a moment, that his beloved little girl is dead. “Through what power, / Even for the least division of an hour,” he wonders, “Have I been so beguiled as to be blind / To my most grievous loss?”

It was not ever thus. A year or two after 9/11, I happened to fly on September 11, and was intensely aware of the date from the moment I booked it – not worried about a repeat, but very mindful of the monstrous, previously unimaginable chain of events on that world-changing day that had begun with ordinary people boarding airplanes. But now – well – time has done its work. Does my unexpected forgetfulness have anything to do with the fact that the the number of years between that terrible day and now has ticked into the double digits?

The passage of time would appear to have had other consequences. In June, a New York Daily News headline blared: “School kids trash 9/11 memorial.” A group of middle-schoolers from Brooklyn, it appeared, had been thrown out of the memorial at the site of the Twin Towers in downtown Manhattan after being caught tossing empty soda bottles and other rubbish into the fountains. It wasn’t an isolated incident. The other day, the New York Post reported that many “first responders and victims’ families” are “appalled” by the conduct of some visitors to the memorial – not just kids, but grown-ups – who reportedly act as if they’re at a “Disney attraction.” These visitors, most of them apparently tourists from out of town, laugh, take pictures, consume food and beverages, let their toddlers sit on the plaques bearing the names of the dead, and generally behave as if they’re at a Fourth of July picnic.

One reason for this behavior is, presumably, time’s passage – for most, the wound is no longer as sore as it was. Another reasons is that the signals are not entirely clear as to what exactly this place downtown is: is it intended to be a park of sorts, where most of this kind of activity (though certainly not the littering) is acceptable, or is it more like the U.S.S. Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor, where, as the Post points out, “visitors are shown a video explaining the significance of the site before entering” and a sign reads: “Please conduct yourself with dignity and respect at all times. Remember this is hallowed ground.” According to the Post, visitors to the Arizona site actually do obey the video and signs, exhibiting suitable respect for the dead.

This last is actually pretty impressive, given that millions of members of the present generation of young American adults weren’t brought up with any manners whatsoever, let alone anything remotely resembling a concept of solemnity or gravitas, and certainly haven’t raised their own kids to know how to behave appropriately in various situations. (One of the guilty Brooklyn kids told the Daily News, apropos of his and his pals’ use of the memorial fountains as a garbage dump: “No one was disrespecting….No one was being serious. Everyone was kind of bored and it was just something to do.”) Still, the anecdotal evidence from the Arizona would seem to suggest that if you give people a clear and forceful indication of what kind of conduct is expected of them, most of those who aren’t totally lacking in couth will be, more or less, cooperative. One problem with the 9/11 memorial is that it’s not an old-fashioned monument like, say, the Lincoln Memorial, where the temple-like architecture, the imposing sculpture of the Great Emancipator, and the noble words carved into the marble all clue visitors into the fact that this is, indeed, no amusement park. Postmodern monument design tends to be more ambiguous: the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, completed in 2005, consists of hundreds of concrete blocks of varying heights which suggest, on the one hand, gravestones, and, on the other, benches. Every time I’ve walked past it, I’ve seen adults sitting on the stones and children running among them. Once or twice, around sunset, I’ve seen young couples making out. The atmosphere is always one of play, never solemnity. Such may also be the fate of the 9/11 memorial.

There are, to be sure, those who don’t think that the way visitors comport themselves at the 9/11 memorial is such a big deal: the New York Observer lightly mocked the Post‘s concerns, editorializing that the site “is a place for reverence and remembrance, but also to enjoy the weather and the company of our fellow Americans.” But how can one not respect and share the feelings of Jim Richies, a retired New York firefighter who lost his son, also a fireman, on 9/11, and who, on the day after the News reported those Brooklyn kids’ vandalism, lamented in an op-ed that disrespectful conduct at the memorial is a daily occurrence: “People hang out. They sit around. They start talking loudly and joke.” One day last September, he saw visitors “lying on the grass eating and drinking…one guy was throwing a football to another guy….that is the atmosphere the people who run the memorial have created.” At the memorials in Shanksville and at the Pentagon, both run by the National Park Service, he noted, visitors are properly prepared for the sites before entering them – and their behavior is exemplary. Why isn’t this also the case at the New York memorial, which is run by a nonprofit? Richies suggested that if the unidentified remains of the 9/11 dead were placed “in an aboveground tomb, as they are at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington,” it “would set a tone of reverence and respect.”

Most important, Richies stressed, is education. Those Brooklyn kids, when they entered the site, “should have been told that nearly 3,000 people were murdered by terrorists at the World Trade Center….it’s imperative that all, young and old, be educated about…the most tragic day in American history.” There, alas, is the rub: even Americans old enough to have experienced 9/11 have had the events of that day “interpreted” for them again and again, over the years, by politicians, journalists, commentators, and the like who have, in effect, beclouded that day’s exceedingly clear lessons. As for the schoolchildren who are too young to have any memories at all of 9/11, what exactly are they being taught nowadays about it? Do they emerge from these lessons, if any, with an enhanced appreciation for the freedom that is their precious inheritance as Americans and that was under assault on that September day? It’s an easy bet that they’re not provided with a reasonable account of jihad – of the barbaric values in which it is rooted and of the sundry forms it takes, most of them infinitely subtler yet even more menacing to American liberty than terror itself. As a rule, those who teach or who prepare “educational” materials about such matters nowadays in the U.S. are, quite simply, too straitjacketed by their own (or their institutions’) political correctness and/or chronic timidity to provide the kind of candid lessons about 9/11 and its meaning that might produce young people capable of exhibiting authentic respect and reverence at what was once Ground Zero and, before that, the Twin Towers.

Yes, it’s been eleven years now. Time goes by. Everything changes. But the struggle against jihad is still underway – a war that is being waged less and less, as time goes by, in the Muslim world, and more and more in the West itself, on our own turf. It’s a subtler war, a psychological and cultural war, a war of attrition – a war that needs to be honestly explained and thoroughly comprehended if it is going to be taken seriously and won. It was 9/11 that, for many Americans, marked the explosive beginning of an awareness of this war – an awareness of just how serious and dedicated an enemy we were up against, and just how vital it was for us to be every bit as serious and dedicated as they are (not to mention fully aware of their mentality and methods). Eleven years – but 9/11 is still not an event that can or should be relegated to or treated as pure history: if we’re going to expect adults and children alike to grasp its import, to treat its memory with the proper respect, and – above all – to embrace their own obligation as free citizens to respond to it (and other jihadist provocations) in brave, honorable, and constructive ways, it’s essential that they be helped to recognize the scope and significance of the worldwide struggle in which 9/11 was the dramatic high point – and on whose resolution hinges the hope of freedom.

Bruce Bawer

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/trashing-new-yorks-september-11-memorial/

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

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Obama’s War on Jewish Jerusalem


by P. David Hornik


undefined

On Wednesday we heard that Jerusalem (along with, no less significantly, the Palestinian “right of return” and Hamas) had been omitted from the Democratic Party’s platform for 2012. On Thursday we heard that Jerusalem had been reinstated—by means of the ludicrous voice vote shown in this already viral video, in which it is not at all clear that the ayes really have a two-thirds majority or even a majority at all.

Whether or not the original omission was President Obama’s doing, it was certainly consistent with the content of another much-viewed video from slightly over a month ago, in which White House spokesman Jay Carney, by refusing to say what city the White House considers the capital of Israel, made perfectly clear that the city is not Jerusalem. It is also consistent with Obama’s failure to visit Israel since being president—which would entail coming to Jerusalem in pomp and splendor and at least tacitly acknowledging it as the capital, a message the president does not want to convey to the surrounding countries.

Back in June 2008, candidate Obama, in a speech to AIPAC, surprised everyone by declaring that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” That drew a sharp rebuff from Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas among others. And one day after his AIPAC statement Obama backtracked, telling CNN: “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”

If that at least sounded like neutrality, it quickly got worse when candidate Obama became President Obama. In his Cairo speech in June 2009, in which he spent several paragraphs vilifying Israeli communities over the 1967 line to a largely Islamic-extremist audience, Obama said:

All of us have a responsibility to work for the day…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

If that too may have sounded like a kind of neutrality, it actually pointedly excluded any reference to the political status of Jerusalem or even part of Jerusalem—in the present or the future—as Israel’s capital. It came, in other words, from the same territory as the Carney press conference and the platform omission; except that it was delivered to an audience all too accepting of the message that—whatever Israel may say—Jerusalem currently has no established political status at all.

It was, of course, nine months later, in March 2010, that all hell broke loose when, during a visit to Jerusalem by Vice-President Joseph Biden, a zoning board announced plans to build apartments for Jews in Ramat Shlomo, an already-existing neighborhood of 20,000 in the part of Jerusalem that was under illegal Jordanian rule from 1949 to 1967. “I condemn,” stormed Biden, “the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in east Jerusalem.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for her part, called the zoning board’s announcement “an insult to the United States” and telephoned Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to excoriate him over the transgression for 45 minutes.

Two weeks later Obama himself got directly into the act. When Netanyahu came to the White House in an effort to calm the winds, he found himself snubbed by Obama in what may have been the most insolent treatment ever meted out by a U.S. president to a visiting head of government.

The next November in Jakarta, asked at a press conference about approvals that had been issued to build 1300 homes—for Jews, of course—in two Jerusalem neighborhoods, Obama replied: “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.” As I noted at the time, Indonesia is a country that forbids Israeli citizens to visit, is one of 19 UN member states that do not recognize Israel as a state, and does not allow overflights by Israeli planes.

Then, in May 2011, Obama said in a speech to the State Department:

The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt…. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps….

That, in a radical break with previous U.S. policy that left the issue of borders open, meant Israel had no right to any of the territory it had captured in 1967—not the strategically indispensable Jordan Valley and not the liberated parts of Jerusalem including the Old City, the Western Wall, and the Temple Mount—and would have to “swap” parts of pre-1967 Israel for what little it managed to keep.

The consternation was so great that a few days later Obama—in a speech to AIPAC—seemed to backtrack in the other direction, saying that “the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” By now, though, the president’s attitudes toward Jerusalem and Israel were clear enough.

The most recent events are, then, just the continuation of a pattern. The fact that there was so much difficulty voice-voting Jerusalem back into the Democratic platform—if it was actually done at all—reflects the fact that the problem goes beyond Obama himself and includes a sizable portion of the Democratic Party.

P. David Hornik

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/davidhornik/obama%E2%80%99s-war-on-jewish-jerusalem/

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