Obscured achievements - Dr. Gabi Avital

by Dr. Gabi Avital

For example, Israel's per capita gross national product, widely held as a key benchmark for the strength and stability of an economy, has gone up from $15,600 in 2003, when Netanyahu was appointed finance minister, to $41,000 in 2014. No other OECD country, to which we so love to compare ourselves, has seen this kind of growth. The unemployment rate during that same period has plummeted from 10.3% to 5.7%, which everyone agrees is a low rate compared to Europe. The average monthly income in Israel has gone up from 7,884 to 9,123 shekels over the last five years.

It is said that the truth is generally the rule of thumb for average citizens. They may slip here and there, but the term "white lies" is not what guides them. The truth, or at least its objective representation, must serve as the guiding factor for all elected officials, especially at election time. 

This kind of naiveté, however, is laughable. 

After all, one of the Zionist Union's most prominent campaign ads features a slogan about "nine years of nothing" -- a reference to the combined number of years Benjamin Netanyahu has held the office of prime minister. Nine years of total failure in everything that Netanyahu touched, the ad suggests. If the Zionist Union was really representing the truth, then the people would be wise to flock to the polling stations and vote for it in droves, giving it at least 50 Knesset seats. 

But the fact is that the truth is light-years away. 

For example, Israel's per capita gross national product, widely held as a key benchmark for the strength and stability of an economy, has gone up from $15,600 in 2003, when Netanyahu was appointed finance minister, to $41,000 in 2014. No other OECD country, to which we so love to compare ourselves, has seen this kind of growth. The unemployment rate during that same period has plummeted from 10.3% to 5.7%, which everyone agrees is a low rate compared to Europe. The average monthly income in Israel has gone up from 7,884 to 9,123 shekels over the last five years. But all these "social" achievements are heavily obscured. 

Israel's economic growth has been steady at 4% every year in the recent past, despite the global economic crisis of 2008. This kind of growth was also recorded during Netanyahu's first term as prime minister, between 1996 and 1999. 

So what is happening here? Why are the vast majority of media outlets offering a grim outlook, making it look as though Israel is on the verge of destruction, without water, food or housing? I was recently asked about that on a television program. The host of the program rhetorically asked whether the main issue in these elections was the socio-economic one, and I answered that it was. I added that it has always been. In every election, at least in the last 20 years, the Left has pushed the social issues to the forefront to draw votes. The host then added a follow-up question about the fact that the security issue has been pushed aside. It is true, it has, but why? 

Because Israel's security is in good shape, both in terms of personal security and strategic security. The minimal number of terror attacks and terror victims during the years Netanyahu has been in power is especially evident. Some people assert that Operation Protective Edge (Israel's confrontation with Hamas in Gaza over the summer) was a failure. Netanyahu opponent Yair Lapid remarked at the height of the operation that Netanyahu "gets high marks from me. I have to be honest and say that the way this operation was handled -- the listening, the comprehensive meetings, the control and command mechanism, the restraint and the decision making -- are all very impressive." 

There is currently absolute calm in Israel's south because the three main things that Hamas relies on -- rockets, tunnels and a defeated Israeli homefront -- have been eliminated. 

They say everything here is bad; that there are no prospects for peace; that Israel is internationally isolated. So what if they say that? Commercial trade with Turkey has doubled in the last five years from $2.6 billion in 2009 to $5.6 billion in 2014, and that is just one example of many. 

Why are these achievements absent from the headlines? Why is the truth being so effectively concealed? The undecided voters should know the truth, and when they do, justice will be done.

Dr. Gabi Avital

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=11921

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

Valerie Jarrett fingered as the source of leak on Hillary's email server - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

It is well established that the Obamas and Clintons have a lot of “Bad Blood”, but I have to believe that President Obama’s core group fears a Republican president more than they fear a Hillary presidency. So everything they do has to be aimed at knocking her out of the nomination.

According to Ed Klein, writing in the New York Post, President Valerie Jarrett was the source of the information published by the New York Ties on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for all her official correspondence as secretary of state. Befitting her status as a behind-the-scenes puppeteer, Jarrett alleged used cut-outs to feed the information to the media, keeping her fingerprints off the dirty Dem-on-Dem deed. Echoing a joke I made five days ago, Klein calls it a “vast left wing conspiracy.”

 Additionally, and potentially far more troublesome for the former first lady:

…  at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.
Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been ­going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.

Klein recounts tales of open warfare (among the Democrat political insiders):

 “My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”
Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”

It is well established that the Obamas and Clintons have a lot of “Bad Blood” (the title of Klein’s best-selling book on the matter), but I have to believe that President Obama’s core group fears a Republican president more than they fear a Hillary presidency. So everything they do has to be aimed at knocking her out of the nomination. But to do that, they need hard data – indictments, incriminating documents, pictures, and the like.   And if they fail to knock her out (preferably via a withdrawal), they risk damaging her so badly that they elect Scott Walker or another Republican who might well reverse the Obama legacy.

If the following is true, it reveals a dangerously delusional attitude on the part of Jarrett:

Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.
Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.

The reason Democrats refused to campaign with Obama was his disastrous record in trying to help others, and his low standing in the polls at the time. No Clintonian legerdemain was necessary. If Jarrett cannot accept that (and she is quoted saying wildly unrealistic things about the absolute genius and overall wonderfulness of Barack Obama, so maybe she does need supernatural explanations for the obvious), she is out of touch with reality in a major way.

This is frightening, because the fate of the nation is at stake. Barack Obama’s well documented love of golf, television, hanging with rap musicians and stars, and other leisure activities makes Jarrett the grind who stays at work carrying out the actual duties of the presidency, with no public accountability. 

I don’t know whether or not to credit Klein’s reporting. It makes sense, but it is scary, too. The nation has to survive 22 more months with an Obama-Jarrett presidency. There are no feuds more volatile and intense than family feuds, and if Klein is correct, the Democrat family is in the midst of a historic meltdown. 

Watch the Department of Justice's actions. They will be the tell on whether or not this story is for real.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/valerie_jarrett_fingered_as_the_source_of_leak_on_hillarys_email_server.html

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

Every vote counts in this crucial election - Isi Leibler

by Isi Leibler

‎Labor's current list includes post-Zionists who condemn the national anthem as racist, call on ‎mothers not to send their children to the army, and openly declare that they are not Zionist. ‎

This is the context that has led to the rise of the "centrist" parties, which have impacted the ‎dysfunctionality and instability of the entire political system. These parties -- Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beytenu and Kulanu -- ‎are politically amorphous and lack genuine ideologies. Despite their flow ‎of predominantly negative political babble and raucous electioneering, their principal role is to ‎represent vehicles for their leaders to ruthlessly exploit in order to promote their own personal ‎political aspirations.‎

The wretched state of Israeli politics and this unnecessary election has alienated many voters. ‎But opinion polls can be very misleading, especially in the absence of compulsory voting, and ‎the results could well present major surprises.‎

The reality is that the primitive primary system by which Likud and Labor (‎running on the Zionist Union ticket) ‎‎choose their Knesset candidates has enabled well-organized fringe groups to promote the ‎candidacy of radicals who do not share the mainstream view of their respective parties. ‎Labor's current list includes post-Zionists who condemn the national anthem as racist, call on ‎mothers not to send their children to the army, and openly declare that they are not Zionist. ‎

This is the context that has led to the rise of the "centrist" parties, which have impacted the ‎dysfunctionality and instability of the entire political system. These parties -- Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beytenu and Kulanu -- ‎are politically amorphous and lack genuine ideologies. Despite their flow ‎of predominantly negative political babble and raucous electioneering, their principal role is to ‎represent vehicles for their leaders to ruthlessly exploit in order to promote their own personal ‎political aspirations.‎

Yair Lapid, Avigdor Lieberman and Moshe Kahlon handpick their candidates and have all ‎made it abundantly clear that the only criteria for joining a government headed by Likud or ‎Labor will be the position that they can personally leverage for themselves. ‎

The situation becomes more complex because the new Joint Arab List likely to ‎represent a formidable voting bloc, obtaining as many as 12 to 15 Knesset seats, even possibly ‎becoming head of the opposition if a broad government is formed. And if, as current polls ‎suggest, Likud and the Zionist Union emerge with very close results, the Arab bloc could for ‎the first time influence the outcome by recommending that President Reuven Rivlin gives the ‎Zionist Union the first option of forming a government. ‎

The most distressing aspect of this election has been the lack of any serious debate on the ‎crucial issues currently facing Israel. ‎

Indeed, the only item that has dominated the media has been the "Anyone but Bibi" ‎campaign, comprised of an unprecedented mudslinging and personal demonization of ‎Netanyahu. No other Western prime minister has ever been subjected to such petty and ‎vicious scrutiny and such a vindictive campaign of defamation and slander. His wife was ‎portrayed as a witch from Salem. His household culinary preferences, rebates on recycled ‎bottles, excessive house cleaning and petty cash expenses have been front-page headlines. ‎That the expenses of former President Shimon Peres were 20 times more and that none of his ‎predecessors were subjected to such scrutiny speaks for itself. The visceral personal hatred of ‎Netanyahu by Noni Mozes, the publisher of the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, who formerly ‎championed Ehud Olmert, is highlighted daily on the front pages and represents a disgusting ‎example of the depths to which the media has descended. ‎

The prime minister has antagonized many people, but it is difficult to fault his responsible ‎leadership during the course of the Gaza war. The opposition has no shame when it condemns ‎him for failing to finish off Hamas. Similarly, despite fierce opposition, his congressional ‎address was a huge success and certainly did not undermine Israel's relationship with the U.S. as ‎predicted.‎

But regrettably, it is Netanyahu personally who is being attacked, rather than his policies. ‎Setting aside social-economic issues such as housing and inequality, concerning which both ‎Netanyahu and Herzog have both pledged to bring about reforms, many Israelis seem to be ‎unaware or unconcerned about the fact that over the next three or four years, the ‎government will undoubtedly face extraordinary challenges and be obliged to take decisions that will have a major impact on the long-term future and security of the Jewish state.‎

We are a tranquil oasis in a region engulfed by the most terrible barbarism, and unfortunately ‎there are no signs on the horizon of any easing of the carnage and upheavals. We must strive ‎to strengthen our relations with Egypt and gird ourselves for the possibility of renewed ‎terrorist initiatives emanating from Iran, Islamic State, Hezbollah, Hamas and even the Palestinian ‎Authority, which shares the same objectives as Hamas. ‎

Beyond this, we are aware that for the remainder of U.S. President Barack Obama's term in office‎, his ‎administration is determined to continue its pressure on Israel to withdraw to indefensible ‎borders and make further concessions which could have profound long-term repercussions ‎impacting on the security of our children and grandchildren. ‎

Voters should understand that the composition of the next government will have major ‎ramifications on these crucial issues. They should also take into account that recent precedents ‎in Israel have demonstrated that, in the absence of cabinet responsibility, overall policies are ‎largely determined by the prime minister, with coalition partners having little influence over ‎major decisions.‎

Under such circumstances, Israelis should not cynically dismiss the election as theater. They ‎should exercise their right to vote and concentrate on one of the two major blocs rather than ‎flippantly casting their votes to the "centrist" parties. ‎

They must recognize that there are major differences of approach between the policies of ‎Netanyahu and Herzog. They should set aside prejudice regarding personalities and support the party whose leader ‎they consider would be best-equipped to head the nation during this critical period and who is ‎most capable of confronting the pressures from the Obama administration and providing ‎security in the face of our adversaries. That means supporting either Likud and Benjamin ‎Netanyahu or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni of the Zionist Union.‎ ‎

Netanyahu has made it clear that he would not countenance any further unilateral concessions ‎to the Palestinians at this time, which he maintains would merely endanger Israel and advance ‎the cause of the terrorists. He will resist pressures from the Obama administration and ‎feels assured of the support of Congress and the American people.‎

Herzog and Livni believe that Israel should make a deal with Abbas, whom they still consider a ‎peace partner, and would support another disengagement with the Palestinian Authority. ‎They also suggest that they will placate Obama by making such concessions and ‎agreeing on future borders. ‎

In this context, voters should determine whether they consider Netanyahu or Herzog/Livni to ‎be most capable to direct the destiny of the nation as prime minister over the next crucial ‎years. They should vote for that candidate's party and avoid centrist parties that essentially subcontract their votes to individuals who will employ them ‎primarily for personal ambition. That could result in unintended consequences and the ‎formation of a government quite contrary to the genuine will of the nation.‎ ‎

Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ‎ileibler@leibler.com.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=11929

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

Jew-Bashing 101 - Janet Tassel

by Janet Tassel

The proponents of BDS, like the venomous Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah, stress that BDS is not a political strategy, it is about eliminating Israel. Barghouti says quite frankly, "The BDS movement opposes any Jewish state in any part of Palestine." The rebarbative Norman Finkelstein says, "We must be honest. We want to abolish Israel."

When I found myself hoping that my college-bound granddaughter will not "come out" as Jewish, I realized I had time-traveled back to the Germany of the 1930s -- and I wasn't singing "Willkommen."

My fears were only heightened this week as I watched the film Crossing the Line 2 at its Boston premiere. The film details the spreading infection of anti-Israel (read anti-Semitic) activity on American college campuses. Guest of honor and speaker at the showing was the noble and beautiful Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who said that watching the film was like "having a bucket of ice water" dumped on her head.

In Crossing the Line 2 (the second film on the same subject by the producers, Jerusalem U/Step Up For Israel) we see raucous, scary mobs of students (and obvious non-students) in kafiyahs and hijabs, bellowing and bullhorning "We support the intifada!" "F-- you, Zionist scum!" Nazi pigs!" and more.  We see "die-ins," apartheid walls, guerrilla theater, mock eviction notices, and other pro-Palestinian antics. And, by contrast, we meet Jewish students facing, and even facing down, the obscenities and bullying. Perhaps they were screened by the producers at central casting, but they all seem fresh-faced, sensible, and mannerly.

But their task is formidable. For instance, Becky Sebo of Ohio University is shown attempting to read a statement in support of Israel to the student senate. Appallingly, in the midst of her remarks, the campus police arrive and she and three others are arrested and taken away in handcuffs. Sarah Abonyi of the University of New Mexico correctly identifies the sources of the hatred: the group called Students for Justice in Palestine, and most important, faculty, particularly tenured faculty. As Aviva Slomich, a CAMERA campus director, says, "Students come and go, but professors stay."

Thus, we can expect this hatred to continue until tenured faculty retire, or until that utopian day when teachers teach subjects rather than propaganda. Abolishing classes in race, class, and gender would be a start. But, as the film demonstrates, faculty, particularly in Middle East studies, tend to be leftist and inherently anti-Israel.  For example, take (please) Professor Denis Sullivan of Northeastern University, who says, "Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. So what?" Or the infamous Joseph Assad of Columbia University, who says, "Israel is one of the worst offenders worldwide; it is today the only racist country -- by law." As Professor Robert Wistrich laments, "It is a disaster for academia."

And from the professorial word to action by gullible students is but a short step. Roz Rothstein, director of the group Stand With Us, points out that Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) have become more organized and focused. Working within the system, they gather under the umbrella of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement, or BDS. (In her talk after the film, Hirsi Ali refers to BDS as Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage, and asks "Where is the BDS movement against Boko Haram?") The proponents of BDS, like the venomous Omar Barghouti and Ali Abunimah, stress that BDS is not a political strategy, it is about eliminating Israel. Barghouti says quite frankly, "The BDS movement opposes any Jewish state in any part of Palestine." The rebarbative Norman Finkelstein says, "We must be honest. We want to abolish Israel."

And speaking of Jewish quislings, though a topic not dealt with in the film, we must unfortunately reckon with the fact that Jews -- students and faculty -- are sometimes in league with the enemy. David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has initiated a drive to counter the insidious anti-Jewish trend.
(JewHatredonCampus.org) His people placed posters at UCLA (one of Horowitz's designated Top Ten schools for Jew- hatred) linking SJP with campus anti-Semitic activities. "One poster depicted the body of a lifeless Palestinian civilian being dragged through the streets of Gaza by Hamas operatives while tethered to a motorcycle," reports Ari Lieberman. And there were other posters, equally dramatic, all headlining SJP with the hashtag #JewHaters.  Shortly thereafter, this notice appeared in the UCLA's Daily Bruin:

We would like to condemn the posters which were posted on campus this weekend labeling members of Students for Justice in Palestine as 'Jew Haters.' While we have in the past condemned speakers sponsored by SJP for their anti-Semitic rhetoric and believe the inappropriate singling out of Israel to be discriminatory, we wholeheartedly condemn these actions and the malicious intent behind them.  This sort of hostility and offensive language have no place on a university campus, especially one as diverse as UCLA.

Among those endorsing this notice were J Street U, Bruins for Israel, Hillel, and Chabad. And some of their members even volunteered to remove the posters.

UCLA, you will remember, is the site of the Rachel Beyda incident.  In February, Rachel, a candidate for the judicial board of Student Council, was asked by Council members, "Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community…how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"  This little inquisition coincided with UCLA's annual Israel Apartheid Week.

But let us return to the film, and at the same time let's look at the word "dialogue," in its current usage both a noun and a verb. This amorphous term is repeated often in the film by the Jewish students -- though mocked by SJP. Even after the film, even after Hirsi Ali's eloquent remarks, a panel of three activist Jewish students could summarize their suggestions for action essentially with the advice to speak up and to "dialogue."

However, one young man dragged in the recent event at the University of Oklahoma, in which frat boys sang a ditty with "hateful racist words."  Our Jewish student did not call for dialogue in this case; rather, he praised the "moral responsibility" of Oklahoma University's president for shutting down the frat and expelling some of the frat boys. Such absurd moral equivalence suggests that this generation of Jewish activists may have to slough off their liberal chrysalis before they can do battle effectively.

"Crossing the Line" ends on an upbeat note, with paeans to Israel and crowds of young people dancing and waving Israeli flags. Becky Sebo tells Jewish students not to despair, and to remember "We're here for you."

And yet, and yet: I still have hopes for my granddaughter. Maybe she'll party her way through college the way my generation did.    


Janet Tassel

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/jewbashing_101.html

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

Obama’s Treason Is the New Patriotism - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

The toadying of “Tehran Joe” to Iran had already reached its absolute lowest point when Biden responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11 by suggesting, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.”

The administration that Biden is part of has instead been releasing $490 million a month to Iran.

When Republicans complained that Obama refused to talk about Islamic terrorism, he accused them of playing into the hands of ISIS by demanding that he identify the enemy we’re fighting.

When they spoke out against his Iranian nuclear sellout, he accused them of “wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran”.

Those hardliners would presumably toe a harder line than Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who responded to Obama’s outreach in his first term by saying, “The Islamic peoples all over the world chant ‘Death to America!’” and who stated last year that “This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it.”

(The Supreme Leader of a country which stones teenage rape victims and rapes teenage girls so that they don’t die as virgins, also claimed that “The European races are barbaric.”)

If the moderate Supreme Leader that Obama is dealing with wants Death to America, what could the real hardliners want for America that’s even worse than death? A third term of Obama?

Meanwhile Joe Biden, Obama’s number two, accused Republicans of undermining Obama. This would be the same Biden who threatened to impeach President Bush if he bombed Iran’s nuclear program and who blasted Bush and the idea of an Axis of Evil at a fundraiser in the home of a pro-Iran figure.

Biden undermined President Bush’s efforts to rein in Iran’s terrorism by voting against listing the Revolutionary Guard, which was supplying weapons to help the Taliban kill American soldiers, as a terrorist group (a position he shared with Kerry, Hagel and Obama) and berating Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not negotiating with Iran and Assad.

The toadying of “Tehran Joe” to Iran had already reached its absolute lowest point when Biden responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11 by suggesting, “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.”

The administration that Biden is part of has instead been releasing $490 million a month to Iran.

Biden, along with Kerry and Hagel, became notorious as the Tehran Trio during the Bush years for their advocacy for Iran and Assad, and their appearances at pro-Iranian lobbying groups and fundraisers despite criticism from Iranian democracy advocates. Biden, Kerry and Hagel, Obama’s VP, the Secretary of State and the former Secretary of Defense, all appeared at American-Iranian Council events, a group whose founder stated that he is “the Iranian lobby in the United States.”

Treason doesn’t get more treasonous than that.

Obama and Biden, along with their political allies, are trying to spin their shameless pandering to a terrorist state as patriotic and opposition to it as treasonous. The New York Daily News denounced senators opposed to an Obama deal giving Iran the ability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons as “Traitors”. The administration’s social media allies’ hashtag dubbed Republicans opposed to Iran’s nuclear weapons as #47Traitors.

Traitors oppose terrorists getting nuclear weapons. Patriots like Joe Biden not only support it, but they blast a president trying to stop it while collecting $30,000 at a pro-Iranian fundraiser.

“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?” Sir John Harrington cynically observed. “Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

But the Elizabethan courtier left out that when traitors rule, patriotism becomes treason. Obama commits treason and taunts his critics as traitors.

Republicans who want to see American leadership rise to the challenge of ISIS and Iran are accused of collaborating with ISIS and Iran by an administration that willfully lied and misrepresented the growth of ISIS for as long as it could and that is now doing the same thing for Iran’s nuclear threat.

Obama lied and claimed that ISIS was no threat even when it was taking over entire cities. Only overt genocide by ISIS forced him into his current stumbling action against it. Now the same sports fan who dubbed ISIS a “Jayvee” team not worth bothering with accuses Republicans of playing into its hands.

Sensible people consider letting a terrorist group win to be “playing into its hands”. Left-wing apologists for terror however claim that fighting terrorists “plays into their hands”. In the same inverted worldview in which patriotism becomes treason and treason becomes patriotism, what terrorists want most is for you to bomb them to oblivion while what they fear most is that you’ll just stand there and let them kill you.

Now Obama suggests that critics of his Iran nuclear sellout are playing into the hands of some imaginary hardliners who want America to bomb its nuclear program. These imaginary hardliners, like the imaginary terrorists, want to sabotage their own efforts to achieve their goals. And only Obama stands between them and the failure of their terroristic and nuclear ambitions. That’s why he’s a patriot.

And if you can follow all that, you qualify for a gig as the State Department’s new spokesperson.

Ignoring terrorists is patriotic. Fighting them is unpatriotic. Dealing with their actual beliefs is unpatriotic. Pretending that they have no beliefs, no matter how impossible it makes it to predict their actions and fight them, is patriotic. Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is unpatriotic. The patriotic thing to do is to cut a deal that will let Iran go the way of North Korea.

Through the intercession of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton struck a non-binding agreement with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program. Like Obama’s Iran deal, the Senate never got to ratify it. Secretary of State Madeline Albright stated that “the framework agreement is one of the best things that the administration has done because it stopped a nuclear weapons program in North Korea.” It didn’t.

During his original campaign, Obama said, “We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.” That should sound familiar. Bill Clinton said during his first term in office, “North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.” North Korea could and did. Bill Clinton knew all along that it could and would.

The rhetoric from back then also sounds familiar. Congressman Obey warned that Republicans dropping millions in fuel oil for North Korea was “mindbogglingly reckless.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin urged “Stop GOP Meddling in Foreign Affairs.” Gore ranted that Republicans were “determined to wreck a presidency in order to recapture it” and accused them of “isolationism and defeatism”.

The Republicans were right. North Korea got the bomb and a lot of freebies from American taxpayers. The men and women responsible for supporting that disastrously treasonous policy slimed them for it. Now we’re in a repeat with many of the same politicians and pundits arguing that the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb is by not doing anything to stop it from getting the bomb.

The first rule of treason is to call the other guy a traitor. Having aligned with everyone from Castro to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Obama has to make it seem as if it’s the Republicans who are the traitors.

An administration of political hacks who spent the Bush years undermining the White House in every way possible short of officially defecting to the enemy now claim that dissent from their policy is treason. And they top that by reversing the motives of Iran and ISIS so that instead of wanting to destroy America, they really want to be criticized by Republicans and prevented from getting nuclear weapons.

This gibberish shouldn’t be able to fool any thinking person, but the idea that Kim Jong-Il wanted food, not nuclear weapons, when his entire policy had been the exact opposite, shouldn’t have gotten by anyone with an elementary knowledge of history and at least a single living brain cell.

But it did.

No one wants to be a member of a party of traitors or of a government of traitors. Clinton and Obama didn’t accidentally stumble into their policies. They were guided by a deep rotten belief that the United States was always wrong and that the enemy, no matter how evil, had a legitimate grievance.

They can’t admit to this treasonous idea, even though they repeat it constantly in various forms, so their only defense is to claim that their treason is patriotism and that anyone who disagrees is a traitor.

Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/obamas-treason-is-the-new-patriotism/

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

Sweden's Middle East Policy in Ruins - Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard

by Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard

The Swedish government, parliament and mainstream media seem to have no inkling of what Islamic sharia law implies. In their hearts, they evidently believe that we all think the same. As Sweden champions democracy, liberty and equal rights, the Swedish establishment apparently cannot imagine that others would think otherwise.
In sharia law, there are no "human rights" as thought of in the West, but only human obligations as imposed by Allah and his prophet. Whatever is inside sharia law is a human right. Whatever is outside sharia law is not a human right.

Sweden's latest attempt to flex its muscles as a humanitarian and feminist superpower ended in a diplomatic disaster last week.

On March 9, the country's Social Democratic Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, was to address the foreign ministers of the Arab League assembled in Cairo.

Wallström had been invited by Arab League Secretary General Nabil el-Araby as a guest of honor. According to Egyptian sources, it is believed that the unusual offer to listen to a European foreign minister was made in light of Sweden's recent decision to recognize Palestine.

Wallström never got a chance to speak. According to her own explanation, she was blocked from addressing the meeting after protests by Saudi Arabia. "They have reacted strongly to what we have said about democracy and human rights," she told Swedish public radio. Secretary General el-Araby refused to comment, and spokespersons for the Swedish and Saudi embassies in Cairo were unavailable for comment.

It is unknown if the text of Wallström's address was distributed to the Arab foreign ministers before the meeting. They cannot, however, have been unaware that she had previously spoken out against the flogging of the Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi, who was convicted of "insulting Islam," and that she had criticized the status of women's rights in the Gulf kingdom.

Back in Sweden, Wallström and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven had faced criticism for their decision to continue Sweden's controversial weapons exports to Saudi Arabia.

On March 10, the Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist announced that Sweden would not extend its agreement to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. The Swedish government claimed that the decision had been made several days before FM Wallström's unfortunate experience in Egypt.

On Wednesday, March 11, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Stockholm.

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström wanted to lecture the Arab League on human rights. Saudi Arabia's King Salman was not amused. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Following the Saudi cancellation of Wallström's speech at the Cairo conference, her press secretary, Erik Boman, told the Swedish News Bureau TT, "They [the Saudis] are trying to save face."

Swedish priorities

A copy of what Margot Wallström intended to say to the Arab League has been published on a Swedish government website.

In it, she made no specific reference to human rights violations in any particular Arab country. She referred to the predicament of women in particular and human rights in general:

"Human rights are a priority in Swedish foreign policy. Freedom of association, assembly, religion and expression are not only fundamental rights and important tools in the creation of vibrant societies. They are indispensable in the fight against extremism and radicalization. So is a vibrant civil society. ... Yesterday was International Women's Day. This is a day to celebrate women's achievements, recognize challenges, and focus attention on women's rights, women's representation and their adequate resources. Our experience is that women's rights do not only benefit women, but society as a whole. ... More than 20 years ago, in 1994, the International Conference on Population and Development met here in Cairo to discuss various issues, including education of women and protection of women from all forms of violence, including female genital mutilation and sexual harassment. Many of these issues are still very much in play today and I urge you to contribute to upholding the agreements made here in Cairo 20 years ago."

The Foreign Minister appears to have been unaware that "human" and "women's" rights are anathema in a great number of Arab States including Saudi Arabia. She also seems innocent of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, according to which any human right must be compatible with Islamic sharia law -- meaning that there are no "human rights" as thought of in the West, but only human obligations as imposed by Allah and his prophet. Whatever is inside sharia law is a human right. Whatever is outside sharia law is not a human right.

Denouncing Margot Wallström

After the diplomatic debacle in Cairo, Arab foreign ministers denounced Wallström in a statement: "Arab countries totally reject Wallström's statement as irresponsible and unacceptable. ... Saudi Arabia's Constitution is based on the Shariah that protects the right of people and safeguards their blood, wealth and honor."

The Saudi cabinet, chaired by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman, had rejected on March 9 any denunciation of Saudi judiciary, whose decisions are based on Islamic law and "implemented impartially to maintain the country's stability and security".

The Swedish government, parliament and mainstream media, as demonstrated throughout decades, seem to have no inkling of what sharia law implies.

In their hearts, they evidently believe that we all think the same. As Sweden champions democracy, liberty and equal rights, the Swedish establishment apparently cannot imagine that others would think otherwise.

This belief has been the basis of Sweden's foreign and immigration policies for many years. The Swedish "humanitarian superpower," however, has now reached the limits of a policy based on love and understanding.

If Margot Wallström had attended diplomacy school, she would have realized that she and her government have fired three missiles at the Arab world and at Saudi Arabia in particular:

1. Sweden refuses to extend its agreement to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.
2. Margot Wallström wants to lecture the Arab League on human rights.
3. Wallström's spokesman accuses the Saudis of wanting to save face.

As a result of recent developments, Sweden has now lost influence in the Middle East and probably most of the Islamic world.

Through its recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state, and following years of anti-Israeli propaganda, Sweden has made itself terra non grata in Israel -- and now Saudi Arabia does not like it either.

An EU member state that sees itself as the universal purveyor of peace and love, without understanding what is actually going on the world, will of course lose credibility and influence where real policy is made: Washington, London, Berlin, Brussels, Moscow, Beijing, Cairo and so on.

One wonders where the Swedish government will go next to find takers for its uninformed, idealistic world policy.


Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard are editors-in-chief of Dispatch International.

Follow Ingrid Carlqvist on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5385/sweden-middle-east-policy

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

Hillary’s Damage Control Isn’t Working - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

President Obama, who reportedly detests the Clintons, may himself have played a role in revealing Hillary’s email misbehavior. That Obama didn’t know about the secret email system is simply too fantastic to believe. The president may have been holding the email saga back as a trump card, waiting for the best time to crush his former rival for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s efforts to douse the growing furor over her possibly illegal private email system are not going well.

The Obama White House, which claims the president knew nothing about Clinton’s surreptitious email system, unceremoniously threw the former cabinet member under the bus this week.

“Frankly, the secretary’s handling of her own personal email and the maintenance of [her] personal email inbox is something that I’m not going to comment on and not particularly interested in,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

President Obama, who reportedly detests the Clintons, may himself have played a role in revealing Hillary’s email misbehavior. That Obama didn’t know about the secret email system is simply too fantastic to believe. The president may have been holding the email saga back as a trump card, waiting for the best time to crush his former rival for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Of course, there is a certain poetry to one ruthless, venal Saul Alinsky disciple undermining another.

Many conservatives who watched the press conference at the United Nations on Tuesday in which reporters asked genuinely probing questions challenging Clinton’s version of the facts about her James Bond villain-like email setup are now experiencing schadenfreude. Hillary has gotten away with so much premeditated deception for so many decades that observing her being vigorously cross-examined by journalists is a surreal, cathartic experience for many. It is therapy for the conservative soul.

Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember it was in 2007 that then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused George W. Bush’s administration of using “secret White House email accounts” and secret wiretaps and military tribunals.

“You know, our Constitution is being shredded,” she said then.

Hillary, as Americans have come to know, is a shameless, prolific, pathological liar, probably even more than her impeached husband. But who would have thought that after so long in the public eye doing damage control, spending so long cleaning up after Bill Clinton’s seemingly unending “bimbo eruptions,” she would be so inept at handling what might otherwise not be a career-ending scandal? It now seems the email imbroglio could very well be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

At the press event Mrs. Clinton continued to deceive and misdirect.

After admitting it would have been better if she had used government email for official correspondence, she claimed she had “fully complied with every rule” and that she was going “above and beyond” in directing the State Department to release many of her emails.

“No one wants their personal emails made public and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”

The problem with this statement is that when she was at Foggy Bottom Clinton made it clear that State Department employees were to use official government email. She even had an ambassador pushed out who violated this rule.

Particularly outrageous was her claim that a desire for convenience drove her to use her personal email account for both official business and personal matters.

“I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” she said.

In fact, just last month Clinton said she carried two electronic devices around with her.
At a high tech conference in Silicon Valley Clinton was asked if she preferred iPhones or android cellphones. She replied, “iPhone, OK, in full disclosure — and a Blackberry.” The New York Times added that at the same event she also acknowledged using two kinds of iPads. “I don’t throw anything away. I’m like two steps short of a hoarder.”

At the UN she said some of the emails she erased contained “personal communications from my husband and me.” Yet on Sunday a spokesman for the former president said Bill Clinton had “sent two emails in his life.”

Mrs. Clinton’s aides added that more than 100 government employees knew she was using private email.

One of them was President Obama. Josh Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Clinton emailed each other. Obama did not know that Clinton’s emails were not being collected by the government, Earnest said.

Although Clinton has refused to hand over for inspection the private email server she keeps in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., at the UN she expected to be praised for her supposed efforts at transparency because she released about half of the tens of thousands of emails in question.

She bragged that she took the “unprecedented” step of handing over to the State Department for review about 55,000 printed pages of email. “For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work related. I went above and beyond what I was requested to do.”

This admission in itself raises thorny new issues. How did she decide in recent weeks which records to make available to congressional investigators and for Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests? And didn’t the FoIA law require that her emails be made available at the time they were created?

Clinton made the argument that she complied with applicable rules because she sent emails to “government officials on their State or other dot gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.” She failed to explain how emails sent to those who didn’t work for the government had been archived.

“Once the American public begins to see the emails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications,” Clinton said, again as if expecting to be applauded.

The chairman of the select congressional committee on the deadly Benghazi fiasco that happened during Clinton’s watch was not impressed by her remarks. “Because Secretary Clinton has created more questions than answers, the Select Committee is left with no choice but to call her to appear at least twice,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues that Clinton has broken the law by “hoarding” emails that are the property of the U.S. government.

“This is no longer a mere political issue, much less a partisan issue. It is now a black-and-white law-enforcement issue: Mrs. Clinton is withholding records that belong to the public and there is probable cause to believe she made a prosecutable false statement to the government in claiming to have surrendered all records of official business to the State Department.”

If Clinton fails to “voluntarily surrender her [Internet] server” the Department of Justice should take custody of it, he writes.

Meanwhile, plenty of Democrats have been criticizing Clinton. Some want to make sure she doesn’t go unchallenged during the primary elections that get underway less than a year from now.

Likely presidential candidate Martin O’Malley made sure to take a jab at Clinton. The former Maryland governor said on MSNBC that if he were president he would expect his secretary of state to use government email. “Well sure, it would be important to me.”

Zephyr Teachout, who sought the Democratic nomination last year for governor of New York, said Clinton “shouldn’t have done it. She should come forward and give a press availability on it. Just as a matter of leadership, she should address it directly … This is why we need a primary, to force debate both about policy and leadership style.”

Former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian is tired of Clinton’s scandals.

“There’s always another shoe to drop with Hillary. Do we nominate her not knowing what’s in those e-mails? If the e-mails were just her and her family and friends canoodling about fashion and what they’re going to do next week, that’s one thing. But the fact that she’s already turned e-mails to the Benghazi committee because she was doing official business on it means she’s going to die by 1,000 cuts on this one.”

Democratic National Committee member Boyd Brown was similarly wary of Clinton’s still unannounced candidacy.

“The closer we get to 2016, the more the electorate pays attention, which we’re now seeing with foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and in Hillary’s undisclosed emails,” Brown said. “These are problems that raise real leadership and transparency concerns, concerns that can be addressed in caucuses and primaries, but would go ignored in a coronation process.”

Party leaders in his home state feel “shaky” and Clinton, he said. “Folks are remembering why they pushed back in 2008, and a candidate with the right message and retail politics could pick the lock Clinton thinks she has on the party faithful.”

So the pundits in recent years may have been wrong. Hillary Clinton may not be inevitable. There may be no coronation next year. Perhaps she won’t even secure her party’s nod for the White House next year. Her candidacy may implode long before then.

Maybe America has a future after all.

Matthew Vadum

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/hillarys-damage-control-isnt-working/

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

Behaviour Change By Iran Must Be On Negotiating Agenda - David Singer

by David Singer

Kerry says he is close to an interim agreement, but what did Iran agree to?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu –  addressing the American Congress - made behaviour change by Iran an essential prerequisite to the successful conclusion of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – France, Germany, United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States.

Those negotiations - designed to curb Iran procuring a nuclear bomb- have a deadline expiring on March 24.

The threat Iran’s behaviour poses to peace and security in the Middle East and the world’s oil supply was starkly laid out by Netanyahu:

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back[ed] by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back[ed] by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Iran’s past attacks on Americans did not escape Netanyahu’s notice:

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Netanyahu spelled out Iran’s ever-increasing quest for domination and influence outside its own national borders:

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

Netanyahu warned against the P5+1 agreeing to any 10 year moratorium on Iran gaining a nuclear bomb - without imposing strict conditions requiring an end to such behaviour by Iran:

Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. 

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs. 

Netanyahu’s solution to preventing this catastrophe occurring requires Iran meeting three conditions in any concluded negotiations  – each enthusiastically endorsed by a standing ovation from the Congress as Netanyahu declared:

First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East.

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Behaviour change by Iran has thus been firmly put on the negotiating agenda – and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress – with Netanyahu warning:

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country

Significantly Netanyahu stressed that these three conditions would represent:

A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. 

The P5+1 must ensure that Iran abandons its belligerent behaviour – or terminate the negotiations. An interim agreement without this is worthless.


David Singer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16632#.VQXxOeGzd-8

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

Mark Levin: Likud Defeat Would Be a Tragedy - Gil Ronen

by Gil Ronen

If Netanyahu loses, says radio host, 'one of the few voices left speaking the truth about what is going on in the world' will be silenced.

 

Binyamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama

Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash 90

 

Mark Levin, the presenter of the popular US radio show bearing his name, told Israel Hayom Friday that if Likud under Binyamin Netanyahu is defeated in the elections Tuesday – “one of the few voices left speaking the truth about what is going on in the world, about liberty and democracy and the truth about the opposite – terrorism and barbarism – that voice will be silenced.”

“He is the only one,” said Levin. “He and maybe the prime minister of Canada, and remarkably enough the president of Egypt and the King of Jordan and maybe a few others, but that's it.

"As I said earlier, to me Netanyahu is the leader of the free world,” the author and radio host told the Israeli daily. “I hope the Israeli people understand that. After World War II there was a terrible tragedy: The British people threw out Winston Churchill. It will be a terrible tragedy, in my view, if the Israeli people throw out Netanyahu, who is so crucial to their defense and so crucial to the free world."

"I understand the leftists and opportunists in Israel want to turn the tables on Netanyahu,” he added. “This is what leftists and opportunists do in my country – they're all the same whether they speak Hebrew or English. But the fact is that anyone who really is sober in their thinking understands that Israel has a very unique leader at a very important time in its history.

"Should Netanyahu lose, in my opinion, it is not just the U.S. that will see that, your enemies will see it too. They will see that a strong prime minister, who would not stand down no matter who pressured him, was defeated by the Israeli people. That could be misread by the Iranians, by ISIS, by Hezbollah, Hamas and all the rest of them as an act of weakness by the Israeli people. I am concerned about that."


Gil Ronen

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192605#.VQXynuGzd-8

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