Friday, July 31, 2009

Das Bier Summit-Post Thoughts

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Great summits in world history




Munich Summit 1938



Yalta Summit-1944



Potsdam Summit 1945




Kennedy-Khrushchev Summit in Vienna 1961




Nixon-Mao Summit in China 1972



The Beer Summit-Washington 2009

Biden: I tell ya, guys, we need to go to Ukraine. The babes are hot!! Hey, you heard this one? Knock-knock."

Gates: "Who's there?"

Biden: "Sgt Crowley."


The news media had a ball with this week's "beer summit" at the White House. Some cable outlets were featuring a countdown ticker until the beer was served, while another was showing viewers an aerial map of the White House grounds to show exactly where the Big Moment would take place, We even know what beers each man drank, for crying out loud. In the end, Joe Biden was invited to the party-to lighten things up I guess.

I thought that Sgt Crowley acted with with class in his post-beer interview-being careful not to fan any more flames (since he never fanned the flames to begin with) but also not conceding from his position that he acted properly in the arrest of Henry Louis Gates.

Of course, we don't know what the four gentlemen said to each other, but it is my hope that Crowley spoke up for the policemen of America who are so frequently accused of racial profiling every time they have to encounter a black person on the street. I am sure he got a lot of lecture from Gates (and Obama) about the insidiousness of racial profiling. Since he himself teaches the subject at the police academy, I am sure he is well versed on the topic and the past history of arbitrarily harassing blacks (which is what I would define racial profiling as). I have an idea that Sgt Crowley spoke just as frankly to Gates as Gates did to him on the subject of being called a racist every time a white man and black man have a disagreement. It is not fair and it has become very tiresome.

What the teachable moment is that President Obama is talking about I have no idea. Hopefully, he has learned not to jump into an issue in which, by his own admission, he has no personal knowledge, and declare that one side acted stupidly-then have to waste the next several days of his precious time trying to clean up his mess. Any "teachable moment" would have involved taping the conversation, which, in itself, would have destroyed any usefulness.

At this point, I would like to share a story from my youth. When I was 14 years old and growing up in Los Angeles, I was a punk, pure and simple. I thought I was a tough guy and liked to get into fights. One night, I was thrown out of an amusement park for some stupid thing I didn't do and escorted out by an LAPD cop. He was an older guy probably burned out and counting the days to retirement. He took me into a side room and filled out a card on my (field Identification card). I was angry because I didn't deserve to get thrown out of the park. Three times I called him a "dirty cop". The third time, he proceeded to kick my butt. After that, I started listening. In the end, perhaps realizing he had crossed the line, he became friendly let me go since my attitude had dramatically changed. So was he wrong in what he did? Sure. Did I deserve it? You bet.

None of that suggests that Professor Gates should have been roughed up for his verbal tirade. But the point is that my incident had nothing to do with race. The cop was white and so was I. (I still am.) The lesson is when you engage in a dispute-verbally or physically-with the police, only bad things will happen. Gates was out of line and engaged in disorderly conduct. A couple of days after the incident, I caught a snippet of Gates being interviewed by someone in front of an outdoor crowd (I assume it was at Harvard.) I only caught a part, but I heard Gates talk of how this white cop was obviously not prepared for a black man to "get in his face". (I am paraphrasing, but that is an accurate description of what Gates said.) So, I am now satisfied that Gates, as other witnesses have said, was being verbally abusive and acting in a disorderly manner that would have justified a charge of disorderly conduct. To say that Crowley was engaging in racial profiling is absurd. He was called to the scene of a possible home break-in and acted accordingly. He had no idea who he was going to encounter, and I have heard no witness state that Crowley was being other than professional in his behavior.

Again, teachable moment? Aside from the fact that white and black Americans view race through entirely different lens, which we know, I would like President Obama to tell us what we should learn from this.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli is responsible for reversing voter fraud charge against the New Black Panthers, but many had a hand in it after the interested “political” and “racial” factions put their heads together.

New Black Panthers

After intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling precinct, decked out like a military thugs from a third world country, wielding at least one 2-ft. long nightstick, a civil lawsuit was filed. The three men charged refused to show up for their court cases for five months - that’s 5 months - and they did show! The government won a default judgement in federal court against the New Black Panthers and three of their men. In April, however, department lawyers were told to drop the case - after already procuring the default judgment. Unbelievable.

Why would the case be dropped? Wouldn’t you know it is always about politics?

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

If that doesn’t make your blood boil…this will:

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an “ongoing obligation” to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a “thorough review” of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the “facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.

Schmaler is certainly a Liberal. She had the audacity to says “we [DOJ] are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote.” Only Liberals have that special kind of audacity. What about the people of Philadelphia? What about the people inside and outside the polling place? What about Mr. Bull - a man who signed an affidavit tell what he saw that day?

Schmaler says claims must be supported by facts and the law. How about the default judgment? But beside that, there was witness with a sworn affidavit. He is a “longtime civil rights activist and a former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign. Here is a portion of Bartle Bull’s affidavit:

In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll,” he declared. “In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi … I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location.

Can you believe that the DOJ never did get around to entering Mr. Bull’s affidavit! I know it is drama to say that I want to cry for this country and for my children, but that is how I feel. This is not justice. Where is the ACLU on behalf of the American voter?

The guilty are Acting-Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, appointed by Barack Obama, who delayed the case. Then King discussed it with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. He accepted the counsel of King:

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf (F-VA), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee was prevented from interviewing the “front-line” lawyers who brought the charges. That’s transparency for you!

Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. “There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.

Yes, it stinks to high heaven, as most everything does connected to this administration. No need to worry, however, Wolf can’t get anywhere with it, but Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has some pull and he is meeting with King next week. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is also to be allowed in the door. More from Rep. Wolf:

If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable? Mr. Wolf asked.

Here’s a quote from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

…in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it “great confusion, since the NBPP members were “caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

Though it had basically won the case, [through default] the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. “The division’s public rationale would send the wrong message entirely — that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.

To date, the Washington Times says their request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has yielded nothing.

AG Thomas Perrelli, whose word was the final decision, raised more than $500,000.00 for Obama for the presidential election.

I cannot begin to express my high-volume anger right now.

The New Black Panthers are identified as the party’s chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney and a D.C. resident. The nightstick bully is alleged to be Minister King Samir Shabazz, of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter; and Jerry Jackson, Philadelphia. The people of Philadelphia were subject to a thug from Washington, D.C.! The suit against these men alleged:

The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with “a dangerous weapon”and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.

The complaint said the three men engaged in “coercion, threats and intimidation, … racial threats and insults, … menacing and intimidating gestures, … and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote.” It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would “continued to violate … the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country.”

In case you are not white with anger…yet, one more reminder: these men never did respond to the charges or appear in court. Could you get away with this? I could not.

The New Black Panthers in Philadelphia want us to know how responsible and credible they are. They’ve “suspended” their chapter in that city “until further notice.” No elections to abuse coming up any time soon. Time to hit the streets and abuse someone there, or meet-up with ACORN for a little fun at the expense of voters everywhere. And what about Malik zulu Shabazz, who called Michelle Malkin a “political prostitute” - all cozy back home in Washington, D.C. where voters need no abuse to do the bidding of the New Black Panthers.

In the photo above, King Samir Shabazz (L) and Jerry Jackson (R), both of Philadelphia. See them all in the video below.

Black Panther Voter Fraud

Photo courtesy National Geographic Channel via WashingtonTimes

Related:

Document drop: DOJ still obstructing justice in Black Panther case - Michelle Malkin

Black Panthers Win: Voter Fraud Wins: Voter Rights Lose

Another Account of UC-Irvine's Last Anti-Israel Hate Fest

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Amir Abdel Malik Ali-on a previous visit to UCI



George Galloway-British MP-and buffoon, who spoke May 21.



Ex-Congresswoman-and buffoon Cynthia McKinney at UC-Irvine, May 13, 2009 with her "security" in red and black t-shirts


I am cross-posting an article by Aaron Elias, a pro-Israel student at UC-Irvine. He describes last May's Muslim Student Union-sponsored Israel-bashing, which featured plenty of radical speakers and frayed tempers. Of course, these are the same events as I have written about for over two years, but it might be refreshing to read the accounts from another voice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"To see a firsthand example of Islamic fundamentalist anti-Semitism, you need look no further than the University of California, Irvine.

The campus’ Muslim Student Union is nationally infamous for their annual anti-Israel week (which they unsuccessfully christen “Palestine Awareness” week) and for the vitriolic anti-Semitic language of some of their speakers. The MSU is the type of organization proud to invite the scholar-wannabe Norman Finkelstein, which it did in 2008.

This past May, the MSU’s anti-Israel week was perhaps more gorged with controversy than ever before. A number of campus groups organized in order to petition the co-sponsors of the week-long carnival of misinformation of the nature of the event they had agreed to co-sponsor. As it turned out, many of these campus groups were unaware of the controversial nature of anti-Israel week, as the MSU delegates who pitched it to them failed to objectively and accurately describe it. As a result of the petition, five co-sponsors reneged their participation. In addition, one of the MSU’s scheduled speakers — Gideon Levy, a Jerusalem Post journalist — also canceled his attendance.

The anti-Israel event this year was dispersed over three weeks rather than one, with the second week serving as the main course. The wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing cast of speakers the MSU invited this year featured Reem Salahi, a National Lawyers Guild delegate; Anna Baltzer , a so-called “renowned” humanitarian voice on the Israeli-Arab conflict who has colored Zionism as a “racist movement”; Cynthia McKinney, a Green Party candidate and former member of Congress who was nearly arrested in 2006 for punching an officer at Capitol Hill; and the coup de grace of every anti-Israel week across the Western U.S., Amir Abdel Malik Ali — an Oakland imam who has repeatedly accused Jews of controlling U.S. media, the economy, and perpetrating
9/11.

Reem Salahi hosted an event during the first week exploring Israeli “war crimes” during the Gaza offensive in the beginning of the year, broken down into six sections designed to systematically refute pro-Israel claims (Israel does not target civilians, Israel alerted Palestinian civilians before airstrikes). Salahi force-fed the audience a warped, hobbled logic to reject these claims (civilians died in Gaza as a result of collateral damage, so Israel is targeting them. Salahi only saw one flyer during her trip to Gaza, so Israel didn’t warn civilians about airstrikes).

Anna Baltzer and Cynthia McKinney gave speeches of no notable interest during the second week, aside from the usual “Israel is a criminal state” and “Israel is unjustly perpetuating a holocaust.” McKinney did recount her experience of attempting to sail to Gaza during Operation Cast Lead and expressed outrage as she said her boat was “rammed” by an Israeli warship — an action she for some reason did not predict before she tried to illegally cross a military naval blockade meant to block weapons smuggling.

Malik Ali, as usual, stole the show with his inflammatory anti-American and thinly veiled anti-Semitic rhetoric. A Muslim radical who glorifies the image of the militant rebel and hails Hamas and Hezbollah as “brothers,” Ali spoke first at a noontime public event in the thick of student traffic and then later at a more private evening event.

The contrast between the two speeches was incredible. Where he at least attempted to conceal his Jew-hate in the daytime with monikers like “Zionist Jew,” Ali let loose with both barrels in the nighttime like some sort of anti-Semitic werewolf. Ali accused the Zionist students on campus of controlling the school’s administration, blamed the Jews for 9/11, and rejected the idea that the situation in Sudan could be a genocide and instead blamed the U.S. for it. Ali also declared that the Jews worship Satan, described world class Jew-hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “pretty good guy,” and named Hamas as “victims of Israeli oppression.” Ali even proudly called Allah a “terrorist.” Most astonishing, though, was his blatant call to the students to engage in violence:

"Stand up to the dean … and those policies and unjust rules you [the dean and Zionist students] just made up. … We are moving into a phase of civil disobedience — there’s no other choice except to disobey."

That Ali would have dared to express any of these beliefs at his public speech amidst a throng of students is laughable.

In recent years, it seems the MSU has become less concerned with distribution of fact and more concerned with constructing offensive and misleading displays on the campus. Students this year witnessed an Israeli flag torn, burned, and splashed with red paint drooping from a mock “apartheid wall” covered in incriminating photos of Palestinian victims (often taken out of context) and what is meant to be information on the conflict. A cardboard Israeli tank was introduced as an extension to the wall this year. It sported a picture of Anne Frank wearing a kaffiyeh, suggesting that the Jewish icon of Holocaust suffering would oppose the idea of a Jewish state. A few days after it was put up, however, the picture was covered up (with a kaffiyeh, what else?) and taken down.

Speculation was that the UCI administration had finally put on its big-boy pants and told off the MSU, but an MSU student soon admitted that Anna Baltzer told the organization to remove the photo.

One would assume that the UCI administration would eventually step in and declare that that such behavior is unacceptable and the rhetoric that the MSU’s speakers spew is offensive and risks inciting violence. However, despite petitions and urging by countless groups both on and off campus, the administration has refused to denounce the MSU’s activities as hateful and dangerous. People can only speculate as to why this is. Some believe that the chancellor of the school fears being sued should he single out the MSU for hate speech. Others believe they simply don’t have the chutzpah.

In addition to all the disguised bigotry and half-truths that color the MSU’s anti-Israel week, it now seems they are resorting to underhanded thuggish tactics in order to discredit the opposing perspective. During Malik Ali’s public daytime speech, a number of pro-Israel students set up a booth and walked around holding boards with damning excerpts from the Hamas charter. After the speech, these students were confronted by a group of Muslim students.

“So I hear you guys like killing babies,” a student at the group’s fore said to the group of pro-Israel students, the first statement any of the Muslim students made.

The confrontation quickly dissolved into hostility and almost became physical if not for the students on both sides who attempted to separate the two factions. However, even before the situation degenerated, a female Muslim holding a camera was seen hovering around the group of Muslim students and switching it back and forth between the two groups. When the situation almost became a fight, she rushed to the fore of the Muslim students and held the camera ready to take pictures.

This behavior, coupled with the blatantly childish and irrelevant statement the Muslims chose to greet the Zionist students with, suggests that the entire situation was premeditated in an attempt to goad the pro-Israel students into a fight, which the MSU could then take pictures of and tell their own story about. As despicable as it was, the Zionist students walked away and refused to respond to the taunting.

While criticism of Israel is perfectly legitimate (there is a saying that nobody criticizes Israel more than Israelis), outright damnation of it, fabricating information, and calling students to violence are not activities any school organization should be allowed to exercise.

If not stopped, whether by its own incriminators, school administration, or outside forces, it can lead to some dangerous situations. If you need an example of the dangers of allowing hate speech as free speech, look back to February of this year, when Zionist students at a college in Toronto were chased by an anti-Israel mob and forced to barricade themselves inside the campus’ Hillel office. Their attackers pounded on the glass doors and shouted things like “Die bitch, go back to Israel” and “Die Jew — get the hell off our campus.” The students had to wait for the local police to arrive and safely escort them from the office.

Another incident erupted at University of California, Berkeley last year in November, when members of Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted a Zionist Freedom Alliance concert featuring rapper Kosha Dill z by hanging PLO flags from a balcony directly over the stage. When ZFA member Gabe Weiner attempted to remove the flags, SJP member Husam Zakharia punched him in the head. Zakharia was promptly beaten to the floor by Weiner and Yehuda De Sa. Yehuda told Israel National News: “Several other members of SJP, including female students, attempted to attack Weiner and De Sa but when three more ZFA activists entered the scene, the male members of SJP — who regularly use physical intimidation to silence Zionist students — hid behind female members of their group and refused to step forward and fight.” The school paper published the SJP version of the events, and the administration asked leaders of both groups to meet with each other.

The problem of not only verbal but physical hostility directed at Jewish and Zionist students on college campuses is becoming a bigger problem. It is important to remember the aforementioned incidents when witnessing such blatant anti-Semitism on college campuses and anywhere else. One can only hope that people will recognize it for the inane and bigoted antagonism that it is, and it goes without saying that one certainly cannot afford to allow for this destructive and dangerous mindset within society.

As Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fousesquawk comment: Excellent description by Elias of this latest round of MSU events, which were labeled: Israel-The Politics of Genocide" and which featured, as always, a veritable who's who of misfits and mad-hatters as speakers.

By the way, if you are not aware, the National Lawyer's Guild was originally founded in the 1930s as a legal arm of the Communist Party USA. It was not the first time one of their reps had spoken at UCI. To this day, you will see them involved in any legal issue designed to make the USA look bad.

As for the confrontation described, I happened to witness part of it. The MSU had a table in the area and it was there that they were engaged in a long back and forth with pro-Israel students. Tempers did flare, and at one point, the pro-Israel students were told by an MSU member to get away from the table and the area. I asked a bored-looking campus policeman to go over and make sure there was no fight. Fortunately, no fight erupted.

Rest assurred in a few months, this will all be back at UCI with another group of misfits speaking (Malik Ali will surely be back.) The one common thread almost all of them have is that they hate Israel. And you know what? They hate America too.

And I will be there to point it out.

Health Care Stealth: Happening Now! Call these Senators

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Beware: The mammoth cost of health care should be the last of your concerns, because the legislation, itself, will put the quality of your life at risk.

I received the following in an email from Maggie's Notebook contributor, Jim Simpson at Truth or Consequences. A health care vote is coming in the Senate if Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama stamp their foot a few more time. DO NOT think this is over until after recess. If you've been checking the headline, you know that is not the case.

Now is the time to ramp-up the fight. Even in the newly, supposedly re-worked plan to make it more palatable to Republicans, dire issues still remain.

Forget about cost. The issues are:

1) The day the plan takes effect, if you change your job, you will never again be able to have a private plan, no matter what your new employer offers you. You will be on government health care, like it or not. Do not be deceived that you will have an option.

2) Five years after the plan goes into effect, if you are still with same employer, on a private plan, your employer's plan must match the government plan.

3) Your medical records will be in government hands. If you believe the President when he says your records will be private, remember that we cannot keep homeland security and military information private. If ever anything is communist, taking charge of our health records is absolutely dictatorial. This is one you should care deeply about.

4) Doctors pay will be bundled: he/she will not be paid for when he/she treats you but by how the government deems he has managed your case. Your doctor will be removed from guiding your care in all ways.

5) We are told that no one will be excluded from this plan - but the truth is seniors will be excluded. No more hip or knee replacements, no more pace makers - all of that is probable. And what good is to be covered if you doctor cannot treat you adequately?

There is so much more. Please visit Ironic Surrealism for a list of tweets from people who are going through the bill line-by-line and quoting the bill. To give you some idea what you'll find some astonishing tweets. Here's an example:

Fed Govt mandates eligibility 4 State Family Planning Svcs. Say abortion & State Sovereign.

Nurse Home Visit Svcs – “increasing birth intervals btwn pregnancies.” Govt ABORTIONS any1?
What you do in the next few hours may determine the future of healthcare in this country. You have to call the following Senators RIGHT NOW.

While we all have been breathing a sigh of relief that the Healthcare bill would not come up for a vote before the Senate recess, Rahm Emmanuel and the Senate Democrats are quietly managing to manipulate Republican Senators into supporting a changed healthcare bill worked out in a six-member panel of the Senate Finance Committee. The Washington Post reported today that A VOTE MAY OCCUR BEFORE THE RECESS.

The members of that panel are listed below. It has not been voted on in Committee yet, but if it wins with Republican support, the Democrats will call the bill "Bipartisan" then remove whatever positive changes Republicans made when the Senate version goes to the Conference Committee to work out differences with the House bill. The House bill is the terror that everyone has been commenting on, and with Pelosi in charge, it WILL NOT CHANGE. THIS IS THE BILL THEY WANT, and it brings with it the following horrors: euthanasia for seniors, drastically reduced healthcare availablity, no private healthcare at all, taxes, taxes and more taxes, wiping out the private healthcare industry and on and on. The bill will destroy both our healthcare system and add yet another body slam to an economy already reeling from Obama's other monstrous initiatives.

CALLING IS BEST. ONLY FAX OR E-MAIL IF YOU CAN'T GET THROUGH. E-MAIL ONLY IF YOU ARE FROM THE STATE. Beg them, plead with them, tell them anything, but try to convince them not to support it. Tell them you will withhold donations to any and all Republicans if they support it. This bill is a DISASTER!! Tell them that. Put them on the defensive. Make sure they hear your voice!!

CALL THE DEMOCRATS TOO. If you are a democrat, tell them you will withhold donations to any and all Democrats if they vote for it. Let them know that you are outraged. Yesterday in my calls to Congressmen I expressed my shocked disbelief that anyone could possibly be so reckless and irresponsible as to dream up such an overtly destructive piece of legislation. They need to know how we feel!

Pass this e-mail on to everyone you know and urge they do the same.

Republicans

Chuck Grassley (Ranking Member)
Phone: (202) 224-3744
Fax: (202) 224-6020

Olympia Snowe
Phone: (202) 224-5344
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599
Fax: (202) 224-1946
Mike Enzi
Phone: (202) 224-3424
Fax: (202) 228-0359
Toll free: (888) 250-1879
Democrats

Max Baucus (Chairman)
Phone: (202) 224-2651
Fax: (202) 224-9412

Jeff Bingaman
Phone: (202) 224-5521
TDD: (202) 224-1792
Tollfree (in NM): 1-800-443-8658

Kent Conrad
Phone: (202) 224-2043
Fax: (202) 224-7776

FOXNews just announced that the House has reached a compromise with Blue Dog Democrats.
Details later. The announcement is that they have cut $100 BILLION from the bill. If you believe that...see me about a good deal on the Empire State Building and a secret way to build your real estate portfolio.

Health care stealth in Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Special Guest on Political Vindication Radio!

As Reported by Drudge Report

Loren Spivack, who owns the Free Market Warrior kiosk in the Concord Mills Mall in North Carolina, is facing exile from the mall after his lease expires this month because he dared sell merchandise that wasn't too flattering of our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama. That's right, despite all the rhetoric from the Left about having an open debate during the Bush Presidency, a few 'impeach Obama' bumper stickers has libtards bursting their pampers, and working to have Mr. Spivack's business thrown from the mall! Tonight, Loren Spivack joins us on Political Vindication Radio to discuss his battle against the agents of political correctness. Must he fight alone? No! Call in tonight and let him know you're supporting him!

Show time starts at 6pm PST, chat room opens 15 minutes before we go live on the air. If you want to join in on the conversation, the call in number 646-652-4598.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE AND TO JOIN THE CHAT ROOM!

Storm Troopers at San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


On July 23, I posted an article on the upcoming San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, in which the film "Rachel" was to be shown. To repeat, Rachel Corrie was a young Jewish American activist and member of the International Solidarity Committee (ISM), a group devoted to the destruction of the Jewish state. She went to Gaza in 2003 and was accidentally struck and killed as she sat in front of a bulldozer in the process of taking down a house connected with a terrorist tunnel used to transport weapons to be used against Israel. Her parents have since become anti-Israel activists and travel around giving speeches, associating themselves with some pretty radical and vile groups and individuals both in the Middle East and here in the US.

The Corries meeting with that great man of peace, Yassir Arafat


The presentation of the film about Rachel Corrie and a scheduled speech by her mother, Cindy Corrie had led to many objections from Jews, not only in the San Francisco area, but world-wide. On July 25, the film was shown, and Mrs Corrie gave her speech. The crowd was mostly composed of members of the Jewish Voice for Peace (another anti-Israel group) and the International Solidarity Movement as well as the American Friends Service Committee, all leftist groups opposed to Israel. Two of the principle figures are Donna and Darlene Wallach of the ISM, two Bay Area Jewish activists who have traveled to Gaza and met with Hamas officials.





The usual riff-raff (Top: Donna and Darlene Wallach of the International Solidarity Movement), second from top: Darlene Wallach applauding) -Photos by SFJFF Watch

After Corrie's speech, only three questions were allowed. The one critical questioner was greeted with jeers and catcalls from the loons in the audience.

Prior to the film, Dr Mike Harris, a pro-Israel speaker was given the podium and spoke for 10 minutes presenting his case against the film. The video is below. Listen and hear the catcalls, insults and disruptions from this crowd of storm troopers wearing Palestinian kaffiyas (head scarves with the black and white doo-dads). In spite of the jeering and attempts to shut him down, Mr Harris courageously goes through his speech and makes his points.


Keep in mind that these three groups who were involved in this event claim they are for peace-though they will never condemn Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers against Israelis. Some laughed when the names of Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism in Israel were mentioned. Ar one point, someone cried "Sieg heil". And when Mr Harris pointed out the fact that the ISM had put on a dinner for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his visit to the US, the audience cheered.

Another interesting fact should be mentioned; funding for the event was provided by the Jewish Federation of San Francisco, which bills itself as a Jewish advocacy group. I really wonder just what it is this organization does. If they are like the Jewish Federation of Orange County, they are pretty questionable in my humble view. (The director of the Orange County chapter feels-he told me himself-that there is no anti-Semitic problem going on at UC-Irvine in regards to the annual hate-fests put on by the local Muslim Student Union. Enough said about them.)

What I find especially troubling is that while many Jews are active in speaking out against anti-Semitism (and yes, defending Israel), so many other Jews either turn a blind eye-or completely go over to the other side and align themselves with those who would destroy not only Israel, but Jews world-wide if they could. In the case of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, while I am not in favor of censorship, I wonder what is the purpose of having a Jewish film festival if you are going to feature speakers, films and events which defend those who would murder Jews.

There is a term that many Jews use to describe these types; "self-hating Jews". Since I am not Jewish, myself, I have chosen not to make this judgement about others. But sometimes, I really wonder.

It is so perplexing.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

I Never Thought It Would Come To This!

by Findalis


I was raised to believe that all people living in the United States would be safe and secure in their homes, schools, temples or churches and businesses. But in the last few years it seems that is no longer the case. Especially for Jewish Americans.

We have witnessed an upsurge in the number of violent acts either committed against Jews, such as the attack in Seattle which the killer was given a mistrial. Or the attack on the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Then there was the group of American Muslims who planned a series of attacks on Jewish targets.

The authorities did a good job with those, but the Jewish community knows they and our elected leaders allow behavior such as this:




to occur without a word condemning it.

Once, in Europe
, Jews finally had enough and took up the sword. American Jews have had enough it seems. They now know that the government will not protect them. They now know that they have to protect themselves. And they are doing just that.
Starting in late July, a group of Israeli combat veterans will be holding a training camp in New York to teach advanced self-defense techniques to Jews in U.S. communities. An increasing number of American Jews have expressed interest in the program following a wave of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide over the past year, organizers report.

The group calls itself Kitat Konenut New York – a reference to the “rapid response teams” active throughout Judea and Samaria. Rapid response teams in Israel, comprised of local civilians who are IDF veterans, have often been the first on the scene of terrorist attacks and other emergencies, and have prevented casualties.

It was founded in 2006 in response to a shooting attack at a Jewish center in Seattle, Washington. One woman was murdered in the attack, and several others were wounded.

Kitat Konenut in action (Israel news photo: Kitat Konenut)

The group is apolitical, and does not take part in demonstrations. “Our agenda is to protect Jews,” says group member Yonatan Stern.

However, the group does have a firmly held political belief. “We believe in the constitutional right to bear arms,” Stern says. Kitat Konenut encourages all American Jews to learn how to use weapons, and to purchase their own firearms for self-defense.

Read the full story here.
I guess this is the sort of unification and change that we were promised under President Obama. It is more like the return to the regime under that great Muslim hero: Adolph Hitler. Seen here with his good pal the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.


I suppose that the President just forgot about this bit of Muslim history when he made his historic address in Cairo.

Tulsa World Editorials: Tulsa World Wrong Again

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

An editorial in the July 25th Tulsa World is wrong again, not to mention biased again, not to mention muddying the facts again. As the Tulsa World rolls off the presses every night, the assumption on the editorial page is that America Whites are racists, and racist Whites are Republicans.

Today's unattributed editorial headline is "Who Goes There?" Harvard prof's arrest sparks debate. The problem is, this editorial doesn't debate.

This journalistic endeavor begins with a question: "If the Harvard professor who was arrested while trying to break into his own home were white, would he have been arrested at all?" "You can't say for sure" this piece says "because the circumstances are still unclear and you don't know the arresting officer or the professor."

Really? We have police reports by the arresting officer, a White man and an attending officer, a Hispanic officer, as well as at least one Black officer on the scene who has given his support to Sgt. James Crowley publicly.

The Tulsa World calls the details "cloudy," but at no time has Professor Henry Louis Gates charged that the police report was not factual. Maybe that's because there were plenty of witnesses, including neighbors that were not city officials.

It's important to note, that the Tulsa World thinks it important to note, that two Black Massachusetts officials have apologized to Professor Gates. That would be Governor Deval Patrick, a close friend of Barack Obama and Cambridge mayor, Denise Simmons. Maybe we should also point out that these two Black people didn't bother to apologize to Sgt. James Crowley.

I don't know about you, but as a White person, I take offense to it, just as Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce was offended when Senator Barbara Boxer lost her way in a Senate hearing this week. Boxer countered some claims Alford was making about global warming job losses by quoting only Liberal dissenting Blacks. Alford asked her why she didn't quote Asians or ...." That's racial," he said and he was right. See the video below - it gets good at about 1:30 in.

This unnamed Tulsa editorialist opines on the bad behavior of the Cambridge police:

Black students and professors have complained for years that Cambridge and campus police are guilty of racial profiling. and it is a fact that blacks and Latinos are stopped by police more than other ethnic groups.
Really? If you are stating a fact then back it up. How can we believe your assertion that the Cambridge police are racist? And call it what it is. This was not racial profiling. A neighbor called the police to the scene.

Speaking of that racist, profiling Cambridge police department, cut them some slack. After all, Barack Obama was issued 17 parking violations during his time as a student at Harvard and only paid two of them until he began his presidential campaign. Quite generous treatment from the Cambridge police actually. Had that been me, a White woman parking in a bus stop, my car would have been towed.

And speaking of Barack Obama, it is ironic that you choose not to mention Obama in this tale of the professor and the cop, because after all, he is the story.

This sorry excuse for an editorial is what Tulsans are treated to for their money, everyday, and that's a fact that I'll back it up with any single issue of the Tulsa World that you can find.

The article ends with those so familiar words intended to show that perhaps you are just a little less racist than everyone else:
There is no doubt that racism is alive and well in the United States....If nothing else, the Gates episode gives us a reason to talk about our problems and the opportunity to move forward.

Sadly, racism will always be with us. And that should only make our resolve stronger.
What is sad is that no matter what American's of any color do, institutions like the Tulsa World can't stand to see things getting better. How long have we heard that Whites would never help elect a Black for president, and yet that is exactly what we did. If you want to criticize, at least do it honestly. Point out the fact that a conservative Black has a triple mountain to climb to get to a national political office or high-up in Ivy League academia, for that matter. About the only time that happens is when a conservative of any color can appoint a Black to the major leagues, because Liberal Whites and Blacks disdain conservative Blacks. If you are conservative and you are Black in America, you are nothing more than a bigoted White.


Mt. Sinai, Albert Einstein Hospitals - Organ Trafficking?

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

According to Nancy Scheper-Hughes a willing participant in an illegal operation to sell his own kidney documented his story on video as it happened at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York City. The kidney seller says "I met a broker in Brooklyn and I sold my kidney." Speculations are that Rabbi Levy-Izhak (Isaac) Rosenbaum, arrested in a human organ trafficking FBI sting this week, may be involved. Albert Einstein Medical College in New York City is also implicated.

Mt. Sinai Hospital

Scheper-Hughes says she has a copy of that video. She tried to interest 60 Minutes in it, but the video quality is poor. Scheper-Hughes says she took the video to the New York Academy of Sciences in September 2008. She showed a portion of it, and said the viewers could not believe it, but they recognized the doctors and the hospital.

Professor Levy-Izhak (Isaac) Rosenbaum of Brooklyn is believed to be associated with some of these claims from Scheper-Hughes. Read more about Rosenbaum's arrest for human organ trafficking and Scheper-Hughes charges against him.

Another hospital mentioned in the audio below is Albert Einstein Medical College. Scheper-Hughes says she met with an agent in Philadelphia who was also a Rabbi. He didn't seem to think Rabbi Isaac Rosenbaum's actions were illegal - "Isaac is a good man," and is probably making some money on the side.

Albert Einstein Medical College

Scheper-Hughes confronted Albert Einstein management. In a meeting, she said:

I have the charts of a dozen Israelis who were illegally operated on in this wonderful academic hospital, in your unit, using a broker in New York City and using donors they had never met, and they lied and said they were relatives, sometimes they didn't speak the same language. What were you doing there?

She says she was escorted out of the meeting, she had the name of the doctors and one of them was sitting at the table.

Professor Scheper-Hughes says the broker paid more for the kidney of a healthy college student than for that of a not-so healthy person.

More to come on Mt. Sinai and Albert Einstein hospitals. Below is the audio between Brian Lehrer and Scheper-Hughes from WNYC. Click the arrow on the left to begin play.





Organ Trafficking Audio


Isaac Rosenbaum is Rabbi Arrested for Organ Trafficking

Saturday, July 25, 2009

The Persecution of the Baha'is in Iran

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



The seven Baha'i community leaders now on trial for their lives in Iran



Iranian Baha'i women hanged in 1983 for teaching Baha'i classes to Baha'i schoolchildren


Among the other disturbing issues going on in Iran-with their nuclear development and crackdown on protesters, one other issue has been largely lost to public attention; that is the severe persecution of the Baha'i religious minority in Iran. What kind of persecution are we talking about? We are talking about arbitrary arrests, imprisonment, rape, murder, torture, a denial of education-just about anything you can imagine.

The Baha'i faith was born some 150 years ago in Iran (then Persia)under its founder and Messenger Baha'ullah. It is a peaceful religion, which recognizes one God and places great emphasis on the brotherhood of all human beings. Baha'is are not troublemakers in Iran; on the contrary, they are model citizens, who adhere to obeying established authority. Their religion, which counts some 3 million world-wide, has spread to other parts of the world as well, including the US, which has about 100,000 adherents. Since its inception, however, the followers of the faith, some 300,000 in Iran, have been subjected to some form of persecution at various levels-not only in Iran, but also in other Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt.

In 1896, subsequent to the assassination of then-Shah, the Baha'i community in Yazd was attacked by mobs, and several people were killed. In 1933, the Government of Iran banned Baha'i literature, refused to recognize Baha'i marriages, and the Baha'i national center in Tehran was demolished. Under the Islamic Republic, which began with the revolution of 1979, this persecution has worsened dramatically as a part of official government policy.

The present-day Iranian constitution recognizes only Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism (an ancient Persian religion) as legitimate religions. Such recognition is denied to Baha'ism, which the mullahs consider an apostasy of Islam. Thus, under the present Islamic regime, persecution has been the order of the day for the Baha'is, many of whom have left Iran.

In 1983, four years after Khomeini seized power in Iran, ten female Baha'i schoolteachers were arrested, tortured, prosecuted and executed by authorities for teaching religious classes to Baha'i children. The women, aged 17-57, refused to recant their faith in exchange for being spared. They walked bravely to the gallows and died for their religious belief.

In August 1983, the prosecutor-general of Iran, Hojatoleslam Hossein Musavi Tabrizi, ordered that all Baha'i organizations in the country be shut down, to which the Baha'is obeyed. It did not stop the attacks. According to a Time Magazine article dated February 20, 1984, in the ensuing months, a Baha'i farmer was lynched and a Baha'i woman was killed by a mob just after having given birth. A spokesman for the Baha'i HQS in Wilmette, Illinois told Time that "unless things change, Baha'is in Iran are going to be annihilated." Indeed, thousands lost their homes and possessions, while Baha'i facilities and cemeteries were sacked and desecrated including their holiest shrine, The House of the Bab in Shiraz.



Baha'i temple in Wilmette, Illinois


And it continues. Presently, the Iranian government continues to persecute this minority in a systematic manner. Since 1979, it is estimated that over 200 Baha'is have been killed or executed, hundreds imprisoned, and tens of thousands have lost jobs, pensions and educational opportunities. (Baha'is are precluded from attending universities). In addition, Baha'i holy places, cemeteries and shrines have been seized or desecrated by authorities. Also largely lost among the recent mass arrests of young dissidents in Iran's streets is the fact that seven leading Baha'is (two women and five men)have been imprisoned since last year and were scheduled to go on trial for their lives this month, a trial that was just postponed a couple of weeks ago.

The seven Baha'i leaders – Behrouz Tavakkoli, Saeid Rezaie, Fariba Kamalabadi, Vahid Tizfahm, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Affif Naeimi and Mahvash Sabet – have been charged with a variety of crimes, according to official Iranian news reports. They include "propaganda against the system," "insulting religious sanctifies," and "being corrupt on earth," a charge that is punishable by death. The seven prisoners have not been allowed to see a lawyer. (The nature of the charges gives you an idea of the mentality of the Iranian authorities.)

The plight of these Baha'is has been protested by various human-rights organizations and governments including Australia and Canada. The UN has passed resolutions on Iranian human rights issues specifically mentioning the Baha'is. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also taken up the issue of Baha'i persecution in Iran.

All, unfortunately, to no avail.

Why, you might ask, are the Baha'is so threatened in Iran? It is simple; since their inception, they have been considered a threat to the dominant religion-Islam. Under the Islamic Republic, this has especially been the case. The mullahs who run Iran simply will not tolerate what they consider an apostate religion that threatens Islam. Therefore, Baha'ism and its adherents must be persecuted, imprisoned, killed, raped and their assets seized or destroyed.

Part of the "Axis of Evil"? You bet.

So how will the fate of the 300,000 Baha'is in Iran play out? Despite international protests, the Iranian government seems determined to continue its mistreatment of this religious minority until they have disappeared-one way or the other. Maybe they feel they can terrorize this "apostate" group into renouncing their faith in favor of Islam. If the 1983 example of the ten courageous schoolteachers is an example, it will not work. Will the government allow these 300,000 people to emigrate? While I have recently been critical of the US resettling certain refugee groups into the US, this seems like a group worthy of refugee status, a group that would make a positive contribution to wherever they go.

Ultimately, it may take the downfall of this evil regime to save its Baha'i community. In the meantime, public exposure is necessary, which is why I am making this small contribution.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Could Obama Actually Destroy America?








A note from Radarsite: This Radarsite article was originally published over a year ago. However, for some reason it has been attracting a lot of attention lately. Now that Obama has moved beyond his lofty campaign rhetoric, and actually begun pushing some of his wildest left-wing Socialist agendas through congress -- or, as with the 100 or so tsars, deftly circumventing it altogether -- many Democrats are beginning to see the light. Now that his most recent outrageous comments about the "stupidity" of the Cambridge Police having the temerity to arrest a black man have irretrievably brought out his hateful racist agenda for all to see, some on the left are finally starting to get a little nervous. Now can we say we told you so? Now, after all those alarmist essays which so many of us were writing before that fateful election can you finally see what we were all talking about? Could Obama actually destroy America? Is he well on his way to doing just that? - rg
--------------------------------------------------



Elect Obama, Destroy America

Political hyperbole? Right-wing alarmist propaganda?

Consider this.















The Ruinous Bequests of the Sixties

Most protest movements begin as an organized expression of a legitimate grievance -- some perceived societal injustice, perhaps in response to actual governmental or judicial tyranny. If the timing is right and the issues resonate, successful protest movements can flourish and quickly grow into full-fledged revolutions, and revolutions can often degenerate into bloody civil wars.

Is America presently in the midst of such a potentially explosive scenario? Unfortunately, the signs appear to be more and more ominous. Since those traumatic events of September 11, 2001, this nation has been resolutely dividing itself into two increasingly hostile and irreconcilable camps. That reasonable 'middle ground', traditionally amenable to compromise, has been steadily shrinking until it has become all but hypothetical. It has been argued, not unconvincingly, that not since those anxious years in the mid-Nineteenth Century, prior to our perhaps inevitable, but monstrously destructive Civil War, has this great country been so split asunder.

Once again, the split is to be between Republican and Democrat, Right and Left, but this November's election will not be between the traditional Republican Right and the traditional Democratic Left; but rather between an ascendant but conflicted New Left, and a beleaguered and conflicted New Right. This New Age Democratic Party is torn between the Hillary Clinton Political New Left of old-style Democratic politics -- i.e., pro-labor, pro-big government, "One World", Socialistic agenda -- whose ultimate goal however appears to many to be primarily a personal return to political power, and the charismatic Barack Obama's Cultural New Left, an idealistic social movement, which views political power as simply a means to an end, the end being the implementation of sweeping cultural changes in our American society. Each in their own way are ideological products of the Sixties. But, as destructive as the victory of either candidate would ultimately be to our cherished American Dream, of the two, the prospects of an Obama presidency are by far the most alarming.

Despite his oft-repeated promises to "bring America together", by his own words and actions and revealing personal associations -- and that of his prospective First Lady -- for all of his undeniable charismatic appeal, Barack Hussein Obama is simply a racist. His vision of America is racist, and his solutions to our problems are racist. His appeal is to those backward-looking, self-destructive forces of negativity and defeatism inherent in all cultures at all times. His song is not a new one, it's that same same old seductive siren song of victimization which has lured countless gullible societies to their doom -- 'You deserve more than what you have, and you would have more than you presently have, had you not been victimized by Them, the Enemy, the Other -- the colonialist, the Jews, or the Whites.'

Thus, in Barack Obama's skewered vision, America is to be seen as a battleground: it is to be Us versus Them again. The historically suppressed colored peoples of this world versus the ruthless and domineering post-colonialist Whiteys. His appeal is to the politically naive or the purposefully ignorant, those who willfully, for their own selfish motivations, deny all political and cultural progress and achievement, no matter how obvious. Far from the high-minded rhetoric of their humanistic speeches, they are simply the latest genus of that same old species of self-serving politicians -- devious, amoral and cynical. They are intellectually, emotionally, and often financially invested in defeat. They are the dangerous products of protest movements gone awry.

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. This new political entity no longer has one single clear cut societal agenda (i.e. the Cause); their efforts now become divided. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usually does, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.

How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?



But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.



But with their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy?



The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.

The American -- and eventually, world-wide -- protest movements of the 1960s provide us with a perfect example of this ultimately self-destructive paradigm, which -- due in large part to America finding itself in the midst of yet another contentious and unpopular war -- is drawing us once again into its deadly vortex. The protest movements of the Sixties produced some truly remarkable changes for the better in our American society. But there was also a dark side. Part of the message of the Sixties was the message of helplessness. It is "attempting to cure the alcoholic by convincing him that he has good reason to drink". Its well-intentioned but deadly condescension has brought us the bleak realities of inner city despair. The self-perpetuating crime-ridden, drug-infested, inter-generational poverty and hopelessness of the Seventies. And now, they are bringing us this devastating message once again.














The Seventies: The Bleak Landscape of Victimization:

Does it matter that Barack Hussein Obama is at least partially black? Yes, tremendously. Not to us, but to Barack Hussein Obama. It is the very essence of his being, the banner of his Crusade. Without the 'race issue', Barack Obama would be just another politician. It is his focus and his justification. And, if we are not careful it will become ours: there are many among us who have unwittingly bought into the false premise that all of the existential threats we face in this turbulent world are of our own making. They are not evidence of our real enemies evil intentions, but rather the results of our own inherent racism and prejudice. And they will proudly cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama merely to prove to themselves and to the world that they are not racists.


However, it is certainly fair to ask, if race or color are still truly overriding factors with the American public, then how is it that we exhibited no such national hang-ups when coping with Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? And if race and gender are still the salient issues they were in the Furious Sixties, then how does one explain the current makeup of our Democratic Presidential Candidates? One a woman, one a black? It's a pretty difficult argument to sustain.

To all but the most blind and biased liberals, the surprising victories of the Feminist and Civil Rights movements of the Sixties have been nothing short of astonishing. How anyone in today's America can watch television, go to a movie, listen to popular music, or read a national newspaper and come away feeling that either blacks or women are underrepresented is incomprehensible. Today there are women and blacks -- and, yes, lesbians and homosexuals and transgenders -- in every conceivable facet of American life -- in the military, the media, the business world, sports, entertainment, politics. Only those deeply invested in a contrarian agenda would be cynical enough to deny it.

We, the United States of America, have come closer in this Twenty-First Century to achieving a pure meritocracy than any other civilization in history. But will this undeniable fact impress those self-doomed generational victims and their professional enablers? Hardly. For these aging warriors of the Sixties and their current ideological offspring the very concept of victory is an unpleasant, perhaps even a deadly admission. For without a battle, what use are warriors? If gender-based and racial parity have actually been achieved, then what possible use do we have for a Gloria Steinem or an Al Sharpton ? What, then, can these poor dispossessed Bands of Brothers -- or, more often, Sororities of Sisters -- do with their disbanded warriors ? What roles can there be in today's meritocracy for a NOW or an NAACP? Those roles which would actually benefit man -- or womankind, they have, to their everlasting dishonor, steadfastly refused to even consider. These disenfranchised organizations could help to change the world, but they cannot get past their own deflated and bruised egos. The feminists could be rising as one powerful voice in support of their oppressed sisters in Islam; and the black activists could be wooing their brothers and sisters away from the devastating consequences of a life lived as a victim. But they don't. They won't. To keep themselves in power, to preserve their personal tyrannies, they choose rather to perpetuate the myth, and seal the plight of the true victims of this world.

To vote for Barrack Hussein Obama and his dark vision of America is to vote for defeatism and negativity. It is willfully turning your back on the hope and promise of this wondrous meritocracy we call America. It is buying into the outrageous lie that America itself is the problem, and that only by changing the whole concept of Americanism can we hope to cure the evils of this world.

Would electing Barack Obama mean the destruction of America?

Only you can decide.

Pro-Palestinian Deshelving Video at Trader Joe's

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



I wrote recently about the recent effort by a bunch of San Francisco Bay Area loons to intimidate Trader Joe's from carrying Israeli products. Fortunately, the effort fizzled and Trader Joe's and their Israeli products got an upsurge in sales.

Above is a video made June 20, at a Bay Area Trader Joe's.

So who are these yahoos with too much time on their hands who think they can bully and intimidate people? As I previously identified them, they are called the South Bay Mobilization. Another "organization" is the anti-Israel Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDC). Take a look at them in the video. These are not 18-20-somethings. These are "grown-ups" and middle aged folks, probably academic types or just plain left-wing radicals looking for a cause du jour.

Many of these same yahoos are presently involved in the showing of the film, "Rachel" at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival this week-end. (See my previous post.)

As for Trader Joes, they will undoubtedly be subjected to more harassment since they have chosen to stand up to the bullies. So don't forget to support this store-and don't forget to pick up a few Israeli products while you're there.

Treasury Ignores Inspector General TARP Recommendations

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The following is a breakdown of Inspector General Neil Barofsky's report before the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, ending June 30, 2009. Don't run away. You need to know this.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services. Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. I do not see this report linked on the webpages. Perhaps it is there, but I have not found it.

The following is the essence of the report, in my estimation. Below the "essence" is the full text. When you see text in between brackets [ ], those are my comments. I have used some short cuts in the "essence" but have not changed the meaning in anyway (you can check that for yourself as I have provided the page numbers.

Note that I have interchanged SIGTARP (Special Inspector General TARP) with "we."


Page 3
Transparency: ...repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations believed essential to providing basic transparency.

Use of Funds Generally: Other than in a few agreements...Treasury has declined to adopt this recommendation, calling any such reporting "meaningless"...

Valuation of the TARP Portfolio: Treasury has retained asset managers and is receiving such valuation data...but has not committed to providing such information except on the statutorily required annual basis [does that mean no valuations have been provided as TARP is not yet a year old?]

Page 3 and 4

Regular disclosure of PPIF Activity, Holdings, and Valuation: ...the taxpayer will be providing a substantial portion of the funds that will be used to purchase toxic assets in the Public-Private Investment Funds (PPIF)...all trading activity, holdings, and valuations of assets...Not only should the disclosure be required as a matter of basic transparency in light of the billions of taxpayer dollars at state,...but the disclosure would serve well one of Treasury's stated reasons for the program in the first place: the promotion of "price discovery" in the illiquid market. Treasury has indicated that it will not require such disclosure.

In the need to balance transparency...Treasury's default position should always be to require more disclosure rather than less...provide the American taxpayers as much information about what is being done with their money as possible. Unfortunately, in rejecting basic transparency recommendations, TARP has become a program in which taxpayers (1) are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money, (ii) have still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth, and (iii) will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested....

Imposition of Information Barriers, or "Walls," in PPIP: we noted conflicts of interest and collusion vulnerabilities were inherent in the design of PPIP...PPIF managers will have significant power to set prices in a largely illiquid market...PPIF managers having an incentive to overpay significantly for assets or otherwise using the valuable, proprietary PPIF trading information to benefit not the PPIF, but rather the manager's non-PPIF business interests. We made recommendation to impose strict conflicts of interest rules....Treasury adopted many of the recommendations...HOWEVER, Treasury has declined to adopt on of our most fundamental recommendations - the requirement for imposition of an informational barrier or "wall" between the PPIF fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the PPIF and those employees of the fund management company who manage non-PPIF funds. Treasury has deceided not to impose such a wall...despite that it has been done in other Government bailout-related programs...the risk is the reputational risk that Treasury could face if a PPIF manager should generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage...leaving Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it...that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers...benefiting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer...putting in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and the government.

Pages 5 - 8
Discussion that $643.1 billion of the $700 billion will be spent in 12 programs. To date, $643.1 billion has been committed, $441 billion has actually been spent. There is a chart on page 6 of Total Potential Funds Subject to SIGTARP Oversight as of June 30, 2009. On page 7 is a chart of Incremental Financial System Support, by Federal Agency.

Details the Special Inspector General's Investigations Division and the misdeeds of programs around the country who have taken client's monies while falsely identifying themselves as TARP.

Through June 30, 2009, SIGTARP has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations. These investigations include complex issues concerning suspected accounting fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, mortgage servicer misconduct, mortgage fraud, public corruption, false statements, and tax investigations. Two of SIGTARP’s investigations have recently become public: [see the list inside the document below
Page 9
Future Audits - Assessment of use of fund by TARP recipients, including the Making Home Affordable Mortgage Modification Program

Page 9 and 10
[We're told how the IG's office is putting people to work in America - expecting that final number to be 160 new hires] [That's 160 people just to watchdog the hundreds already being paid to do so, including Joe Biden] SIGTARP did not know their own budgetary needs when the FY2010 budget was put together, and have asked for a budget of $23,300,000.00. THAT'S TWENTY THREE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!

[Don't get me wrong, the Inspector Generals are the good guys in this scenario and if they can make Treasury be transparent, and then put those in prison who deserve to be in prison, if and when fraudulent and criminal, then $23,300,000.00 is a bargain, I guess.]Page 10
Ends with making nice and saying that basically Treasury has cooperated with SIGTARP's information requests - AND while SIGTARP and Treasury have disagreed "vociferously,"...SIGTARP believes that Treasury has engaged actively in consulting with SIGTARP about it's concerns. [Problem is, as you can see above, Treasury has consulted and then rejected the consultations.]

Follows Statement of Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector general Troubled Asset Relief Program:

Barofsky Testimony

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNTIL RELEASED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS STATEMENT OF NEIL BAROFSKY SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS July 22, 2009 Chairman Moore, Ranking Member Biggert and Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you today to deliver to this Committee my quarterly report to Congress. In the nine months since the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) authorized creation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”), the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) has created 12 separate programs involving Government and private funds of up to almost $3 trillion. From programs involving large capital infusions into hundreds of banks and other financial institutions, to a mortgage modification program designed to modify millions of mortgages, to public-private partnerships using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase “toxic” assets from banks, TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale, and complexity. Moreover, TARP does not function in a vacuum but is rather part of the broader Government efforts to stabilize the financial system, an effort that includes dozens of inter-related programs operated by multiple Federal agencies. WARRANTS Pursuant to one of the initial TARP programs, the Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”), Treasury allocated $250 billion to provide funds to qualified financial institutions to build capital, increase the flow of financing, and support the economy. As of March 2009, Treasury forecast spending only $218 billion in this program. The economic terms of the CPP transactions were that, in exchange for the TARP infusions, Treasury received senior preferred stock of the banks that pays a 5% dividend for five years and 9% thereafter. Consistent with the terms of EESA, Treasury also received warrants – option to purchase additional stock. For publicly traded banks, Treasury received warrants of common stock; for privately held banks, Treasury received warrants for additional preferred shares, which were immediately exercised. As banks repurchase their CPP investments, they have the option to purchase the warrants. How those warrants are valued is an important matter that greatly affects the taxpayers’ return on these investments. As a part of SIGTARP’s oversight efforts, we have been coordinating our efforts with other agencies to avoid duplication, and it has been my pleasure to work with my co-panelist from the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), Thomas McCool, and with the Congressional Oversight Panel (“the Panel”), chaired by co-panelist, Professor Elizabeth Warren. As a part of this coordination, on June 10, 2009, SIGTARP entered into a special coordinated effort with the Panel to examine the pricing of warrants in the context of the return of CPP funds by TARP-recipients. The Panel issued a July 10, 2009, report valuing the warrants that Treasury had bought to date. SIGTARP plans to conduct an audit of the warrant repurchase/sale process and will have the benefit of the Panel valuations as context. SIGTARP’s audit will examine several key questions, including exanimation of the process Treasury has established to value the warrants for re-purchase, whether Treasury follows a clear and consistent process in considering potentially differing valuations of warrants, and the extent to which Treasury has established an objective basis for its ultimate valuation decisions. SIGTARP, if appropriate, will issue recommendations with the report of this audit. OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST SIGTARP has made a variety or recommendations concerning the TARP program and has worked hard to advance the general understanding of the TARP. With respect to recommendations, one of SIGTARP’s most important oversight responsibilities is to provide recommendations to Treasury so that TARP programs can be designed or modified to facilitate effective oversight and transparency and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. SIGTARP’s reports detail these recommendations and provide updates on their implementation. Two categories of recommendations, however, are worth highlighting in particular: Transparency in TARP Programs Although Treasury has taken some steps towards improving transparency in TARP programs, it has repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations that SIGTARP believes are essential to providing basic transparency and fulfill Treasury’s stated commitment to implement TARP “with the highest degree of accountability and transparency possible.” SIGTARP’s July 21, 2009, Quarterly Report includes one new recommendation and there are several other additional unadopted recommendations from prior quarterly reports: • Use of Funds Generally: One of SIGTARP’s first recommendations was that Treasury require all TARP recipients to report on the actual use of TARP funds. Other than in a few agreements (with Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG), Treasury has declined to adopt this recommendation, calling any such reporting “meaningless” in light of the inherent fungibility of money. SIGTARP continues to believe that banks can provide meaningful information about what they are doing with TARP funds — in particular what activities they would not have been able to do but for the infusion of TARP funds. That belief has been supported by SIGTARP’s first audit, in which nearly all banks were able to provide such information. Valuation of the TARP Portfolio: SIGTARP has recommended that Treasury begin reporting on the values of its TARP portfolio so that taxpayers can get regular updates on the financial performance of their TARP investments. Notwithstanding that Treasury has now retained asset managers and is receiving such valuation data on a monthly basis, Treasury has not committed to providing such information except on the statutorily required annual basis. Disclosure of TALF Borrowers Upon Surrender of Collateral: In TALF, the loans are non-recourse, that is, the lender (Federal Reserve Bank of New York) will have no recourse against the borrower beyond taking possession of the posted collateral (consisting of assetbacked securities (“ABS”)). Under the program, should such a collateral surrender occur, TARP funds will be used to purchase the surrendered collateral. In light of this use of TARP funds, SIGTARP has recommended that Treasury and the Federal Reserve disclose the identity of any TALF borrowers that fail to repay the TALF loan and must surrender the ABS collateral. Regular Disclosure of PPIF Activity, Holdings, and Valuation: In the PPIP Legacy Securities Program, the taxpayer will be providing a substantial portion of the funds (contributing both equity and lending) that will be used to purchase toxic assets in the Public- • • • Private Investment Funds (“PPIFs”). SIGTARP is recommending that all trading activity, holdings, and valuations of assets of the PPIFs be disclosed on a timely basis. Not only should this disclosure be required as a matter of basic transparency in light of the billions of taxpayer dollars at stake, but such disclosure would also serve well one of Treasury’s stated reasons for the program in the first instance: the promotion of “price discovery” in the illiquid market for MBS. Treasury has indicated that it will not require such disclosure. Although SIGTARP understands Treasury’s need to balance the public’s transparency interests, on one hand, with the interests of the participants and the desire to have wide participation in the programs, on the other, Treasury’s default position should always be to require more disclosure rather than less and to provide the investors in TARP — the American taxpayers — as much information about what is being done with their money as possible. Unfortunately, in rejecting SIGTARP’s basic transparency recommendations, TARP has become a program in which taxpayers (i) are not being told what most of the TARP recipients are doing with their money, (ii) have still not been told how much their substantial investments are worth, and (iii) will not be told the full details of how their money is being invested. In SIGTARP’s view, the very credibility of TARP (and thus in large measure its chance of success) depends on whether Treasury will commit, in deed as in word, to operate TARP with the highest degree of transparency possible. Imposition of Information Barriers, or “Walls,” in PPIP In the April 21, 2009, Quarterly Report, SIGTARP noted that conflicts of interest and collusion vulnerabilities were inherent in the design of PPIP stemming from the fact that the PPIF managers will have significant power to set prices in a largely illiquid market. These vulnerabilities could result in PPIF managers having an incentive to overpay significantly for assets or otherwise using the valuable, proprietary PPIF trading information to benefit not the PPIF, but rather the manager’s non-PPIF business interests. As a result, SIGTARP made a series of recommendations in the April Quarterly Report, including that Treasury should impose strict conflicts of interest rules. Since the April Quarterly Report, Treasury has worked with SIGTARP to address the vulnerabilities in PPIP, and SIGTARP made a series of specific recommendations, suggestions, and comments concerning the design of the program. Treasury adopted many of SIGTARP’s suggestions and has developed numerous provisions that make PPIP far better from a compliance and anti-fraud standpoint than when the program was initially announced. However, Treasury has declined to adopt one of SIGTARP’s most fundamental recommendations — that Treasury should require imposition of an informational barrier or “wall” between the PPIF fund managers making investment decisions on behalf of the PPIF and those employees of the fund management company who manage non-PPIF funds. Treasury has decided not to impose such a wall in this instance, despite the fact that such walls have been imposed upon asset managers in similar contexts in other Government bailout-related programs, including by Treasury itself in other TARPrelated activities, and despite the fact that three of the nine PPIF managers already must abide by similar walls in their work for those other programs. If nothing else, the reputational risk that Treasury and the program could face if a PPIF manager should generate massive profits in its non-PPIF funds as a result of an unfair advantage, even if that advantage is not strictly against the rules, justifies the imposition of a wall. Failure to impose a wall, on the other hand, will leave Treasury vulnerable to an accusation that has already been leveled against it — that Treasury is using TARP to pick winners and losers and that, by granting certain firms the PPIF manager status, it is benefitting a chosen few at the expense of the dozens of firms that were rejected, of the market as a whole, and of the American taxpayer. This reputational risk is not one that can be readily measured in dollars and cents, but is rather a risk that could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government. TARP in Context During the last 36 hours there has been considerable media coverage and interest in section 3 of SIGTARP’s July Quarterly Report, which attempts to place the TARP into context in terms of how it has evolved and of the greater government-wide effort. TARP, as originally envisioned in the fall of 2008, would have involved the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). That framework was soon shelved, however, and TARP funds are being used, or have been announced to be used, in connection with 12 separate programs that, as set forth in Table 1 below, involve a total (including TARP funds, loans and guarantees from other agencies, and private money) that could reach nearly $3 trillion. Through June 30, 2009, Treasury has announced the parameters of how $643.1 billion of the $700 billion would be spent through the 12 programs. Of the $643.1 billion that Treasury has committed, $441 billion has actually been spent. TOTAL POTENTIAL FUNDS SUBJECT TO SIGTARP OVERSIGHT, AS OF 6/30/2009 ($ BILLIONS) Total Projected Funding at Risk ($) $218.0 ($70.1) Projected TARP Funding ($) $218.0 ($70.1) Program Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”) Brief Description or Participant Investments in 649 banks to date; 8 institutions total $134 billion; received $70.1 billion in capital repayments GM, Chrysler, GMAC, Chrysler Financial; received $130.8 million in loan repayments (Chrysler Financial) Government-backed protection for auto parts suppliers Government-backed protection for warranties of cars sold during the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy restructuring periods Purchase of securities backed by SBA loans Automotive Industry Financing Program (“AIFP”) 79.3 79.3 Auto Supplier Support Program (“ASSP”) 5.0 5.0 Auto Warranty Commitment Program (“AWCP”) 0.6 0.6 Unlocking Credit for Small Businesses (“UCSB”) Systemically Significant Failing Institutions (“SSFI”) Targeted Investment Program (“TIP”) Asset Guarantee Program (“AGP”) Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (“TALF”) Making Home Affordable (“MHA”) Program Public-Private Investment Program (“PPIP”) 15.0 15.0 AIG investment 69.8 69.8 Citigroup, Bank of America investments Citigroup, ring-fence asset guarantee FRBNY non-recourse loans for purchase of asset-backed securities Modification of mortgage loans 40.0 301.0 1,000.0 40.0 5.0 80.0 75.0 50.0 Disposition of legacy assets; Legacy Loans Program, Legacy Securities Program (expansion of TALF) Capital to qualified financial institutions; includes stress test Potential additional funding related to CAP; other programs 500.0 – 1,000.0 75.0 Capital Assistance Program (“CAP”) TBD TBD New Programs, or Funds Remaining for Existing Programs Total 131.4 131.4 $2,365.0 – $2,865.0 $699.0 Note: See Table 2.1 in Section 2 for notes and sources related to the information contained in this table. As massive and as important as TARP is on its own, it is just one part of a much broader Federal Government effort to stabilize and support the financial system. Since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007, the Federal Government, through many agencies, has implemented dozens of programs that are broadly designed to support the economy and financial system. In our most recent quarterly report, we summarize these programs and the total potential support to the financial system as of 6/30/09, there is approximately $3.0 trillion outstanding, $4.7 trillion is the total support to date, including money that has been paid pack and programs that have ended. In total, the potential federal support through all of these programs is approximately $23.7 trillion, as indicted below: INCREMENTAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM SUPPORT, BY FEDERAL AGENCY SINCE 2007 ($ TRILLIONS) Maximum Total Potential Current Balance Federal Reserve FDIC Treasury — TARP (including Federal Reserve, FDIC components) Treasury — Non-TARP Other: FHFA, NCUA, GNMA, FHA, VA Total $1.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 $3.0 Balance as of 6/30/2009 $3.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 $4.7 Support Related to Crisis $6.8 2.3 3.0 4.4 7.2 $23.7 Notes: Numbers affected by rounding. Amounts may include overlapping agency liabilities, “implied” guarantees, and unfunded initiatives. Total Potential Support does not account for collateral pledged. See the “Methodology for Estimating Government Financial Exposure” discussion in this section for details on the methodology of this chart. Other agencies include: FHFA, National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”), Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). For a full description of the backup for these numbers and the methodology for calculating them see Section 3 of our July Quarterly report. Oversight Activities of SIGTARP The oversight activities discussed above and all other SIGTARP efforts to date are detailed in SIGTARP’s reports dated February 6, 2009, 1 April 21, 2009,2 and July 21, 2009. Additionally, on July, 20, 2009, SIGTARP issued an audit report concerning how recipients of CPP funds reported their use of such funds.3 In February 2009, SIGTARP sent survey letters to more than 360 financial 1 See http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/SIGTARP_Initial_Report_to_the_Congress.pdf. See http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2009/April2009_Quarterly_Report_to_Congress.pdf. 2 3 See http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/audit/2009/SIGTARP_Survey_Demonstrates_That_Banks_Can_Provide_Meaningfu_%20Information_On_Their_Use_Of_TARP_Funds.pdf. and other institutions that had completed TARP funding agreements through January 30, 2009. The audit report finds that, although most banks reported they did not segregate or track TARP fund usage on a dollar-for-dollar basis, they were able to provide insights into their actual or planned future use of TARP funds. For some respondents the infusion of TARP funds helped to avoid a “managed” reduction of their activities; others reported that their lending activities would have come to a standstill without TARP funds; and others explained that they used TARP funds to acquire other institutions, invest in securities, pay off debts, or that they retained the funds to serve as a cushion against future losses. In light of the audit findings, SIGTARP renews its recommendation that the Secretary of the Treasury require all TARP recipients to submit periodic reports to Treasury on their use of TARP funds. SIGTARP’s Investigations Division has developed rapidly and is quickly becoming a sophisticated white-collar investigative agency. Through June 30, 2009, SIGTARP has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations. These investigations include complex issues concerning suspected accounting fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, mortgage servicer misconduct, mortgage fraud, public corruption, false statements, and tax investigations. Two of SIGTARP’s investigations have recently become public: • Federal Felony Charges Against Gordon Grigg: On April 23, 2009, Federal felony charges were filed against Gordon B. Grigg in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, charging him with four counts of mail fraud and four counts of wire fraud. The charges are based on Grigg’s role in embezzling approximately $11 million in client investment funds that he garnered through false claims, including that he had invested $5 million in pooled client funds toward the purchase of the TARP-guaranteed debt. Grigg pleaded guilty to all charges and is scheduled for sentencing on August 6, 2009. FTC Action Against Misleading Use of “MakingHomeAffordable.gov”: On May 15, 2009, based upon an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), a Federal district court issued an order to stop an Internet-based operation that pretended to operate “MakingHomeAffordable.gov,” the official website of the Federal Making Home Affordable program. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants purchased sponsored links as advertising on the results pages of Internet search engines, and, when consumers searched for “making home affordable” or similar search terms, the defendants’ ads prominently and conspicuously displayed “MakingHomeAffordable.gov.” Consumers who clicked on this link were not directed to the official website, but were diverted to sites that solicit applicants for paid loan modification services. The operators of these websites either purport to offer loan modification services themselves or sold the victims’ personally identifying information to others. SIGTARP is providing assistance to FTC during the investigation. • More than 50% of SIGTARP’s ongoing investigations were developed in whole or in part through tips or leads provided on SIGTARP’s Hotline (877-SIG-2009 or accessible at www.SIGTARP.gov). Over the past quarter, the SIGTARP Hotline received and analyzed more than 3,200 tips, running the gamut from expressions of concern over the economy to serious allegations of fraud. Further, SIGTARP is in the process of completing audit reports concerning executive compensation restriction compliance, controls over external influences on the CPP application process, selection of the first nine participants for funds under CPP (with a particular emphasis on Bank of America), AIG bonuses, and AIG counterparty payments. In addition, SIGTARP is undertaking a series of new audits, as follows: • Follow-up Assessment of Use of Funds by TARP Recipients: This audit will examine use of funds by recipients receiving extraordinary assistance under the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions program, the Automotive Industry Financing Program, as well as insurance companies receiving assistance under CPP. Governance Issues Where U.S. Holds Large Ownership Interests: The audit, being conducted at the request of Senator Max Baucus, will examine governance issues when the U.S. Government has obtained a large ownership interest in a particular institution, including: (i) What is the extent of Government involvement in management of companies in which it has made sizeable investments, including direction and control over such elements as governance, compensation, spending, and other corporate decision making? (ii) To what extent are effective risk management, internal controls, and monitoring in place to protect and balance the Government’s interests and corporate needs? (iii) Are there performance measures in place that can be used to track progress against long-term goals and timeframes affecting the Government’s ability to wind down its investments and disengage from these companies? (iv) Is there adequate transparency to support decision making and to provide full disclosure to the Congress and the public? Status of the Government’s Asset Guarantee Program with Citigroup: The audit examining the Government’s Asset Guarantee Program (“AGP”) with Citigroup, based upon a request by Representative Alan Grayson, will address a series of questions about the Government’s guarantee of certain Citigroup assets through the AGP such as: (i) How was the program for Citigroup developed? (ii) What are the current cash flows from the affected assets? and (iii) What are the potential for losses to Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve under the program? Making Home Affordable Mortgage Modification Program: This audit will examine the Making Home Affordable mortgage modification program to assess the status of the program, the effectiveness of outreach efforts, capabilities of loan servicers to provide services to eligible recipients, and challenges confronting the program as it goes forward. • • • Operational Status Regarding SIGTARP’s operational status, we continue to filling out our ranks. As of July 20, 2009, we have hired 70 personnel, and have several new hires to begin over the coming weeks. Currently, SIGTARP’s senior and upper-level management ranks are for the most part in place, and, thus, we anticipate that hiring will proceed rapidly. SIGTARP’s efforts have been assisted by dual compensation and direct hire authorities that it has been provided via statute and regulation. We are very pleased with our progress, and we are confident that SIGTARP will achieve its current goal of approximately 160 full-time employees by the second quarter of FY 2010. Nonetheless, section 121(j) of EESA, as amended, provided $50 million for SIGTARP, but this figure will not be sufficient to fund SIGTARP’s activities through FY 2010. SIGTARP had not been established when Treasury submitted its initial FY 2010 budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), during the summer of 2008. Additionally, SIGTARP was not in a position to definitively project its FY 2010 needs when OMB reopened the FY 2010 budget in the early spring of 2009 (i.e., SIGTARP’s key management and budget personnel either had not yet been hired or had just arrived). Thus, SIGTARP was effectively precluded from submitting a substantive request for additional funds when the budget was reopened. SIGTARP, accordingly, submitted to Treasury a request for an amendment of the FY2010 budget request in the amount of $23,300,000. Cooperation In spite of accounts in the media, to date, Treasury has cooperated with SIGTARP’s information requests. Moreover, although SIGTARP and Treasury have disagreed, sometimes vociferously, over the design and implementation of TARP programs, SIGTARP believes that Treasury has engaged actively in consulting with SIGTARP about its concerns. Chairman Moore, Ranking Member Biggert and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.


President Obama says he sees a lack of humility among bankers today. He said the industry "should be more focused on products we're providing consumers. Let's make sure we're operating in a more secure, safe fashion." Weigh that against the Treasury's lack of humility and their complete failure to operate in a "more secure, safe fashion."

Rush has interesting commentary.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Obama Meets Without the ZOA

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

President Barack Obama's Jewish agenda was forced to greet the daylight when he met with American Jewish leaders on July 13th. According to reports, the clamor of diminished American Jewish support for Obama has been loud. Too bad it's eight months too late.

Obama's Jewish Agenda

The meeting was called. The Zionist Organization of America, the largest and oldest pro-Israel group was not invited. Also disallowed was CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting). Morton Klein, the president of ZOA:
Klein’s White House contacts told him flat out that he was shunned because of his strong criticism of Obama. In his June interview with Newsmax, Klein said that Obama may be the “most hostile president to Israel” ever.
Surely American Jews HAVE had some doubts about the President's commitment to Israel lately. If you have not, what is wrong with you? Your president told the meeting attendees:
"there was no light between the US and Israeli positions for the last eight years, and no progress was made."
Do you think that means he plans to PUT some daylight between Israel and the U.S.?

Seventy-seven percent of the Jewish vote went to Barack Obama. American Jews overwhelmingly supported a man whose African-Arab father was a Muslim and a communist, whose grandfather was a Muslim and who himself sat in an anti-semitic Christian church for twenty years.

The J Street lobby got it right:
Surrogates and right-wing political operatives in our community stopped at nothing in their efforts to sway Jewish voters against Obama."
I'm proud to be one of those "right-wing political operatives," and we tried to tell you, even tried to protect you. We sounded the alarm bells, raised the red flags, wrung our hands, and asked you, are you not terrified for the survival of Israel? We asked: Why would you take a chance?

Gallup polls of Jewish voters from June 2008 to the elections:
...showed American Jews growing increasingly comfortable with Obama since July, when the Illinois Senator tied up the Democratic Party nomination.
How did you get comfortable about Barack Hussein Obama?

At the July 13th meeting, Obama told the Jewish leaders that he wants a two-state solution and Israel should "engage in serious self-reflection." Anne Bayefsky had some reflections for the president:

Considering Israel is a democratic country forced to send its children into the armed forces for two to three years and its men into reserve duty for another twenty-five, that isn't the audacity of hope. It's just plain audacity.
The liberal J Street's Ben-Ami:
Ben-Ami said that he believed that President Obama was asserting positions aimed at achieving two states for two peoples, a stance he claimed is supported by the majority of the Jewish community in the United States that voted for Obama.
America's liberal Jews: Is this true? Do you think a two-state solution will bring peace to Israel? How would that happen? Will Hamas recognize Israel? Tell me how you see Israel? Surely you have a vision. Surely you understand the threat of Islam lurking on the doorstep of Israeli schools. Or do you? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Napolitano Appoints Muslim Assistant Homeland Security Secretary

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has appointed a Muslim to the post of Assistant Homeland Security Secretary. The Islamic Workplace says this is Obama's first "major appointment of a Muslim" to the administration.


Arif Alikahn

According to derSpiegel, Arif Alikhan is a "devout Sunni." He is the son on Pakistani immigrants. He is said to be in his late 30's and a handsome dresser. He comes to the position at Homeland Security from Los Angeles where he served as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety under L.A. Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa:
As the city's computer and telecommunications crime coordinator, Alikhan is in the process of hiring new police officers. The job is as big as it is crucial: Close to four million people live in Los Angeles proper, while the metropolitan area is home to 18 million. Los Angeles could well be the target of the next terrorist attack. There was no commotion when Alikhan was appointed, nor did any newspaper so much as question why someone like him should be placed in charge of the security of America's second-largest city. It was simply accepted as a fact. "I never had the feeling that my religion is written on my forehead," he says.
Before serving at the L.A. Mayor's office, Alikahn was an assistant U.S. Attorney, appointed by, and serving under, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the Department of Justice (DOJ), where Alikahn also served as Vice Chair of the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Task Force. Mr. Alikahn is highly praised by Alberto Gonzales.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) praises Alikahn also. According to Jihad Watch, the following is the CAIR statement about Alikahn's appointment:
Congratulations to Mr. Alikhan on this well-deserved appointment," said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush. "Mr. Alikhan's new position reflects his and the community's dedication to helping preserve the security of our country. The American Muslim community can be proud of him.
As Jihad Watch points out, the appointment should "set off alarm bells." I agree. Having said that, CAIR will endorse any true Muslim that gets anywhere close to being up-close and personal with the U.S. government. The only way to keep the bells silenced is to make certain no Muslims are in positions of national security.

More from Jihad Watch:
CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case. Its operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several of its former officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. Several of its other officials have made Islamic supremacist statements. CAIR also was involved in the Flying Imams' intimidation suit against the passengers who reported their suspicious behavior. That the CAIR rep who praised the appointment would be Hussam Ayloush, a delightful fellow with whom I have had several pleasant exchanges, who specifically refused to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups when I asked him repeatedly to do so, is even worse.
Never will we find CAIR condemning Hamas or Hizballah (Hezbollah). The question is, does Mr. Alikahn, a devout Sunni Muslim, condemn Hamas or Hizballah?

Jihad Watch also quotes WorldNetDaily saying that 13 days prior to Napolitano's appointment to Homeland Security, Arif Alikahn attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). I've read about everything I can about MPAC. On the surface, they seem more measured and more moderate than some Islamic organizations, however, Aaron Klein writing from Tel Aviv for WND, makes some remarks that set the alarm bells ringing double time. Notice that the quotes from MPAC come from an MPAC call-in to an L.A. "talk radio audience." The quote is below. Read the entire article at Jihad Watch.
A few hours after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, MPAC co-founder Marayati told a Los Angeles talk radio audience: "If we're going to look at suspects, we should look at the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list, because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies."...
I would like to ask Mr. Alikahn some questions - the following just to get things started:

1) Do you condemn Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist organizations?
2) Do you condemn the rockets fired from Hamas into Israel
3) Do you condemn the bombing of the Beirut Marine Barracks as an act of terrorism?
4) Do you condemn CAIR's support of the Holy Land Foundation as aiding terrorism?
5) Do you condemn the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole as an act of terrorism?
6) Do you defend Israel's right to exist as a sovereign Nation?

Additional background on Alikahn:
Alikhan began his legal career as a Judicial Law Clerk to U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W.
...
In 1997, Alikhan joined the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles where he handled a wide variety of criminal matters as a federal prosecutor for over eight years. He received several awards from law enforcement agencies for his work and was recognized by the Department of Justice for his superior management and supervisory performance.

Alikhan was instrumental in Mayor Villaraigosa's initiative to put 1,000 new officers on the streets, and now the LAPD has expanded to its highest level in history. Additionally, Alikhan oversaw and advanced the Mayor's emergency preparedness and counter-terrorism initiatives, increased cooperation with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, worked to create the Fire Department's Professional Standards Division and helped secure and manage over $400 million in homeland security and public safety grants for the Los Angeles region. He was also a key aid to the Mayor at major emergencies including numerous brush and wild fires and the tragic Metrolink crash last year.

Alikhan graduated with honors from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles in 1993. He graduated cum laude from the University of California, Irvine in 1990 where he earned a degree in Social Ecology with an emphasis in Criminal Justice, Criminology and Legal Studies.
Another Muslim, Kareem Shora has also been appointed to Homeland Security. More coming on this appointment.

Obama to Netanyahu: Jerusalem Must Be Divided Again!

By Findalis


During the campaign, then candidate Obama said the following at an address of AIPAC:
Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
It seems that is another lie from this Master of Lies. For now it is US Policy to hand over to the Palestinians all of East Jerusalem, including one of the most holiest sites in Judaism: The Western Wall.
The United States State Department made it clear Tuesday that Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem are “settlements,” which U.S. President Barack Obama has called “illegitimate."

U.S. officials previously have used the term “settlement” to describe the Har Homa neighborhood, opposite the neighborhood of Gilo on the southern end of Jerusalem. Like French Hill, Ramot and eastern Talpiot, it was restored to Israel in the Six Day War in 1967 and officially annexed to Jerusalem in 1980. Approximately 300,000 Jews live in these neighborhoods.

Reporters covering the daily State Department press briefing have recently asked tough-than-usual questions concerning what they see as the United States trying to determine the future borders of a Palestinian Authority state instead of allowing Israel and the PA to negotiate directly.

In Tuesday’s session, reporters peppered State Department assistant spokesman Robert Wood with questions on how the Obama administration can continue to insist on a halt to all building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem as well as Judea and Samaria in light of solid support from within Israel for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu told the Cabinet this week that Israel has complete sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and decides issues such as building permits. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon declared on Tuesday, “Israel will continue to operate in accordance with its vital national interests... Our right to rule and develop Jerusalem is irrefutable.”

Even Intelligence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, one of the most dovish Likud Knesset Members, who previously has favored the idea of surrendering the strategic Golan Heights to Syria, took up the cause for Jerusalem Tuesday.
So now the sovereignty of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is to be placed in the hands of terrorists. No longer will Jews be allowed to worship or live in Jerusalem. No longer will Jewish homes, schools and synagogues be allowed to remain standing. And the Western Wall will once again be used as a urinal as it was under Jordanian rule.

It seems that Obama never learned history in those fancy schools that he attended. So here is a little history lesson for him:
Before 1865, the entire population of Jerusalem lived behind the Old City walls (what today would be considered part of the eastern part of the city) Later, the city began to expand beyond the walls because of population growth, and both Jews and Arabs began to build in new areas of the city.

By the time of partition, a thriving Jewish community was living in the eastern part of Jerusalem, an area that included the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This area of the city also contains many sites of importance to the Jewish religion, including the city of David, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. In addition, major institutions like Hebrew University and the original Hadassah hospital are on Mount Scopus, in eastern Jerusalem.

The only time that the eastern part of Jerusalem was exclusively Arab was between 1949-1967, and that was because Jordan occupied the area and forcibly expelled all the Jews. Jerusalem is one issue on which the views of Israelis are unanimous: The city must remain the undivided capital of Israel.
Israel will never give up one inch of Jerusalem. Not today, tomorrow, next week, next year, not ever.

As Eliezer ben Yisrael wrote:
For the first time since the year 70, there is now complete religious freedom for all in Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans put a torch to the Temple, everyone has equal rights (You prefer to have some more equal than others.) We loathe the sword- but it was you who forced us to take it up. We crave peace, but we are not going back to the peace of 1948 as you would like us to.

We are home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander over the face of the globe. We are not leaving. We are redeeming the pledge made by our forefathers: Jerusalem is being rebuilt. "Next year" and the year after, and after, and after, until the end of time- "in Jerusalem"!
President Obama remember these words:

Jerusalem is being rebuilt. "Next year" and the year after, and after, and after, until the end of time-
"in Jerusalem"!



Yerushalaim Shel Zahav (Jerusalem of Gold)



View at YouTube

The Henry Louis Gates Incident

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Professor Henry Louis Gates- A victim of racist cops?

I was going to pass on commenting on the Henry Louis Gates incident in Cambridge this week because I was not familiar with Gates and felt that I didn't really know the facts well enough to come to a conclusion. Last night, however, President Obama did come to a conclusion, which I feel was a mistake on his part.

Professor Gates of Harvard University was arrested this week when police answered a neighbor's call to a residence Gates was renting. It seems that Gates was returning from an overseas trip and his door was jammed, so he had to break the door, jimmy the lock, or whatever. At any rate, a neighbor apparently called the cops suspecting a break-in might be taking place.

As the story goes, when police arrived to investigate, Gates was already in his house and police asked to check his ID. According to the police report, Gates became verbally abusive and tumultuous, accusing the police of checking him out because he was a "black man in America". The exchange reportedly continued outside in view of neighbors, and at some point, Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, a charge that has now been dropped.

Now the incident has become a cause celebre with academics and the mainstream media taking up Gates' side of the incident. CNN has reported it under their "Black in America" series on their website. The mayor of Cambridge has apologized to Gates, who is still claiming he was a victim of racial profiling and is demanding an apology from the responding officer, James Crowley. Crowley has publicly defended his actions and says no apology is warranted. By the way, take a close look at the photo of Gates in handcuffs. One of the arresting officers is black.

But now the President has weighed in. Asked about the incident by a reporter during his news conference last night, Obama admitted he had a certain bias since he and Gates are friends, then opined that the police "acted stupidly". He also left out any mention of Gates acting in a disorderly manner-only that after he identified himself, he was arrested.

So while admitting my own bias (I am retired from law enforcement), I will give a couple of opinions-again emphasizing that I was not there. First of all, the police had a duty to respond to the call and investigate to ensure that there was no break-in. They thus, had a duty to ask for Gates' ID and ascertain he was indeed the occupant of that property. So what was it that officer Crowley did or said that set Gates off? Did he pull a gun and throw Gates against the wall? No mention of that. Did he call Gates a racial epithet? No mention of that. From what I have read, Crowley's offense was checking Gates (a black man) out at what turned out to be his own place of residence, at which point, Gates launched a tirade.

The bottom line is this: when confronted by the police, you should cooperate, identify yourself and answer the questions. This incident surely could have been resolved quickly and amicably if all parties acted like adults. It appears that Gates became unruly because the police had come to his residence to check him out-because he was black-in his opinion.

Now can some cops be over-aggressive and act like jerks? Sure. If that is the case, you should simply follow the commands, and, if the cop is in the wrong, take down his/her name and badge number and lodge a complaint. If Gates chose to create a larger incident out of the one that already existed, shame on him.

President Obama last night raised the issue of the disproportionate stops of blacks and Latinos by police. Without going into the disproportionate crime rates, let's put that in some perspective. If cops are assigned to a predominantly black or Hispanic precinct, such as exists in Los Angeles or other major cities, virtually everybody they stop will be a minority. That is a simple fact. For example, stops by LAPD in East LA are invariably of Latins. Does that make them guilty of racial profiling? In some peoples' eyes, yes, but not in mine. (I assume the Gates incident was not in a minority neighborhood.)

What if the cops had not responded to the call, and it turned out that there was indeed a break-in or home invasion in progress? Who would be held responsible if someone, like Gates, wound up dead-the victim of a violent crime? Wouldn't the cops be guilty of gross negligence? Of course they would.

I suppose it all comes down to who said what to whom that exacerbated the situation. Maybe Officer Crowley did say something improper that angered Gates. So far, I have not heard it. It would have to be something more than Gates was checked out at his home and happened to be black. The impression that I am left with-at this point-is that Gates had a chip on his shoulder and acted like a jerk. Maybe I am being just as biased as President Obama in coming to a conclusion, but I am not the President of the United States. It may turn out that Obama owes the Cambridge police an apology.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Republican List of Sonia Sotomayor Supporters

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Bloomberg reports that the vote for Sotomayor's confirmation has been delayed one week to accommodate Republicans. Now is the time to let your Senator's hear from you again, or hear from you even though the RINO's listed below are not your own Senator. If your Senator is not on this list, contact them anyway and register your vote against Sotomayor. Contact information is listed below.

For a list of reasons not to vote for Sonia Sotomayor, and for discussion points, please read this.

The latest list of Republican Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor supporters is:

Sonia Sotomayor

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) - up for re-election in 2010
Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-2532
Augusta Phone: (207) 622-8414
Bangor Phone: (207) 945-0417
Biddeford Phone: (207) 493-7873
Caribou Phone: (207) 493-7873
Lewiston Phone: (207) 784-6969
Portland Phone: (207) 780-3575
Email
Washington, D.C.Fax (202) 224-2693
Augusta Fax: (207) 622-5884
Bangor Fax: (207) 990-4604
Biddeford Fax: (207) 283-4054
Caribou Fax: (207) 493-7810
Lewiston Fax: (207) 782-6475
Portland Fax: (207) 828-0380


Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME) - up for re-election in 2010
Toll Free in Maine: (800) 432-1599
Auburn Phone: (207) 786-2451
Augusta Phone: (207) 622-8292
Bangor Phone: (207) 945-0432
Biddeford Phone: (207) 282-4144
Portland Phone: (207) 874-0883
Presque Isle Phone: (207) 874-7631
Email
Auburn Fax: (207) 782-1438
Augusta Fax: (207) 622-7295
Bangor Fax: (207) 941-9525
Biddeford Fax: (207) 284-2358
Portland Fax: (207) 874-7631
Presque Isle Fax: (207) 764-6420


Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) - up for re-election in 2012
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-4814
Evansville Phone: (812) 465-6313
Fort Wayne Phone: (260) 422-1505
Indianapolis Phone: (317) 226-5555
Valparaiso Phone: (219) 548-8035
Email
Washington D.C. Fax: (202) 228-0360
Evansville Fax: (812) 421-1883
Fort Wayne Fax: (260) 424-1342
Indianapolis Fax: (317) 226-5508
Valparaiso Fax: (219) 548-7506


Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) - retiring in 2010
Washington, D.C. Phone: (202) 224-3041
Orlando Toll Free: (866) 630-7106
Orlando Phone: (407) 254-2573
Fort Myers Phone: (239) 332-3898
Jacksonville Phone: (904) 398-8586
Miami Phone: (305) 444-8332
Palm Beach Gardens Phone: (561) 842-8300
Pensacola Phone: (850) 433-2603)
Tampa Phone: (813) 977-6450
Email
Washington, D.C. Fax: (202) 228-5171
Orlando Fax: (407) 423-0941
Fort Myers Fax: (239) 332-3898
Jacksonville Fax: (904) 398-8591
Miami Fax: (305) 444-8449
Palm Beach Gardens Fax: (561) 842-8949
Pensacola Fax: (850) 433-2554
Tampa Fax: (813) 977-6593

Locate all Senator's contact information here.

Main U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Jimmy Carter breaks with his church-Good riddance

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Jimmy Carter with one of his human rights comrades-in-arms, Hugo Chavez


This week, that pest Jimmy Carter made news again, this time leaving the Southern Baptist Church because they refuse to ordain women pastors and they preach that women should be subservient to their husbands.

That's all well and good, (I am not here to defend the Southern Baptist Church.)but let's examine this statement made by the hapless former president:

"At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, Mr Carter has his churches and religions confused. It is not the Southern Baptist Church that engages in slavery, forced prostitution, genital mutilation or laws that excuse rape. It is not the Southern Baptist Church that takes away women's rights to education and employment. It is not his church he is talking about, nor is it his country.

If Mr Carter objects that his church puts men on a higher plane than women that is fine. Pity, however, that this "great champion of human rights for women" does not turn his attention to the parts of the world where women are, indeed, second-class citizens, where women are stoned to death for adultery-or merely being found in the company of men not their husbands, where women are murdered in so-called "honour killings" by their husbands or brothers-with little or no criminal punishment, where women are indeed subjected to forced genital mutilation, or where women who are condemned to death are deprived of their virginity by rape-so that it will be permissible to execute them under law.

That is where Mr Carter should direct his outrage. But he won't, and we all know the reason why he won't, don't we? Mr Carter has a lot of friends and allies in the Middle East, many of whom contribute millions to his "peace center" or whatever he calls it. No, Mr Carter cannot even mention who the real perpetrators are. Instead, he lists a couple of examples, like genital mutilation, within a context that would suggest to the totally ignorant observer that he is talking about the Southern Baptist Church.

Jimmy Carter is, as always, a fool. He was a fool in the White House, and he is a fool now. He is also a deceptive fool. Good riddance for the Southern Baptist Church.

Monday, July 20, 2009

CIA and Dick Cheney Assassinations

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Democrats in Congress are outraged that the Pentagon and CIA were developing a plan to "assassinate" al Qaeda in Iraq. The assassination teams would be CIA personnel, and not U.S. Military. Especially heinous to Congress is that the Pentagon did not brief appropriate Congressional members about the incomplete and unimplemented plan.

CIA



Americans are no longer shocked to hear that we have not always targeted all al Qaeda members, including leaders...especially leaders...since the war began after 9-11. We are no longer shocked at much we hear, because doing what makes no sense is exactly what Congress always does. Nevertheless, while not shocked, we are surprised, and along with our surprise comes puzzlement. Why would we need a secret program, even assuming Congress is briefed, to kill top al-Qaeda members?

Targeted killing of terrorists is prohibited by presidential orders banning assassinations that date back to the Ford administration. But the president can waive that order, said Vicki Divoll, a former CIA counsel, because there is no specific federal law that bans the practice.

There's also no legal difference, she said, between killing al Qaeda targets with a hit team or with an unmanned drone, because the "intent to kill a targeted person" defines an assassination.

The "air strikes" are what made this never-implemented plan different. According to officials, it was okay to target and kill al Qadea with air strikes, but not okay to target and kill al Qaeda "at close range," - what might include hand-to-hand combat. Killing "at close range" might risk "civilian casualties." For now, the CIA will have to be satisfied with Predator Drones - except that Congress can't keep it's mouth shut about them either. While Pakistan recently complained about Predator drones taking off and landing inside their borders, officials assured Pakistan that only surveillance drones are used inside the country, not the Predator which is capable of launching missiles.
Privately, though, Pakistani officials doubt that claim, especially after the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein, (D-CA), suggested 10 days ago that the CIA Predator drones do indeed use Pakistani airfields and not necessarily Afghan airfields, as most assume.
According to an anonymous source at the CIA, Dick Cheney directed the agency not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.
Panetta told the committees there was no indication that there was anything illegal or inappropriate about the effort itself, the official said.

CIA directors since 2001 agreed with Cheney's decision not to inform Congress because the highly classified operation, described as "sporadic" and "embryonic," never managed to turn up the intelligence needed to carry out a kill and was not considered a covert operation, according to a former intelligence official. That official also was not authorized to discuss the program and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Congress has a right to know everything the CIA does, but the president can by law limit those told about covert operations to just the top four members of the House and Senate from the two parties and the senior members of the intelligence committees. Democrats on the House intelligence committee are pushing for a legal provision that would require the president to brief both committees in their entirety more often, but the White House has threatened to veto the move.
DefenseTech.org reminds us of Sandi Berger letting Osama bin Laden escape in Afghanistan, rather than chance civilian casualties: Doesn't this sort of smack of Sandi Berger-esque national security policy?
We know from the 9-11 commission report that Berger got cold feet when he had bin Laden in his sights for a proxy raid in Afghanistan because he was afraid of collateral damage and blowback. Now some of the same national security policy minds are back in the driver's seat so we can cancel a program to kill bad guys using CIA assets.
Here is the directive for how and when the CIA program would have been implemented:

Had it become fully developed, the CIA's aborted plan would have been a covert-action program. At the outset, the potential operation wouldn't have been limited to particular countries. The use of hit teams was in accordance with the authority granted by the 2001 order, said a former national-security official familiar with it.

In the most recent iteration of the project, top CIA leaders instructed officers involved to narrow its focus and report the plans to Congress if they reached a critical point where moving forward would involve activities that, if discovered, could embarrass the U.S., according to a former senior intelligence official.

Among all the punditry on this subject, we've heard little to nothing about the distinction between targeting for air strikes or targeting for "close contact," but surprisingly to me, there is a U.S policy prohibiting the "assassination" of anyone, not just heads of State!

Targeted killing of terrorists is prohibited by presidential orders banning assassinations that date back to the Ford administration. But the president can waive that order, said Vicki Divoll, a former CIA counsel, because there is no specific federal law that bans the practice.

There's also no legal difference, she said, between killing al Qaeda targets with a hit team or with an unmanned drone, because the "intent to kill a targeted person" defines an assassination.

However, that is not the end of the story. The rest of the story involves the Joint special Operations Command (JSOC). The JSOC is a somewhat secret branch of the U.S. Special Operations Command. The Special Operations Command is made-up of "special mission units." Among these units are the Delta Force and Seal Team Six. During the Iraq War other elite groups were known as "Grey Fox," "Capacity Gear" and "Titrant Ranger."

Pulitzer Prize winning investigating "journalist," Sy Hersh has charged that during the Bush-Cheney years the JSOC reported directly to Dick Cheney and no one else. He termed it an "executive assassination ring." The New York Times columnist didn't make the accusations in the NYT, but from podiums on college campuses, at the ACLU and public radio. New York Magazine writer Chris Suellentrop calls Hersh "the runaway mouth of America's premier investigative journalist."Bill Roggio writing for the Weekly Standard Blog says the Hersh claims that the JSOC reports to no one, or only to Cheney during the Bush-Cheney years, is false; they report to the Secretary of Defense and also falls under congressional oversight.

From Marc Ambinder:

JSOC units are very active in Iraq and Afghanistan; in those countries, since the U.S. is formally at war, their conduct can't really be analogized to an extra-legal hit squad....What's objectionable, in theory, is that the President can designate anyone as a terrorist and task JSOC with finding and executing them -- even if the person is not living in the war theatre and has never been charged with a crime. In practice, that's what presidents from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have believed (the following from a 2001 report).
Senior intelligence officials confirm that a secret finding recently signed by President Bush, building on an earlier one by President Clinton, grant the CIA legal authority to conduct assassination operations against individuals designated as terrorists. As a result, the CIA is devising strategy and policy to that end, and is developing assets for assassinations within both the CIA and "uniformed military units," as well as foreign agents in Middle Eastern countries.
The outrage is likely a convenient smoke screen designed to take the focus off of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusation that the CIA "lies all the time." Target Dick Cheney's so-called assassination plots and the Dems might think they have a winner. Complain that the CIA targets al Qaeda and the Dems might think they have a winner...but maybe not. Just maybe we expect Congress to support every tactic possible to win these wars.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Radical Jihadist Group Holds US Conference

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk




Hizb-ut-Tahrir demonstration in Gaza, July 31, 2008


Members of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an international Sunni network with reputed ties to confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's chief terrorist in Iraq until he was killed by a US missile strike, met today at a Hilton hotel outside Chicago to host a conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam." Here is the story by Fox News:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533880,00.html

According to Fox News, there were protesters outside the hotel-a heartening sign. Hopefully, the FBI was also present with tape recorders and room bugs. This is just another suspect group of Jihadis who are eagerly awaiting -and working for the downfall of America and our free capitalistic system. They say they are moderate (don't they all?) and they are not on any US Government terrorist watch list, so they cavort openly in our midst and work toward their goal of a world-wide Islamic caliphate. I say how dare they spread their sedition in our own country? Who do these people think they are?

This is an organization that condemns democracy and applauds suicide bombers in Israel as "martyrs". Anti-Jewish? Consider this statement:

In a 2000 article entitled "The Muslim Ummah will never submit to the Jews", Hizb ut-Tahrir expressed its feelings about the Jews:

"....insist on expelling more and more of the people of Palestine so that they can bring in more of the world's Jews. They are demolishing homes, confiscating land and property, imprisoning people, torturing them, breaking their bones and killing them… They violate agreements and are disloyal to the treaties they have signed. They violate the airspace and waters of Lebanon every day and with their arms they bomb its cities and villages. They have occupied the lands of Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, and they increase daily in their provocation and defiance to all the Arabs and Muslims… In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even they themselves rarely like each other. He (in the Quran) said: "You would think they were united, but their hearts are divided" [TMQ 59:14] The American people do not like the Jews nor do the Europeans, because the Jews by their very nature do not like anyone else. Rather they look at other people as wild animals that have to be tamed to serve them. So, how can we imagine it being possible for any Arab or Muslim to like the Jews whose character is such? … Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah, be destroyed "until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him."

Take a look at how this organization operates in other parts of the western world like Denmark, the UK, Germany and Australia, where they alienate the host society.

Personally, I am fed up to here with certain immigrants who come to our country to enjoy the very freedoms they seek to destroy. They have no respect for our values, our freedoms-nor our predominant religion. They hate our Jewish fellow-citizens. They stand in stark contrast to those immigrants who come here with the purest of intentions and assimilate into American society, making it a better place for all of us.

And where do outfits like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America stand on Hizb ut-Tahrir? With this conference going on, there is no mention of it on the websites of these principle "moderate organizations". I wonder how many members of CAIR and ISNA are attending this conference. I wonder if the Obama administration sent a spokesman to give the keynote address.

What I say to members of this organization is this: if you want to see the downfall of democracy, capitalism and the imposition of Islam and shariah law in America, you have no place in this country. Get the hell out and go back to where you came from.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Obama Announces Government Take-Over of Nation's Sewage System

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


President Obama today announced that the federal government, in an effort to eliminate waste, is nationalizing the nation's sewage systems, which had up to now been operated by the individual states.

Obama, in overriding certain states' rights objections, told reporters at the White House that the time to act is now.

"Doing nothing is not an option", stated the President. He urged Congress to get up off its butt and pass the needed legislation.

The President also announced the creation of a new agency in Washington to run the program, the Department of Transportation of Urban and Rural Disposal (T.U.R.D.). As part of the President's efforts to "reach across the aisle", he introduced Republican Senator Larry Craig as the new head of the department.

The TURD Czar.


In his own remarks, Craig said that he accepted the position because he saw it as an opportunity to break down walls between those on opposite sides.


The President added that this will be a cabinet-level position.


When asked for specifics, the President stated that under the new program, every household in America will be outfitted with new government, one-size fits all toilets, whose pipes will all feed into a central line that runs directly to Washington DC.

"All roads will lead to Washington", said Obama.

In addition, as an incentive, each new toilet will come with a free chicken.

"A chicken in every pot"

One reporter asked what would happen to those homeowners who don't want to change their toilets.

"If you are happy with the toilet you have, fine", said the President. "However, those who refuse to sign up will have to pay an additional 3% of their income in taxes and their old toilets will be automatically blocked up once the new program takes effect."

When asked how much the program will cost, the President estimated about 1.5 trillion dollars. That means that taxes will now have to be raised on the top 75% of wage-earners or those Americans making over $5,000 a year.

"We will be asking the richest Americans to pay their fair share."

White House reporter Helen Thomas, seemingly alone in her scepticism, asked what will happen to the nation's waste once it all reaches Washington.



To that, the President (appearing slightly annoyed) responded that he would appoint a bi-partisan blue ribbon commission to work out the finer details.

Immediate reaction to the President's latest plan appears mixed. Reached on his private jet, Al Gore was enthusiastic.


"We only have 10 years to implement this important program before it's too late," said the former Vice-President.

On the other hand, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was less impressed.

"Sounds like a bunch of crap to me."

Friday, July 17, 2009

Missing GI in Afghanistan: Afghan Villages Warned

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

An unnamed U.S. soldier is missing in Afghanistan and is known to be the victim of kidnapping. The U.S. Military wants the missing soldier back and has sent a sobering message to the residents in at least two villages in suspect areas. The leaflets contained a message and a warning to return our missing soldier.

Afghan Villages Warned

The graphic above shows the front side a leaflet produced at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan with this message on one side:

The papers show on one side an image of a soldier with his head bowed so that his face is not visible (above). A message in the local Pashtun language over the image says, “If you do not free the American soldier, then…”

Afghan Villages Warned (photo backside)

The second graphic above is the backside of the first and says:

…you will be targeted”.

The military says the leaflet says “…you will be hunted,” but some translators say the word also means “targeted.”

Sources are inconclusive about how the leaflets got to the villagers: some reports say they were dropped from aircraft with the warnings seen in trees and on rooftops. A Military spokeswoman says they were delivered by hand, but says an aircraft leaflet-drop was made earlier to these villages notifying the people that a U.S. Soldier is missing and asking for information on his whereabouts:

U.S. Soldier Missing

The above graphic is not an actual picture the missing soldier. On the front it reads:

One of our American guests is missing.

The backside says:

Return the guest to his home. Call us at…,

Heart-wrenching appeals to the people who live among untold cruelty at the hands of those who are in possession of one of our own.

A Taliban militant said the U.S. Military has made three previous attempts to find the GI, but failed. He said the soldier is in a safe and secure place in a Taliban-controlled area. This spokesman said ransom demands, or an offer for a prisoner swap may be made, but warned that any attempts by foreigners to rescue him will lead to the soldier’s death.

Reuters reports that Mawlavi Sangin, a Taliban commander, issued warnings to the U.S. that continued “harassment” of the villagers in the area may also lead to the soldier’s death.

Reportedly, the U.S. Infantry soldier had just completed a shift and was off-duty when he walked off the U.S. base and left his body armor and weapon behind on June 30th. An anonymous U.S. military source said that communications by insurgents had been intercepted and it was believed that Taliban had the GI. Three Afghan nationals were abducted at the same time.

The Taliban commander, who spoke to Yousafzai [CBS correspondent] via satellite telephone from the region, said a group of militants cornered the American soldier and his Afghan counterparts near a U.S. military base and took them hostage.

But CBS News has learned that not long after the soldier disappeared, U.S. intelligence picked up radio chatter that he had been kidnapped. U.S. officials know he’s already been sold to another group of Afghans - but no direct contact has been made with the kidnappers.

This is believed to be the first abduction of a member of the U.S. Military in the almost-8-years since the War on Terror began. While leaflet-drops are ‘business as usual’ in these areas, those targeted have been the insurgents. This time villagers are warned. It’s a different ballgame. Read the entire article here.

U.S. Department of Defense Graphic credit: CBS News

A Global Race War? A Second Look


Some interesting precedents

In their ultimately thwarted attempt at achieving a South Pacific hegemony, from approximately 1895 until the end of WWII, Japanese leaders used the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" in its propaganda for the people both in Japan and in other Asian countries. To this end Japan held itself up to the Asian world as liberators from the oppressive yoke of the white colonialists. However, as more and more of these former colonies came under harsh Japanese rule they quickly became disillusioned with the bitter realities of the so-called Co-Prosperity Sphere. They soon discovered that they had merely switched masters, and their new overlords conducted themselves with great haughtiness and disdain to the local population and imposed a program of "Japanization" on the people with little or no regard for local customs and beliefs.

Similarly, in June of 1941, when Germany first invaded the Ukraine, the Wehrmacht were met with flowers from the local Ukrainian peasantry, being seen as prospective liberators from the scourge of Stalin's iron rule. Here, once again, it didn't take long for the true nature of Nazism to show its ugly face, and for the people to realize their tragic mistake. In both instances, tyrannical ideological regimes cynically allied themselves with troubled peoples, posing as allies and liberators. And in both instances they failed.

Historically, the Communist Party has of course attempted to align itself with the suffering and downtrodden peoples of this world in their crusade against the ruthless powers of capitalism, cynically manipulating the, often very real, grievances of the people to their own advantage.

Considering these precedents, it quickly becomes apparent that, regardless of the particular isms involved, these various tyrannies are only interested in achieving power. Raw, naked, political power.

Today, this same deadly scenario is playing itself out on the world's stage. Once again, another ruthless regime -- this time, in the guise of a religion -- is cynically manipulating the under-privileged peoples of this world, rallying them to their banner in their ongoing battle against the Judeo/Christian, capitalist West. And, once again, the results will be disastrous. - rg

A note from Radarsite. The following Radarsite article was written over a year ago, and necessarily contains some obvious anomalies. However, the questions it raises are, I believe, still powerful and pertinent.

-----------------------------------------------

A Global Race War?

Warning: This article has a PC rating of "X"


Are we in the beginning stages of a global race war?


Not yet, thank God. But consider this.

Islam, through the obvious successes of Al Qaeda and its affiliates in intimidating and embarrassing the West, has touched the heartstrings of many of the colored peoples of this world, and re enforced that seething undercurrent of post-colonial victimization that runs at varying depths throughout the Third World. Thus, thanks to the cynical machinations of the Islamists, our world is in danger of being divided once again -- as Japan and Germany both attempted to divide it in their own special ways, for their own special purposes -- between those supposedly exploited peoples of this world and their purported oppressors, who, they have once again convinced themselves, are the cause of all of their troubles -- past, present and future.

By ingeniously tapping into this latent but persistent strain of reverse racism, Islam has presented itself as a champion of the Third World in its never-ending battle to break free from the cruel shackles of white suppression. This is how this very real Clash of Civilizations is beginning to play itself out -- even here in America with the recently uncovered Wright/Obama anti-white crusade.

Unfortunately, the great and undeniable flaw in this seductive paradigm is that, with a few notable exceptions, whenever and wherever the black man, or, if you prefer, the man of color, has broken away from the yoke of overbearing white political oppression and achieved self-governance the consequences of this new found freedom have almost invariably been bloody and chaotic. Whether we look to post-colonial Africa, or those sordid post-colonial kingdoms and ruthless dictatorships of the Middle East -- or even our own American cities where the black majority has taken hold of the reins of government, the results are invariably the same: society self-destructs and the crime rate soars. Outside investments quickly dry up and corruption runs rampant. Whether the example is Haiti, Philadelphia, Rhodesia, Algeria or New Orleans, the same bloody post-colonial, post-white governance downward-spiralling scenario plays itself out.

This is such an explosive subject. It has become almost impossible to talk about it without creating a huge furor, or nowadays, without actually breaking some new multiculturalist law. Yet somehow to deal with the truths of our world, to even attempt to solve some of its most critical problems, we must find the courage to discuss these issues openly, honestly, and without malice.

What, then, is my point? Am I merely trying to prove that whites are somehow innately superior to the colored peoples of this world?
No.
But it is undeniable to all but the most committed ideologues that by almost any standard Western civilization has proven itself superior to a lot of other civilizations. What, then, is the proper message to those people in some of those other civilizations who feel disenfranchised and betrayed by history? Give up? Accept the inevitability of the white yoke forever? Learn to live with the fact that you were somehow born naturally inferior? Hell no! I repeat -- Hell no! This is the hopeless and deadly message of our enemies. This is the negative message of inverted racism. This is the darkness of Islam.

Our message is simply this: Cut out the crap. Start being truthful with yourselves and quit blaming others for all of your troubles -- the Crusaders, the white colonialists, the Christians, the Jews, the WASPS -- The victimization card only gives you a losing hand. If you attach yourself to the victim's cause, the cause of hatred and resentment and revenge, you will lose your God-given chance to succeed. Look at history and try to be honest. Did the victimization card ever really work? It certainly doesn't look that way to me. The victimization card has given us endless strife, a lot of wars and a few Indian casinos, but has seldom if ever helped a suffering people.

No, the way out of the darkness is to follow the light of truth. If your way hasn't proven successful, then dump it. Attach yourself to those other ways of thinking and acting that have proven to be successful. Go with the winners. The winners don't have colors, they have civilizations. Don't lay back and sulk with the losers. Are you listening, Palestinians? Don't plot revenge, plot success.

This whole volatile subject has nothing whatsoever to do with race or color, but everything to do with civilizations, and everything to do with truth.

Of course, this whole earth-shaking subject is to be considered taboo. We are forbidden to even broach this subject .[e.g. the latest Hate Crimes bill] We are all, we are being admonished every day, equal. All peoples are equal, all religions are equal, all races are equal. If one group of people gets ahead of another group of people in terms of its civilizational development it must have been perpetrated through some kind of trickery or malfeasance. Not by hard work or merit. Not by finding a system that works.

Damn it. Just as with the Japanese, Islam is succeeding by suppressing the truth of its real tyrannical and totally intolerant nature and presenting itself as the rallying banner of global victimization. And we, in the Judeo-Christian West, have yet to find a viable method to counter the deceitful foundations of this growing movement. All of the unsuccessful or disgruntled people of this world are now to become united under Islam in their struggle against all of the successful people of this world. In fact, in this new-fangled version of religious Marxism, individual success itself is now to be considered the ultimate evil. The price for this apparent unity demanded by Islam of all of its subjects and converts is the same price that all tyrants have demanded throughout the course of human history -- submission, or in another word, "Islam".

Are we, then, in the beginning stages of a global race war?

Not yet. But, take heed -- if Islam continues to seduce converts into their bleak world vision, it could soon become one. And then, God help us all, no matter what color.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Cure For Radiation Sickness

by Findalis


What started out as a cure for radiation sickness resulting from cancer therapy, could become a weapon against the effects of a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon detonated by a terrorist group.
Medication that can protect humans against nuclear radiation has been developed by Jewish-American scientists in cooperation with a researcher and investors from Israel. The full story behind the dramatic discovery will be published in Yedioth Ahronoth's weekend edition.

The ground-breaking medication, developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs - may have far-reaching implications on the balance of power in the world, as states capable of providing their citizens with protection against radiation will enjoy a significant strategic advantage vis-à-vis their rivals.

For Israel, the discovery marks a particularly dramatic development that could deeply affect the main issue on the defense establishment's agenda: Protection against a nuclear attack by Iran or against "dirty bomb" attacks by terror groups.

Gudkov's discovery may also have immense implications for cancer patients by enabling doctors to better protect patients against radiation. Should the new medication enable cancer patients to be treated with more powerful radiation, our ability to fight the disease could greatly improve.

Read the full story here.
The implications for the world are enormous. Victims of a Radiological attack could be effectively treated for the effects of Radiation Sickness, thus the terror effect of such an attack would be minimized.

Countries that don't have access to this drug would be at a disadvantage. Countries that threaten nations with nuclear attack who have this drug in their possession are neutralized. In effect, this drug silences Kim Jong Il of North Korea. For although he has a nuclear weapon, with this drug available, the short and long term effects upon the human body is no longer a major worry.

The FDA is expected to approve this drug within a few years. Hope for cancer patients and for the rest of us who worry not if but when some nutcase or terror group gets a hold of nuclear material and tries to destroy a city with it.

A Shameless Plug For Radarsite


To those readers who may not be aware of it, Radarsite has compiled a list of 50 of what I consider to be my most pertinent essays. I hope that you agree. - rg
The Best of Radarsite

Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” ?

Israeli warships in Eliat



hat tip to ACT

From The Times July 16, 2009



Israeli navy in Suez Canal prepares for potential attack on Iran


Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean.

Israel has strengthened ties with Arab nations who also fear a nuclear-armed Iran. In particular, relations with Egypt have grown increasingly strong this year over the “shared mutual distrust of Iran”, according to one Israeli diplomat. Israeli naval vessels would likely pass through the Suez Canal for an Iranian strike.

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats,” an Israeli defence official said.
Related Links

* Israeli soldiers say they used human shields

* No easy choices for Israel

It is believed that Israel’s missile-equipped submarines, and its fleet of advanced aircraft, could be used to strike at in excess of a dozen nuclear-related targets more than 800 miles from Israel.

Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, said that his Government explicitly allowed passage of Israeli vessels, and an Israeli admiral said that the drills were “run regularly with the full co-operation of the Egyptians.”

Two Israeli Saar class missile boats and a Dolphin class submarine have passed through Suez. Israel has six Dolphin-class submarines, three of which are widely believed to carry nuclear missiles.

Israel will also soon test an Arrow interceptor missile on a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean. The system is designed to defend Israel from ballistic missile attacks by Iran and Syria. Lieutenant-General Patrick O’Reilly, the director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defence Agency, said that Israel would test against a target with a range of more than 630 miles (1,000km) — too long for previous Arrow test sites in the eastern Mediterranean.

The Israeli air force, meanwhile, will send F16C fighter jets to participate in exercises at Nellis Air Force base in Nevada this month. Israeli C130 Hercules transport aircraft will also compete in the Rodeo 2009 competition at McChord Air Force base in Washington.

“It is not by chance that Israel is drilling long-range manoeuvres in a public way. This is not a secret operation. This is something that has been published and which will showcase Israel’s abilities,” said an Israeli defence official.

He added that in the past, Israel had run a number of covert long-range drills. A year ago, Israeli jets flew over Greece in one such drill, while in May, reports surfaced that Israeli air force aircraft were staging exercises over Gibraltar. An Israeli attack on a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip earlier this year was also seen as a rehearsal for hitting moving convoys.

The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.

If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” said one British official.

Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.

“Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements,” said a senior European diplomat.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Misfits in Our Universities

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Columbia University


A few days ago, I wrote a blurb about ex-Colorado University professor Ward Churchill, a left-wing radical who was fired by CU and has now lost his lawsuit in court. I called Churchill a misfit who basically hates his country. I stand by that comment. I also mentioned that he was far from being the only misfit in American universities. I would like to expound on that from the point of view of a part-time teacher (not professor) at a California university. I want to emphasize that my comments are not directed at all professors or even most of them. Yet, there is a sizable number of professors in American universities for whom the tag of misfit does apply. The issue in the physical sciences is not so big, but in the Humanities and Social Sciences, the left dominates almost completely. As a result, students get a lot of indoctrination instead of education.

As one who went to college in the 1960s, I witnessed the upheaval that spilled onto our college campuses. It was a decade of general upheaval in the US, and rare was the college campus that escaped turmoil. Many of my fellow students somehow came to the conclusion that they owned the campus. Thus, when some issue came along, they would take it upon themselves to take over and occupy university offices including those of chancellors and presidents. Any far-left cause would do, any grievance, real or imagined. Cal Berkeley and San Francisco State were most noted for such activities.

Many of these radical students eventually got on with their lives and forgot their college indiscretions. Others did not. Many of the latter group continued to hang around the university scene and obtain advance degrees-PHDs, in fact. Guess where they are today? They are professors and, in some cases, department chairs and administrators in our universities.

Remember people like Angela Davis, Bernadine Dohrn, and of course, William Ayres? From revolutionaries, they became college professors-distinguished professors and departmental chairs. Those are the most notorious, but there are so many others who preach the same message around the country on hundreds of campuses. And what is that message? America is an evil country that must be completely done over. America is still a racist country more than 30 years after the Civil Rights Act. America is an imperialist country.

And what is their solution? Many mask their solution in the guise of calling themselves "progressives". To some, that term means simply liberal thought. But it goes much farther. Fifty-sixty years ago, it was what the Communists called themselves in English. It was-and is today-a deliberately vague term designed to cover up a socialist or Marxist ideology. And make no mistake, there are a lot of Marxists running around our universities.

Let's take a look at some of the departments that universities have been forced to accept over the years and what these departments teach. Ethnic studies are specialists in the philosophy that the ethnicity being studied has been victimized by the dominant white American culture. True enough if you look at periods in our history, but when you teach that the same stuff is true today, it borders on propaganda (I am using the term "propaganda" with its negative implication in English). Women's Studies? same thing. These are departments loaded with feminists preaching the doctrine of male subjugation of women-especially in the United States-but interestingly enough, treading very softly, if at all, over the topic of subjugation of women in the Middle East. (We don't want to appear Islamo-phobic, you know.)

Then there are the Gay Studies departments, many of whose titles include the whole gamut of the Gay field such as Gay, Lesbian, Transsexual Cross-Gender Studies.

Note that I am not saying that there should not be courses in these topics-but entire departmental chairs?? What they have done is create entire career paths from student to departmental chair. And if you major in these fields, what else do you know after four years? What else are you qualified to do?

The University of California at Santa Cruz, possibly the most far-left university in the country, has a department called "Community Studies", where they teach young students how to go out and agitate for something called "social justice". Then there is the department called, "History of Consciousness", another left-wing activist department. These are not courses I am talking about but departmental chairs, designing a whole slew of courses designed to indoctrinate our kids about all the "flaws" in our society.

Then we have the political science departments, again dominated by liberals by something like a 9-1 margin. What message do you get out of that? The Republicans are bad-and in some cases, the Democrats are a little less bad because they are not sufficiently to the left to satisfy the professors.

Even English literature departments have been taken over and twisted by the lefties as they steer students to write about the evils of our country and Western Civilization.

How about journalism? We all know that the most prominent schools of journalism are the province of the left. As it was explained to me once by a dean of a university (not a journalism dean), the present goal of journalism schools is to mold a journalist who will be a crusader for "justice" more than anything else. Ring a bell?

And what are law students learning? In many cases, professors are putting out a message that all those tens of thousands of poor people in our jails and prisons are the victims of a racist and unjust society. They are innocent-or jailed for such trivial offenses as smoking a joint. Many professors assign projects for students to research certain cases to try and prove a convicted defendant's innocence. Cop-killer Abu Jamal comes to mind.

Want to study about the Middle East? Get ready for an onslaught of professors like Joseph Mossad from Columbia and Rashid Khalidi, who will explain to you about the evil that is Israel and the justness of the Palestinian cause. If you are a student in one of these classes, try and argue a point in Israel's favor. Absorb the angry ridicule you will get from the professors and their student clones.

The whole subject of Israel is one that has been fervently embraced by the academic left because it gives them another avenue to attack the US-Israel's historic ally. No wonder we have seen a linking of hands between radical Islamists and the academic left in this country.

This is what a student entering college has to face today. An oppressive climate of political correctness that seeks to intimidate those with opposing views. University hacks love to preach about the great level of diversity they have on campus. But what they are talking about is etbnic diversity. Diversity of opinion is another matter. They seem to feel that just because people on campus can criticize America, the president or our culture, that is diversity. That argument stopped holding water decades ago.

It is bad enough that a teacher can impose his or her views in a classroom. While some will give opposing opinions a voice, others will ridicule students with conservative views or views that defend America or Israel. Other teachers will punish their students with lower grades for not conforming to the "accepted view", either in class discussions or term papers.

And they get away with this because cowardly administrators either agree with them or are afraid to challenge their own faculty. (And if you think the university president is not afraid of his/her faculty-go talk to Lawrence Summers-formerly head of Harvard University-until he made some inane, speculative comment about women maybe not being as good in math as men because of their brain structure.)

It is no wonder that American corporations have been telling universities for years that they are not turning out graduates ready to enter the work force. As a result,many companies starting looking to hire older workers.

The problem is that there is a cancer in our universities, which is in the late stages. For decades, we have infested our classrooms with misfits who never really learned to appreciate America-and true liberty. Many of them still embrace a political philosophy (Marxism) that has already been discredited and cast aside by the very countries that lived under it for over 50 years.

What is the solution? There is no short-term solution I see since we can't just remove these misfits. That would be using the very tactic that we criticize them for. The other problem I see is that more conservative-oriented students leave college, go out in the world and get a real job. Few are attracted to academic life, especially seeing the intellectual rot they would have to deal with. So the field is pretty much left open to the lefty activists-at least in the Humanities and Social Studies, as I mentioned. What can be done is to shine the light on what is going on in our universities. When military recruiters are run off campus by anarchistic students-egged on by radical professors, when conservative speakers are shouted down by disruptors or attacked on stage, these things must be publicized. Of course, the liberal media won't do that because they have no desire to highlight outrages from the left. However, we have alternatives means of disseminating information these days-the Internet, blogs, and emails.

We can also forget about contributing to our alma maters-and letting know why when they send you that envelope in the mail. And finally, complete freedom of expression must be demanded on campus-for everybody-not just the far-left crazies that routinely appear on campus to speak.

Hopefully, someday, the public will make a big enough outcry that the universities will feel it in their pocketbooks and declining enrollment. Then perhaps, a change can come about. In the meantime, we must continue to deal with the misfits.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Patrick Leahy Statements on Supreme Court Nominees

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)


Monday, Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the below statement on Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

"Judge Sotomayor's journey to this hearing room is a truly American story." Let no one demean this extraordinary woman."

Leahy, of course, is referring to the Democratic party line that Sotomayor's rise as a Puerto Rican woman from a humble New York City upbringing is a true American success story that goes far in qualifying her to sit on the Supreme Court. By now, everybody knows that the Democrats have wrapped this nomination in ethnic overtones trying to intimidate the Republicans into not opposing Sotomayor for fear of being labled "anti-Hispanic".

But what about the rise of another Hispanic, Miguel Estrada, from humble beginnings (a Honduran immigrant), who was nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by a Republican president in 2003? What did Leahy have to say then about Estrada?

"This is and has been a difficult nomination for the Senate. As I have said for some time, the Senate and the American people deserve to have an adequate record and strong confidence about the type of judge Mr. Estrada would be in order to support a favorable vote on this nomination. Such is not the case of the sparse record before the Senate on this nomination to the second- highest court in the land, and as a Senator I do not have sufficient confidence to be able to support this nomination. I remain concerned that he will be an activist on the important D.C. Circuit, given what we have learned about him and given the insufficient record we have. Throughout our earlier proceedings I have repeatedly urged Mr. Estrada and the Administration to be more forthcoming. Neither the nominee nor the Administration have shown any interest in doing so.

Accordingly, we have before us for consideration a nominee with no judicial experience and little relevant practical experience related to the jurisdiction of this court. While he counts Justice Scalia, Ken Starr and Ted Olson among his friends and mentors, any information about his decision-making, values and judgment have been denied the Senate. His selection for this nomination has generated tremendous controversy. I think that is, in part, because he appears to have been groomed to be an activist appellate judge by well-connected, ideologically driven legal activists.

Last week the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus restated their concerns and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), and the Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project (SVREP) reiterated their concerns. Similarly, a large number of this country’s most respected Latino Labor leaders, including Maria Elena Durazo of HERE, Arturo S. Rodriquez of the UFW, Miguel Contreras of L.A. County Fed., Cristina Vazquez of UNITE and Eliseo Medina of SEIU, have indicated their strong opposition to this nomination.

.....After a thorough review, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund concluded that Mr. Estrada was not sufficiently qualified for a lifetime seat on the nation’s second highest court and “that his reportedly extreme views should be disqualifying; that he has not had a demonstrated interest in or any involvement with the organized Hispanic community or Hispanic activities of any kind; and that he lacks the maturity and judicial temperament necessary to be a circuit judge.”

Patrick Leahy on floor debate on nomination of Miguel Estrada, February 5, 2003


And what about the rise from humble beginnings in Alabama of African-American Janice Rogers-Brown, also nominated to the DC Court of Appeals by a Republican president in 2003?

"Justice Brown has a lengthy record, of opinions, of speeches and of writings. She has very strong opinions, and there is little mystery about her views. After carefully reviewing Justice Brown’s record – reading her opinions from the bench, reviewing her speeches and writings, and considering her testimony and oral and written answers provided to this Committee, I will vote against Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is not about her position on choice. This is not about one dissent or one speech. This is about Justice Brown’s approach to the law – an approach which she has consistently used to promote her own ideological agenda, an extreme agenda that is out of the mainstream. Her approach makes her unqualified for a lifetime appointment to this very important appellate court.

‘Jurisprudence Of Convenience’

Janice Rogers Brown’s approach to the law can be best described as a “jurisprudence of convenience.” What do I mean by that? Justice Brown has proven herself to be a results-oriented, agenda-driven judge whose respect for precedent and rules of judicial interpretation change depending on the subject matter before her and the results she wants to reach."

Patrick Leahy statement during confirmation hearings, November 6, 2003


Then there was Clarence Thomas, also an American success story, who rose from poverty in Pin Point, Georgia. Yet, he was a another black conservative. He was savaged by Leahy and his Democratic colleagues in 1991. Here are excerpts from Leahy's remarks to Thomas when he testified:

"Finally, I am concerned about some of your ideological views. You have wholeheartedly endorsed the statement that America is careening with frightening speed toward a statist dictatorial system. Well, I can't accept that, and these words seem more than a little strange as we watch the unfolding drama of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, where countries that truly suffered under statist dictatorial systems throw off their shackles. And when they throw off their shackles, where do they look? They look toward a free and compassionate America as an example of how a democracy is run.

But, more disturbingly, your words strike me as the views of a combative, hard-line ideologue. The last thing I seek in a Supreme Court Justice is ideology. I value intelligence and wisdom, compassion, a willingness to listen to all sides of an argument. I want someone on the bench who is going to give every litigant a fair shake, without bias or predisposition of any kind. Ideological fervor plays no part in a judicial temperament."
Patrick Leahy to Clarence Thomas, September 10, 1991

Patrick Leahy is what he accuses his opponents of being-an ideologue. To him, these judicial appointments are all about ideology. To be sure, Republicans on the committee are concerned about Sotomayor's ideology. But, the result is certain. Sotomayor will be confirmed and some Republicans will probably even vote for her. Hopefully, the hearings will feature an open discussion on the role of a judge's personal wishes in his or her decisions. Sotomayor should be asked about her prior statements and rulings. She should also be given an up or down vote.

Then we can compare her treatment with that of conservative minority judges by Democrats.

New Mayor in Alligator, Mississippi: Tommie Brown

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Alligator, Mississippi has a new mayor. For thirty (30) years, Robert Fava has served as the tiny town’s mayor but a new day has come. Tommie ‘Tomaso’ Brown is Alligator’s mayor. In a town that is mostly Black, and with the only three businesses operating, and all owned by Whites, Mr. Brown’s win has made history.

Tommie ‘Tomaso’ Brown

Tommie Brown said he ran on a platform of “change.” Mr. Fava said he ran on a platform of “30 years of dedicated service.” Mr. Brown promised the residents of Alligator a swimming pool and a recreation center. Mr. Fava said he was also ready for change and stepping down is a “weight off my mind.”

Mr. Brown said he never thought a Black man could be the mayor of Alligator, but Barack Obama inspired him.

When he won, I decided that I knew the changes that needed to be made here and I thought that I could make those changes.

Among Mr. Brown’s plans for the towns is to get more government funding to give people better living conditions. He has plans for the children in the town. Without a phone or fax machine in the town, Tommie asks:

How can we communicate with the outside world and ask for things?

Much of the town was jubilant that a Black man would now mayor the town. Jennifer Green, described as a “black mother of 10,” and 31 years old, told this story about losing Mr. Fava as mayor:

Some youngsters ran into Mr Fava’s store to taunt him. “They was pulling down their pants, shouting, ’Kiss my black ass, because we got a black mayor’, swinging their things around and throwing stuff,…”

Ms. Green has her doubts about Tommie Brown:

He says there’s going to be lots of changes and everything with all these kids running around here.

But he do the same thing they do, drinking beer and stuff. You’ve got to stay at home and study the town. Alligator is the kind of place where if you leave your door open, when you come back there ain’t nothing in your house.

There’s guns. Kids knock on your door asking for a beer at three and four in the morning. I get 14-year-olds asking me if I want weed or whatever. They should have just left Mr Robert in there.

Tomaso won’t do anything about any of it. He’s going to put his hand in the cookie jar just at the wrong time and get caught.

The three businesses in town are Mary Ann’s Country Store owned by the the Fava’s, Gator’s Grocery and Diner, owned by Mr. Fava’s brother Ronnie, and Bruno’s Liquors and Convenience store owned by Fava’s cousin Vito Sbravati.

Bruno’s Liquors is a busy place, “with the scent of marijuana” in the air and the sidewalk teeming with Blacks “drinking beer and whisky and dancing to music from a boom box.” Robert Fava said Aligator is a quiet town, except when “we get that Voodoo and Rap music.” Bruno and his wife, Christine were G.W. Bush donors and Bruno’s grandfather came to America from Italy via Ellis Island. Bruno calls Tommie, “Tomaso Obama,” and Bruno says he doesn’t “go by black and white. I go by right and wrong.”

Mayor Tommie Brown’s town of Alligator, Mississippi is located about 90 miles south of Memphis.

Photo credit: Julian Simmonds

Now I've Seen Everything!

by Findalis

This one has to go into the record books for one of the dumbest criminals ever. There is no other term to use.
A high-ranking white supremacist on the run from US federal authorities was arrested on Monday night in a south Tel Aviv hideout.

33-year-old Micky Louis Mayon, one of America's 100 Most Wanted criminals, and a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was arrested in a Florentine apartment by the National Immigration Authority's newly formed Oz enforcement unit.

Mayon is wanted in the US on charges of racist assaults, setting fire to vehicles belonging to federal agents, and a host of violence incidents.

The Oz unit was acting on intelligence relayed by Interpol, which informed authorities here that Mayon had entered Israel illegally.

He is said to have moved apartments often in order to evade police, but his efforts proved fruitless on Monday when a delicate operation by the Oz unit saw officers break into his hideout and arrest him.

Oz unit members have the powers of a police officer but can only use them in cases of illegal entry into the country.

Mayon was the subject of an American arrest operation in November 2007, but officers soon realized he had flown to Israel on a one-way ticket. Earlier that year, he reportedly fired his gun in the air repeatedly after being involved in an argument with an African-American. US authorities have described him as a dangerous fugitive.

Oz Unit head Tziki Sela said Mayon was surprised to be arrested, but cooperated with the officers. He has been transferred to a Holon jail facility, where he underwent an immigration hearing. He was then taken to an Israel Prison Authority jail facility.
Did he really believe he could pass in Tel Aviv as a Jew or a Zionist? What made him think that he would be safe and secure in Israel?

Maybe Israel will become the new haven for criminals and their like. One day the Israel Oz unit could be apprehending such notables as Osama bin Ladan, the heads of Hamas and Hizbollah, and Ahmadinejad when the people of Iran finally kick him out.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Al Franken's Committees: Lady Social Justice

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The Repubs sent $95,000 to Al Franken's Senate office. According to law, Republicans had to pay-up for partial costs of the lawsuit defending former Senator Norm Coleman's Minnesota senate seat.

Al Franken - Minnesota Senator

Al Franken's committees have been assigned: the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Committee on Special Aging and the Indian Affairs Committee, will enjoy Franken's lively input.

Lady Justice

With Obama's devotion to the United Nations, Franken's swearing-in, Republican filibuster a fond memory, Franken on the Judiciary, and Sotomayor a sure bet, it's time to call things as they are and change the name of Lady Justice to Lady Social Justice. Can someone do a graphic of Lady Liberty without her blinders on, because they have just been rudely riped asunder? View blog reactions

Gore Wants UN Global Governance

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Former Vice-President Al Gore is touting the United Nation’s (U.N.) plan to administer global warming and climate change through “global governance.” Make no doubt about it, it will be the U.N. and a few power-mongers who will administer that governance, as well as global social justice on you and me.

Al Gore

Speaking at the Oxford School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment on July 7th, Gore said the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a “step in the right direction,” toward that governance.

But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.

Recent U.N. global warming conferences have also called for a global carbon tax.

…the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.

Hitting on my last nerve in this article is the “redistribution of wealth,” which is just what global governance is all about. Did you know that a species called the a Climate Justice Campaigner actually exists?

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

The quotes above from ClimateDepot.com. They end with this Editor’s Note:

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

I urge you to go to get acquainted with then-Senator Obama’s Senate Bill 2433, which is festering on hold, and the U.N. Millinium Development Goal (MDG). The U.N. has very dangerous plans for America’s future and Obama has tied his Global Poverty Bill, Senate Bill 2433 to the MDG. You can find links to the MDG in these articles:

Will Obama’s Global Poverty Act Tax ossil Fuels, Currency, Land and Freeze Militaries?

Transnationalism: What it Means for America

Obama’s Global Poverty Act - Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 - A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Obama On Iraq: Some Troubling Questions Reconsidered

A note from Radarsite: The plans have been laid, the die has been cast: we have already begun the fateful process of pulling out of Iraq and shifting our military presence to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan. But considering the escalating threat from Iran one can only ask, is this a wise move? Shouldn't we be building our forces up in this volatile region rather than drawing them down? Isn't Iran acknowledged by all of our leading military experts to be our most immediate and existential threat? As Iran moves inexorably toward its nuclear capability, do we really want our troops removed from the epicenter of this imminently explosive region, bogged down in the labyrinthine badlands of Afghanistan? And finally, who benefits the most from our projected withdrawal? Can anyone seriously consider the threat to the entire region -- indeed, to the entire world -- from the cave-dwelling Taliban warlords to be greater than the monumental threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran?

Presidential candidate Obama ran on the unequivocal promise to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. President Obama is implementing this policy as expeditiously as possible. But, we must ask ourselves, what is the true logistical reason for this withdrawal?

Some months ago, Radarsite posed this question to our readers and posited some troubling answers. What has changed since then? Are these arguments less valid today than they were then? the results less dangerous? Beyond the lofty rhetoric, what, if anything, do we actually know about Obama's Middle East agenda? What little we do know about Obama's self-proclaimed empathy for Islam and his apparent antipathy for Israel is deeply suspect. Who will be the real beneficiaries of Obama's will? Who will be the winners and who will be the losers?

Perhaps it's time to take a second look at some of these worrisome issues. Please take the time to read them again, and let me know what you think. - rg

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Obama on Iraq: Some Troubling Questions





1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:

Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)

Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)




2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:


"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."

Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.

Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,
2007




A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan


It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.


Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.

To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur. rg



Voted by Fox News at GOP Hub

The Latest "Bush-Cheney-CIA Scandal"

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



(Congressional Democrats)

"Mommy, mommy, somebody told me that Dickie has a secret and he won't tell me-waaaah!"

"Why that's terrible, honey. What is the secret?"

"I don't know, it's a secret."

"Who told you?"

"I can't tell you. It's a secret, waaaah!"

"Well, we better call the news media."



Are you following the latest claims of Congress not being informed of a secret spying program by the CIA that Vice-President Cheney allegedly instructed the CIA not to inform Congress about? Are you upset? Are you angry? Are you indignant? Why? Do you know why you are upset, angry and indignant? If you are, ask yourself this: What is it all about? Answer? Well, nobody knows.



"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"


You see, amid all the mainstream news media reports about this latest Bush/Cheney?CIA skulduggery, everything is a mystery. Read the news reports. Everything alleged is according to "unnamed officials". What is this secret program that is alleged? well, we don't know because it is still classified, you see. Who says that Dick Cheney instructed the CIA not to say anything to Congress?

What, who, when, how and why? No body can say. Actually, let me amend that; the "why" was to protect the American people from another attack after 9-11.

Of course, former CIA chief Michael Hayden is angrily denying that his agency kept information out of Congressional briefings, and it has also been reported that the "secret operation" never actually got off the ground. Yet, the mainstream news media is running wild with the story, and the Dems in Congress are calling for the usual investigations. Could this turn out to be another case of the CIA eventually trotting out memos to prove that Nancy Pelosi et al were actually briefed on this "nefarious secret operation"?

But before we get all exorcised over this latest revelation, I would like to see an actual "unnamed official" come out and go on the record with these accusations, and I would like to know what this "terrible secret operation" was all about before I go calling for the heads of Dick Cheney et al.

Zelaya Removal is Allowed by Honduras Constitution

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

While ousted Honduras president, Manuel Zelaya cools his heels somewhere in Nicaragua and newly installed Honduras president, Roberto Micheletti, tries to keep Zelaya from re-entering the county, while also running the business of government, the conversation continues around the world: Does the Honduras constitution support Zelaya’s removal; was the Zelaya removal constitutional? And if Zelaya remained in office, or if the government is handed back to him, what is the fear? See an excellent video below.

Honduras Capital City, Tegucigalpa

Let’s take the “fear factor” first. Mr. Zelaya was outsted for trying to rewrite the presidential term limits clause, and you’ll see below that even considering that option can be considered treasonous in Honduras. Zelaya has a lot in common with Chavez and his buddies: Bolivia’s Evo Morales won a referendum allowing him to overturn a ban on re-election; Ecuador’s Rafael Correa unconstitutionally changed the constitution and overrode the term limit stipulations; and Chavez, under tremendous protests from the people of Venezuela changed the country’s constitution and says he will stay in office until “2019, 2021 or 2030.” We know the story in Cuba. And in Nicaragua, the American-hating Sandinista Marxist thug Daniel Ortega told Sir David Frost in a March 2009 interview that he would like to change the constitution to allow him to run again for president.

Central and South American dictators have a long history, and since the people of any country do not want to be “ruled,” rather than governed, “dictators” are not popular. You can’t run for office as a dictator and get elected. So it’s all about deceiving the people. In the case of Manuel Zelaya, he was elected as a “centrist” four years ago, and has moved rapidly to the Left. Zelaya took an out-sized stetson hat and cowboy boots as his signature apparel, and grinned and waved his way to the Left and a fast friendship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In an attempt to appease the poor, of which Honduras has plenty, Zelaya cut a deal with Chavez for cheap oil. Unless oil is cheap around the world, oil is not cheap, and of course there had to be a pay-back to Chavez for his generosity. Zelaya joined-in with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua to participate in Chavez’ “regional trade and political pact.”

Outside of the Chavez pact members:

San Salvador just elected Maurico Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)- named for Farabundo Marti, the Communist leader and social activist. His election ended nearly 50-years of conservative control that fought against the FMLN movement seeking a Communist revolution. Funes wants good relations with the U.S., he vowed to restore relations with Cuba and is opening an embassy there. Standby to see how far Left San Salvador leans.

Uruguay’s ruling coalition party proposed reforming the Uruguayan constitution to allow an immediate reelection of the president, Tabare Vazquez. It didn’t happen and sources say it is not likely to happen as the constitution forbids it. Vazquez is considered a conservative.

South of the equator, history demonstrates that it hard to hold on to the very constitutional ideals designed to keep executive branches from becoming absolutists.

So back to Honduras, while I have maintained that from my research the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress had the authority to remove Zelaya from office, I found an “opinion” from someone said to be “a well noted Honduran Attorney.” I cannot vouch for this information but it is interesting, and it uses Honduran constitutional articles to make the point:

On January 11th of the year 1982, a constituent assembly gave birth to a beautiful Constitution that was vaccinated against the diseases that historically have affected the region. The Honduran Constitution does not allow the reform of articles related to the form of government, the territory, the presidential term, the prohibition on presidential reelection and who can’t become President in the subsequent term. It goes further and states that the alternation of the Presidency is mandatory and its violators incur in high treason.

Our constitution clearly lays out an impeachment process that must be followed to trial and convict a President that has violated the Law. But our Constitution also includes a single exception to this rule in article 239, which states that the President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or simply proposes its reform, will immediately cease in the exercise of office. In other words, the simple act of proposing the reform removes ispo jure (by operation of law) a President from office. This may sound radical to many, but the truth is it’s coherent with the geopolitical reality of Honduras; and on June 28 of 2009 it proved why.

Read the entire article here.

Zerosheep.com offers the translated Honduran constitution and specifically Article 239 mentioned above, along with excellent and extended commentary:

Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

You can read the constitution in the original Spanish here, or a full translation of it here. Article 239 clearly makes it illegal for a public official– such as Zelaya here — to even attempt to amend the constitution to allow multiple terms. And it is not just illegal:

ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. Is exercised by three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, and independent and complementary relationship of subordination.

Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required.

Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason.

So was the Supreme Court correct that Zelaya ran afoul of the Honduran constitution? Seems so. Still yet, the Obama administration refuses to address the facts - one being that Micheletti’s government could have charged Zelaya with treason on the spot. The fact that the U.S. suspended military aid to Honduras on July 8th demonstrates a high level of support for the power-grabbing Zelaya. What is going on in Washington, D.C. which boasts the “healthiest brains” in the U.S. The photo above is of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras.

Zelaya Removal Constitutional (video)

Saturday, July 11, 2009

1 New Heart

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk






If you are starving to hear a great story coming out of the whole Israel-Palestinian conflict, this is it. Meet Hank Dannecker Jr. and his wife, Michele, two American Christians who pulled up stakes a couple of years ago and moved to Israel to answer God's call to help people. Without even knowing they would have a home to provide a roof over their heads, these two went to Israel to help bring medical care to Palestinian and other Arab children with congenital heart problems. Their home-grown movement called 1 New Heart is linking up Israeli doctors working for free to provide heart operations to needy Palestinian/Arab children. Together with the Israeli organization, Save a Childs Heart (SACH), approximately 15 children a month are being given a new lease on life. For about $10,000, a child can be given the necessary operation and affiliated care and medications. As stated, the doctors work for free, but the costs of transportation, the hospital costs, room, anesthesia, etc must be covered. This cost is divided between SACH and 1 New Heart. (Since the Israeli agency cannot directly find Palestinian and other non-Israeli children to help, they use Hank's group as an intermediary. It is Hank who literally transports the children and their families from Gaza for example, through Israeli check-points, and to the hospital (Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, Israel).

You might be asking the question I myself posed to Hank Tuesday over the phone; why do so many Palestinian children suffer from congenital heart defects? The reason is a high level of intermarriage in Palestinian society where a marriage to say, a half-sister is acceptable. As a result, about 20 of 1000 Palestinian children now have heart defects, according to Dannecker, a much higher than normal rate.

Aside from the obvious humanitarian benefit, there is another great benefit involved. These are children that are being raised to believe that Christians and Jews are evil beings. Their families sit in mosques and listen to the vilest descriptions of Christians and Jews preached by many of their imams. They are told that Christians and Jews are descendants of apes and pigs who eat Muslim babies. This program puts the lie to that. Not only the child, but his/her entire extended family sees the humanity and the charity of these Christians, Jews and Israeli doctors who donate their time and skill to saving young lives. If you still believe that reconciliation is possible between the religions in the Middle East and between Israelis and Palestinians, this is a program you can believe in.

It goes without saying that the crying need is funding. Hank's organization, 1 New Heart, while not yet a 501 C3 organization, collects its contributions through the Israeli Missions Project, which is so recognized and which sends 100% of the funds received to Hank.

I am attaching some photos which Hank sent to me via email. They show a 5-year-old Palestinian girl named Majed, who received a heart operation from Israeli doctors. You can see her family and the doctors in the operating room. I am also posting one of Hank's newsletters and the 1 New Heart brochure below. In addition, what follows below is a film clip showing the actual transportaion of a Palestinian child and her family into Israel proper for an operation. Finally, I am posting the address to which contributions can be sent. If you agree with me on the beauty and importance of this humanitarian project, I hope you will consider a contribution and pass this information on.




From 1 New Heart's brochure:


HISTORY


In 2006, the vision for this outreach was born when we met a three-year-old Palestinian girl named Jumanah, who was fighting leukemia. Jumanah’s name is Arabic for “silver pearl,” and her little life was truly a “pearl of great value” (Matthew 13:45-46).

Upon learning of the difficulties Palestinian families can face in finding access to even basic health care, we helped to raise money and awareness for Jumanah’s medical treatment. We witnessed firsthand what a powerful sign of God’s love this was for her entire family.

THE NEED

Congenital heart disease (CHD) causes the death of thousands of children in developing countries each year. Eight out of every 1000 live births around the world have some form of CHD. While vast resources have been expended in the West to treat these children, most third world countries lack a comparable infrastructure. In Palestine the doctors and hospitals are not trained and equipped to perform the most basic heart surgeries. Even in Israel there are only a few doctors that can perform such complicated pediatric heart surgeries.

WHAT WE DO

We assist in communication between West Bank children’s family members and Israeli doctors, facilitate the children’s travel to Israeli hospitals, and help offset the cost of the surgery. The doctors volunteer their time and expertise, but the costs of the operation room, equipment, the medication, the anesthesia, as well as the transportation costs of the child, have to be covered.

OUR GOAL

…is to sponsor one child per month and utilize the doors God has given us to open a way into the spiritual hearts of the families we are working with. We have the opportunity to watch new life begin through the physical changes a life saving heart surgery brings. As we build relationships with these children and their families, our main focus and goal is to share Christ’s love and His ability to change their spiritual hearts as well.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

The most important thing you can do to help us in this work is to pray for us. Pray that we would have the right words to share at the right times. Pray that the Lord would continue to open up doors for us to minister to these hurting children and their families. Pray that many would come to know Christ through this work.

The sponsorship for each child’s open heart surgery is $5,000. If you, your church or organization are interested in storing up treasure in heaven by sponsoring a child, please contact us for more information. All sponsored children receive 100% of all the funds raised for their heart surgeries.

We invite you to come visit us and to catch God’s vision for changing the hearts of people in Israel and the Middle East, one child, one family, one heart at a time.


1NewHeart
www.1newheart.org
7-1 Hamalach Belavan Street
Jerusalem 93545 Israel
1newheart@gmail.com


Below are pictures of 5-year-old Majed and her family as she traveled to Wolfson Medical Center with her family and received her heart operation.











En route to Wolfson Medical Center



Arrival accompanied by her grandfather
















------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1 New Heart's May newsletter:

Dear Friends,

Spring has arrived here in Jerusalem and with it much change and new life! It’s been a few months since we have communicated with you, and we would like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on the work and ministry being done, as well as to give you a glimpse in to what is happening in our family life.

In our last newsletter we shared about 5 year old Majed, the little girl from Jenin who underwent open heart surgery. Miraculously she was able to go home within one week following her surgery. Unfortunately we cannot bring another child until we are able to pay SACH for Majed’s sponsorship of $5,000.

Our desire is to continue this work of compassion, helping other children in the West Bank territories receive medical treatment and heart surgery.

Part of what we do is to communicate with the children’s family members and Israeli doctors, facilitate the children’s travel to the hospital and help offset the cost of the surgery. The doctors volunteer their time and expertise, but the costs of the operating room, equipment, surgical supplies, medications, as well as the transportation costs of the child, have to be covered.

The total cost to bring children and perform open heart surgery is $10,000. for each child. This is a much reduced cost because of Save A Childs Heart (Israeli non-profit org.) and Israel’s socialized medical care. It is our heartfelt goal to sponsor one child per month but it cannot be done without the body of Christ responding to this need. For us to continue this work we need to raise half the cost which would be $5,000. for each child.

We feel so strongly about this work that, during these last three months, we have written (and re-written!) a strategic plan/proposal and recently submitted it to the BICWM (Brethren in Christ World Missions). The WM board of directors will be convening in early June and our prayer is that this work of compassion will continue for years to come.

It is with great joy we extend to you or your church this awesome opportunity to store up treasure in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy. All sponsored children will receive 100% of all the funds raised for their heart surgeries.

Family life is also in transition. We learned in early March that a new addition is coming soon! We are expecting our third child – the due date is sometime between November 9-15th. We all are eagerly anticipating a new baby brother or sister!

So, we thank God continually for you as we partner together to impact the land of Israel for time and eternity!

To Jesus be all the Glory!
Blessings,
Hank, Michele, AbbyRose & Levi



The DANNECKER’S serving in Israel
Prayer and Needs Update May, 2009

We serve under the auspices of Brethren In Christ World Missions. For more information, you can contact BIC, PO Box 390, Grantham, PA 17027-0390 or in Canada; 2700 Bristol Circle, Oakville, ON L6H 6E1.

Financial support can be made payable to: Clear Creek BIC, attn: Vicki Stiffler, 6150 Big Creek Rd., Clearville, PA 15535. In the memo blank, write "1 New Heart".

Dannecker family information: Mailing address: 7-1 Hamalach Belavan St. Jerusalem 93545 Israel
Skype (PA) phone #: 814-806-1014
Email: ablesmom@gmail.com OR 1newheart@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The website for 1 New Heart (http://1newheart.org is not yet up and running. The website for Save a Child's Heart (SACH) may be found at:

http://www.saveachildsheart.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Making The Truth Known At The UN

By Findalis



The United Nations Human Rights Condemn Jews for All The Evils In the World Council set up a Commission headed by South African Judge Richard Goldstone (an attempt on their part to give the illusion of impartiality) held hearings last week in Geneva. A delgation from Israel attended to give voice to the victims of Hamas' violence.

by Noam Bedein

On July 6th, I traveled to Geneva to testify before the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Participating in the delegations were Ashkelon Mayor Benny Vaknin, Dr Alan Marcus the director strategic planning branch in Ashkelon, Ophir Shinhar of Sapir College, and Dr. Mirelda Sidrer who was injured during a rocket attack on a medical facility at the Ashkelon mall.

*From left to right: Ashkelon Mayor Benny Vaknin, Dr. Mirelda Sidrer, Hillel Neuer and Dr. Alan Marcus.

The Israeli delegation also included Noam Shalit, who impassionedly spoke on behalf of his son, Gilad, who was abducted three years ago by Palestinian terrorists and has since been held by Hamas.

The Israeli government officially refused to cooperate with the UN mission, since the UN investigation had already formulated conclusions asserting that Israel had committed war crimes during the December-January war.

At the same time, however, the head of the UN fact finding mission, South African Judge Richard Goldstone, told the Israeli media that he would like to hear both sides of the conflict. "The aim of the public hearings was to let the face of human suffering be seen and to let the voices of the victims be heard."

In preparation for the Geneva hearing, the UN mission invited the Sderot Media Center , a Sderot NGO, to prepare material, footage and information regarding the impact of the Gaza bombardment of the Israeli civilian population in the Negev during the Gaza war. The UN Mission aimed to at obtain an unofficial Israeli perspective.

Before the UN hearing in Geneva, the Israeli delegation received a briefing from Hillel Neuer, head of NGO 'UN Watch.' Neuer provided background on the UN fact finding mission and the agenda of each judge on the UN investigating board.

During the days leading up to the testimony, it was not easy to sleep - as the only resident of Sderot and the western Negev in this delegation, knowing that there would be only 30 minutes to convey how aerial terror has devastatingly impacted the civilian population of Sderot.

At the same time, the UN afforded an opportunity for Sderot Media Center, which specializes in communicating the human story of Sderot and life under continuous rocket terror to decision makers around the world , to finally reach the UN.

While the delegation got ready to testify in the “lion’s den,” it was less than sobering to know that one of the UN judges included Professor Christine Chinkin from London. In a Sunday Times article published on January 11th , Judge Chinkin supported the allegation that “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self defense, it’s a war crime.”

Israeli reporters in Geneva asked hard questions:

Why testify before a such a ‘neutral’ judge who claims that Israel does not have the right to defend her citizens and whose actions “ amount to aggression violating international law and human rights law?"

Why testify when the government of Israel itself has boycotted the investigation which already formulated it allegations against Israel before the investigation commenced?

However, the presence of a UN invited delegation from Israel created a precedent.

Hillel Neuer of UN Watch noted that never in the 16 years of operating in Geneva had there ever been a time when the UN invited and even sponsored a delegation from Israel to give testimony - until now.

This time, the UN provided an opportunity for ordinary people from Israel to make their voices heard across the world. It was an honor as a resident of Sderot to partake in such an event.

Yet the long road to peace and justice for Sderot and Negev residents does not end before a panel of UN judges or a commissioned report.

Residents of Israel who act as witnesses to terror against the Jewish people, are obligated to speak up and convey the experience of what it is like to live under sustained rocket attacks-defined as a terror act and crime against humanity.

*Noam Bedein in the main hall of the UN Headquarters before testifying.

After screening two short videos in front of the panel of UN judges, which depicted the 15 seconds that Sderot residents and their children have to run for their lives when the rocket alarm is activated by impending Gaza rockets, I concluded my presentation with the following thoughts and questions.

“I do not have enough fingers, to count on my hands the amount of times rockets exploded just a few meters from a kindergarten--would any other western democracy in the world tolerate even one rocket being fired towards their territory? Why is it that we must wait, until a kindergarten or classroom packed with children, is struck directly by a rocket in order for Israel to gain international support, to protect and do what is right for our own people?"

US President Barack Obama put it best when he visited a devastated home in Sderot during the 2008 campaign:

"If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same think."

There were no questions or reactions from the UN judges. We will all have to wait, along with all the residents of southern Israel, to peruse the Geneva verdict on the war when the UN Mission report will be released in September.

*For more news coverage on the Israeli delegation in the UN and SMC's presentation, click on the news sites below:

Ha'aretz: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098377.html

Israel National News: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132246

Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443732048&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
This Kangaroo court that the UN set up came to their conclusion that Israel had no right attacking Gaza and had committed hundreds of War Crimes. But is that the truth? Let us see:

by Anav Silverman

The UN Fact Finding Mission will likely heap more blame against Israel

The three-week Gaza war has been keeping the UN obsessively busy with months of inquiries and a fact-finding mission into supposed Israeli war crime violations.

In May, the UN came out with a report accusing Israel of “negligence or recklessness” in the Gaza war. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he would seek compensation from Israel for damages amounting to $11 million to UN facilities. Led by Ian Martin, former head of human rights group Amnesty International, the UN inquiry said Israel was at fault for nine incidents where UN property was damaged.

The 184-page report blamed Hamas for one case of damage, stating that a Palestinian rocket fired at a UN warehouse had caused $29,000 in damages, while attributing all other damages to Israel.

Indeed, the report apparently did not point out the millions of dollars in damages that Hamas rockets caused in the southern region of Israel or call for an investigation into the nine Israeli schools that Gaza missiles struck during the war.

Israel’s deputy UN ambassador Daniel Carmon told Reuters that the report was one-sided. “We were really shocked to see a report where the board is limiting itself to the facts of damages only, ignoring the context, ignoring that there is war against terrorism.

According to The Australian, the UN inquiry apparently made no mention of the UN’s initial accusation that Israeli shells directly hit a UN school in Jabaliya, killing more than 40 civilians.

UN officials accused the IDF of firing a mortar rocket at an UNRWA school on January 6, killing 43 people. CNN, France24, China Daily, Indian, Express BBC World, and the Israeli Haaretz all ran headlines stating that an Israeli strike Killed 40 people at UN School. The New York Times added the word “reportedly” in its headline.

Only one international newspaper, the Canadian Globe and Mail came out three weeks later with a follow-up story to the UN allegation, entitled Account of Israeli Attack Doesn’t Hold up to Scrutiny.

Reporter Patrick Martin found that physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses including a teacher in the UNRWA school yard at the time of the shelling revealed that no one inside the compound had been killed. "Those who died were all outside on a street where the mortar shells landed."

According to the Globe and Mail article, the teacher who was interviewed refused to give his name because he said UNRWA staff told him not to talk to news media.

Furthermore, the article points out that John Ging, UNRWA’s operations director in Gaza, blamed Israel for the confusion over where the victims were killed. “Look at my statements...I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made such allegations.”

‘Clerical error’

Indeed, in the European Observer (Jan. 7), Ging condemned the attack as “horrific” and suggested that Israel knew it was targeting a UN facility. “We have provided the GPS co-ordinates of every single one of our locations,” he told the BBC in response to the alleged Israeli attack on the school. “It’s very clear that these are UN installations.”

Only on February 2, 2009, did the United Nations finally admit that it had made a mistake - calling the misleading statements “a clerical error.” According to Haaretz, Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Jerusalem, admitted that IDF mortar shells fell in the street near the compound and not in the compound itself. “We would like to clarify that the shelling and all of the fatalities took place outside and not inside the school," said Gaylord.

Meanwhile, the damage had been done. The misleading UN statements and media coverage had led to international outrage with strong condemnations against Israel popping up everywhere.

Not surprisingly, a clerical error of such significance was simply not deemed newsworthy by much of the international press. Except for the Canadian Globe and Mail, and Israeli newspapers including Haaretz, little international media coverage was given to Gaylord’s statements.

By June, the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was spearheading another investigation. Led by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, the UN investigation has focused its investigation in Gaza, interviewing Hamas along with Palestinians. Israel has refused to cooperate in the investigation, citing anti-Israel bias by the investigation's sponsor, the UN Human Rights Council, who has issued numerous reports on Israeli treatment of Palestinians but little on the Palestinian rocket terror impacting southern Israelis.

The UN fact finding team includes Christine Chinkin, a law professor at the London School of Economics who signed an editorial published in the Sunday Times in January calling the Israeli offensive a war crime.

Come September, when the UN report is due, can one really expect an impartial, objective examination of the Gaza war? The recent comments of a Hamas official perhaps summed it best. In an AP news article (June 9), Ahmed Yousef said that he hoped the UN report would be "like ammunition in the hands of the people who are willing to sue Israeli war criminals."
These are dark days for Israel. Hamas can attack Israeli cities with impunity and the world says nothing, does nothing. But let Israel strike back and the world screams bloody murder. Hamas purposely uses schools, hospitals and mosques as rocket firing bases, training centers and ammo dumps, the media and the world give them a pass on it. Yet International Law is very clear on this issue:
Hamas exploits schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out its attacks in flagrant violation of article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This factor is minimized or ignored by numerous NGOs, and the emphasis is placed on Israel to avoid civilian casualties. But international law is clear: in cases of human shields, civilian deaths that result are clearly the responsibility of Hamas and not Israel.
Like usual Hamas will be looked upon as a victim of terror while the true victims will be condemned and vilified. Why? Because they are Jews. Because the world (especially those on the left) are upset that they stopped Hitler from destroying the Jews. Because the world would like to finish the job the great Muslim Savior: Adolph Hitler started, but never got to finish.

You can help change this trend. You can write, call or e-mail your Congressman, your Senator, the President, your local newspaper. Tell someone how you feel about this! Remind them that Israel left Gaza in 2005 with the promise that it will bring peace, and that it was the Palestinians who kept attacking Israel, bring upon themselves the destruction that happened in Gaza.

And if you are able to, you can support the Sderot Media Center. The few dollars you donate goes a long way. Just click here and follow the instructions.

And please, remember the people of Sderot in your prayers. Pray for the peace of Israel.

After the Smoke Has Gone


Oh my God! That's what they all say. Oh my God! Oh my God! After a lifetime of denial or indifference suddenly one finds faith. Oh my God! Confronted with the enormity of evil and the certainty of death, when no one else will answer, when no one else will do, we make our final desperate plea to our mysterious disregarded father. We are experiencing an epiphany, a sudden suspension of disbelief. And we all say the same thing, don't we? Sooner or later we all say the same thing.

Last night I watched them fall again. I watched the buildings fall. Why now, why, when confronted with the certainty of my own demise am I drawn once again to pay homage to this ghastly funeral pyre? Why resurrect the pain? The awful deed has been done. The smoke has cleared. Why do I feel this almost sacred need to relive it? Perhaps it is because of that dramatic and unequivocal title, which I suspect is somehow false and inappropriate: "102 Minutes That Changed America". Perhaps it is because I fear that America has not really changed. Not really. Not enough. The awful deed has been done. The smoke has cleared. And we have moved on. Life must go on, we tell ourselves. Once again we have withdrawn into the convenient comfort of our intellectual hubris. We have assigned the great event to history, where it sits unobtrusively on the shelf with all of those other omnipotent but disregarded historical events. And we have moved on.

But have our enemies moved on? Have our enemies forgotten us? Abandoned their murderous mission? Or are they patiently waiting for us to forget them? Counting on our notoriously short attention span? Do they know us better than we know them? Than we know ourselves? Has our anger and our fear dissipated with the smoke?

Here, once again, for those who doubt our mortal peril, we revisit the awful event. Can we still cry? Can we still call out, Oh my God!? - rg

-----------------------------------------------

A Candle For The Darkness
by Roger W. Gardner

I acknowledge my deep appreciation to all of those photographers whose work I have used for this essay. I can only hope that they would approve.

Note: Best viewed on IE in full screen.




Something is happening...












Something is happening here...

















something bad is happening...















people are running...












running for their lives...

















they're falling from the sky...

















the buildings are falling...






















the buildings are gone.















Everything gone.

All those people.

Gone.






Where are you?

















What do I do
without you?






















Why me?
Why us?
Why now?

















Why us?





















We must all come together now as one.
We must embrace one another in our mourning.





















We must search our souls for answers.
But first we must mourn...















Of course...












not everyone is in mourning...

in fact...







some people...



















seem pretty happy...













about the whole thing,
don't they?

Then again...
there are those who say...























that we deserved it.






















That we had it coming.















They say, that by fighting back,
by going to war...














we're just making everything...






















worse.

And sometimes it does seem...












as though every day...















more and more people...














hate us.

Maybe if we just...
















kind of...








ignored it...






or...

maybe if we..











just lit a candle...


















if we lit a whole bunch of candles...










we could drive away the darkness.


My friends...












this is the darkness.











And this is the candle.





voted by Gop Hub

Syria, Israel Letterbox Operation

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

On July 5, 2005 I posted on the U.S. and Syria closing ranks to neutralize Israel. That report indicated that the U.S. and Saudia Arabia were pressing Syrian President Bashar Assad to demarcate Syria’s borders with Lebanon. It’s a conundrum but it can be explained. At the time, I predicted that the demarcation and the hoped-for result would not happen. Here’s some more of the story:

Syria, Israel

The DEBKAfile says that President Assad traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan and received communications from Israel president, Shimon Peres and prime minister Benjaman Netanyahu. Baku is considered a “new channel of communications,” and a “hub of a complicated new negotiating track between Damascus and Jerusalem,” and is being referred to as the “Azeri diplomatic postbox,” or the Israel-Syrian letterbox.

Also in this mix with the U.S. is Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. Middle East Envoy George Mitchell is standing in for Barack Obama.

President Assad’s reply will be sent to Jerusalem on Thursday or Friday. The problem is we don’t know what Assad is replying to, other than the words “peace process” appearing in the DEBKAfile post.

So if the bottom-line of the letterbox operation is a “peace process,” how might that come about?
My post of July 5th might answer that question and I’m reposting it below. Let me know what you think. As I said, earlier this month I predicted that it was a fantasy - not going to happen. Now, it seems we have Israel contacting Syria.

*****

U.S Syria Relations Cozy: Neutralizing Israel
Maggie’s Notebook - July 5, 2009

Syrian president Bashar Assad has invited President Obama to visit Damascus, in the wake of a U.S.-Saudi press for Syria to “demarcate” its border with Lebanon. By marking the Syrian border and giving up its claims to Shaba Farms, also known as Mount Dov, and placing Mount Dov inside Lebanon’s borders, the reasoning is that Israel will have no rationale to claim the militarily strategic Mount Dov, and so Hizbullah will also have no reason to attack Israel. The move is on to neutralize Israel.

Syria, Israel - Shebaa Farms - Mount Dove (photo)

It’s a fantasy - it’s not going to happen.

For those who have forgotten, Israel liberated Mount Dov from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Lebanon claims that Mount Dov belongs to it, and Hezbullah uses Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Mount Dov as proof that Israel is ‘occupying’ ‘Lebanese territory’ thereby justifying its existence in Lebanon. The US claims that if Syria demarcates its border with Lebanon, and puts Mount Dov on the Lebanese side of the border, it will take away Hezbullah’s raison d’etre (see map below).

It’s a bit shocking to know that in 2009, there are countries without official borders.

Israel took over the area in 1967 and sees it as part of the Golan Heights. The UN accepted this position following the IDF’s pullout from Lebanon in May 2000 but Hezbollah and Lebanon claim that this is Lebanese territory still under Israeli occupation.

From Israel’s long-time point-of-view, Shaba (Shebaa) Farms (Mount Dov) has been off the table for discussion.

What are the issues?

In the 1923 Anglo-French Demarcation Agreement, which set the borders between the British and French mandates in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the area was included in Syria. The maps of the 1949 Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreements similarly designated the area as Syrian.

In the 1967 Six Day War, the farms were occupied by the IDF as part of its conquest of the Golan Heights. Lebanon was not involved in that war, and Israel did not engage in any fighting against it.

At that time, no one - neither Syria nor Lebanon - claimed that the area was Lebanese.

IN THE negotiations leading to the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Lebanon for the first time raised its claim to the farms, but based on all previous historical documents and maps, the UN sided with the Israeli version, i.e. that this was Syrian territory and subject to future Israeli-Syrian negotiations. The Lebanese claim was used by Hizbullah to continue its resistance to “Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.

At the time of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal the UN asked Syria about its position on the issue. Damascus was in a quandary: On the one hand, this was obviously Syrian territory; on the other, if Syria conceded that the farms belong to Lebanon, there might be a chance of getting one more sliver of Arab territory out of Israeli hands.

Syria thus responded that whatever its former claims to the Shaba Farms, it now agreed to cede them to Lebanon.

But when the UN asked Damascus for a formal document stating that the area had indeed been legally transferred to Lebanon, Syria balked - and it has still not supplied such a document.

The short story is that Syria has refused to recognize Lebanon as a sovereign state. Not until this year did Syria appoint it’s first ever ambassador to Beirut. At the same time, Lebanon sent its first ambassador to Syria.

Damascus still has powerful allies in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shi’ite party with a powerful guerrilla army.

The U.S. has pressured Israel to withdraw from Mount Dov for years.

The area is a 100 square mile parcel of land located at the foot of Mount Hermon where the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli borders meet. Israel took control of the area after the Six Day War in 1967, and since then has built up a number of military outposts on the strategic hills.

Israel’s indefensible borders on all sides have led to the necessary land-grabs gained in the 1967 war. How can you defend your people when your enemies refuse to respect your border towns? This 2006 report describes the importance of not letting your enemy bite at your heels:

The drive up to the top of Mt. Dov on Wednesday is done along a narrow and winding road, accessible only in armored vehicles, a memory of Hizbullah’s incessant shelling of IDF outposts there not so long ago.

The Gladiola outpost is situated just over the Lebanese village of Shuba with a clear view of Ghajar, as well. Soldiers man heavily-fortified positions along the ridge, keeping an eye on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) patrols below.

Strangely enough, during the war this summer, the Mt. Dov area was quiet, and saw nearly no fighting. According to the officer, the explanation is simple - Hizbullah does not attack military bases, since they know that in such a situation they will lose.

The importance of the area to Israel is clear:

Since the war in Lebanon, the IDF has invested millions of shekels in fixing the infrastructure along the mountain - from repaving the winding road to installing new antennas and surveillance equipment.

The officer said the soldiers stationed in the series of outposts along the mountain play a key role in assisting the IDF to form accurate assessments of Hizbullah’s plans.

The purpose of the powerful Hizbullah in Lebanon is to protest the Mount Dov possession by Israel, claiming that the land belongs to Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s attempt to claim sovereignty of Mt. Dov is because the group needs an excuse for its existence,” he said. “Otherwise, they are worthless.”

Israel Matzav questions any notion of Syria’s abandonment of Hizbullah and says this:

Engagement’ is one thing and giving up real assets (even if the asset is only a claim) is something else. Mount Dov is a very strategic point that is used for military purposes by Israel.

Why would the Syrians want to let Lebanon have it?

What is Lebanon giving them in return?

…even if Israel were to hand Mount Dov over to Lebanon tomorrow, Hezbullah would continue to exist and would continue to charge Israel with ‘occupying Lebanese territory.’

So what is the U.S. doing? Should Syria mark their border and place Mount Dov in Lebanon’s hands, and Israel acknowledge that border and abandon the area, how can Israel be rightly convinced that the position would not once again be used against the people of Israel? Could a treaty between Israel and Syria be achieved? Would such a treaty mean safety for Israel? There is no way for Israel to be rightly convinced. This has been a U.S. endeavor through the Bush years. The U.S. should not ask Israel to enter into such an agreement. Afterall, had Israel’s neighbors respected their sovereignty, the 1967 War would not have happened.

I believe that if the U.S. and the free world would wholeheartedly and very publicly back Israel, Hamas and Hizbullah would be defeated by the very notion that the west would assist Israel’s defense of its own borders. It’s very simple. Actively support the right of the Israeli people to exist…but rather than follow such a justifiable position, we quake at the wrath of the Muslim world. The thing we seem to ignore is that living inside that Muslim world is a sovereign non-Muslim nation. Where is the justification for the Muslim rejection of these people?

So what do you think? Can these two stories possibly connected?

Friday, July 10, 2009

More Obama Broken Promises: Presidential Signing Statements

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

One thing I know is true (one of Obama's favorite transitions) is...the campaign trail is a lying, cheating road to the Oval Office for four more years of lying and cheating. Congress has rebuked President Obama's Presidential Signings.

Thanks to Stop the ACLU.

This was then...



Obama on Presidential Signing

“What George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency is he’s been saying ‘well I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part,” Obama said last year during a campaign stop. “I’m gonna’ choose to interpret it this way or that way.’ That’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.
“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

This is now:

The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints.

House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities. The amendment to a 2010 funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations was proposed by Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), but it received broad bipartisan support.

The conditions on World Bank and IMF funding were part of the $106 billion war supplemental bill that was passed last month. Obama, in a statement made as he signed the bill, said that he would ignore the conditions. They would “interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions,” Obama said in the signing statement.

Hat tip: Hot Air

End Stop the ACLU

The Hill went on to report:
Senior Democrats and Republicans railed against the notion that the president could ignore a law they had passed and he had signed.

"We do this not just on behalf of this institution, but on behalf of this democracy," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "There's kind of a unilateralism, an undemocratic, unreachable way about these signing statements."

Frank and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said that one way they could get presidents to stop issuing signing statements casting aside laws would be to refuse to fund their priorities. The amendment passed Thursday seeks to nullify Obama's signing statement by withholding funds from any agreement involving the Treasury Department that doesn't follow the conditions set out in the supplemental bill.

"The signal we send to the Treasury is very clear: Ignore statute at your peril," Kirk said.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Case Against Professor William Robinson Dismissed

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



UC Santa Barbara


The University of California at Santa Barbara has recently been embroiled in a controversy over sociology Professor William Robinson after he sent an e-mail to his students with images that compared the state of Israel to Nazis. Two offended students complained and an investigation was launched as to whether Robinson had abused his position to advance his personal views. Recently, the UC Academic Senate cleared Robinson.


June 24, 2009

TO: Prof. William Robinson
Department of Sociology

FR: Gene Lucas
Executive Vice Chancellor

Re: Charges Committee Findings

"I have received the report of the Charges Committee regarding charges brought against you. The Committee did not find probable cause to undertake disciplinary action in this matter.

I have accepted the findings of the Charges Committee. Accordingly, this matter is now terminated

Under the Campus Procedures for Enforcement of the Faculty Code of Conduct, "the complainant and/or faculty member complained against may request, in writing, from the Charges Officer, a summary of the Committee's findings." If you would like such a summary, please make such a request to Prof. Scharleman, the Charges Officer."

(Huffington Post)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amid the turmoil and intimidation that many Jewish students have encountered on several UC campuses as a result of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the issue of Robinson's free speech was upheld.

However, as an adjunct teacher at UCI, I would like to make a comment. What Robinson did is not new on US university campuses. Many professors routinely attempt to indoctrinate their students as to their own personal point of view. Some even go so far as to ridicule students in class who disagree and penalize them in grading. (I don't know if Robinson falls into that category or not.) In my view, it is unprofessional for a teacher to try and impose his or her personal political views on students in the classroom-or in the course of teaching their class-such as e-mails to students comparing Israelis to Nazis. I know a lot of academics disagree with me, but that's my opinion. While I have obtained a certain amount of notoriety on the UC Irvine campus for expressing my views in forums outside the classroom, such as rallies and letters to the campus newspaper-I always try to keep my personal views out of the classroom (English as a second language). And don't think a language classroom can't be infected with political opinions-as I learned while studying French with one professor at California State University at Los Angeles in the 1960s.

My students have no idea what I think of the world, and I feel no need to share it with them. I view my job as helping them improve their English. They are young adults from various nations and backgrounds with their own life experiences and world views, which I treat with respect. I do not view it as part of my mission to teach my students what they should think of the world. To do so, in my view, is downright unprofessional.

Two Arabs Discuss the Worth of the Arab Civilization

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

This is a conversation you are likely never to hear again. Two Arab men discuss the worth of the Arab civilization.

Anwar Malek is the second man to speak. He is the Algerian author of "A Flood of Corruption and the Advance of bin Laden in Algeria. The book has been confiscated and disappeared from reality. His first mistake: using an Arab publisher. No...maybe his first mistake was not getting to safety before making the remarks you will hear in this video.

For just a taste of what's to come: The first interviewer says 73% of our viewers believe that Arabs constitute a great power and have the power to be influential, and so on. Malek responds that those viewers are afflicted with "fantasies and obsolete bravado." False and empty bravado. The Arabs invented or discovered the zero - but what did they do with it? Today the Arabs constitute nothing but thousands of zeros to the left....there is nothing to suggest that the Arabs can be relied upon to produce anything. It just gets better from there.


Thanks to Always On Watch who has some good commentary and additional sources.



Iran Protests Again! 10th Anniversary of Tehran University Murders

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Today on the anniversary of the 1999 Iranian protests of the murders of Iranian students at Tehran University, renewed protests of the June 12 election are revived on the streets of Iran. After warnings from the government that any uprising prompted by the 1999 anniversary would be met with "crushing response," Iranians took to the street anyway.

Tehran University
(photo from December 2007 protest)

After 11 days of agitated calm, thousands of protesters massed in central Tehran at about 5 p.m. on Thursday evening, Tehran time. Police used batons and tear gas against the protesters. While the protest started peacefully:
...the effort to halt the protest quickly turned violent. A middle-age woman ran through the crowd, her coat covered with blood stains. Trash fires burned, cloaking the streets in black smoke, as protesters lobbed rocks at security forces. Two men held a huge floral arrangement of yellow and purple flowers on green leaves aloft through the smoke in commemoration of those killed in the last month and 1999, a witness said.

“Tell the world what is happening here,” one 26-year old engineering student demonstrator said. “This is our revolution. We will not give up.”
Asked what he wanted, he said: “We want democracy.”
For the most part, all journalism and communication has been shut down:
Cellphone messaging was down Thursday for a third straight day, apparently to prevent communication between protesters, while the government closed universities and declared an official holiday Tuesday and Wednesday, ostensibly because Tehran has been shrouded in a heavy dust and pollution cloud, The A.P. said.
Atlas Shrugs has insight about today's uprising and its connections to the 1999 uprising. See how the return of a former prisoner is making a difference in Iran today. Read it here.

What are we to think of the past 11 days of agitated calm? Via Hot Air, Michael Ladeen reports on July 8th, a day before today's protests:
Meanwhile, horribly maimed bodies have been showing up all over the country. Some of the gouging of the bodies seems to have been done to remove all evidence of bullet holes, but whatever the “explanation,” the bloody savagery is well documented.

If you want some detail about the horrors inside Iranian hospitals, have a look at Le Figaro’s account.

Over the objections of medical staff, bodies from the demonstrations were quickly moved elsewhere. “We believe they were transferred to the Baqiatollah military hospital or some other undisclosed location”, notes the doctor. Then, under the pretext of “organ donation”, all traces of bullets were removed from the bodies. “The parents were force to accept this if they wanted to retrieve the body for burial”.

Ladeen talks about the days of quiet:
And yet, the protest goes on. For the past three days, a general strike has been in effect, with significant results. Indeed, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei preemptively admitted defeat when government offices and factories were shut down in the name of a religious observance. But the strikers only expanded the range of their actions, notably by shutting down electrical grids in several cities, including parts of Tehran. Great swathes of the nation were plunged into darkness. This sort of thing is likely to continue, whatever happens on the 9th.
And on the free world and supporting tyrants:
...the so-called Western world, which apparently cannot even bring itself to punish the regime for violating all rules of civilized behavior. Obama, following his familiar pattern of allying himself with the tyrants rather than the democrats, doesn’t want new sanctions. I suppose he’s still hoping that the tyranny will prevail, and then he can make a wonderful deal with Khamenei pere. Or fils, as the case may be.
Read Ladeen's post for sharp insight and see how London's confiscation of $1 billion+ of Iranian money has affected the core of the murderous regime.

The following video is not the best quality but it certainly gives the spirit of the protest.

The Zimbabwean Trillion Dollar Campaign: Celebrating the Freedom of Speech

By Findalis


Hat tip to Crusader Rabbit

Imagine living in a country where the currency is so worthless that a trillion dollars doesn't even buy a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, or even a piece of bubble gum.

Imagine living in that country and the press being silenced. Forced to follow the Party line or face punishment.

Imagine a courageous Newspaper publisher with limited funds and the advertising agency that takes on such a dictator.

This is the life for millions of citizens in Zimbabwe. Hyper-Inflation, loss of civil rights, and a dictator more concerned with his own self than his people.

The Zimbabwean Titanium Trillion Dollar Campaign



View at YouTube

The Zimbabwean Trillion Dollar Campaign celebrates the freedom of speech – and after winning the Grand Prix in the 2009 Disruption Awards the jury at the 2009 Cannes Lions honored the South African campaign with an unseen amount of Cannes Lions: so far three Gold, one Silver and one Grand Prix.

The campaign was designed to raise awareness regarding the plight of The Zimbabwean newspaper and consisted of various creative elements, including a billboard, all made up entirely of Zimbabwean Dollar bank notes. The newspaper, the brainchild of journalists driven into exile, is committed to providing independent and fair comment on Zimbabwe to Zimbabweans, and has had a ‘luxury’ import duty of over 55% added to it by the Mugabe government, thus making it unaffordable to the average Zimbabwean citizen.

Read the full story here.

Robert Gabriel Mugabe is a tyrant. Ruling the nation of Zimbabwe with an Iron Fist, squandering its resources on frivolities, his wife believes that the national treasury is her personal spending account and her shopping trips to Paris, London, Rome, and New York are infamous.

The Mugabes and their cronies live in splendor while their nation suffers. Drought, Cholera, Hunger stalk the nation.

How much longer does the people of Zimbabwe have to suffer at the hands of this tyrant before the International Community cries enough? How much longer do we have to wait before President Barack Obama says something? Or will Mugabe become just another dictator in a line of dictators around the world that Obama will embrace?

The people of Zimbabwe need our voices to be raised, for theirs have been silenced by their tyrant.

If you wish to read the truth from Zimbabwe, you have the opportunity and ability to read The Zimbabwean. It is on-line and free to you. Unlike the millions living in Zimbabwe, you are fortunate to have access to the internet.


Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Great Choice Revisited: Michael Jackson and Black America







A note from Radarsite: It is July 7, 2009, and the body of Michael Jackson lies in state, in a golden coffin, reminiscent of some ancient Pharaoh's magnificent sarcophagus. One by one, the black celebrities take the stage to honor the great man's passing. It is perhaps the largest funeral service ever to be held. As ironical as it may be, Michael Jackson has somehow been successfully transformed into the Great Black Hope Fulfilled. Jackson, who obsessively denied his blackness, is now become the champion of blackness. The symbol of righteous black pride. Of black success despite the lies and machinations of the oppressive white race.

As a seventy-two year old white man, who only listens to classical music, it would be ludicrous for me to attempt to write anything meaningful about this man. But I cannot help but observe that, just as that infamous OJ Simpson event had little to do with justice and everything to do with black power, this self-proclaimed momentous event has more to do with racial politics than with music.

Has Black America already made its Great Choice? It certainly appears that way. - rg
--------------------------------------------------
From an original Radarsite article, October 2008.
--------------------------------------------------
Immortal grievances. Impervious to reason, undaunted by facts, the allure of victimhood is, it seems, just too beguiling to abandon. Thus the torch of unmitigated resentment is passed on once again from one oppressed generation of black martyrs to the next. Unquestioned, unchallenged, the roles are once again eagerly embraced, for they are irresistible. The enemy has not yet been vanquished, there are still great battles to be won, so the war must continue. This great heroic struggle must go on until 'the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society' is finally and completely eradicated, and the slate is wiped clean.
This then is to be that great vision of change we can believe in. This is to be the new message for a new America. Once again the world around us is to be torn asunder by those 'belligerent victims', driven to abominations by their self-righteous rage.
The enemy has been identified. The banner of black victimhood is on the march. Black America, it seems, is about to make another fateful choice. Here, once again, that choice is defined. For those who have read the original article please just skip the rest.- rg
--------------------------------------------------------



Black America: The Great Choice

There may come a time in the life of an individual, or in the life of an entire people, when they are offered a great choice.

Malcolm Little: 22843



Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American clergyman, activist and prominent leader in the American civil rights movement. A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–6) and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957), serving as its first president. His efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. There, he raised public consciousness of the civil rights movement and established himself as one of the greatest orators in U.S. history.
In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means.
King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. national holiday in 1986.


Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little [pictured in mugshot above]; May 19, 1925 – February 21, 1965), also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, was an African American Muslim minister, public speaker, and human rights activist. To his admirers, he was a courageous advocate for the rights of African Americans, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. His detractors accused him of preaching race hatred and violence. He has been described as one of the most influential African Americans of the 20th century.
Between 1953 and 1965, while most black leaders worked in the civil rights movement to integrate black people into mainstream American life, Malcolm X preached independence. He maintained that Western culture, and the Judeo-Christian religious traditions on which it is based, was inherently racist. Constantly ridiculing mainstream civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X declared that nonviolence was the "philosophy of the fool".








In 1976, Haley published Roots: The Saga of an American Family, a novel based loosely on his family's history, starting with the story of Kunta Kinte, kidnapped in Gambia in 1767 and transported to the Province of Maryland to be sold as a slave. Haley claimed to be a seventh-generation descendant of Kunta Kinte, and Haley's work on the novel involved ten years of research, intercontinental travel and writing. He went to the village of Juffure, where Kunta Kinte grew up and which is still in existence, and listened to a tribal historian tell the story of Kinte's capture. Haley also traced the records of the ship, The Lord Ligonier, which he said carried his ancestor to America. Genealogists have since disputed Haley's research and conclusions and Haley made an out-of-court settlement with Harold Courlander, who had sued him for plagiarism.
Roots garnered phenomenal audiences. On average, 80 million people watched each of the last seven episodes. 100 million viewers, almost half the country, saw the final episode, which still claims one of the highest Nielsen ratings ever recorded, a 51.1 with a 71 share. A stunning 85% of all television homes saw all or part of the mini-series. Roots also enjoyed unusual social acclaim for a television show. Vernon Jordan, former president of the Urban League, called it "the single most spectacular educational experience in race relations in America." Over 250 colleges and universities planned courses on the saga, and during the broadcast, over 30 cities declared "Roots" weeks. Roots was eventually published in 37 languages and Haley won a Special Award for it in 1977 from the Pulitzer Board. Roots was also made into a popular television miniseries that year. The film reached a record-breaking 130 million viewers when it was serialized on television. In 1979, ABC aired the sequel miniseries Roots: The Next Generations, which continued the story of Kunta Kinte's descendants.
Some voiced concern, however; especially at the time of the television series that racial tension in America would be aggravated by Roots. While Time did report several incidents of racial violence following the telecast, it commented that most observers thought that in the long term, Roots would improve race relations, particularly because of the televised versions profound impact on whites. A broad consensus seemed to be emerging that Roots would spur black identity, and hence black pride, and eventually pay important dividends. Some black leaders viewed Roots as the most important civil rights event since the 1965 march on Selma, according to Time. Vernon Jordan, executive director of the National Urban League, called it the single most spectacular educational experience in race relations in America.


There may come a time in the life of an individual, or in the life of an entire people when they are offered a great choice. Fundamentally, this choice may be relatively simple: either to honestly accept responsibility for their own lives and their own actions, and seek to improve their lives through hard work and disciplined endeavor; or to make a different (and often the easier choice), one which avoids responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and seeks to improve their lives through viewing themselves as victims, victims of an evil and omnipotent oppressor, the prima facie cause of their suffering.
The alcoholic who accepts responsibility for his problems has a chance of conquering those problems and moving ahead with his life. The alcoholic who continues to blame others for his plight will most likely never recover.

In 1933, the people of Germany were faced with a similar choice. Unfortunately for Germany and the world, they made the wrong choice, they avoided accepting personal responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and chose instead the false comfort of victimhood. How many times has this wounded old world of ours been torn asunder by the self-righteous destruction of these 'belligerent victims'? Has this disingenuous concept of victimhood ever actually achieved anything of lasting value? How many great works have been accomplished by self-perceived victims? When, if ever, has the steady diet of hatred and revenge ever produced a successful people?

Yet, the cynical preachers of victimhood prosper and win new converts daily. And sometimes they succeed in drowning out the voices of the preachers of honesty and wisdom. Dr. Martin Luther King had offered his people a great choice, a choice to embrace his glowing vision, his great and famous dream of hope and fulfillment. And people, people of all colors rallied to his shining dream.
On April 4, 1968 the dream was shot. For some, the vision had been blurred forever. For some, Martin Luther King's death was prima facie evidence of the eternal victimhood of the American blacks.

There was of course another vision out there. Another voice to be heard. A different kind of voice. The fiery voice of a preacher of hate and revenge. The hate-filled voice of the belligerent victim. In response to Reverend King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech, Malcolm X quipped, "While King was having a dream, the rest of us Negroes are having a nightmare."
Thus the plight of the black man in America was not to be seen as the result of their personal actions, or lack of actions, but rather as the result of the criminal subjugation of one people by another, of one race by another. The machinations of the evil and omnipotent oppressor: the ruthless white man.

All great movements need a great myth to rally round and to embody and glorify their mission. For the Third Reich, it was to be that great monumental vision of Aryan supremacy embodied in the soaring ecstatic extremes of Wagnerian drama or in Leni Riefenstahl's glorious propaganda. The great, utterly nonsensical myth of the God-given destiny of the Nordic hero. And of course all myths must have their protagonists, their villains and their monsters, and the convenient monsters of Hitler's grand vision would of course be played by the Eternal Jew, those deadly and conniving Shylocks who had stabbed the noble Aryan warriors in the back in 1918.







The historically undeniable fact that it had been their own magnificent generals, the Hindenburg's and the Ludendorfs, who had pleaded passionately to the Wiemar Government to call an end to the war -- at any price, because the awful alternative would have most assuredly meant the complete and utter destruction of the exhausted and outflanked German Army, and the subsequent invasion and devastation of the homeland, was systematically rewritten and replaced with the new Nordic myth of the monstrous treachery of the weak-kneed Wiemar Government and the underhanded Jews, and thus the inevitable victimhood of the once great German volk.






With the publication of Alex Haley's "Roots" in 1976, and then especially with the remarkably successful television series that followed in it's wake, those American blacks who had chosen the road of victimhood found their own great myth. "Some voiced concern, however; especially at the time of the television series that racial tension in America would be aggravated by Roots." Everything that Malcom X and others had been preaching had seemingly been substantiated, even sanctioned by the highest echelons of the white oppressors themselves. Their great oppression had indeed been vetted and validated, validated as only Hollywood could validate an idea, magnificently, convincingly and dramatically. A monumental myth that Richard Wagner himself would have enthusiastically acclaimed.

The surprisingly successful Civil Rights movements of the Sixties and the subsequent legislative responses incontestably advanced the cause of racial equality more in two or three years than had been achieved in the previous two or three centuries. Those great barred doors had been opened and the road to hope and promise beckoned. Affirmative action promised to level the playing field, and for the most part it actually did. Blacks became more and more integrated into the white world and became more and more 'upwardly mobile'. There were practically no fields of endeavor that were out of their reach. Blacks were entering colleges and universities in record numbers, were entering prestigious previously all-white law firms and major corporations. Television, sports, entertainment, law enforcement, politics, and the military -- there was virtually no occupation precluded from talented and enterprising black aspirants. The good doctor's dream seemed at last to be becoming a reality. The battles, if not all won, were progressing well and the future beckoned.

But that other, darker myth would simply not die. It's message was still too beguiling. It's fiery preachers still to charismatic and inspiring. The baton of hate and revenge had been passed to a new generation of pied pipers, the Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons, who had never given up on their dark vision of the nightmare. The empty promises of endless victimhood and a total release from the weight of personal responsibility. The hope now was the hope for reparations, all kinds of reparations, social, political, financial. All predicated on the general acceptance of the great myth, not just the acceptance by its purported victims, but by the guilty oppressors themselves .

This, then, was, is, the great choice confronted by a whole new generation of black Americans. Would they accept the vision of the good doctor's golden dream, or embrace the dark nightmare of Malcolm X and the powerful enabling myth of 'Roots'? Would they walk through the open doors of the American Dream, or pull away and form their own separatist group of angry young men? Not angry young Americans anymore, but angry young African-Americans, unwilling or unable to give up the power of their hatred, even at the expense of their hope.

I have little pity for you. There have just been too many other stories in this unfair world of ours, stories of true victims, who have quietly and courageously overcome even greater odds and succeeded in creating a fulfilling life. You who choose to remain fixated on your anger and on your pain will never succeed in bettering your lot, you will only succeed in wreaking more havoc on a already weary world, and crushing the nascent spirit of your innocent children.

In a matter of weeks now we will be facing an important, no, a crucial American election, which will most likely chart the course of this great nation well into the unforeseeable future. The sides have been clearly drawn, the issues are irreconcilable. Once again, we are being offered a great choice, the dream or the nightmare, victimhood or honor, pride or humiliation. Senator Obama's dream is an ignoble appeal to your sense of victimhood, a vision of darkness and disillusionment. The virtual embrace of defeat and hopelessness. It is that same old myth of the perpetual victim and the perpetual oppressor. Those who choose this path will not only weaken their own chances for happiness and self-respect, they will ultimately weaken and further divide this great nation of ours at a time of its utmost peril. For now more than ever we must all come together and all be Americans. Because, once again, this great old wounded world of ours, and this miraculous experiment which is the United States of America is facing the onslaught of a new and fearsome legion of 'belligerent victims'. Victims blindly obsessed by their own great myth, the great savage myth of Islam. And we, the infidels, the American infidels, the black American infidels and the white American infidels are the monsters of their self-righteous myth whom they seek to destroy.






In short, we are in a war for our very lives and there is no more time left for individual self-pity. No more efforts to be wasted on looking for differences between us, which can only weaken us and make us more vulnerable to our ruthless enemies. We are all Americans, you and I, not African-Americans or Mexican-Americans, but just plain Americans, all together, facing a brutal and determined enemy, who could care less about our intramural distinctions or our racial identity crises.

This, then, is our last great choice. Will we get it right this time?


Interesting visitors:
Address: 143.231.249.138 [Label IP Address]
Host: b249-138.house.gov
ISP: U.s. House Of Representatives
Entry Page Time: 12th August 2009 15:45:39
Location: Manassas, Virginia, United States
Entry Page: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-choice-revisited-michael-jackson.html
Exit Page: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-choice-revisited-michael-jackson.html
Referring URL: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2009/07/great-choice-revisited-michael-jackson.html







Also see: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0

Published in Chicago Post Tribune 7/15/09

Pentagon Refuses Military FlyOver: Christianity the Problem

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

An organization in Idaho filed for permits for a military flyover, as they have done for 42 years. For 42 years the request was approved. In The Time of Obama, however, the Pentagon denied the God and Country Family Festival their ceremonial flyover.

Military FlyOver

Nampa, Idaho’s 43rd Annual Treasure Valley God and Country Festival applied for the FAA permit, which was approved. The next step was the Pentagon application, which was denied. The denial came because the event was “Christian in nature,” said the Pentagon, according to Reverend Patrick Mahoney on FOX News this morning, with Gretchen Carlson.

Spokespersons for the God and Country Family Festival say while their organization is definitely “Christian in nature,” but the flyover is a tribute “to the military and the freedoms that they stand for.

…we’re honoring the military when we do that flyover, and that’s why we do it. I think they made a bad decision.

Pam Baldwin, the executive director of The Interfaith Alliance of Idaho weighed in:

Everything is not about whether folks are Jews or Christians or Muslims,” she said. “If people are saying that, they’re probably looking for media attention or looking to disparage other faiths.”Baldwin questioned whether a flyover of the event would have been a prudent use of public resources, especially in light of the deep recession.

You know America, we must deal with this issue. The Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Non-believers and believers in other faiths are not free to take Christianity from us, or free to remove or deny the Christian principals that were integral to the founding of the United States and all of the history that brings us to today.

The mountain of evidence cannot be shoved under the rug, or worse yet, be overturned (amended) within our founding documents unless we allow it. This is not the time and place to reiterate such evidence, but perhaps we should define just what being a Christian nation means, since President Obama has denied our Christianity as he has traveled around the world. I’ll quote a Supreme Court justice from the best essay I have found on America’s “Christian nature.” The quote from WallBuilders is just a snippet of the documentation. I urge you to read the entire article, bookmark it for future reference and quote from it often:

Contemporary post-modern critics (including President Obama) who assert that America is not a Christian nation always refrain from offering any definition of what the term “Christian nation” means. So what is an accurate definition of that term as demonstrated by the American experience?

Contrary to what critics imply, a Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or all leaders are Christians, or any other such superficial measurement. As Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837-1910) explained:

[I]n what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world. 8

So, if being a Christian nation is not based on any of the above criterion, then what makes America a Christian nation? According to Justice Brewer, America was “of all the nations in the world . . . most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” 9

Back to the Treasure Valley God and Country Family Festival, no doubt we will begin hearing that the Pentagon doesn’t have the funds for the flyovers. Since Pentagon flyovers are always intended to salute our military and patriotism, and are usually accompanied by the National Anthem, I suggest we pull all the pork necessary from earmarks out of the budget and the stimulus to fund legitimate flyovers. Or cancel the Obama’s Wednesday night cocktail parties.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Blowing in the Wind

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk





"...until they're forever banned....?


This July 4th, I was on the treadmill while our son was working in the garage on a cabinet. He had a tape going of Neil Young in concert. One of the songs was a rendition of "Blowing in the wind", a song written by Bob Dylan in the 1960s as a protest against war and injustice. It reminded me of that other hauntingly beautiful song of the 60s, "Where have all the flowers gone?" written by Pete Seeger as an anti-war song during the Viet Nam conflict. In both, the words are beautiful and mark their authors as great songwriters. Yet, when it comes to the subject of war, they are naive and simplistic. Let me tell you why on this day we commemorate our Independence, which was borne of a revolutionary war, and as we pause to honor our troops, past and present.

It is easy to talk of banning cannons (as Dylan does) or nuclear weapons as well. It is good to talk of outlawing war. But it is a Utopian vision that will never come to pass. What Dylan and Seeger have forgotten is that there will always be good and bad people in this world. Sometimes, extraordinarily bad people rise up to rule nations. Then you have bad nations with bad governments that mistreat their own people and usually, threaten and take over their neighbors.

Let's take Adolf Hitler, for example. One can write anti-war songs all day long and pass laws banning weapons and war in general. There was, indeed, a League of Nations in existence at the time, from which Hitler withdrew Germany. What did they do? What powers did they have to stop Hitler? It was up to the other European powers to stop Hitler. They chose not to-until he invaded Poland. World War Two was a war of survival for the Allies. We had to fight it, and we had to win it-both against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, two powerful nations ruled by evil governments. Had we not fought and won that war, no nation anywhere in the world would be living in freedom today-including those neutral nations like Switzerland and Sweden.

Today, we face other threats; Iran, North Korea, Islamic extremism. We are trying to deal with them in measured responses, but at some point, we may have to face them on the field of battle. (Of course, we are already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.) Bob Dylan talked of banning weapons in "Blowing in the Wind". Seeger expressed the futility of sending soldiers off to fight wars in "Where have all the flowers gone?" Beautiful words, indeed. But are we not trying to ban "cannons" in Iran and North Korea (nuclear weapons)? If our current efforts through diplomacy and sanctions fail, what comes next? Do we wait until Seoul and Tokyo are wiped off the map and Tel Aviv as well? If that happens, do we continue to negotiate and pass sanctions in the UN? What then, Messers Dylan and Seeger? Or do we simply, in the name of peace, write off South Korea-a decent and developed nation and Israel and hope for the best in the "New World Order" to coin a phrase? Do you prefer to live under an international dictatorship?

Peace is grand, but war will never become a thing of the past, and anyone who thinks it will is naive. There is a lesson that the pacifist crowd has never learned; to quote Michael Medved, "pacifism never brings peace. What brings peace is a just and victorious war."

Happy 4th of July.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Independence Day 2009:The Theft of the American Dream

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

July 4th, 2009 finds Americans in turmoil. We do not like the direction our country has taken, and we admit that it veered off the rails several administrations ago. While not every unconstitutional deed happened on President Obama's watch, never have we had a President so determined to shred our rule of law, the life blood of the Nation and at the time, the real life blood of our Founding Fathers.

Samuel Adams, James Madison, Ben Franklin, George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams

Never have we had a Congress so eager to let the tattered shreds of the Constitution that it allowed to be shredded in the first place, simply lie on the floor to be tread and tromped upon until the night crew comes along to clean up the mess, haul it out and pile it on the trash heap of what was once the American dream...the pursuit of happiness.

Never until now, have we had a Congress allow a President to steal our private industry, choose our light bulbs, our automobiles, our thermostat setting, our zoning laws, rate our homes before we can sell them, prohibit and shame us for travel, and appoint multiple Czars to avoid the dictates of the very Congress that is our system of checks and balances. Never have we had a Congress with such a small measure of selflessness.

The following are from the HBO production of John Adams. Each video and its message stands alone.



The Vote for a Free and Independent United States of America (Video)




Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson fine tune the Declaration of Independence (Video)



Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton discuss the U.S. Treasury (Video)




John Adams Speech before the Continental Congress - On Being Free (Video)