Amerisrael

Abuse of the "National Security Waiver" by Presidents

When it comes to abuse of the "National Security Waiver", Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York "gets it".

Live on C-Span at the time of this blog post a vote is being held on the Weiner Amendment to HR 3081.

This Amendment to HR 3081 proposed by Rep. Weiner would remove the option of a presidential "waiver" on funding to Saudi Arabia:

7) Rep. Weiner (D-NY):  Eliminates a provision that allows funds to be made available for assistance to Saudi Arabia if the President certifies that Saudi Arabia is fully cooperation with efforts to combat terrorism. Since 2004, Congress has banned aid to Saudi Arabia, unless the President certifies they are fully cooperative in U.S. efforts against terror. The amendment would eliminate the Presidential certification mechanism and effectively prohibit funds from being used to give assistance to Saudi Arabia.

"the amendment would eliminate the Presidential certification mechanism and effectively prohibit funds from being used to give assistence to Saudi Arabia."

What this means, if the Amendment is adapted, is that aid to Saudi Arabia would be banned and become law, period. Obama would not be able to make use of a "waiver" to continue aid to Saudi Arabia.

Update-Good news. The Weiner Amendment has been adapted by the U.S. House.

Now it goes to the Senate. Lets hope they have the good sense to adapt it as well.

Watching the debate live on C-Span we took note how Rep. Keith Ellison was upset about a poster board display Rep. Weiner had set up in the House chamber that illustrated the hate toward Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims contained in Saudi School textbooks.

The poster board display featured texts from Saudi schoolbooks for 2008-2009  translated into english.

Rep. Keith Ellison was angry that Weiner was revealing to the public the hate ideology against non-Muslims embedded in current Saudi school textbooks.

Rather than be angry about the racist hate and religious intolerance promoted by the Saudi textbooks, Ellison angrily decried Weiner's poster board display exposing such as "racist".

Examples of the abuse of the "National Security Waiver":

The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 prohibited U.S. funding of the Palestinian Authority if the PA in any of it's print media or electronic media engaged in anti-America or anti-Israel incitement.

However, the bill also contained a "National Security Waiver" whereby the POTUS could simply "waive" the bill's provision in the interest of national security.

This could be done without the President having to "prove" or "make the case" as to why such a waiver would be in the interest of national security. 

The result has been that Presidents have made use of the National Security Waiver as a legal loophole to avoid compliance with the law. In my opinion this constitutes abuse of the "National Security Waiver" mechanism.

Another example:

The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995.

That was 14 years ago.

This bill adapted by Congress called for the moving of our embassy to Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem.  It also acknowledged Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. If implimented this action would greatly bolster and strenghthen our ally Israel.

The same problem:

Successive presidents from Clinton to Bush to Obama have used the "waiver" contained in the bill as a legal loophole to avoid compliance.

By not implimenting the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act these presidents have acted "contrary" to America's national security interests.

By not implimenting the ban on aid to Saudi Arabia these presidents have acted contrary to America's national security interests.

By making use of the "waiver" in the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 in order to continue the spending of $ millions in taxpayer funds to the Palestinian Authority, these presidents have acted "contrary" to America's national interests and have abused the "National Security Waiver". 

Honduras: Obama / Clinton Led State Dept. On The Wrong Side

These thousands of people in the photo at left are all out in support of the new Honduran government. 

Where is the frenzied media coverage of this?

 Obama, and the Clinton led State Dept. are letting the people down again, and giving real democracy-in-action the cold shoulder. In fact, our U.S. State Dept.,[ Rice--Clinton] has become somewhat of an embarrasment for the majority of Americans in this country. Bloomberg reports: 

"The U.S. State Department called for the restoration of “democratic order” in Honduras, and for Zelaya’s reinstatement. "

[They have it backwards]

["Democratic order was restored when the Honduran courts and military acted to prevent Zelaya from following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez.]

[Violating the law with respect to an unlawful referendem, with the notion of further violating the law by tampering with their nation's Constitution.]

“We deplore the use of force against demonstrators” in the country’s capital of Tegucigalpa, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said at a news conference today in Washington. "

[That is absolutely pathetic on the part of State Dept.'s  spokesman Kelly. He's diliberately making an "equivilence / comparison" with how the Iranian Islamist thug regime in Iran has been beating down and repressing it's own people. ]

The State Dept. could not have things more bass backwards.

In Iran, millions upon millions of pro-democracy protestors took to the streets to challenge the results of what was most surely a stolen election. There, the people of Iran were protesting the corrupt dictatorial Islamic tyranny of the Iranian regime. People like this young lady in photo below:

Neda Soltani via Atlas Shrugs.

An Iranian regime that wanted to ensure that it's anti-semite, anti-America, anti-everything decent Ahmadinejad remained president even by fraudulent means.

For weeks while millions of Iranian people went out into the streets risking their very lives to protest a stolen election, holding up signs in "English" that read "where's my vote", obviously an appeal for help from the english speaking West, where was Obama?

For weeks Obama was reluctant to make any strong statements of support for the Iranian people. Only after the Mullahs released their Revolutionary Guards thugs on the people and the blood carnage of the Islamic regime could no longer be ignored, did Obama make any strong statement condemming the violence against the people.

In contrast, when the people of Honduras exude full support for their new "democratic" government, what does Obama do?

He fails to do the right thing in supporting the government the people want, and instead demands that Hugo's buddy be reinstated.

In Honduras, the vast majority of the people are in "full support" of the actions of their new interim president. Like Iran, "the people" understand what is really happening. 

 

 

Honduran Bloggers Set Record Straight On What Is Really Happening

Neither the media nor Obama is telling the truth about what is happening in Honduras.

But these Honduran bloggers want to get the word out and set the record straight on what has happened, and what is happening in Honduras.

But first, the situation now:

The airplane of the former Honduran president Mel Zelaya, [standing in the middle of the photo], was not allowed to land in Honduras by the current government. Obviously upsetting his plans for a re-taking of the reigns of power.

A few hundred supporters of Zelaya, [ even Hugo and Fidel had theirs], converged on the airport with the aim no doubt of greeting Zelaya.  Aaron Ortiz of Pensieve reports that one of Zelaya's supporters was shot while attempting to climb a fence to enter the airport area. Unfortunate. Should have listened when the current government said the plane would not be allowed to land.

Honduran bloggers want to set the record straight, via Latina Lista:

"Earlier this week, Latina Lista published a post opining how the "coup" in Honduras didn't have all the earmarks of traditional Latin American military takeover."

"Yet, many readers disagreed pointing to the fact that the military forced the President out of the palace at gunpoint and that many of those same leaders had recieved their training at the infamous "School of the Americas."

Also, the Miami Herald and other publications are reporting that the new government is censoring journalists and repressing protests.

But every Honduran-focused blog that I was able to find (Pensieve, La Gringa's Blogcito, Honduras Living,) were telling a different story. In fact, at one point, the bloggers were trying to unite to send a message out to their readers to send a message to Obama to explain to him the "real situation" in Honduras.

The people there in the country are saying that the media is presenting a one-sided look at the situation and is actually filing a lot of information that is not entirely accurate.

Some of these Honduran bloggers want to set the record straight.

One of these Honduras-based bloggers is Laurie Matherne. Laurie is an ESL teacher in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. She authors the blog Laurie's Spot: Thoughts on Honduras, Missions and Justice.

[Laurie writes the following]:

"On Sunday, June 28, I awoke to the news that President "Mel" Zelaya of Honduras had been removed from the presidency by the Armed Forces. As a resident of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, I was soon assailed with the sounds of jets and helicopters overhead.

From my perch on the third floor rooftop, my friends and I noted dozens of aircraft, and we hoped for a peaceful day. It was peaceful that day. No blood was shed, no shots were fired. The president, I later learned, was escorted to Costa Rica.

Since that day, however, peace has not prevailed at least in the world-at-large. The city and the country are at peace internally, despite a few protestors who have blocked roads and attempted to throw rocks at a few policemen.

Externally, among the nations, the outcry has been loud and urgent. Mr. Zelaya has the privilege of having the world's attention and sympathy for the moment as world leaders demand his immediate reinstatement as President of the Republic of Honduras.

[This just in: Hillary will meet with Zelaya this week in DC]

He was acclaimed with accolades from socialists and conservatives alike after his remarks before the United Nations earlier this week.

However, Mr. Zelaya is an unlikely poster boy for democracy.

He was elected by a narrow margin in 2005 as a conservative with a populist stance. He wanted to help the poor. However in the nearly four years in office, little of Mr. Zelaya's goals have been met.

By almost any standard, it's easy to note the decline in the standard of living in Honduras. Violent crime, rumors of kidnapping, and whispers of drug smuggling from Venezuela were becoming daily conversation.

And as far as democracy and conservatism, Mr. Zelaya admitted that he turned away from the United States, and he began to seek out the help of leftist regimes who could offer more aid.

He became enamored of the Castro brothers and even more so, of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Mr. Zelaya railroaded the passage of a decree declaring that Honduras would be part of ALBA, the association of social regimes of the Americas. It was widely reported that bribery was used to change the hearts and votes of the elected representatives who voted for the passage of the bill.

As the socialist rhetoric increased, his popularity began to erode. In a quick and disastrous attempt to regain public approval, he signed a decree ordering an overnight increase in the minimum wage by 50 percent.

The effect was immediate. Many of the wage earners lost their jobs as companies could not afford the sudden and dramatic increase. It is estimated that ¼ to 1/3 of the population of Honduras is unemployed or underemployed.

The banner reads: Because the Good are more and we want to live in peace.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have noted in my work in this impoverished country that more children are malnourished. I have seen the rapid deterioration of the infrastructure of the country, particularly in regard to education and transportation.

A general strike was called by the public school teachers of Honduras in January to protest the lack of wages paid, some going back as far as nine months. The roads are deteriorating due to the termination of road construction and repair contracts. There has been no budget submitted from the executive branch thus far this year, and there have been increasingly shortfalls in different sectors of the government.

Public opinion, by and large, outside of Honduras, holds that Honduras is at fault for the ousting of Mel Zelaya. However, does anyone realize that he violated many laws in the weeks leading to his exile?

He had planned a referendum that was designed to allow him to be president for life. The referendum had been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and the Congress of Honduras last week.

On Thursday, June 25, he announced on live television that he desired for anyone on "his side" to meet him at the Air Force station in Tegucigalpa in order to take the illegal ballots by force. A mob of hundreds joined him, as the air force commanders passively handed over the ballots, which had been delivered that morning from Venezuelan presses.

He then returned exultantly to the airwaves for a two-hour emotionally charged speech, at one point bursting into song, and at other times, mocking the members of the military and assembly.

Is it possible that the coup, if indeed it was a coup, was a good thing?

"For what are military coups, the last weekend in Honduras was strangely democratic," says an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal, adding that the Army did not depose president Manuel Zelaya alone, but was following an order by the Supreme Court .

And what about the views of the Honduran people? I have not seen any coverage of the massive and peaceful demonstrations in the capital that have occurred over the past week in favor of the new government.

No one outside of Honduras has mentioned seeing the thousands who gathered in Tegucigalpa before the referendum on July 26 under the banner, "We Want to Live in Peace, Freedom, and Development."

It's reported over 15,000 people took to the streets in a peaceful march in support of the new government.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have not seen any US media outlet show coverage of the tens of thousands who gathered yesterday in support of the new government. A friend commented on the remarkably one-sided coverage of the crisis, "A few hundred rioters throwing rocks at soldiers and the police and water cannon makes much better news than thousands of supporters holding their hands above their hearts with tears streaming down their face singing the national anthem."

Honduras is a small and underdeveloped country. It can ill afford the bad reputation that the world has for its leaders. However, I hope and pray that world would consider carefully the events surrounding the removal of Mr. Zelaya.

I am reminded of the words of the prophet Amos:

Do you know what I want?

I want justice--oceans of it.
I want fairness--rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want. Amos 5:24

As rivers and oceans of people are marching across the land of Honduras, one can only hope and pray that the world will take notice of a small country that seeks to live in peace, freedom and development."

By almost any standard, it's easy to note the decline in the standard of living in Honduras. Violent crime, rumors of kidnapping, and whispers of drug smuggling from Venezuela were becoming daily conversation.

And as far as democracy and conservatism, Mr. Zelaya admitted that he turned away from the United States, and he began to seek out the help of leftist regimes who could offer more aid.

He became enamored of the Castro brothers and even more so, of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Mr. Zelaya railroaded the passage of a decree declaring that Honduras would be part of ALBA, the association of social regimes of the Americas. It was widely reported that bribery was used to change the hearts and votes of the elected representatives who voted for the passage of the bill.

As the socialist rhetoric increased, his popularity began to erode. In a quick and disastrous attempt to regain public approval, he signed a decree ordering an overnight increase in the minimum wage by 50 percent.

The effect was immediate. Many of the wage earners lost their jobs as companies could not afford the sudden and dramatic increase. It is estimated that ¼ to 1/3 of the population of Honduras is unemployed or underemployed.

The banner reads: Because the Good are more and we want to live in peace.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have noted in my work in this impoverished country that more children are malnourished. I have seen the rapid deterioration of the infrastructure of the country, particularly in regard to education and transportation.

A general strike was called by the public school teachers of Honduras in January to protest the lack of wages paid, some going back as far as nine months. The roads are deteriorating due to the termination of road construction and repair contracts. There has been no budget submitted from the executive branch thus far this year, and there have been increasingly shortfalls in different sectors of the government.

Public opinion, by and large, outside of Honduras, holds that Honduras is at fault for the ousting of Mel Zelaya. However, does anyone realize that he violated many laws in the weeks leading to his exile?

He had planned a referendum that was designed to allow him to be president for life. The referendum had been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and the Congress of Honduras last week.

On Thursday, June 25, he announced on live television that he desired for anyone on "his side" to meet him at the Air Force station in Tegucigalpa in order to take the illegal ballots by force. A mob of hundreds joined him, as the air force commanders passively handed over the ballots, which had been delivered that morning from Venezuelan presses.

He then returned exultantly to the airwaves for a two-hour emotionally charged speech, at one point bursting into song, and at other times, mocking the members of the military and assembly.

Is it possible that the coup, if indeed it was a coup, was a good thing?

"For what are military coups, the last weekend in Honduras was strangely democratic," says an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal, adding that the Army did not depose president Manuel Zelaya alone, but was following an order by the Supreme Court .

And what about the views of the Honduran people? I have not seen any coverage of the massive and peaceful demonstrations in the capital that have occurred over the past week in favor of the new government.

No one outside of Honduras has mentioned seeing the thousands who gathered in Tegucigalpa before the referendum on July 26 under the banner, "We Want to Live in Peace, Freedom, and Development."

It's reported over 15,000 people took to the streets in a peaceful march in support of the new government.
(Source: El Heraldo newspaper)

I have not seen any US media outlet show coverage of the tens of thousands who gathered yesterday in support of the new government. A friend commented on the remarkably one-sided coverage of the crisis, "A few hundred rioters throwing rocks at soldiers and the police and water cannon makes much better news than thousands of supporters holding their hands above their hearts with tears streaming down their face singing the national anthem."

Honduras is a small and underdeveloped country. It can ill afford the bad reputation that the world has for its leaders. However, I hope and pray that world would consider carefully the events surrounding the removal of Mr. Zelaya.

I am reminded of the words of the prophet Amos:

Do you know what I want?

I want justice--oceans of it.
I want fairness--rivers of it.
That's what I want. That's all I want. Amos 5:24

As rivers and oceans of people are marching across the land of Honduras, one can only hope and pray that the world will take notice of a small country that seeks to live in peace, freedom and development."

Poll: Majority PA Arabs Opposed To Rights for Christians and Jews

A new poll conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development found that a majority of Arabs in the Palestinian Authority would be opposed to granting rights to Christians and Jews in a "Palestinian" state.

This should come as no surprise. Throughout history whenever Christians and Jews constituted the minority in a superior Muslim majority country, they have always been discriminated against and subjected to "dhimmitude" status.

Christian community in Pakistan threatened:

"The Christian community in Pakistan is drawn mainly from the poorest parts of society, and many Christians do very menial work. They are despised by the majority society and often discriminated against. Sometimes they are subject to violent attack, especially Christian women and girls. A slow process of Islamisation over recent decades has gradually eroded their rights and liberties, and in the current situation this process looks set to continue at a far more rapid pace. "

The poll also asked Arabs in the Palestinian Authority if they agreed with a call from Obama for the Arab world to reject violence as a means of "struggle".

More than 45% disagreed. 22 % would not answer the question. 

Islamic propagandists always like to point out that "Jihad" means "struggle". We are told that this refers to an inner-striving to make a Muslim more moral. That it has nothing to do with violence or terrorism.

According to this new poll, conducted by Arabs, 45% of  Arabs disagreed to reject violence or terrorism as a means of "struggle". 

22% would not answer the question. 

Dhimmitude: Christians and Jews Under Islam

 

 

 

Memo To Obama and the Quartet: On The Rights of Israeli "Settlers"

"From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisianna."

The following article via the Middle East Terrorism Blog.

On The Rights of "Settlers" by Shmuel Katz: 

US Ambassador Richard Jones was recently reported to have asked Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch about the legal status of the "settlements."

This is indeed a subject which has long been neglected - or simply ignored. The answer to the question is a simple one, but in view of the obfuscation which has for years gathered around it, it is essential to examine its roots. They lie comfortably in the text of the Mandate for Palestine which was conferred on Britain in 1922 by the League of Nations.

The Mandate's objective was to facilitate the "reconstitution" of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. It was intended to serve as the legal instrument for implementing Britain's 1917 Balfour Declaration. The essential obligations of the mandatory were to facilitate the immigration of Jews and encourage their "close settlement" on the land, including state and waste lands. (In accordance with the Balfour Declaration, "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" were to be protected.)

The vision of the Balfour Declaration was encapsulated a couple of years later by cabinet minister Winston Churchill, who wrote that "a Jewish state will arise in our day on the banks of the Jordan."

At that time, too, the League of Nations conferred on Britain a Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq); and Mandates for Syria and Lebanon were conferred on France, presaging the establishment of sovereign Arab states. Thus did the Allied nations complete the sharing out of the territories they had captured from the Turks in the Great War of 1914-1918.

ADDED UP, these Arab states-to-be accounted for some 99 percent of the total conquered area. In its capture during the war it may be said the Arabs themselves played practically no part. The so-called Arab Revolt against the Turks, heavily financed by Britain and brilliantly portrayed by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), did not in fact take place at all. Eighty percent of the Arabs who fought in the war did so on the side of the Turks. The Jewish people not only fielded a Jewish fighting legion in Palestine, but also a most effective intelligence service in Palestine and Syria.

Nevertheless, when peace came Arab voices were raised against the British undertaking to the Jews. Balfour admonished them. He pointed out that it was the British who had established an independent sovereignty in Hejaz (the Mandates came two years later), and he added:

"I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing Arab state and I hope that, understanding all that, they will not grudge that small notch being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it."

Yet - in 1922 at the last moment, the British inserted a clause (Number 25) excluding the provision of the Jewish National Home from the area east of the Jordan River. Zionist protest went unheeded; and so the almost-empty eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan, ultimately became the Kingdom of Jordan, adding another state to the tremendous Arab domain. The fact that it was a Palestinian state could not be erased, nor that the majority of its inhabitants have come from western Palestine. Thus was executed the first partition of the Land of Israel.

THE STATUS of Jewish settlement in what remained of Palestine remained unaffected. But as the years went by, the steady British retreat from their obligations, particularly by severe limitations on Jewish immigration, finally led to the White Paper of 1939. Apart from new land laws, it projected that Jewish immigration would be allowed at 15,000 souls a year for five years and then completely frozen. There would be no Jewish National Home. There would be an Arab majority, and some form of British overlordship to protect Jewish minority interests.

The White Paper, fiercely attacked in Parliament, was passed - by a reduced majority. But any change in British policy in Mandatory Palestine was subject to the approval of the League of Nations. The League, it was true, had for some years already been seen as an effete body, but its constitutional authority had remained intact. For monitoring the progress of the various mandates it maintained a kind of watchdog commission, and considered any proposed changes in the terms of the Mandate only if approved by the Mandate Commission. When in 1939 the British government submitted the White Paper to the commission, it refused its approval on the grounds that it did not conform to the terms of the Mandate.

Angry British Foreign Office senior officials exchanged notes and discussed among themselves the desperate policy of proposing a change in the Mandate itself. But they were stymied. It was too late - nearly the end of August 1939, and on the first of September World War II broke out. The Council of the League of Nations never met again. With it died the White Paper. The Mandate remained the defining document for governing Palestine.

THE BRITISH government, frustrated, did not relent. It launched a bitter campaign, using diplomatic channels in Europe to prevent Jews escaping and employing the Royal Navy to intercept boats carrying Jewish refugees from Europe and prevent their reaching the Jewish National Home. Indeed, when Churchill was prime minister he wrote in an internal instruction that "the White Paper stands."

The Mandate, however, with its injunction to assist Jewish settlement, remained intact and after World War II was "inherited" by the United Nations. It was a period of considerable unrest which, despite much repressive effort, the British could not subdue. Under the pressure of a highly effective Jewish underground fighting force (and consequent reactive political pressure at home) the Labor government finally returned the Mandate to the UN (in the spring of 1947).

The UN, in a dramatic special session, in effect accepted Britain's resignation and later that year decided to recommend the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. (Not Palestinians. Nobody had heard of such a separate entity.) The Arab states rejected that offer. Thus Palestine, with the rights of Jewish settlement, remained undivided as the Jewish state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

The Arab refusal was not a whim. The idea of a non-Arab state (and specifically a hated Jewish state) "in the heart of the Arab world" was anathema to them. It was reflected by a claim of possession of the whole country. Immediately after the UN session, the League of Arab States decided to go to war to destroy the Jewish state at birth.

In the meantime a preliminary campaign of terror was launched against the Jewish community. Then on May 14, 1948, the day the British left, five well-armed Arab states - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - invaded the country. The losses Israel sustained in that war of nine months exceeded, in proportion of population, the losses sustained by Britain and America in World War I. The invasion success was limited not only by the inordinate valor of the youth of Israel, but in time by the supply of much-needed arms by Czechoslovakia (with Soviet permission) and France.

HOWEVER, Jordan succeeded in holding on to the eastern highlands (primarily Judea and Samaria) and then even presumptuously announced their annexation. Egypt captured the Gaza "Strip." It is not irrelevant to mention that in the next 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, neither Jordan nor Egypt proposed, nor did the Palestinian Arabs demand from Jordan and Egypt, the establishment of a Palestinian state. To the contrary, Palestinian Arab terror continued to operate as before against Israel.

Then in 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan again attacked Israel, again with the repeated announcement that the objective was its "annihilation." Israel turned the tables and won the war. Soon after that victory, Israel offered the Arabs to hand them all the territory it had regained, in return for peace. At a conference in Khartoum the unanimous Arab reply was: No negotiations. No peace. No recognition.

So once again Jewish settlement rights had been endangered, and once again had been saved by Arab intransigence.

It was shortly afterward that the movement of Jewish settlers was launched. It is noteworthy that the last defining document that underwrites the legality was the Geneva Convention of 1949. It dealt with occupied territories. Its second clause, stating its scope, makes it clear that it does not apply to the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria - because Jordan was not a sovereign possessor but an illegal invader, and similarly was Egypt an illegal invader of Gaza. Israel liberated both areas, restoring them to the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922.

From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana.

 

No Obama, "Settlements" Are NOT an Obstacle To Peace

  

But Islam is.

The real root of the conflict stems from Islamic teaching concerning as they put it:

The House of Islam/ The House of War:

 

"The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which has to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule. This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions. "

Lets clear up some long circulated MSM media bias:

The word "settlements" conveys the false impression that our Israeli friends in Judea and Samaria are living in thatched huts or something.

That word also serves the cause of the Arab/Islamist "myth and falsehood", charging that Israelis are "intruders" or "colonizers" in land that does not belong to them. As Netanyahu correctly stated in his recent speech, "Israel's ties to Judea and Samaria are 3500 years old." That pre-dates Islam and Arabs in the land by more than 2000 years!

How did the Arab Muslims come to be in Israel? The same way Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, British, and other Europeans:

Though invasion and "occupation". In the case of the Arab Muslim invasion and illegal "occupation" of Israel, it was the spread of Islam by the sword.

The late Jean Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, elaborated on how the Arab/Islamists have used the myth and falsehood of Israeli "colonization" and "imperialism"  in her excellent article, "How The PLO Was Legitimized"

The Hedgehog also weighs in:

Are Settlements an Obstacle to Peace?

And just who is advocating apartheid and ethnic cleansing?

The U.S. / NATO on the Wrong Side Again: Iran / Serbian Contrast

At no time did the Serbs ever have a nuclear weapons program.

In fact, the only nuclear reactor Serbia ever had was built when Serbia was part of Yugoslavia. It was shut down in 1984 and dismantled in 2002.

That being the case, at no time did Serbs ever pose a dangerous nuclear weapons threat to another country.

At no time was Serbia ever an exporter of terrorism around the world.

Let alone call for the use of nuclear weapons to "wipe another country off the map".--as Iranian Ayatollah Rasfanjani has done. And also Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Nevertheless: 

In August of 1995 the Clinton U.S. government and NATO launched a massive bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs:

"After blaming the Bosnian Serbs "beyond reasonable doubt" for the "mortar shell" which caused the Market Street carnage, the Clinton Administration then used this incident to justify the massive bombing campaign which was launched against the Bosnian Serbs virtually immediately. On August 29, President Clinton called the still-escalating bombing campaign "an appropriate response to the shelling of Sarajevo".

["an appropriate response to the shelling of Sarajevo" that the Islamists, and not the Serbs were responsible for. In that regard, Islamists have been well documented in the perpetration of "self-inflicted" atrocities against their fellow Muslims, and then blaming on others to garner sympathy. Case in point, the motar shell explosion on a Gaza beach.]

[See also Staged-Managed Massacre-by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch ]

"Starting in the pre-dawn hours of August 30, wave after wave of NATO aircraft -- 80 to 85 percent of them US -- began pounding Bosnian Serb strategic and regular military objectives. Initial targets were around Sarajevo, giving credence to the fig-leaf claim of retaliation for the "mortar shell". But, within a few hours, bombing raids were taking place all over Bosnia-Herzegovina."

"Thus, rhetoric aside, the US became an active and dominant participant in the wars in the former Yugoslavia."

"It was only after the first waves of predominantly US NATO strike aircraft had already dropped their bombs over Bosnian Serb targets that the Clinton Administration grudgingly began to tell truth. By this time, wide cracks were beginning to appear in the claim that the "mortar shell" had been fired by the Bosnian Serbs."

British and French ammunition experts at the site determined that forensic evidence was counter to the claim that Serbs had fired the mortar shell. 

Contrast with the U.S. and NATO's actions towards the Islamic Iranian regime:

Iran has not one, but serveral nuclear sites.

Ayatollah Rasfanjani has stated publically that the Muslim nation should use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has on more than one occasion remarked that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

The Iranian Islamist regime has most certainly been an exporter of terrorism around the world. And that is never any truer than their involvement in the Balkans. Bosnia as well as Kosovo. 

And in that conflict the Clinton led U.S. government and NATO were on the wrong side. They effectively took the side of the Jihadists against the Serbs, who had endured centurys of brutal Islamic repression and occupation.

Then there was the suicide truck bombing of a U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in which nearly 300 U.S. marines lost their lives. Hizbullah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon was responsible.

Or how the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has meddled in Iraq providing explosives for IED's that have maimed and injured scores of U.S. personel.

What has been the response and actions of the Obama led U.S. government and NATO in light of the above?

"Talk".

It is obviously apparent that neither the Obama Administration nor NATO will seriously consider  preemptive military strikes to destroy, or at the least, damage and set back Iran's nuclear weapons program.

In addition, the U.S. Administration has refused Israel's request for bunker-busters and long distance refueling aircraft.

What were the actions of the U.S. and NATO towards Serbia that was not an exporter of terrorism, did not have a nuclear program, and did not threaten the use of nuclear weapons to destroy another country"

They bombed the Serbs into "submission".

"Submission" where have we heard that term before?

Once again it appears our own U.S. government is going to be on the wrong side again. This time allowing the Iranian Islamist regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Reprehensible.

In the aftermath of the recent Iranian elections the true nature of this dangerous Islamic regime should be apparent to all objective unbiased observers.

The Iranian regime has ordered the brutal suppression and imprisionment of it's own people.

The beef is not with the Iranian people who lift up their voices in oppostion to a stolen election. They deserve the entire international communitys support for freedom from an oppressive authoritarian regime.

Thanks to Obama, financial support for Democratic protesters in Iran has been cut off.

 

 

 

The Legitimization of Hamas Terrorists: FBI Starts Official Outreach

Efforts by the misguided to bestow legitimacy on the evil Islamic terrorist organization continue.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reports this info from a well placed source :

"Today, FBI Executive Assistant Director Tom Harrington is meeting at FBIHQ with Imam Majid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling,VA. Imam Majid is also the Vice-President of the Islamic Society of North America - a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial in Dallas in which all defendants were found guilty of leading the Hamas front group. This was the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States."

"This meeting today follows yesterday's official decision by FBIHQ to use ISNA as their official point of contact with the American Muslim community. ISNA is one of the largest and most prominent Muslim Brotherhood enities in the U.S. The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 with two objectives [ which are their same two objectives today]: implement Islamic Law and re-establish the global Islamic Caliphate. Their creed, which is still their creed today, includes "...martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest inspiration."

[ official point of contact with Hamas?]

It was reported that former president Carter delivered a message to Hamas in Gaza, seeking to open a dialogue with the terrorist group.

There could obviously be a connection here.

Follow the updates on the push to legitimize this terrorist organization here.

Iranian Regime Thugs Beat Reporters

Real Clear Politics [RCP] Takes A Turn For The Worse

In addition to Free Republic and Red State, Real Clear Politics also used to be a favorite hang-out for politically minded bloggers. Especially conservatives.

And that for obvious reasons.

For example, side by side comparison polling data during both the primary and general election.

Transcripts of major political speeches and interviews.

And besides the featured articles chosen by the Real Clear editors, readers and visitors to RCP had one other great opportunity:

And that was to browse and read any of the many articles written and composed by readers themselves.

This feature was called the "Reader Articles Section."

Quite often the articles written and posted by the readers,[ or bloggers],  would offer a better perspective, with more accurate facts, than articles on the same topic selected by the RCP editors themselves.

For example, consider these articles selected by RCP this week after Israeli PM Netanyahu's foreign policy speech Sunday:

First, on Monday was this article by Jeff Barak entitled, "Netanyahu's Lost Opportunity". This article was posted at RCP from Jpost. 

Just glancing at the title it would be easy to surmise the writer had in mind Netanyahu's failure to clearly articulate why the establishment of a "Palestinian" state needed to be firmly rejected. That such a state, aside from being a dangerous threat to Israel, would not end the conflict but make it worse. And never bring peace.

But that's not what Jeff Barak had in mind. In fact, Barak thinks Bibi lost an opportunity to bow down further in appeasement fashion. And according to Barak one of Israel's better Prime Ministers, Yitzhak Shamir, was actually the worse. But that's because Shamir was not the roll-over-lie-down appeaser that Barak thinks he should have been. 

On Tuesday at RCP there was this article the editors had selected:

"Obama Must Pressure Bibi For Peace", written by Jacob Weisberg. Posted at RCP from Newsweek. In actuallity, the correct title for that article as it appears at Newsweek is " A Friend In Need".

It goes without saying, but with friends like Weisberg, neither Israel nor Netanyahu need enemies. What Weisberg does in his article is call good "evil", and evil "good". One example:

"those presidents regarded as the least friendly to the Jewish state have done it the most good. "

"Its strong allies have proved much less helpful."-Weisberg.

Let's go with Weisberg's logic for an insane moment:

Suppose Mike Huckabee were president instead of Obama. Huck, who has been to Israel 10 different times. And only one of those times while a presidential candidate doing politicking.

Huckabee has stated on numerous occasions the extreme danger to Israel of giving up the Golan. Or Judea and Samaria. He has also stated time and again that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel.

With that in mind, how different might Netanyahu's speech this past Sunday have been?

How different the relationship between the two governments. It is a given that there would be more mutual understanding and a seeing of eye to eye on the most important matters. For example, Iran.

And Weisberg would have us believe that would be less "helpfull" for Israel than the "help" from the current Administration?

These types of folks have a real twisted up understanding as to what "help" and "good" really are. Folks like Weisberg have reallity turned upside down.

Come Wednesday at RCP, was this featured article, " The Arabs Turn To Respond To Netanyahu", written by Rami G. Kouri. And selected by RCP from the Daily Star.

Thus far at RCP this week, in regards to Israel and Netanyahu, there have only been articles featured by the RCP editors that promote the Arab/Islamic narative against Bibi and Israel. 

Articles that offer a better and more realistic perspective that would counter the anti-Israel Arab/Islamic narrative against Israel have not showed up on Real Clear Politics this week. As of yet. And the week is almost done.

There are those who will suggest that RCP is just trying to be diverse.  And that this week  just happens to be " attack Netanyahu and Israel week" at RCP.

Not so. 

Have been monitoring for serveral months now the articles featured at RCP having anything to do with the Middle East "conflict". Those articles are usually posted by RCP in their "Real Clear World" section.

And there is most definently a trend in more articles being featured that are less supportive of our ally Israel. For example, here is one from a couple months ago not long after Bibi became Prime Minister:

"Netanyahu's Second Chance", written by Alon Ben Meir.

At first glance the title would suggest the writer has in mind a second chance for Netanyahu not to repeat another horrible mistake such as the Wye River appeasement folly. But that's not what they have in mind:

"those who know him well suggest that Netanyahu has matured considerably since he was first Prime Minister [1996-1999]. He is well aware that he may never be given another opportunuity as prime minister and that he now stands before an historic crossroad."-Meir

As Meir tells it, their idea of the "maturing" of Bibi, means learning to become an even bigger appeaser than that of Wye River. To literally fall down prostrate before the very folks who seek your destruction. 

Now, here is where RCP has definently taken a turn for the worse:

Late last year around November, when attempting to log in to my "Reader Article" account at RCP, a notice was displayed stating that the "Reader Articles" section was in the process of being "re-tooled" , and would be back after the first of the year.

The first of the year has come and gone by serveral months. But the "Reader Articles" section has not yet been restored.

My guess is that RCP is not going to bring it back either. And on that note RCP loses, as well as the reading public.

The webmaster@realclearpolitics.com has been e-mailed more than once as to when the Reader Articles section would be back. As of yet, no response.

The same with regard to the letters@realclearpolitics .com