« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

Posts from February 2009

Among Republicans Evangelicals Are The Most Solid Conservatives

[First posted Feb. 2009,-but the pundits are still pumping out the false distortion that Republican voters are divided between foreign policy conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. And the media falsely painting evangelicals as only 'social conservatives'.]

When it comes to politics in America the media attempts to distort reality. This was certainly the case during the Republican primary campaign and remains so.

One of those media distortions was with respect to the large block of Evangelical Christian voters who overwhelmingly vote Republican.

We are constantly told that conservative Republicans are divided into three camps. Foreign policy conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. I submit that this is media distortion.

Such a thing suggests that conservatives who favor fiscal responsibility do not also desire a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy as well.

Or that Republicans who favor a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy, are not equally concerned about social issues as well.

The media has sought to portray Evangelical Republicans as "social conservatives" exclusively. Even using the terms Evangelical and social conservatives as interchangible.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Christian Evangelicals are all-around solid conservatives. Who desire sound foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, and equal concern about social issues.

One would be hard pressed to find many Evangelicals who do not desire a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy as well as fiscal responsibility.

That being the case, the most reliably "solid conservatives" in the Republican party are the Evangelical Christian voters.

During the Republican primary campaign the vast majority of Evangelical voters supported Mike Huckabee. This blows the lid off of the media distortion, much of it by talk radio pundits, that Hucks appeal was only to "social conservatives".

Yes, the Republican party is divided. And I would submit that the real divide is not between foreign policy, fiscal, and social conservatives, but rather between Evangelical and non-Evangelical. 

And the Republican primary results bare this out. The overwhelming vast majority of non-Evangelicals prefered Romney, Thompson, or McCain. In contrast, a clear majority of Evangelicals, [solid conservatives], prefered Huck.

This raises the important question as to why there is such a divide in the Republican party between Evangelical and non-Evangelical when the majority of both favor conservative positions.

A recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 62% of Republicans felt that Israel was justified in launching it's counter-terror operation "Cast Lead" in response to repeated acts of terrorism from Islamists in Gaza:

736

To be sure, within that 62% of Republican support can be found those vast majority of Christian Evangelical voters. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that Christian supporters of Israel accounted for the majority of that 62% support.

It is no secret that outside the State of Israel, evangelicals are Israel's largest and most passionate supporters.

This is not good news. If the poll is reliably accurate it means that almost 40% of Republicans were not supportive of Israel's right to defend itself in a large scale counter-terror operation in Gaza.

And of that nearly 40% of Republicans who did not feel Israel was justified in launching their counter-terror operation, it would not be unreasonable to speculate the majority were non-Evangelical.

When taking a look at the positions of support for Israel among the Republican candidates for president one candidate stood out from all the rest. Mike Huckabee.

Romney, McCain, and Thompson all supported President Bush's two-state non-solution "Roadmap" appeasement policy. Echoing the talking points of the Washington establishment.

Only Mike Huckabee challanged the "Roadmap" and stated unequivacably a number of times that Israel should not be required to give up their land of Judea and Samaria for another "Palestinian" state.

Did Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, or Mark Levine spend any time talking about Hucks unique strong support for Israel?

Did the fact that the other Republican candidates all supported Bush's Roadmap policy to impose a Palestinian state on Israel's land not make any difference to them? If it did they didn't talk about it.

More to come on this topic later.

 

 

 


Esam Omeish, President of Islamist Organization Running For Office

Esam Omiesh, president of the Muslim American Society, an organization with ties to the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood, is running for a seat in the Virginia house.

Via Debbie at Right Truth:

Muslim American Society, [MAS], and Jamaat ul Fuqra, connect the dots.

[It is believed that the Muslim American Society is a front group for Jaamat ul Fuqra. Another Islamist organization that has 35 compounds in the U.S.]

Many Virginians will remember that it was just September 2007 when Omeish tendered his resignation after being caught on tape telling a crowd of Muslim activists in DC that "jihad is the way..." As well as makiing radical statements denouncing Israel for it's counter-terrorism operation against Hizbullah.

You can read and view all about it here.

He may very well be able to win a seat in the Va. House. Northern Virginia is saturated with a large Muslim population. And the leftists Democrats there are only too eager to look the other way.

After all, despite repeated warnings about Obama's ties to radical Islamists such as Ali Abunimah and PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi, that didn't phase them. They didn't care.

Jamaat ul Fuqra in Virginia- Gates of Vienna

Note, the Baron has three parts to his very interesting article. Above is a link to part one. Be sure to read the other two parts on his site.


U.S. To Pledge $900 Million For Gaza Supporters of Hamas Terrorists

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pledge $900 million in aid for Gazan Islamists who voted for Hamas and danced in the streets on 9/11.

The money will be to help rebuild parts of Gaza damaged as a result of Islamic terrorists drawing fire from the IDF after launching Grad missiles and Kassam rockets into Israel. And stockpiling munitions in civilian areas, including mosques.

A spokesman said the money will be distributed through various UN agencys. Which gives little assurance Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Army of Islam, and other Islamist terrorist factions will not benefit.

You cannot separate the people of Gaza from the terrorists. They are it's population. That is where they come from.

In addition, any rebuilding at this point is pre-mature as long as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist factions continue there operations there.

Prime Minister designate Netanyahu has stated that the counter-terrorism offensive "Cast Lead" was ended too soon, and that Hamas needs to be defeated.

Would the U.S. government consider an aid package to help meet the "humanitarian needs" of Al-Qaeda? [none recomended either].

When Israel was conducting it's "Cast Lead" counter-terrorism operation in Gaza there was an outcry from politicians and diplomats the world over demanding Israel observe a cease-fire.

Who urges or demands a cease-fire with Al-Qaeda?

None recomended either.


Time Is Running Out To Stop Iran: The U.S. and NATO Must Act

Time is quickly running out before Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.

This week Iran will have a "pre-commissioning"launch of it's Russian built reactor:

"Iran will this week "pre-commission" its first nuclear power plant, which is being built by Russia in the southern city of Bushehr, local news agencies reported on Sunday. "

In addition, it was reported this past week that Iran now has enough enriched uranium to obtain one nuclear weapon of destructive capability equal to that used against Hiroshima.

No amount of "talking" or "aggressive diplomacy" will succeed in convincing the Islamist ideologically driven Iranian government to abandon it's present course.

The West needs to wake up out of it's slumber!

Now is the time for the U.S. and N.A.T.O. to coordinate an operation to "take out" Iran's nuclear sites.

The U.S. and N.A.T.O. certainly have the firepower and bunker busters to set Iran's nuclear program back to the stone age.

This is not a good option. There are no "good" options.

But the alternative of wasting time in "talking", time that is used by Iran to aggressively pursue it's nuclear agenda, will yield a far worse consequence to Europe and America if Iran succeeds in obtaining a nuke.

If Israel is forced to act alone,- it will constitute a moral indictment against the entire international community for failure to act.

An EMP Attack: The Overlooked Catastrophy- Hal Lindsey

In 1998 Iran test fired a missile that detonated after reaching an altitude of 180 miles. The ideal altitude for detonating an EMP nuclear weapon. The result of such an EMP attack would immediately devastate electrical grids. Communication would be virtually impossible. Most military systems would be rendered useless. No phones, no computers, etc.

Time is running out.

Range of Iranian Shihab-3: Source: Vital Perspective

Iran_shihab_3_range_2


Gross Associated Press Distortion Of Netanyahu And Supporters

The Associated Press is at it again.

This time engaging in gross media distortion of Netanyahu and Israeli parties supporting him for the office of Prime Minister.

The writer of this AP article describes Netanyahu as "hawkish" and the Israeli political parties supporting him for Prime Minister as "opposed to peacemaking".

That is flat out media distortion of the truth.

There is no Israeli leader or political party that does not want peace. But the stark reality is that Israel has no true partner for peace among the Arabs.

The same article describes Tzipy Livni as a "centrist". Other MSM, including Fox, have described Livni as having "moderate" views. 

Webster defines moderate as " within reasonable limits; avoiding excesses or extremes; temperate or restrained."

In other words, the AP and other MSM are deliberately portraying Kadima and Livni as "reasonable", and Netanyahu and Likud as "unreasonable" and "extreme".

They have things the exact opposite of what they are.

Engaging in appeasement policies that embolden those who seek your destruction is not "reasonable". Or "moderate", if you prefer that word.

The official Palestinian Authority representative in Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, gave an interview to NBN-TV in which he reaffirmed the PLO Fatah's committment to the "Phased Plan." Hopefully the Associated Press writer will visit the link.

The problem is that some of Israel's leaders have attempted to achieve peace through the false delusion of appeasement policies. Such as the current Kadima led government.

Those appeasement "Roadmap" policies have greatly harmed Israel and been responsible for an increase in terrorism and not peace.

A clear majority of Israelis concurred with their support for Israeli parties opposed to any more appeasement concessions that are rewarded with more terror.

Netanyahu has pledged he will not make those same mistakes. Will not split apart Israel's capital of Jerusalem, engage in any unilateral withdrawls, or uproot thousands of Israelis from Judea and Samaria.

That is the position any "reasonable" or "moderate" Israeli leader, or for that matter, Obama, should take.

In other words, Netanyahu, Likud, National Union, and Jewish Home are the "moderates". While Livni, Kadima, Labor, and Meretz are "unreasonable" appeasers.

There is also a greater realization among Israelis that the conflict is really about Israel's very existence. In other words, the more Israel engages in appeasement concessions, the more Islamists are emboldened to continue pushing for more. With their ultimate goal being the destruction of the state of Israel and replacing it with "Palestine."

The AP and other MSM will not acknowledge the real cause of the conflict:

The global Islamist jihad.

In Islam this conflict is described as being between the "House of Islam" and the "House of War". That part of the world in which Islam is dominent and the laws are derived from it constitute the "House of Islam". In contrast, that part of the world in which Islam is not dominent, with control of governance, is refered to as the "House of War".

And Muslims believe they have a mandate to bring the non-Muslim world into the "House of Islam".

In the pursuit of accomplishing this they wage "jihad" on different levels.

There is political jihad,

[Phased Plan]. As well as enlisting international diplomatic pressure on Israel. For example the calls demanding Israel cease it's counter-terror operation against Hamas.

There is the propaganda jihad, [verbal jihad],

This includes an attempt to deligitimize Israel. The portraying of Geert Wilders as one that "incites racism and hatred" for his attempts at informing the public of the dangerous threat Islam poses to a free society.

The propaganda campaign against GITMO.

There is economic jihad, calls for boycotts against companies that do business in Israel is one example. "Oil" has been used as a weapon in this regard.

And violent jihad. The Islamist military invasion and "occupation" of the Middle East and north Africa in the 7th century. The attempted Islamist invasion and conquests of Europe.

And of course 9/11, all are examples of violent jihad with the objective being the submission of the West and non-Muslims to the "House of Islam".

 

 

 

 

 

 


Obama Moves To Quickly Appease And Embolden Islamists

Since becoming president, Obama has quickly moved to appease and embolden Islamist enemies of the West.

Taking steps to close down GITMO has sent a message of weakness and scored a victory for Islamist/Leftist propagandists.

At least 61 of detainess at GITMO, upon being released and transfered to host countries have returned to their jihadist terror ways.  

At a press conference just last night Obama said,

" in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face to face" [with Iran]

"There's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it's not going to happen overnight."

This is in keeping with Obama's statements during the campaign that he would be willing to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran, or Hugo Chevez without pre-conditions.

No amount of talking or diplomacy will disuade Iran from it's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The Iranian government is driven by Islamic ideology in it's quest for a nuclear weapon.

What President Obama should be doing is coordinating with NATO a military strike to eliminate Iran's nuclear sites. Time is of the essence.

Eight months ago, Muhammed Elbaradei, head of IAEA, stated that it was possible for Iran to acquire a nuke in six months to a year.

That was eight months ago. How far along in that pursuit is Iran at this point? Meanwhile Obama and world leaders "talk".

Obama's first call to a foreign figure was to Mahmoud Abbas, [Abu Mazen], head of the PLO Fatah Palestinian Authority.

Fatah PA leaders view the Obama Administration with enthusiasm. They are confident Obama will push Israel to engage in more appeasement concessions.

In particular, appeasement concessions relating to Judea and Samaria.

On the contrary, President Obama should support Israel in Judea and Samaria as an important front in resisting the global jihad against the West.

 


Israeli Election Results: No More Appeasement Policies!

Israelis voted their mind this past Tuesday:

6a00d8341c60bf53ef010537211a55970b-800wi 

 

Using the graphic display above of the vote among the parties, and the important views embraced by the respective parties, a clear understanding of majority public opinion in Israel can be determined.

The parties on the "Right" recieved a clear majority.

  1. Likud-27 mandates.
  2. Yisrael Beitenu-15
  3. Shas-11
  4. National Union/Jewish Home-7
  5. United Torah-4

For a total of 64 mandates.

The parties on the "Left", led by Kadima, recieved a total of 44 mandates, not including the 12 mandates of the Arab parties. This is very important.

While Israeli Arabs have citizenship and can vote in Israeli elections, many Israelis question their loyalty and patriotism to the state of Israel. And not without reason.

Avigdor Lieberman, and his party Yisrael Beitenu, have been pushing for a new law that would require a pledge of loyalty to the state of Israel, before citizenship can be granted.

In the final analysis, an overwhelming majority of "patriotic" Israeli citizens, based on the views and platforms of the parties they voted for, had this to say:

  1. No more appeasement concessions to an Islamist society that seeks Israel's destruction, and rewards those appeasement concessions with more terrorism.
  2. Land for Peace is a failed appeasement policy that must be discarded.
  3. No more unilateral withdrawls, or expulsions of Jews from their homes and land in Judea and Samaria.
  4. Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel. And will remain so.
  5. No Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. Self-autonomy for Arabs.
  6. Hamas, and the other terrorist groups must be defeated, not appeased.
  7. Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.










Liberal Appeasers Attack Netanyahu

Some anti-Israel moonbat leftys, under the assumption that Likud will win the Israeli elections, are already attacking Netanyahu.

In an article entitled "Netanyahu Warns Obama On Talks", Jonathan Ferziger and Hans Nichols write:

"Just as he confounded former President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, Netanyahu probably will resist if Obama pushes too hard to extract Israeli concessions for peace in the Middle East." [For peace ?]

They think thats a negative. I think its a positive.

First off, Israel is not the party that needs to do any conceeding. And what concessions Israel has made for "peace", they recieved more terror attacks in return.

Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation , was cited as saying,

" At the end of the day, Obama has to be willing to put the screws to Israel."

Such anti-Israel moonbats. 

Contrary to what the biased MSM and Israel hating dhimmi diplomats and politicians say, Israel is not in occupation of any Arab land. For nearly two thousand years Israel's land was under foreign occupation. The Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Europeans, and British occupiers.

In the 7th century Arab Muslims conducted military invasions and "occupations" of north Africa and the broader Middle East. That is how the Muslims came to be in Judea and Samaria, through invasion and "occupation."

In 1947 a small slither of that land was returned to Israel under the UN Partition. The Arab Muslims were not content with 78% of the former British Palestine Mandate. They launched a war of extermination to drive the Jews into the sea.

In June of 1967 Egypt had massed a hundred thousand troops, preparing for another attempt to push the Jews into the sea.

But Israel's decisive preemptive offensive spoiled those plans.

Through out the article the writers never mention any concessions that the Islamists should make.

Secondly, if Obama does push the new Israeli government to engage in more appeasement surrender concessions under the Phased Plan/Roadmap policy, whether the new government is led by Netanyahu or someone else, they "should" resist.

Most Israelis now seem to realize that the politics of appeasement doesn't work. More appeasment concessions will only embolden the jihadists.

While the writers of that article meant it as a negative on Netanyahu, from my perspective, what they say sounds like a good endorsement. Israel needs a government that won't roll over for an appeasement minded Obama Administration.


Tony Blair Is Talking Like Jimmy Carter

Tony Blair is sounding like Jimmy Carter.

Blair has evidently been infected with the same dhimmi virus his sister-in-law Lauren Booth suffers from.

Yesterday Blair said that there must be a way to bring Hamas into the peace process. [Appeasement surrender process].

From WND:

"I do think it is important that we find a way of bringing Hamas into this process, but it can only be done if Hamas are prepared to do it on the right terms."-Blair

Blair explained Hamas would need to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. Still he relented, his "basic predisposition is that in a situation like this you talk to everybody."

Translation:

Blair wants to find a way to legitimize Hamas in the same manner that the PLO terrorist organization was wrongfully legitimized.

Here is how Blair and his like minded dhimmi diplomatic friends will attempt to accomplish this:

There will be secret-private talks with members of the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas. This is already taking place.

The main objective of these talks will be to construct a carefully crafted statement that would appear to reflect a recognition of Israel by Hamas and an agreement to stop the terror.

Of course it will be bogus, but they will need such a public statement to present to the world as a breakthrough in order to bestow legitimacy on Hamas.

Just as such a breakthrough was announced to the world that the PLO had decided to recognize Israel and renounce terror.

Remember, Arafat, head of the PLO, recieved a Nobel Peace prize for his recognition of Israel and renouncing terror.

Of course it was all bogus.

The truth of PLO non-recognition of Israel has since been revealed. In both words and actions.

Mr. Blair, here is what needs to be your view towards Hamas:

No different than your view of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Your view of Nasrallah and Hizbullah should be no different than your view of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. 

This is where the double-standard and hipocrisy is.

And this is what your view towards a Palestinian state should be:

Create Palestinian state "outside of Israel."

How The PLO Was Legitimized-Kirkpatrick

Judea and Samaria belong to Israel and Kosovo belongs to Serbia.