Saturday, August 23, 2014

Extent of the US Betrayal of Israel, Part I

Few Americans are aware of the pressure the Obama administration is placing on Israel to, in effect, commit national suicide in its conflict with the terrorist regime in Gaza.  Since the US has, up until now, given Israel great support economically and with munitions and military hardware, we have considerable influence on that nation, the only one in the Middle East that stands for and practices western principles of universal human rights.

The following column by Caroline Glick, an Israeli, details the extent of our deceit.  The article is a long one, so I am presenting it in two parts. Go to the link to read it all, or see part II tomorrow.

Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi Alliance

By Caroline Glick - August 23, 2014 RealClearPolitics

Hamas’s war with Israel is not a stand-alone event. It is happening in the context of the vast changes that are casting asunder old patterns of behavior and strategic understandings as actors in the region begin to reassess the threats they face.

Hamas was once funded by Saudi Arabia and enabled by Egypt. Now the regimes of these countries view it as part of a larger axis of Sunni jihad that threatens not only Israel, but them.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its state sponsors Qatar and Turkey, are the key members of this alliance structure. Without their support Hamas would have gone down with the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt last summer. As it stands, all view Hamas’s war with Israel as a means of reinstating the Brotherhood to power in that country.

To achieve a Hamas victory, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood are using Western support for Hamas against Israel. If the US and the EU are able to coerce Egypt and Israel to open their borders with Gaza, then the Western powers will hand the jihadist axis a strategic victory.

The implications of such a victory would be dire.

Hamas is ideologically indistinguishable from Islamic State. Like Islamic State, Hamas has developed mass slaughter and psychological terrorization as the primary tools in its military doctrine. If the US and the EU force Israel and Egypt to open Gaza’s borders, they will enable Hamas to achieve strategic and political stability in Gaza. As a consequence, a post-war Gaza will quickly become a local version of Islamic State-controlled Mosul.

In the first instance, such a development will render life in southern Israel too imperiled to sustain. The Western Negev, and perhaps Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, will become uninhabitable.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. If, as the US demands, Israel allows Gaza to reconnect with Judea and Samaria, in short order Hamas will dominate the areas. Militarily, the transfer of even a few of the thousands of rocket-propelled grenades Hamas has in Gaza will imperil military forces and civilians alike.

IDF armored vehicles and armored civilian buses will be blown to smithereens.

Whereas operating from Gaza, Hamas needed the assistance of the Obama administration and the Federal Aviation Administration to shut down Ben-Gurion Airport, from Judea and Samaria, all Hamas would require are a couple of hand-held mortars.

Jordan will also be directly threatened.

From Egypt’s perspective, a Hamas victory in the war with Israel that connects Gaza to Sinai will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamic State and other allies. Such a development represents a critical threat to the regime.

And this brings us to Islamic State itself. It couldn’t have grown to its current monstrous proportions without the support of Qatar and Turkey.

Islamic State is obviously interested in expanding its conquests. Since it views itself as a state, its next move must be one that enables it to take over a national economy. The raid on Mosul’s central bank will not suffice to finance its operations for very long.

At this point, Islamic State wishes to avoid an all-out confrontation with Iran, so moving into southern Iraq is probably not in the cards. US forces in Kuwait, and the strength and unity of purpose of the Jordanian military, probably take both kingdoms off Islamic State’s chopping block for now.

This leaves Saudi Arabia, or parts of it, as a likely next target for Islamic State expansion.

Islamic State’s current operations in Lebanon, which threaten the Saudi-supported regime there, indicate that Lebanon, at a minimum, is also at grave risk.

Then there is Iran. Iran is not a member of the Sunni jihadist axis. But when it comes to Israel and the non-jihadist regimes, it has cooperated with it.

Iran has funded, trained and armed Hamas for the past decade. It views Hamas’s war with Israel in the same light as it viewed its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah’s war with Israel eight years ago.

Both in Iraq and Syria, Iran and Islamic State have shown little interest in making one another their primary target. Turkey and Qatar have often served as Iran’s supporters in the Sunni world.

This is the context in which Israel is fighting its war with Hamas. And due to this context, two interrelated strategically significant events have occurred since the war began.

The first relates to the US.

The Obama administration’s decision to side with the members of the jihadist axis against Israel by adopting their demand to open Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt has served as the final nail in the coffin of America’s strategic credibility among its traditional regional allies.

As the US has stood with Hamas, it has also maintained its pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran. The US’s position in these talks is to enable the mullocracy to follow North Korea’s path to a nuclear arsenal. The non-jihadist Sunni states share Israel’s conviction that they cannot survive a nuclear armed Iran.

Finally, President Barack Obama’s refusal to date to take offensive action to destroy Islamic State in Iraq and Syria demonstrates to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states that under Obama, the US would rather allow Islamic State to expand into their territory and destroy them than return US military forces to Iraq.

In other words, Obama’s pro-Hamas-, pro-Iran- and pro-Muslim Brotherhood-axis policies, along with his refusal to date to take effective action in Iraq and Syria to obliterate Islamic State, have convinced the US’s traditional allies that for the next two-and-a-half years, not only can they not rely on the US, they cannot discount the possibility of the US taking actions that harm them.

It is in the face of the US’s shift of allegiances under Obama that the non-jihadist Sunni regimes have begun to reevaluate their ties to Israel. Until the Obama presidency, the Saudis and Egyptians felt secure in their alliance with the US. Consequently, they never felt it necessary or even desirable to consider Israel as a strategic partner.

Under the US’s strategic protection, the traditional Sunni regimes had the luxury of maintaining their support for Palestinian terrorists and rejecting the notion of strategic cooperation with Israel, whether against Iran, al-Qaida or any other common foe.

So sequestered by the US, Israel became convinced that the only way it could enjoy any benefit from its shared strategic interests with its neighbors was by first bowing to the US’s long-held obsession with strengthening the PLO. This has involved surrendering land, political legitimacy and money to the terror group still committed to Israel’s destruction.

The war with Hamas has changed all of this.

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Current State of Obamacare Issues

So many disasters are occurring both at home and in the outside world (Ferguson, IRS, Illegals swamping the border, Muslim terrorism and butchery, Jihadist advances throughout the Middle East, ebola); the issues associated with Obamacare have been swept off the front page.

This is a report listing the current state of those issues, which still need to be exploited by Republicans in the election this year.

1. Big premium hikes are slated for 2015. Because the country erupted in outrage over the millions of policies cancelled under Obamacare, which made a lie of the president’s vow, “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” the White House reversed course and allowed people to maintain existing coverage. As a result, the Obamacare exchanges were starved of the healthier people needed to pay for the sick and poor previously without insurance. Insurers are now planning to raise premiums.
According to PwC Health Research Institute, the average premium increase request for 2105 in North Carolina is 10.8 percent; in Iowa the hike is 11.5 percent. Many in Louisiana are looking at almost a 20 percent increase, and in Arkansas nearly 12 percent. That’s big, unpleasant news for Democrats.

2. Critics claim the Obama administration is fudging the ACA enrollment numbers. The White House trumpeted that 8 million Americans had signed up for Obamacare, but that total has been shrinking. Aetna, one of the program’s biggest players, reports that of their 720,000 enrollees, only about 600,000 are paying for their coverage, a number they expect will drop to about 500,000 by year-end. Other insurers indicate fall-off as well.

3. People are angry about the narrower choices of doctors and hospitals available to them.  In New Hampshire, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield was the sole insurer participating in the marketplace; it eliminated 10 of the state’s 26 hospitals from its network. According to Politico, such is the uproar about shrinking choices that “since the beginning of 2013, more than 70 bills have been introduced in 22 states to clarify the network rules, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.” In California, more than one group has sued Anthem Blue Cross, charging that the insurer misrepresented the scope of its doctor network
Related: Up to 300,000 Could Lose Obamacare on Federal Exchange
4. The ACA was constructed incompetently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled illegal the federal subsidies paid to Obamacare enrollees in states that have not set up their own exchanges -- a stark reminder of how badly the healthcare bill was implemented. This and other unintended consequences are excellent arguments for significantly overhauling the ACA – an undertaking that might be possible under a Republican Senate but that has little or no hope otherwise.

5. Obamacare highlights the president’s imperial tendencies. Mr. Obama has single-handedly changed the ACA some 24 times, delaying important provisions such as the employer and individual mandates. The president has rigged the rollout of the ACA to political advantage, putting off the most painful aspects of the bill and front-loading the goodies. Republicans should remind voters we have yet to encounter, for instance, the 40 percent Cadillac tax, which has been pushed back until 2018, but which is expected to raise as much as $214 billion by 2023.

6. Obamacare undermines job creation. The ACA has been the most important of a number of White House policies that have discouraged job creation at a time when the country is struggling to put people back to work. At last tally, there were 92 million adult Americans who are not working (like stay-at-home moms), are unemployed, retired or disabled. The workforce participation rate is at a decades-long low. This is unsustainable, and Obamacare is not helping. Companies have limited their hiring and also the number of hours their employers work because of the bill and have faced increased uncertainty. Meanwhile, because of the ACA, Americans no longer need to work to get health benefits – maybe a good thing for individuals, but not for a country whose safety net must be funded by an ever-greater workforce.

In short, there’s still meat on the bones of the Obamacare carcass; Republicans running for office should get out their knives and forks.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Ben Stein on President Obama

Ben Stein is a very decent and talented man who usually gets things right and writes about them brilliantly.

Ben Stein's Diary

Moral Decency in Disintegration

A President who at heart hates America.

By Ben Stein – 8.16.14

A trip up to the charming town of Sandpoint. It went well except that our flight from SEA to Spokane was postponed for an hour. We took an earlier flight but then my wife’s luggage was not in Spokane. We had to wait two hours for that. We passed the time at a fine local Spokane restaurant called the Rusty Moose. Good food, good service.

We sat at the bar and next to us were two soldiers. One of them was quiet. The other was talkative. He wanted to know if I thought there was much of a future for civilization.

“We Americans come from the Enlightenment,” he said. “But how many other countries have the values of respect for law, respect for human dignity, respect for the individual that we have?”

“Maybe Israel and the UK,” I said.

“Right,” said the soldier. “That was my count, too.”

This is a conversation I have been having often. People just come up to me and ask me if I think civilization has a future, if I think human decency has a future.

I blame Mr. Obama and his wicked clique for this. Despite an enormous edge in wealth, military might, and moral power, the United States has abandoned the field to the terrorists and bullies and killers and enslavers of women.

A few days ago, Mr. Obama said we were going to save the Yazidis trapped in the middle of ISIS control. He did almost nothing. Today, ISIS murdered roughly 100 Yazidis because they would not convert to Islam (the religion of peace). In retaliation, Mr Obama sent two drones to blow up two ISIS pickup trucks. This is just great. The U.S. spends roughly $620 billion per year on defense. With a genocide looming, Mr. Obama can muster up the strength to send out two drones to destroy two pickup trucks.

This is pitiful. Beyond pitiful. In this incident, we can see that Barack Obama is just too paralyzed by his hatred of America and European civilization to bestir himself to help that civilization’s values. Obama is another Angry Black Man, better covered up than most, but not a fan of American values of compassion and caring. He is too angry to be compassionate or empathetic. He has to worry about himself and Michelle.

That means no helping the poor Nigerians against Boko Haram rapists. No helping of any kind in Arab Africa, which has been led by Arab Spring into a deep hell of violence and lawlessness. No helping the Ukrainians as they struggle against their violent neighbor. It means contempt for the only country in the world with its existence at stake every day — Israel — which is still the most civilized country in the world east of Anglia.

Mr. Obama sides with the killers and the fanatics almost every time by not helping the victims of these people.

The result? The world is aflame and Mr. Obama is playing golf and the flames get higher. The uber-genius Mark Steyn wrote about America Alone. It’s worse than that. It’s America alone with a man who in his heart hates America the way his Kenyan father hated the British (a theory I learned about from the very smart Dinesh D’Souza).

As the crazies of the world circle around, our leader walks away from responsibility, plays golf with plutocrats on Martha’s Vineyard, and gets some satisfaction in seeing moral decency in disintegration worldwide.

This is a terrifying time. I’m glad I am in Sandpoint, where I feel safe even if I am not.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, August 18, 2014

Re Rick Perry - Let's Turn the Tables

I was not much impressed by Rick Perry during the 2012 campaign, but when he recently sent the National Guard to the Texas border, he got my vote for 2016. Just as the Democrats have destroyed with personal attacks supported by an hysterical and corrupt media other Republicans they consider powerful adversaries (Palin, Christie, Judge Bork, Tom Delay to name just a few), they are now out to 'get' Perry.

The Partisan Farce to Get Rick Perry

Aug 17, 2014 Bloomberg

By The Editors

Rosemary Lehmberg, the Democratic district attorney in Travis County, Texas, spent three weeks in jail last year for drunken driving, prompting Republican Governor Rick Perry to call on her to resign. She refused -- and now her supporters hope to have the last laugh by sending Perry away for a lot longer. The criminal case against him is a farce and should be dismissed faster than prairie fire with a tail wind.

Lehmberg’s run-in with the law drew public attention not only because she had an open bottle of vodka in her car and a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, but also because a police video exposed her acting belligerently toward the officers. The judge in the case called her behavior “deplorable.” Since Perry misses few opportunities to engage in partisan grandstanding, he vowed to veto funding for the district attorney’s public integrity unit unless she resigned. Perry argued that, as a result of her conduct, Lehmberg was not fit to oversee the unit, which investigates possible ethics violations.

Partisan motivations aside, it was fair to call her judgment into question -- and Perry followed through on his vow with a line-item veto. Round one to the Republicans.

Next, a liberal advocacy group, Texans for Public Justice, persuaded a judge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Perry’s veto threat constituted an abuse of power. Proving the legal maxim that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Perry now faces two indictments for abusing the powers of his office. One of them rests on a Texas law that forbids elected officials to misuse “government property, services or personnel" -- which is clearly not what happened here. The second prohibits officials from engaging in coercion, a crime that is akin to bribery. Few legal observers give the prosecution much chance for success in court. But conviction isn't the goal here. Harassment and humiliation are. Soon, Perry will have to turn himself in to police. Round two to the Democrats.

This would be ordinary partisan tit for tat, except that a law enforcement office is involved. Political disputes should be resolved in political venues -- legislative bodies and public debates -- not in criminal courts. If Perry’s veto is an abuse of power, then the state legislature could impeach him, as it did Texas Governor James “Pa” Ferguson nearly 100 years ago. Impeachment, however, is entirely unnecessary: The legislature could simply vote to override Perry’s line-item veto. For failing to do so, should the entire legislature be indicted?

Of course not. Perry is guilty of partisan behavior, not felonious conduct. There's been no evidence to support the claim that he vetoed the funds to prevent the public integrity unit from investigating allegations of impropriety by the state’s Cancer Prevention and Research Center.

Much of the commentary following the indictment has involved speculation about how much it will damage Perry’s presidential aspirations. Some liberal pundits seem gleeful. Don’t be fooled. This is more likely to rally Republicans to Perry’s side -- earning him new supporters and donors -- and to make Texas Democrats look as craven as the Republicans who are seeking to impeach President Barack Obama. And that will mean giving back round two. .


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, August 15, 2014

Another Instance of Obama's Duplicity on Israel

A new Wall Street Journal report reveals that President Barack Obama's administration blocked a shipment of missiles to Israel in late July and tightened additional weapons shipment procedures to Israel, revealing increasing tensions between the two governments.

The U.S. decision to tighten arms transfers to Israel comes as the UK threatens similar actions. On Tuesday, the British government announced the suspension of 12 arms export licenses to Israel if fighting resumed in Gaza.

The Wednesday night report cites officials in the Obama administration who say Israel had requested a large number of Hellfire missiles directly through military-to-military channels, for which no additional administration approvals are required. An initial batch of the missiles was about to be shipped, according to sources in Israel and the U.S. Congress.

At that point, the administration stepped in and put the transfer on hold. Top White House officials instructed various U.S. military agencies to consult with the U.S. State Department before approving any additional arms requests from Israel.

The decision to clamp down on future transfers was the equivalent of "the United States saying 'the buck stops here. Wait a second. …It's not OK anymore,'" said one official. 

An Israeli defense official confirmed the reports, saying, "The U.S. delayed a shipment of Hellfire missiles to the Israeli air force" in the face of “national tension" with Israel.

Obama has not been on the same page as Israel in terms of Israel’s operation in Gaza, making various attempts to press Israel into accepting a truce with Hamas, even under terms unpalatable to the Israeli government.

After one instance where America allegedly pressured Israel into a ceasefire that was violated within 90 minutes by a Hamas attack which killed several Israeli soldiers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told the administration "not to ever second guess me again."

According to U.S. officials cited in The Wall Street Journal report, a Wednesday night phone call between Obama and Netanyahu was "particularly combative."

A turning point appeared to be Israel’s July 30 IDF strike on terrorists adjacent to a UN school, which the U.S. slammed as “disgraceful.”

In response, the IDF confirmed it targeted Islamic Jihad terrorists in the vicinity of the school and provided video evidence that Hamas had fired rockets from inside schools.

The U.S. administration has since required White House and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel, officials say.

Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each case is now subject to review, slowing the approval process--and signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny.

Reaction from HotAir:

If the standard review process was followed, then why was the White House “caught off guard”? Isn’t it incumbent on the Obama administration to know how the sale and transfer process works?  Israel had conducted a ground war — much to the chagrin of Obama and his “policymakers” — for a few weeks. Why wouldn’t anyone have expected Israel to replenish its supplies? Surely there are a few people who may have at least watched Patton if not studied Clausewitz in this administration. Resupply is a basic function for any army at war.

Surprise in this case springs from willful ignorance, as Jeff Dunetz notes. On Morning Joe today, Jim Miklaszewski told Joe Scarborough that the stockpiles in Israel are routinely tapped for resupply, and that the Pentagon knew all about it at the time — even discussing it openly with the press when the transfer occurred. Miklaszewski scoffed at the notion that the White House would have been caught off-guard about it unless they wanted some plausible deniability.


Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

American Army to Revert to 1940 Size

I suppose it should not surprise me that our corrupt mass media would be so silent about the plan that President Obama and Secretary of Defense Hagel have hatched to reduce our armed forces to their lowest level since before World War II. I think this plan is reckless and greatly endangers our security at a time that the world is falling apart.  Is this the culmination of Obama's grand plan?  Will our soldiers also train with wooden, fake rifles as in 1940?

New York Times (excerpt)

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, released on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

Officials who saw an early draft of the announcement acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.

Outlines of some of the budget initiatives, which are subject to congressional approval, have surfaced, an indication that even in advance of its release the budget is certain to come under political attack.

For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding.

Even so, officials said that despite budget reductions, the military would have the money to remain the most capable in the world and that Mr. Hagel’s proposals have the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Money saved by reducing the number of personnel, they said, would assure that those remaining in uniform would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry.

The new American way of war will be underscored in Mr. Hagel’s budget, which protects money for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. And in an indication of the priority given to overseas military presence that does not require a land force, the proposal will — at least for one year — maintain the current number of aircraft carriers at 11.

Over all, Mr. Hagel’s proposal, the officials said, is designed to allow the American military to fulfill President Obama’s national security directives: to defend American territory and the nation’s interests overseas and to deter aggression — and to win decisively if again ordered to war.

“We’re still going to have a very significant-sized Army,” the official said. “But it’s going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained.”

Mr. Hagel’s plan would most significantly reshape America’s land forces — active-duty soldiers as well as those in the National Guard and Reserve.

The Army, which took on the brunt of the fighting and the casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, already was scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-9/11 peak of 570,000. Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the Army would drop over the coming years to between 440,000 and 450,000.

That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. For years, and especially during the Cold War, the Pentagon argued that it needed a military large enough to fight two wars simultaneously — say, in Europe and Asia. In more recent budget and strategy documents, the military has been ordered to be prepared to decisively win one conflict while holding off an adversary’s aspirations in a second until sufficient forces could be mobilized and redeployed to win there." New York Times

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Monday, August 11, 2014

Two Obvious Liars

Lie Number 1

President Obama refused to take responsibility for the lack of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying that American soldiers had to pull out due to political pressure from Iraqi leaders.

“This issue keeps on coming up as if this was my decision,” Obama retorted when asked if he had any second thoughts, in light of the terrorist force taking over regions of Iraq, about having pulled all American troops out of the country. “The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” he said.

Lie Number 2

On Sunday, The Atlantic came out with an interview of Hillary Clinton which was conducted by Jeffrey Goldberg.

The highlights of the interview was Hillary's criticism of the Obama Administration's failure to back the Syrian rebels early on and its failure to prevent the rise of ISIS in Iraq and also gave a staunch defense of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.

While Hillary's critique of the Obama Administration is spot on it does lack a certain credibility. It's not as if she is a detached observer. As President Obama's Secretary of State for four years, she was instrumental in the development of very policies she now sees fit to criticize. Let us not forget that it was Hillary who once called Bashar Assad a reformer and ripped Netanyahu every way possible. She also once stated that Israel lacked "empathy" and "generosity" towards the Palestinians.

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Muslims in America and Everywhere

This is a reprint of an article I posted in 2008.  Thanks to Ivan for e-mailing me the statistics shown in the book excerpted below, and reminding me of this article.  Nothing has changed.  Muslim jihadists are still butchering innocents; Palestinians are still teaching their children that Jews drink Arab blood and are still trying to kill all Jews; Muslims come to America to escape their culture - then promptly try to impose their culture on the rest of us.

Although most of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children as do we, nevertheless, Muslim history cannot be ignored or denied (as American liberals seem to do), and it is clear that 1. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion – and must be dealt with as such, and 2. We must be vigilant in not allowing the Muslim population to grow, nor allow mosques and schools spreading hate to exist in America.

The following excerpt from Dr. Hammond's book shows the extent of the problem, and that it must be dealt with if we are to keep the freedoms so many Americans died to win for us and to keep for us.

"Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
by Dr. Peter Hammond

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Wednesday, August 06, 2014

The Summer of 2006 (A Reprint)

Many media outlets, including the NY Times, Washington Post, AP, and Reuters, report the Gaza incursion by Israel as if it's new news, and as if the Israelis should just stand and take it.  There is both ancient history and modern history to consider.  Below is a reprint of an earlier blog entry of mine that refers to some recent events,  For some long-term history, please go to Palestine, Israel and its Peoples and Borders

Please also understand that if Israel does not shut down the ability of Hamas to engage in rocket attacks, the advancements in rocket science will surely overwhelm the defense systems of the Israelis in the near future, and new missiles supplied by Hezbollah (Iran) will start killing thousands of them.
Remembering the Summer of 2006

"On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah guerillas killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another two, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. All the while Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at civilian targets in Northern Israel. These acts against Israel’s sovereignty sparked Israel's defensive measures and the subsequent escalation of the conflict. In the end, as a direct consequence of Hezbollah’s belligerence, more than 1,000 Lebanese and Israeli civilians lay dead and the infrastructure of Lebanon lay in ruins." From Sea to Shining Sea 10/9/06

"At a time when history is hardly being taught anymore, and journalists lie, it must be hard for our young people to understand who the good guys are in the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis in what was called Palestine. In a land where both Jews and Arabs have dwelt and fought one another for ages, it was Solomon-like for the United Nations to divide the land between them in 1947 – yes, 1947, more than 60 years ago. Neither the Arabs in surrounding countries nor the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians would accept that decision, and the Palestinians moved out, confident that they could soon move back and take over all the land; while Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen attacked the Israelis.

Four times since 1948 the Arab countries have attacked Israel with the objective of exterminating every Jew who lived there. The result of these wars was defeat and humiliation for the Arabs and more-defensible borders for the Israelis.

Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel (for which Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists), and, over the years, many times other countries, mostly the U.S.A., have tried to broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The last, significant negotiation, called the Oslo Accords, was brokered between President Clinton, the Palestinian leader, PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli Premier,Yitzhak Rabin. Many Israelis objected to the terms of this agreement and replaced Rabin, while the Palestinians reacted by launching the “Intifada”, a never-ending state of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Oslo Accords came to naught.

Due to the rampant anti-Semitism that exists in much of the world, Israel has often been portrayed as the monster in the conflict. When Hezbollah attacked Israel in the summer of 2006, both the Associated Press and Reuters were caught doctoring photographs and filing false reports (remember Cana) that condemned Israel unfairly." From Sea to Shining Sea 7/19/2008

2009 Update

Nothing ever changes. No tears should be shed for Israeli women and children who live under the daily threat of constant bombardment from rockets launched from Gaza or from death by being blown up by Palestinian terrorists from a bomb set in a busy store or on a bus. Here is today’s attempt by the New York Times to raise anger against Israel and enlist sympathy for the murderers. Give me a break

In Dense Gaza, Civilians Suffer

January 1, 2009 By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY New York Times (Excerpt)

"GAZA — A dentist stood at the bed of a doctor, his good friend Ehab Madhoun, 32, who had just died, his shrapnel-pitted body wrapped in a white shroud.

The day before, Dr. Madhoun, a general practitioner, was in an ambulance responding to an Israeli strike at the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza. Another missile hit the ambulance. The driver, Muhammad Abu Hasira, died instantly. Dr. Madhoun lingered for a day, dying of his wounds on Wednesday in the intensive care unit of Shifa Hospital, where hundreds of people have been brought since Israel began its heaviest assault on Gaza in three decades.

The dentist cried.

“He was just doing his work,” said the dentist, who would not give his name. “He’s a doctor, and I can’t understand why Israel would hit an ambulance. They can tell from the cameras it’s an ambulance.”

It has always been this way, over years of conflict here, that civilians are killed in the densely populated Gaza Strip when Israel stages military operations it says are essential for its security. But five days of Israeli airstrikes have surpassed past operations in scale and intensity; the long-distance bombardment of the Hamas-controlled territory has, however well aimed at those suspected of being militants, splintered families and shattered homes in one of the most densely populated places on Earth." New York Times

Labels: , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Tuesday, August 05, 2014

The Unbelievable Gaza Tunnel Plan

We have been seeing bits and pieces of the tunnels that Israel set out to destroy in the Gaza strip, but few know the extent of the plan by Hamas to destroy Israel by means of these tunnels, and few know of their massive extent and the planning, the organization or the billions of dollars expended here.  The only other undertaking that comes close was the Nazi attempt to kill all the Jews in hundreds of concentration camps and death chambers.

By Mordechai Ben-Menachem

Multiple media outlets report that Hamas’s offensive tunnel network – now known to have been composed of over forty attack tunnels dug underneath Israel’s border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip – was set to be activated during the Jewish High Holidays (September 24th) as a mass terror attack.
The attack was meant to generate as many as ten thousand casualties, men, women and particularly children and hundreds of captives.  Explosives were particularly placed underneath kindergartens to make certain that these “institutions” would be the first struck, even before anything else.
The IDF recently published the below map showing that tunnels were created in pairs, to empty out on both sides of nearby communities.  The known cost of the infrastructure – each tunnel costs upward of some $1 million – clearly shows that Hamas was planning a coordinated mega-attack.  It must be understood that use of even one tunnel would inevitably trigger Israeli retaliation against the entire network.
A map of a small portion of the tunnels meant to be used 9 weeks from now.
Revelations regarding the planned tunnel attack magnitude played a decisive role in the Israeli government’s rejection of a ceasefire proposed late Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry.
Unbelievably, Kerry actually proposed in his latest “cease-fire proposal” – none of which have been honored by Hamas so far – that Israel refrains from degrading remaining attack tunnels.  This mind-boggling concept would necessarily be rejected by any sane government, of any country.
Israeli security sources, citing information acquired in interrogations of captured brigands, described a scenario under which hundreds of heavily armed Hamas fighters would have spilled out into Israel in the dead of night and within 10 minutes been positioned to infiltrate essentially all Israeli communities surrounding the Gaza Strip.  Waiting then in hiding until schools and kindergartens were occupied, the terrorists would then attempt to kill the children first, and then kill and kidnap as many Israelis as possible.  The plot was set to take place during Jewish New Year, on September Taboola
“It’s like the Underground, the Metro or the Subway,” Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. Peter Lerner said. “These tunnels are all connected. I would describe it as Lower Gaza.”
Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said, “A whole city of terror tunnels has been found.  Without the ground operation, we would have woken up one day to an Israeli 9/11.”
Except, the actual objective was to be five times 9/11.
This picture shows clearly the width of one of the tunnels, sufficient for wheeled vehicles to transverse it.  Hamas did not build a “subway” system for Gaza residents.  They built an infrastructure for one purpose, and one only, an industry of death.  
Israeli military officials reported that the tunnels are stocked with tranquilizers, handcuffs, syringes, ropes and other materials used for subduing abductees, civilians and soldiers.  The tunnels also had fantastic quantities of explosives and additional military materiel meant to be used in the up-coming mega attack.  Much of these explosives had already been placed underneath Israeli kindergartens.  Some of these tunnels were as deep as 30 meters underground.
Fantastic quantities of explosives were stored in every tunnel, meant to be used in a mega-attack on civilian communities and infrastructure.
Sources say the Gaza Strip war, Operation Protective Edge, could serve as a prelude for a more extensive underground war with the Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah.  Perhaps, not ‘just’ in the Middle East.
The tunnels inside Gaza and under the Israeli border are not a secret project Hamas ran under the noses of Israel and the Palestinian public. Everyone in Gaza, knew that beneath Gaza, the City and all of its environs, a network of tunnels was being dug over the past five years, with an investment of tens of millions of dollars.  Yet no one in Israel, public or military, was prepared for the scope of the tunnels – the danger that became clear in the past week or two.
Senior Hamas operatives show off their offensive tunnels to their spouses.  Unbelievably, this is actually a picture of a Marriage taking place in the ‘place of death’.
In order to create this monstrosity, Hamas needed significant professional help; and this help had to have come from a large organization or state entity.  This is not just the monetary aid it received from Qatar, America’s ally.  This is professional guidance for the performance of such an underground feat.  Perhaps Hamas could have used experts from the tunnels dug at Rafah under the Gaza-Egypt border, but those were significantly simpler, and did not demand any extraordinary investment or effort.
A Hamas operative climbing upward in a pier of one of the major tunnels.  Notice the work on the sides of the tunnel. 
Who supplied these quantities of material?  Who planned what would be needed?  How did Hamas acquire thousands of ampoules of tranquilizer, syringes and other, additional drugs to be used?  These are far beyond the quantities and variety of what is needed by any civilian medical service.
How was all this brought in to the Gaza Strip?  The logistics of this planned attack are the work of a well-organised military, not that of a militia or club.  This was no amateur plan.
Observers note that attack scenarios lined up with recently revealed data about the sophistication, scope and nature of the offensive tunnel network.  As previously reported here, this sophistication and know-how is being copied right now by Mexico-based Hezbollah agents along the Southern US border.  Tunnels in Southern Lebanon, as in South US, are significantly more difficult to detect than those in the sandy terrain of the Gaza Strip.
“Hamas planned these tunnels for years, and planned to use them to kidnap soldiers,” Israeli military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mordechai Almoz said. “[Now] they see the tunnels collapsing one after the other.”  For the last two years, the Israeli army has sought to develop skills and equipment to fight in enemy tunnels and bunkers.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used tunnels to operate command and control, to infiltrate Israel and abduct soldiers, to fire rockets and to conceal fighters amid invasion of the Gaza Strip.
Mordechai Ben-Menachem is a former researcher/lecturer at Ben-Gurion University and an author of 30 book ranging from engineering to poetry. He is also an ordained clergyman and a former soldier.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Friday, August 01, 2014

Obama's Hatred of Israel

The look on both their faces says it all.

President Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2011.

By Jay Bergman
Providence Journal August 1, 2014

Obama's Israel Actions Merit Impeachment
President Obama’s demand for an unconditional and immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hamas, which would leave the latter with the wherewithal to murder Israeli civilians in the future, is just the most recent example of what can only be considered a conscious and deliberate policy to weaken and to undermine the security of the only Jewish state in the world.

From denying Israel the “bunker-buster” bombs it needs to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, to infantile snubs of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of the United States has shown an unswerving, consistent and relentless hostility to Israel that is not only harmful to Israel but to America as well.

Theological fanatics like Hamas will not be kindly disposed to the United States, much less deterred from continuing their genocidal war against Israel, by Obama’s ongoing appeasement, which has been justified and explained away by the president’s ridiculous claim, first made in his speech in Cairo in 2009, to understand Islam because he lived as a youth in a Muslim country, Indonesia.

Every public and semi-public admonishment of Israel, whether by President Obama or by his loquacious secretary of state, John Kerry, only encourages those who seek Israel’s destruction to persist in their evil design: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and, by seeking to flood Israel with “refugees” too young to have been alive when Israel was created in 1948, the Palestinian Authority.

One may disagree about the reason for the president’s attitude. The most plausible is not that he is secretly Muslim, but rather that he loathes Israel because he loathes America, that for Obama the former is an integral appendage of the latter, no less racist and discriminatory at home and just as imperialist and expansionist abroad. Ironically, the Iranians show they also believe in this connection by building intercontinental missiles to fire at “The Big Satan” (the United States) once “The Little Satan” (Israel) is destroyed.

In light of the multiple dangers Israel faces, even as it is currently dealing, at great cost in human life, with an enemy that seeks the destruction not only of Israel but, as its founding charter makes clear, of all Jews, it is time for American Jews to recognize that the current occupant of the White House means real and lasting harm to the state of the Jewish people and thus to the Jewish people themselves.

If American Jews who support Obama’s positions on domestic issues such as abortion and immigration consider these issues more important than Israel’s survival, then they should continue to support his presidency. But for American Jews who both as Jews and as Americans consider Israel’s survival the foremost moral imperative of our time, and who believe that without Israel Judaism itself will suffer demographic extinction and that America would be even more tempting a target for Muslim terrorists than it was before 9/11, their obligation is clear and inescapable: to do everything they can to pressure President Obama to cease his relentless hostility to Israel and, if that does not work, to seek his removal from office. Impeachment and conviction do not require the commission of crimes. Dereliction of duty is sufficient.

The foreign policy Obama has pursued, of punishing America’s allies, not just Israel but other pro-Western democracies such as Poland and the Czech Republic, and of appeasing America’s enemies, not just Muslim theocracies but also thuggish dictatorships such as Putin’s Russia, is clear evidence of presidential negligence, of failing to do everything necessary to protect the American people. If this is not an impeachable offense, one is hard pressed to say what is.

Jay Bergman is a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, in New Britain, Conn.

Labels: , , ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button