Yehoram Gaon - There is a place

The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Democrats

By Lauri B. Regan

This past week, I was having lunch at a restaurant in midtown Manhattan when my colleague noticed Al and Tipper Gore dining across the room with another couple. It was a frigid day, with record-breaking temperatures keeping most people indoors, and we were the last two tables in the restaurant.

As the Gore party started walking out of the room, my colleague called out, "Hey, Al, how's all that global warming working out for you?" Gore turned around and stared at us with a completely dumbfounded look on his face. He was speechless. With a smile, my colleague repeated the question, again to a hapless look of dismay.

Finally, Gore mumbled under his breath, "Wow, you sound awfully angry." I responded with a thank you, explaining to him that we were actually extremely amused. The encounter concluded with Gore's friend mouthing a very animated "f--- you" at us, and they skulked away. My only regret is that no one at the table asked Gore, "What's the matter? The polar bear's got your tongue?"

What struck me the most about this meeting was Gore's complete inability to utter a sentence addressing his life's work. The former Vice President, Nobel Prize laureate, and Academy Award-winning producer standing before us was a moron, unable to articulate a simple comeback to address all that he has stood for since leaving office. He could have simply ignored us and kept walking, as he does with reporters, but by stopping and standing there dumbstruck, he looked like a fool.

That night, I was watching Bill O'Reilly's show, and in his Reality Check segment, he featured Rebecca Mead, a writer for The New Yorker magazine, who appeared on CBS's "Sunday Morning" talk show lambasting Bush and praising Obama as a "certified intellectual." Upon what does she base this claim?

All we know about Obama is that he graduated from Columbia University, was an Alinskyite community organizer, went to Harvard Law School, and worked as a law school lecturer before running for public office. He has received the author's credit for two books, though it is an open question how much he relied on ghostwriters. We have not seen his school transcripts, and he wrote not one single signed article while acting as president of the Harvard Law Review or as a law school instructor. We have no idea what Obama's intellectual aptitude is, and to claim that he is a "certified intellectual" is absurd.

This is a man who certainly did not deserve to be elected president of the United States, having accomplished little in his first 46 years of life, other than creating a faux persona and developing strong oratory skills. He too is unable to think on his feet and without a teleprompter; he too sounds like a buffoon as he claims to have visited all 57 of the United States and that he understands the Austrian language.

When Sarah Palin was asked to be McCain's vice president, the left went berserk and attacked her on all fronts, including her lack of an "adequate" education. A close friend e-mailed me, specifically mentioning Palin's college as one reason why she was not qualified for the job. When I pointed out that Harry Truman did not even graduate from college, there was no response.

And we could not escape the left's attacks on every Bush gaffe, the whole of which became the subject of books, late-night television humor, and even decks of cards. To this day, the left is completely incapable of appreciating the acts of the Bush years, which will go down in history as based on intellectual honesty and moral character -- two characteristics wholly lacking in any agenda emanating from the Democrats controlling our government.

There is no better example of intellectual dishonesty than Climategate. After Al Gore left the restaurant, the waiter walked over to our table laughing. But when we raised the Climategate fiasco, the waiter had no idea what we were talking about. The fraud pervasive in the scientific community is just as rampant in the mainstream media that is failing to adequately investigate and report on this extremely important story.

I went to see the Sherlock Holmes movie with my family this past weekend. As every fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories is aware, the key lesson is that you must gather all of the facts before forming a theory. An individual who first forms a theory and then gathers facts to support it will wind up ignoring the facts which run contra to it and ultimately err in her conclusion.

How is it, then, that a vast majority of the scientific community charged with investigating changes in the world's climate -- "certified intellectuals," as it were -- have done exactly that, and with the unfettered support of the Democratic Party and the left-wing media?

This simple, commonsense approach to a criminal investigation should be the basis of scientific endeavors from the beginning to the end of time. It should permeate business decisions, economic policy, and certainly a government's rules and regulations. It is otherwise known as common sense -- something completely lacking in today's politicians. Ideology has taken its place. For the Democrats, it is all about ideology.

It does not matter that universal health care has failed the world over. It will pass here and be forced upon the populace, the majority of which has no desire to suffer under its failures just to enable the Democrats to retain long-term power and control over individuals.

The war on terror? There is none. A few "man-caused disasters," perhaps, but releasing the Gitmo detainees to Yemen -- despite our knowledge that it is a breeding ground for terrorism and an al-Qaeda stronghold -- makes sense to those coming to office with left-wing ideological beliefs. And what could possibly be wrong with giving up our nuclear weapons and defense systems when the rest of the world's dictators and rogue nations are manufacturing them as quickly as possible?

The problem with all of these nonsensical ideological policies is that they do not simply have short-term effects on the country and its citizens. The Democrats are consciously and successfully altering the economy, the health care system, our national defense, and the stature of the United States at breathtaking speed, while those of us with common sense and intellectual honesty watch in dismay and horror.

A friend recently told me a wonderful story about his encounter with Albert Einstein as an eight-year-old boy. My friend's father was a brilliant and well-known author at the time, and he was asked to meet one afternoon with Einstein. As my friend walked for several hours in the woods, accompanying the two men, he struggled for just the right question to ask of the world's most brilliant man.

Finally, as the meeting was coming to an end, my friend saw a leaf floating down from a tree in a peculiar swirling pattern. He then asked, "Dr. Einstein, why is the leaf falling from the tree like that rather than straight down?" Einstein replied with a smile, "I don't know."

As my colleague asked Al Gore, "How's that global warming working out for you," it would have been nice to hear Gore respond, "I don't know." But there is no money for politicians -- or con-artists -- who admit that they just don't know. There are no earmarks and windfalls being sent to the intellectually honest people with the moral character to admit that they don't have all of the answers, but that they are going to gather all the facts first before drawing conclusions which will affect generations of individuals, vast portions of the economy, and individual rights previously safeguarded in a Constitution being usurped before our eyes.

The Einsteins of the world are too smart to venture into politics. But we can still make sure that in the future, we elect individuals of moral character who are intellectually honest with both themselves and the American citizens. Without them, our Constitution is reduced to meaningless words, and Al Gore, one of the real "fat cats," will continue to dine at our expense.

Ditch the 'smoking gun' standard, Mr. President

Matt Bonelli
A smoking gun means that bullets have been fired. If bullets have been fired they have been directed towards a particular target intended to destroy that target. Our current administration continues to insist that a smoking gun is necessary to implicate a serious terrorist threat -- excuse me, man-made disaster. Does Mr. Obama need another 9/11 to wake up from his Hawaiian dream world? Well it seems that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit is enough to create some action; for now.

In the wake of the potential disaster on Christmas Day of 2009 the Obama administration insisted that everything was done correctly according to current regulations, but maybe some new measures need to be taken. Really? No way! The administration has been taking an extremely lackadaisical approach to securing our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The smoking gun policy needs to be forgotten otherwise it will become known as the "Sorry It's To Late Now" policy. The horrible attacks on America on September 11, 2001 proved that a smoking gun translates to American lives lost.

Now airline security is finally being ramped up, at least according to some officials. People are being checked more thoroughly and more people are being added to the no-fly list each day. Travelers should feel safer, but somehow at Newark International Airport, a terminal was shut down for hours because an unknown man somehow strolled into the terminal through an exit. The TSA still has not been able to identify who the perpetrator was, but Ann Davis, the TSA spokeswoman, puts our mind at rest by saying, as the Star-Ledger reported today, "It's an empty corridor that arriving passengers depart through... It's meant to be one way, and one way only. There are signs that say no re-entry beyond this point." Signs. Signs, and one distracted TSA official monitoring a wide open corridor.

It is time for all Americans to ask, "Mr. President, what are you thinking?! We Americans love our nation and want you to do something to protect us!" Unfortunately this administration plans unscheduled photo shoots of Air Force One over Ground Zero. I was evacuated from my building in Jersey City when that happened, and watched people run for their lives as they feared a 9/11 repeat. Our President continued his vacation after this latest threat. At least Mrs. Obama took the situation seriously by saying, "I'm trying to mount a coup" when the Obama's were asked about leaving Hawaii by Jeff Mason, a Reuters reporter.

Mr. President, I ask you as an American, to please do whatever it takes to keep America safe. Do not waste time accepting an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, conducting beer summits, debating "climate change" while the world is experiencing our worst winter in years, fighting the "evil people" on Wall Street, and sipping tropical drinks while golfing in Hawaii on my tax dollars. You NEED to be doing your job and protecting my country and my fellow Americans. A smoking gun is too late, because if there is a smoking gun it could mean that there is nothing left to defend.

Emanuel: U.S. is fed up with Israel, Palestinians

By Haaretz Service

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently told the Israeli consul in Los Angeles that the Obama administration is fed up with both Israel and the Palestinians, Army Radio reported on Wednesday.

Emanuel met with Jacob Dayan, consul general of Israel in Los Angeles, about two weeks ago, after which Dayan briefed the Foreign Ministry.

Emanuel told Dayan the U.S. is sick of the Israelis, who adopt suitable ideas months too late, when they are no longer effective, according to Army Radio.

The U.S. is also sick of the Palestinians who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, Emanuel reportedly said.

Emanuel added that if there is no progress in the peace process, the Obama administration will reduce its involvement in the conflict, because, as he reportedly said, the U.S. has other matters to deal with.

Emanuel reportedly said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly acknowledged the two-state solution too late, and that the freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank came only after months of U.S. pressure.

The report added that both sides reportedly rejected the peace plan proposed by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, but that if there is progress in peace talks, Obama might visit Israel and the region.

Canada, under Harper, is Israel’s best friend

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:56 pm |

I have often posted speeches by PM Harper with much pride. Within his party he is not alone. Here’s one by Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism – At the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism

The Conservative Government knows that supporting Jews and Israel costs them at the polls, but it does the right thing, nevertheless.

Shalom. Thank you very much. It is an honour to be here to participate in this Global Forum on Anti-Semitism. Let me begin by commending the Government of Israel for hosting this and bringing us together for this, one of the most critical issues in the world today.

Let me also begin by acknowledging and thanking the large Canadian delegation for their presence and participation here, including my parliamentary colleagues, the Honourable Irwin Cotler, a former Minister of Justice and one of the founding members of the IACCA, Scott Reid, Chairman of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights and Co-Chair of the Canadian Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat anti-Semitism, together with his colleague, the other Co-Chair, Mario Silva, a member of parliament from Toronto, who’s done tremendous work on these issues. In addition, we have here assembled, the leadership of most of the major Canadian Jewish organizations and I’d like to thank them for participating.

Shortly after he came to office as Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper said that unfortunately in some countries, hatred of the Jews is still preached from religious pulpits and still proclaimed from political podiums.

“There are still people who would perpetrate another Holocaust if they could. That’s why we must resist the error of viewing the Holocaust as a strictly historical event. It’s not good enough for politicians to stand before you and say they remember and mourn what happened over six decades ago. They must stand up to those who advocate the destruction of Israel and its people today. They must be unequivocal in their condemnation of anti-Semitic despots, terrorists and fanatics, because those who attack Israel and those who sponsor such attacks do not seek merely to gain some leverage or to alter some boundary or to right some wrong.”

He said, “they seek what they and those like them, have always sought, the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people.” Why? “A thousand complicated rationalizations, but only one simple reason: because the Jews are different, because the Jews are not like them. And because Israel is different and alone in a complicated part of the world, it is too easy to embrace the rationalizations and to ignore the truth. But our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada because, as the last World War showed us, hate fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all and must be resisted.”

What is this fanaticism, this hatred to which Prime Minister Harper referred?

Well he saw it firsthand two weeks ago in visiting Mumbai during a trade mission to India when he went and paid his respects at Nariman House, the Chabad-Lubavitch House in Mumbai, the scene of a terrible massacre committed against Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka in November of last year.

Almost at the same time that Prime Minister Harper was visiting Chabad House in Mumbai, anti-Semitic fanatics in his home city, my home city of Calgary, Alberta were spray painting anti-Semitic graffiti on the Jewish Community Centre, Jewish homes, on public transit installations and indeed, spray painting swastikas on our city’s Holocaust memorial. Some of this graffiti called for the end to the Israeli genocide in Gaza — “Stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza.”

What Prime Minister Harper witnessed in Mumbai, what happened at the same time in Calgary, were practical expressions of the new anti-Semitism. Even though Canada is celebrated around the world as being a successful model of mutual coexistence and tolerance, we too have seen a troubling increase in incidents of anti-Semitism. B’Nai Brith Canada publishes the authoritative registry of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. In 2008, they received reports of 1,135 incidents of anti-Semitic instances, the highest number recorded in 28 years of the study, an increase of 8.9% over 2007.

Statistics Canada reports that 15% of all hate motivated crimes target Jews who only constitute 1% of our country’s population- and that two thirds of hate crimes that are targeting religious communities were targeting members of Canada’s Jewish community.

So how have we addressed these growing incidents of anti-Semitism? Well first of all, on the domestic level, our government has worked with the Jewish community to begin a program of recognizing our own history of official anti-Semitism. Before and during the Second World War, Canada imposed immigration restriction measures which denied access to our country of European refugees. Most notoriously in our decision, in 1938, to refuse to accept the M.S. St. Louis as a refugee ship. We’ve launched a $2.5 million commemorative fund to work with organizations to understand better research and educate future generations about the hatred which underscored those policies.

We’ve launched a fund to provide assistance to upgrade security at vulnerable institutions in the Jewish and other communities and have faced vandalism or threats. And now we’ve been able to work with the community to upgrade security at dozens of Hebrew schools, synagogues and community centres.

We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism.

We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott. And we’re receiving a lot of criticism for these decisions. I can’t recall how many times I’ve been sued for some of the decisions that we have taken, but we believe that we’ve done these things for the right reasons and we stand by these decisions.

We have shifted our program of multiculturalism, which is our programmatic approach to integration and to pluralism, to focus precisely on integration towards liberal democratic values to remove any confusion that may have existed that our approach to multiculturalism justifies abhorrent cultural practices and the expression of hatred.

And I need to commend our parliamentary colleagues for their tremendous work in forming the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition Against Anti-Semitism, and for launching an inquiry which is undergoing its hearings in Parliament through this month and next. A tremendous opportunity for us to bring to light the threat of the new anti-Semitism across Canada.

At the international level, we have tried to give practical expression to our profound concern about the new anti-Semitism in many ways. We did so by being the first government in the world to announce that we were removing funding for the Palestinian authority following the election of Hamas because of the essentially anti-Semitic nature of that organization. We have robustly stood by the right of the state of Israel to use the means necessary to protect its innocent civilians from attacks, terrorist attacks motivated by hatred, committed by organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas.

At the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, we have called for the continuation of a unique and particular focus on anti-Semitism in the Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, recognizing uniquely durable and pernicious hatred that is anti-Semitism. And at multilateral organizations like the Francophonie and at the United Nations General Assembly, we have consistently opposed anti-Israel resolutions that seek to scapegoat this step, democratic state amongst all others. We have taken that position at the United Nations Human Rights Council. Frequently in the past two years, we can no longer remember every Human Rights Council, I’m sure many of the members are glad to see us go, but during our initial three-year membership, on issue after issue after issue, on resolution after resolution, Canada was the only country, or one of the only countries, to consistently oppose unbalanced anti-Israel resolutions.

We have provided political, diplomatic and moral leadership in efforts to isolate the hateful regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We have led the efforts of the United Nations’s successful efforts to maintain a resolution condemning the reigning regimes human rights violations, including their violations of the rights of the religious minorities. And our Prime Minister led the world in the United Nations General Assembly walk out for the odious speech given by President Ahmadinejad at the UN earlier this year.

And of course, ours was the first government in the world to withdraw from the tainted Durban II process. We did that because our analysis was that it was like the impossible to repeat, to avoid a repetition of some of the notorious expressions of anti-Semitism that we all saw at Durban I and we believe that our decision was vindicated.

Now some have said that our government, in taking these positions, have some abandoned Canada’s traditional position of neutrality or balance in international affairs. That we have somehow undermined Canada’s international credibility and reputation on the world stage by taking these positions. I suppose these are the people who believe that there is some neutrality between tolerance and hatred, between terrorism and counter terrorism. Our government believes that in point of fact, we are reclaiming and giving new real expression to our historically grounded values. Canada was involved in the creation of the human rights process at the United Nations and we do not believe that those institutions, that the principles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights were meant to be perverted and used against democracies, were meant to be used by regimes who prey on an ancient hatred in order for their own political reasons.

We believe those trends have been in perversion of the true vocation, the true meaning of those international institutions and we believe that Canada is restoring our true belief in ability to make moral distinctions between hatred and tolerance between terrorism and counter terrorism. And we will continue to take that position.

Finally, let me say that we are working with the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to combat anti-Semitism with the hope and expectation of hosting in 2010 the next Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference Combating Anti-Semitism. We believe that, given Canada’s model of accommodating difference, given the challenges that we are facing on many of these issues and given the track record of Canada in the past, in the recent past, that we can offer some useful reference points and best practices to share with the rest of the world and parliamentarians who share our concern about the new anti-Semitism.

So thank you again to all of you for the great work that you are doing and we, both as Parliamentarians and as members of the Canadian government, look forward to continue our solidarity in combating this, history’s most pernicious form of hatred.

President Obama starts 2010 with 50 percent approval Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31193.html#ixzz0bv3mGaEV

By ANDY BARR | 1/6/10 8:21 AM EST

President Barack Obama enters 2010 with one of the lowest approval ratings of any president heading into his second year, according to a new Gallup poll out Wednesday.

Fifty percent approve of how Obama has handled his job as president, the second lowest total since Gallup started polling. Obama beats only Ronald Reagan, who started 1982 with a 49 percent approval rating.

The president has a 44 percent disapproval rating.

“President Obama has been walking the public opinion tightrope represented by the 50 approval job approval line since about mid-November, with his rating wavering between 47 approval and 53 approval,” wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad in her analysis.

Among the presidents Gallup has polled, George W. Bush entered his second year with the highest approval rating, getting 84 percent only a few months removed from the September 11 terrorist attacks and on the heels of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, had an 80 percent approval rating after his first year, the second highest total.

John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon rounded out the top five, getting 79 percent, 71 percent and 61 percent respectively.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the only other presidents polled who, like Obama, started their second years as president in the 50s, earning 55 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Bribes' infect health reform

By MIKE ALLEN | 1/6/10 2:42 PM EST

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger savaged congressional plans for health reform in his 2010 State of the State address on Wednesday, calling the legislation "health care to nowhere" that's infected with "bribes, deals and loopholes."

With the nation's largest state enduring a fiscal crisis, Schwarzenegger said California's lawmakers should vote against the bill or push to get the Medicaid subsidies that were written into the Senate bill in order to secure Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th and passing vote for that chamber's version of reform. The deal has been attacked as the "Cornhusker Kickback."

"While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals," Schwarzenegger said before a joint session of the California State Legislature.

"Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes. You've heard of the bridge to nowhere. This is health care to nowhere. California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk."

Interpol – From the Inside

By Barry Napier Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Well, Interpol has certainly started a tidal wave! My inbox has been crammed with comments, from hostile to accepting, from ignorant to a pretence of knowledge. I had one, indirectly, from someone who worked in Interpol Europe. Also, many gun-owners tell me they would shoot it out with anyone who wants to arrest them for having guns. I can only warn against a Waco conclusion if that happened.

But, it seems I must be a lousy writer, because only one contact really understood where I was coming from. In this article I must mention my main contact, a recently retired ICE special agent, who worked very closely with Interpol as colleagues, and who was also an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. For obvious reasons I will not name him.

Tomorrow, Not Today

Now, my concern is NOT for what the situation is today. My concern is for the ramifications of what superficially appears to be a minor issue. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Having watched the growth of socialism over the past decade, I can see where things are going. I have watched seemingly ‘minor’ actions growing into major obstacles to peace and social cohesion. And this is why I reported on the Interpol issue… before it is buried under time.

It is also fact that those in power (in whatever role) tend to be very devious in their movements. They will not introduce huge changes with sudden big announcements. Instead, they will alter things a bit at a time (which is very fast on Obama’s clock), so that the big change occurs slowly, each step being accepted and assimilated by the public, so the final push seems natural.

Devious R Government

Let me tell you something, very bluntly and frankly: I remember in one senior role I had, having to deal with a troublesome situation that threatened the entire organisation and which was almost impossible to eradicate. I didn’t tackle it outright, because it would have caused a big reaction. So, I wrote a new policy. But, I didn’t leave it at that. I wrote several new policies, seemingly all different. Each one, in itself, was minor, but they were given as copies to all employees, who had to sign they had read it. But, I had an ‘agenda’. Over several months I gave verbal warnings, and after a while I referred the troublesome crew to the written policies, which, by UK law, were by then part of their contracts.

It took a while, but after several verbal warnings (all documented), I issued written warnings. But, I didn’t want cooperation – I wanted to get rid of the troublesome few. Thus, I stepped up the pressure by increasing work requirements, knowing there would be complaints. I kept increasing the pressure, and when there were inevitable failures to comply, I issued final warnings. At that point I referred the troublesome people to the policies issued months before and showed how they were failing to comply with each one. I then increased pressure of workload, and bingo! They left before we had to give them notice.

The problems we had could have been catastrophic if not dealt with. So - Devious? Yes. Necessary? Yes. What I am showing you is that often, when something major explodes in politics and in society (usually in a bad sense), everyone has missed the signs preceding it. Socialist governments are very good at devious. They will write seemingly innocuous laws and policies that, in themselves, appear to be ‘nothing’. What observers fail to see is the motive and the agenda. Soon, the seemingly innocuous changes are joined by others, apparently not connected. It is only when the big changes are about to be implemented that all the ‘minor’ changes and laws are brought to light as justification for the massive alteration in conditions.

In other words, look at EO 12425 on its own and you will see next to nothing. Read it as innocuous, and you will not see the wood for the trees. Ask government for clarification and they will muddy the waters, just lie, or be open (because there is nothing obvious to explain). If you don’t think this happens, then you have not lived in Europe!

Tony Blair barnstormed Britain with laws that were unconstitutional; he handed Britain over to the EU, just as Edward Heath did in the early 1970s, without a shred of legal backing. Then, more recently, Gordon Brown literally committed treason by signing the UK into the unsafe hands of the EU. Indeed, many laws, especially to do with so-called ‘human rights’ have been devised and used as a tool against the people, to bring in immorality and deception as a rule. Anti-terrorist laws have been used even by local councils to give penalties in court to folks who don’t fill their trash-cans properly! Websites have been crashed and stopped because government didn’t like the anti-government contents. The list of unlawful laws is long and growing. As one US journalist has noted: “Britain is already a police state.”

Don’t Be Naive

I ask those in the USA, then, not to be so naïve. If you think demanding freedom of access to information will provide the answers, then think again! You will only get the ‘official version’. It will not give you the motive or the agenda. What I do is to identify what appears to be disparate items and then join them together in logical fashion. This leads us to conclusions that can only be proved in hindsight. But, if we don’t identify them and do something now, before other changes are instituted by government, we will suddenly be faced with devastating changes hard to deal with.

Interpol claims anything anti-green is suspect, and even calls those who are anti-green,‘terrorists’. It could be argued that I am being over the top, if not spreading ‘misinformation’. Could be true on both counts! But, I am only taking the facts to certain conclusions, by relating them to apparently odd changes made by government, changes that have no obvious reason or force. As one who has experienced and witnessed social engineering of the Labour government in the UK, blatant and unchallenged, I know just how devious these changes can be. And, what they can lead to. No amount of freedom of information will show us the true nature of the beast, any more than the true nature of Obama was given publication space by a pro-Democrat media system, before the election (and after)!

From The Horse’s Mouth

My contact was an ICE senior special agent who worked closely with Interpol - let us dramatically refer to him as ‘Agent X’. He agrees with my UN comments but differs with one or two others. That is no problem. He says that airport security failings were “well known” by U.S. Customs, FAA, GSA and other branches of the government back in the 90’s, but no-one bothered to take notice. The reason given was, then, that there was no immediate threat; like many security agencies the government had to “balance the immediacy and imminence of threats”.

Agent X says “I certainly do understand your concern about spreading the word as son as you see a threat.” He also said that “My partners and I… were like voices in the wilderness” and so seemingly minor threats to airport security were ignored, because they were not deemed imminent enough.

He told me: “Even security in the federal buildings was a source of great frustration for us, especially after consulting with the security manager from the World Trade Centre.” Perhaps you might recognise that last name?

Think my approach to EO 12425 is far-fetched, or even wrong? Then listen to Agent X, who responds: “Part of my personal frustration or caution, if you will, with pointing out possible dangers presented by such things as EO 12425 is the responses these early warnings generate from their recipients. It’s been my experience, even with people trained and experienced enough to know better, is that a warning against something that’s not imminent is discounted.”

“If it never happens, the one who sounded the alarm becomes a ‘worrier’ and is taken less seriously. If it DOES happen, but much later… no-one remembers the earlier warning.”

Just as the US ignored the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists that devastated the Twin Towers. Just like the UK government that believed Hitler wanted peace. Just like the world governments that allowed Russia to land-grab after the Second WW. Just like world authorities who played down (and still do) the enormous threat to life by AIDS and what causes it. Just like those who foolishly voted for Obama despite the facts that were smuggled out under the noses of the liberal media. Just like those who ignore the evidence that environmentalism is fraudulent.

Socialism By Any Means

Obama is out to cripple the USA. He will do it by any means he can. That is why the UN is poised ready to step in when Obama hands the USA over to them (probably after the three nations join as one North America – Canada, USA and Mexico). The warnings are there! Yet, few wish to engage in the debate, because they think it is just rhetoric! How much more ‘rhetorical’ must Obama’s real activities need to be before anyone takes notice? How many ‘minor’ facts must be ignored before what was thought of as ‘not imminent’ blows up in our faces like the Twin Towers?

The fact is blatant – Obama wants the USA to be fully socialist; he wants to ruin the economy, because it is how Marxism operates; he has already silenced the media. Therefore, it is logical for him to begin proceedings, no matter how innocuous they might seem, to bring in laws and policies that will enable him to deliver the final blow to democracy.

Look Past the Laws – See the Agenda

This is the reasoning behind my original Interpol articles. Look beyond the obvious and the present! See the outcomes! And don’t expect Obama or his administration to give you the truth or the full facts. Even if you read and re-read the law, it won’t give you the agenda or the aim. These only come to special people on a ‘need to know’ basis, and those are people tied to Obama by the same agenda. However, we can all join the clues.

Yes, I know Interpol is not a ‘police force’ and is a datahouse for criminal activity. As others have rightly asked – why, then, has Interpol been given political immunity? It is my view that it has been given not so much for current use, but for future use. I link that use to Interpol’s now close relationship with the UN. And I link that to Obama’s aim to hand over the USA to the UN. Another link is that the UN was started by a Soviet spy and has been Marxist from its inception. Every single Secretary General has been a Marxist! So, when Interpol, a mere ‘datahouse’, joins with the UN, there is another motive.

Is it, just as Interpol says, a natural move so as Interpol can make use of the UN’s extensive world connections? Could be. But, I see it differently, given the way all politics is moving towards a One World Order. What begins as a seemingly small action, will mean a far bigger role for Interpol in the future. The data-gathering will all too quickly cover everyone, everywhere.

The UN doesn’t forge meaningless relationships! Everything it does is part of the Marxist movement itself. Only those at the very top will know the truth of the matter, but any sane observer should take note and build a Marxist future into the overall scheme of things. Or, be suddenly surprised by another ‘Twin Tower’ situation, because everyone ignores the clues. Better to be wrong than sorry!

I was told by another Interpol employee that all his colleagues were “very competent, law-abiding professionals”. Apart from the Pink Panther, I have no doubt they are. But, lower levels never know what their bosses are planning. Nor do they know the motives. Hitler’s army was run by professionals. Many did an excellent job in terms of strategies. But did that make their work any the more acceptable? No matter how professional people are, they cannot alter, and usually do not know, what their superiors are up to.

Hyperbole, or Real?

So, friends, do not think that political conclusions are necessarily wrong. Or that “there’s been some ill-informed, hyperbolic language used” in describing Interpol. It is not a popular task to take given facts and extend them to their obvious conclusions, because they go beyond what is immediately obvious. They do not come within the framework of an “immediate and imminent danger”. So, they are ignored. Then comes the crunch, and everyone is surprised. Better to go on the offensive now, than risk being a victim in the future, just because the extension of the facts does not meet the immediate law or policy wording!

Feel-Good Now – But What About Later?

I unashamedly speak of Obama, Marxism and Fascism in the same breath, because that is how they should be treated. Therefore, I relate the ‘official’ idea of Interpol to that of Germany in the early days of Hitler. They were ‘feel good’ days, too. But, troubling things began to occur, and were ignored. The Jews who provided much funding to the emerging political Hitler, then became victims of the same leader, their homes broken into, their shops smashed and closed, the Jews made out to be horrific causes of Germany’s problems.

When the war began, even these clues were ignored, and so the obvious end came – the gas chambers. At each stage in the years preceding the war, the clues were growing and no-one bothered to ‘join the dots’. The same is happening in the USA today. The UK and Europe are already in advance of the USA. Take my word for it: Europe is now in misery and expects far worse. The USA is only just starting on the treadmill promised by Obama… so use the clues to stop him in his tracks!

As Agent X says, “Interpol is an organisation that is more ‘feel good’ than effective…. Foreign assignments to the US are generally given as rewards, so that they may come here to live and enjoy our lifestyle.” Yes… but what of the future? No group is joined to the UN unless the UN can get maximum use from it in some way. The current ‘feel good’ may just be the same as the ‘feel good’ of Hitler in his early days. This is based on history, not on guesswork or wild thinking!

Comments on UN Valid

“Your concern regarding connection between the agency and the UN are valid” continued Agent X. As far as he is concerned, though, Interpol will keep up a façade of relevance as it becomes more irrelevant, until it can be employed as an arm of the World Court…. That is true, but we should not ignore the fact that the UN only joins with those who will be of help in spreading Marxism in the future. Will that help be in the form of a massive police network of data, not just on criminals, but on everyone? Melodramatic? Oh? What about those who said the same things about Hitler and Stalin? Their ‘wild thinking’ became a stunning and evil reality, and millions died as a result. A similar database is already being used against UK citizens, though they don’t want it.

Agent X sees Interpol as more a symbol than an actual useful tool. In my view a symbol can be just as effective as the actual tool. This is why Hitler spent a lot of time and effort getting the symbol of his power just right – and along came the swastika. He was right, because even today the symbol is a powerful reminder and rallying-flag for wicked men. Interpol can become such a symbol, even if others are used as the tools to grind-down society.

Commenting on its future, Agent X suggested: “What I foresee, in terms of criminal investigation, is a charter with the UN to involve Interpol as an arm of the World Court. This would be a significantly easier venue for them, as the World Court is operating without support from all governments, but would be recognised by the current administration, AND then provide a mission for Interpol that could work directly against US interests.” So, how far from the truth have I been?

“The difficult part to overcome would be US membership in Interpol… authorized by Congress, but at the discretion of the Attorney General. Just how far this or any leftist administration will go in this situation is truly frightening. It would be at THIS point, WITHOUT U.S. membership, that EO 12425 could be seen as a threat.” Exactly – that is my point… it is not a threat now, but will be in the future. Especially as Obama is following UK design – do it and see what you can get away with… which is just about everything.

As a student I read law and took part in many Moot Courts. I had the knack to twist the law to suit my own aims, even with a trained lawyer opposing me. It is legal and this is the way lawyers work to create a precedent.

“I agree with you that the green movement is insidious and is a Marxist organisation. I also believe they are ‘in league’, so to speak, with certain green industrialists… such as Al Gore, who was instrumental in creating a green market so he could capitalize on it. Each, much like the pre-war German industrialists and the Nazis, believing that they control and manipulate the other.” Well said! Bear in mind that Interpol says those who are anti-green are ‘terrorists’. This helps Obama et al enormously, as they force us all to enjoin with greenism. Penalties for resisting will come, make no mistake! Copenhagen saw to that. And Europe is already being penalised.

However, Agent X thinks that, at the moment, “rising against this executive order is swinging at shadows” believing there are more imminent threats to the US way of life right now. And that is true. Even at the very beginning of Obama’s administration there is the matter of his eligibility to be president. But, if he can get away with his procurement of the Oval Office without once giving proof of his eligibility, he can literally get away with anything he wishes. And one only has to look at the long list of his ‘czars’ to see just how radical and immoral his decisions are, against the people and even Congress. So, just how distant is imminent, seeing as how Obama is rushing forward like an express train?

“He adds “We have many more grievous threats… to waste energy focusing on the possible threat of Interpol, during a time in which we must be actively engaged in imminent and immediate threats to our freedom…” Again, well said, and he has a valid point, which I respect. My own view is simply that to ignore the threat is to become a victim in the future. And yes, there are many current threats that must be dealt with – but deal with the seemingly smaller ones at the same time, before they grow from little fish to big ones with huge teeth.

Keep Going

Finally, Agent X said this: “Thanks again and keep the torch burning. I am glad we can have this civilized discourse… so much different than when trying to engage a liberal!!!”

There you have it, from the mouth of a Interpol insider. The only real point of difference is that he believes we should concentrate on current dangers to our freedoms, though he still recognises the dangers posed by the UN. My caveat is that some things seem small now, but will grow fast.

Look at Europe for the alternative, where a Fascist EU rules every aspect of life… and is paid billions of dollars by each member country for the privilege! It is getting worse. Because of UK green laws, the elderly are buying old books from charity shops, because it is cheaper to burn them than to use energy, hiked up in price by socialists. This is what the USA faces very soon if it does not fight back and stop the Obamarisation of the country. Fight for freedom, but also be very aware of coming threats, such as Interpol, and be ready to take action. Otherwise the USA will be lost forever. Remember – there is no real difference between Marxism and Fascism. Both are socialist and both want to rule the world with an iron fist.

Summation by Agent X

Agent X agrees with my main thesis. He concludes:

“Overall, I believe your article is very accurate and very rationally and logically presents the arguments that need to be raised. I would also add, for your discussion of the Nazi rise to power, is that Mein Kampf was an incredibly open and honest expression of Hitler’s ultimate goals. Had anyone read and believed his agenda, no one could have been surprised with the result. Just reading statements of Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other “esteemed” members of the disloyal left should leave no surprises! Even less surprising should be a review of their performance….”

Barry Napier Most recent columns

‘The Global Green Agenda’, Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
Foreword by Dr Tim Ball.
ISBN 978-0-9559908-1-6 Available Amazon and book stores.

For other anti-green books by Barry Napier contact the author: barry.napier@ntlworld.com

Presentation vs. Taste: Why Barack Obama is cooking up disaster in the War on Terror

By Paul Ibbetson

There is little doubt that my pallet is not as refined as my liberal friends’ and I have always found it hard to watch the gourmet shows where hours are spent meticulously preparing complex dishes that then cover about three inches of the plate. I guess you can say that while the crème de la crème is still waiting for their single mouthful of Lobster and Prawn Mornay, I will be finishing the last bites of a full plate of steak and potatoes.

However, there is one very practical thing that can be learned from the fancy dishes tossed about from those exotic chefs of iron and that is the value of presentation. It is undoubtedly true that we eat first with our eyes. It is this use of presentation to the American people, our enemies, and our allies in the war on terror by the Barack Obama administration that I wish to discuss now.

Barack Obama, since becoming president, has gone on a quest to improve what he states is a negative world image of America. To do this he has ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay despite not having a plan for where to relocate the prisoners of that facility. The President has also, without qualification, pronounced this country a land of torturers with its use of advanced interrogation techniques and now the administration poises itself to make 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the most well-known terrorist recruiter in the world by way of a lengthy public show trial.

While all this is taking place, the Obama administration solidifies a transition back to the pre-9/11 reactive criminal justice style of opposition to terrorism. If we put the actions of Barack Obama in the war on terror on the plate of reality, how is he presenting America to those that want to kill us? Is there any doubt left in this great nation that Obama is inviting terrorists to our doorstep through these actions?

While American soldiers continue to fight abroad, Obama’s months of indecision to send the requested troops to Afghanistan in combination with a public troop withdrawal date sends a clear message that this administration is not in the fight. The Homeland Secretary’s attempt to change the word “terrorism” into “man-caused disasters” shows our enemies that we have less of a desire to get away from promoting the politics of fear to the world, and more that this administration operates within the politics of the frightened when it comes to facing radical Islamic terrorism. When U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, you know, the guy whose business cards read “soldier of Allah,” killed American soldiers on American soil, Barack Obama’s first words were that we should not be quick to come to judgment. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the terrorist who attempted to blow up Northwest Flight 253 is caught, instead of screaming the war cry that Americans won’t stand for this, the news is prosaic with statements that the unfortunate happening was an isolated incident in combination with Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s mild concern over the event and praise for post-event procedures.

The bottom line is that presentation matters, and Barack Obama would do well to embrace the Reagan philosophy of “Peace through Strength” before it is too late. To those who are put out over the idea of having to hold their bowels one hour before airport landings or being made to parade in front of full-body scanners, projecting their little naked selves at the airport, all I can say is this, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” As the Obama administration continues to present America as a country unable to hear, speak, or think about bringing the fight to the terrorists, frequent flyers should prepare themselves for future cavity searches with their names on them and much, much more.

The answer is as obvious as a poorly cooked Lobster and Prawn Mornay, well, more like a poorly cooked T-bone; this administration cannot handle the heat of the kitchen when it comes to fighting radical Islamic terrorists and those that aid them. While Obama twiddles and vacillates on the issue of fighting and destroying an enemy that is not going to stop, we, the American people, will be forced to eat every un-tasty dish in the form of suffering the consequences of presenting a weak front in the war on terror.

Paul Ibbetson Most recent columns

Paul A. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul is the author of the book “Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society” and is the host of the award winning radio show the “Conscience of Kansas” on the wildcat 91.9 f.m wildcat919.com ibbetsonusa.com.

Deputy FM Ayalon: "Challenges for Israeli Foreign Policy"

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

6 Jan 2010 Israel's foreign policy is a foreign policy which has to be managed during a very complex and severe conflict.

Address by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon:
"Challenges for Israeli Foreign Policy"
Israel Council on Foreign Relations
Jerusalem, January 6, 2010

Shalom and good evening. We just concluded a meeting with the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, Ms. Jane Holl Lute, of the United States. And in light of the near miss on the 25th of December, of the attack on Delta, it is very, very important for us to reinvigorate and actually to intensify the longstanding cooperation that we have on aviation security. But the challenge is really to be ahead of the curve, because aviation security, of course, has many faces. But we also have to look into the possibility of cyberterrorism, of infrastructure defense, and many, many other things, because evidently we are facing a very determined enemy, which is also unfortunately very able and innovative and is attacking us (when I say "us" I mean the entire civilization that we are all members of) on a very wide front. This just exemplifies, once again, the very deep and broad cooperation that we have with the United States, and we will continue on that issue as well.

I saw that the headline is "Challenges for Israeli Foreign Policy," and we have to understand that Israeli foreign policy is in a very unique position. It's a foreign policy which is under attack (meaning, by the way, that it is attacked internally and from outside), but also a foreign policy which has to be managed during a conflict, a very, very complex and severe conflict.

If we look at the battles we've had since the reestablishment of the State of Israel (and I always say "the reestablishment" because we were here many years ago, but nobody counts that), since then, they won. There were different tactics that were used by our enemies in order to bring us down, in order to vanquish us, in order to get rid of us, in order to defeat us, whatever term you want to use. The first one was a military tactic; and fast-forwarding, this, of course, did not succeed. And today, very, very skillfully, but also very fortunately, we have managed to build a defense with which we can defend ourselves, by ourselves, in a very credible way. And deterrence, of course, is the main element here on the defense, to assure our national security, our individual security and our very existence here.

So once this tactic did not work, there was a different tactic used. If you remember in the '50s, '60s, even the '70s (now it's being evoked again by the Arab League unfortunately), and that was an economic tactic. They couldn't take us on militarily so they tried to take us on economically. And there are many members here, I'm sure, that remember the Arab boycott, not just the primary boycott - there was a secondary boycott and a tertiary boycott, and the idea was to really strangulate or suffocate our economy.

Again, if we fast-forward from where we were 62 years ago to where we are today, the Israeli economy is one of the strongest in the world at this time, not just in relative terms but also in absolute terms. And this tactic did not work either. And there in between - and certainly the culmination was in the last decade - was trying to use terror. And here, again, I think there was a little bit of a learning curve for us. We were caught by surprise back in 2000 with this second Intifada. More than 1,000 Israelis dead and many, many thousands - I believe 12,000 - injured. But after a while we found some good defense measures against terrorism as well, not just in terms of intelligence and preemption, which is the real essence of fighting terrorism, but also in other things, like the fence (the Anti-Terrorist Fence is also something which has, in a very concrete way, stopped a lot of the terrorism and of course other methods and operations. Almost a seamless - I would say, joint - operation between our different branches, be it security, the Shin Bet, the Air Force, and other units. And I don't think there is any extra motivation right now for terrorism.

Of course, there is another issue of terrorism, which is long-term incoming ballistic missiles, like we saw from Lebanon, from Hizbullah, in the Second Lebanon War, from Gaza, not this last December, but December a year ago. And here I think deterrence is the main answer to this.

But once military tactics don't work and economic tactics don't work or terrorism doesn't work, now we see the brunt, which is political warfare - political and legal warfare. And this is where we are today, and this is where the Israel Foreign Ministry finds itself at the front. Today the trenches are in Geneva in the Council of Human Rights, or in New York in the General Assembly, or in the Security Council, or in the Hague, the ICJ. I specifically do not want to paint a face, but let's say our opponents, our enemies, are trying actually to take us down the road of South Africa by delegitimizing us, by demonizing us, by also really harming, in a very specific way, our foreign affairs and relations with other countries.

A case in point, of course, is in Britain where Hamas, none other than Hamas, one of the most recognized terrorist organizations in the world - not only here, not only in the United States where it's on the list of terrorist organizations, but also in the EU - they are the ones today, because of some breaches of international law, whether it's universal jurisdiction or in specific countries' judicial systems - that are using (or abusing) the judicial system against us.

And today we find ourselves in a very sad situation whereby Israeli officials cannot go and visit in London without the fear of either being arrested or, at the least, being embarrassed by some injunction or other kind of publicity.

Of course we are in very intense talks with our friends in London, and just two days ago the legal advisor of the British government was here, and I believe they do understand the severity, the scope of the problem, because it is not just directed against Israel, it's directed against any and all democracies which defend themselves against terrorism. And there are many American NATO forces in harm's way which could find themselves, and indeed do find themselves, in the same situation as us.

So this is, I think, the main challenge that we see for the coming years, the coming decade, and this is also something which not only indirectly but also directly damages our relations with the Palestinians and any possibility of a smooth and viable political process with the Palestinians, because it doesn't build too much credibility or trust with us. We are trying to work with the Palestinians on the ground, helping to build their economy - and we have done a great deal with that. The Palestinian economy in the West Bank is growing steadily, 8% a year. Banks are flush with money, more money than the lenders need. We see the economic activity rising by a double-digit percentage. Movement and access is almost flawless, from 41 down to only 14 checkpoints now. We are taking calculated risks. We are trying to move forward, also by helping the Authority.

Just last August, I believe it was, we helped with the sixth conference of the Fatah in Ramallah, without mentioning political concessions and political incentives, through the Bar-Ilan speech of the prime minister, or even the freeze, which is very, very difficult for us.

On the other hand, not only do we not see them coming to the table without any preconditions for direct talks, but we see them continuing the attack, the very unfriendly actions throughout the world in the different international fora, using (or, again, abusing) the automatic majority that they have, whether it's in the Council of Human Rights, where they have the temerity to teach us, or call us to accountability on issues of human rights or other things - countries like Saudi Arabia or Cuba or Syria or Libya or Iran, which are members of the council, or voting against us at the UN.

So how do we battle that? Here, numbers, or quantity, does make equality. And I do not believe that in the foreseeable future we can counter their numbers. So the idea that we have is actually to form and coalesce a group of countries which do share our values, which do share our interests - decent countries which perhaps would not be able to persuade the other side or to change the resolutions, but they could really dilute the vote in such a way that would render it ineffective or not credible.

And here we talk about what we call the moral majority, where countries like Europe (and that goes for Eastern and Western Europe) and, of course, the United States and Canada and Australia and Japan and South Korea and other decent countries that together can vote in one bloc, and that would signal, more than anything else, in a very powerful way, where we are, and that the other side cannot just use all these international fora as a rubber stamp and make a mockery of the entire international system.

A case in point, where we had partial success was in the last vote at the General Assembly, with the Goldstone Report. If you'll recall it was, of course, referred by a majority, 47 members of the Council on Human Rights. Of course they had the majority to refer it to the General Assembly. In the General Assembly, the resolution again passed against us, but there were 78 countries – 78 – out of 192 member states, which did not vote for the Goldstone report, against us. And, again, these are the countries I mentioned before.

And I believe if we could keep them on a sustainable basis, that is now our goal in the Foreign Ministry. And the way to do it, of course, is not just diplomacy, talking about our cultural and other similarities, ethos and, of course, shared interests, but also to go out and expand and reach out to them through better bilateral relations, be it economics, be it technical assistance, be it cultural exchange, or anything else where we can be of help.

Unfortunately, for too long the foreign minister here was subjected to the conflict without paying enough attention to the many friends we have had, whether it was in Africa or Latin America or Asia. So we intend to reach out to those continents, to many of these countries, in order to bring them to our side as well. It's not going to happen overnight, it's not going to be an easy road, indeed it's uphill, but we are determined to do it. We are not going to succumb to this tyranny or Bolshevism of the automatic majority that the Palestinians or the Arabs enjoy in all these international fora. This is what we need to do, and I believe this is also in the best interests of all the countries, and certainly the founders of the UN, all those who thought after World War II that this is a time for a new world order, a world order which will not yield or succumb to terrorism and to dictatorship or to uncivilized behavior.

And also the entire structure, the entire architecture, internationally, was actually designed or devised to make us all a better world and a united world, after the eras of colonialism and imperialism; to share resources, to bring all the countries onto almost the same level in terms of development. Unfortunately, however, this did not happen, and all the UN organs have, so far, not been able to diminish, in any way or shape, poverty or violations of civil rights or human rights.

And the examples are ample. I don't want to go back to Biafra in the '60s or the Congo in the '50s, but just today we have major, major problems in Darfur, in Zimbabwe, in North Korea, in countries which I don't want to mention here but which everybody knows. There are abuses of human rights, abuses of women’s rights, in a very, very significant way in countries like Saudi Arabia and many, many other countries. None of this is being dealt with.

If you look at the entire volume of all U.N. resolutions or all the Human Council resolutions, you will see that the majority, more than 50%, deal with Israel, singling out Israel. I think this not only makes a mockery of all these institutions, but it also emboldens those countries to continue to abuse human rights and civil rights and anything else. It does not give them any incentive to really correct their own societies.

Look at the entire Arab world. Today the Arab world is encompasses 280, maybe 300 million people. Yet, 40% of them, 4-0 percent, are below the poverty line, the international poverty line, which is very low. These are not Israeli figures; these are UNDP figures which were collected together with the Arab League.

If you look into the next 10 years with the overpopulation, the Arab world - these 300,000 people - must create 51 million jobs just to stay where they are now. And they are still at the lowest rung of the ladder, internationally. In order to move up, they would have to create double that amount. But, unfortunately, we do not see how the international community is guiding them, helping them, engaging in an earnest dialogue with them. Instead, the entire debate is dominated by the conflict with the Palestinians.

Anyway, so this is something that we have a challenge to bring out to the world, to bring out to the media. Unfortunately, the media also does not necessarily internationally reflect all those things that I have talked about.

So if I have to sum up what was asked of me - defining the challenge for Israeli foreign policy - it's this: first of all, we must counter the delegitimization which is being implemented by UN resolutions, by political attacks and also, in the last two or three years, by legal attacks, by abusing the international legal system. And of course, we must engender change, we must change the discourse internationally, which I believe in the long run will be the best thing that could happen to all the countries around us here in the Middle East.

Other than that, of course, we would very much like to move ahead and try to gain much more traction with the Palestinians on a viable diplomatic or political process. Again, that is not going to be easy, but it's not up to us. I think today I can fairly say that we have pretty much convinced most of the international community, in a very cogent way, that we have done our share, I would say more than our share, and actually we are waiting for a Palestinian step.

We saw Abu Mazen's visit to Cairo two days ago. The results are not yet known, but the rhetoric that came out of it was not very encouraging. There are going to be very intensified diplomatic efforts in the coming weeks. We will certainly call on our friends in the area and we will certainly look up and follow the leadership of our best friend and ally, the United States. But if I have to make some assessment, unfortunately I do not see anything coming out of it now. The earliest I can see anything moving would be maybe in February, or even later than that.

But we certainly do not want to see the status quo continue. We would like to have a political umbrella and a dialogue which will support, top down, what we are trying to create bottom up, which is economic infrastructure for the Palestinians and institution-building, capacity-building, so we create an entity which would be viable, which would not jeopardize and threaten the entire architecture in the region. The last thing we need here is another failed state or, worse yet, a terrorist state. All this has to be done in a very incremental and very judicious way. And nobody can take seriously any demand by the Palestinians or others that a time limit, a deadline, should be set, because a deadline, as we know from the past, has always worked against the process and was counterproductive. Why? Usually when you have a deadline, nobody does anything until the deadline; then everything is pressured. It fails. Also, with a deadline, there is not really an incentive for the parties to do some major things, and especially I'm talking about the Palestinians who, unfortunately, are looking for an imposed solution. This will never happen.

And I think here the serious leaders in the international community understand that you can never impose peace. Unfortunately we have not found a solution for imposing peace. If we had found a solution, we wouldn't have had the problems in Iraq, in Iran or in North Korea, not to mention other areas. This cannot be done. Like it cannot be done over there, it cannot be done here with the Palestinian conflict.

So we need to have patience here, but mostly we need to build trust and we need to have a leadership which can make decisions. Because of the turmoil inside the Palestinian Authority and within the Palestinian camp, I'm not sure that they are either capable or willing to move forward, but we have the patience and we have the determination. I think we have proven that. And it takes two, unfortunately, to make peace. And maybe this is the real tragedy: For making peace, you need two; to make war, you need only one, unfortunately.

So this is where we are. I purposely did not mention Iran, of course, but if there are any questions we can address those. I didn't mention Iran because Iran is not an Israeli problem. It's mainly the problem of the international community. One thing is certain - and, again, I'm talking here from the perspective of the Security Council, of the coalition of the willing, from the perspective of the countries that would like to see a better world - and that is that we cannot afford a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran, in a determined and, I would say, a final way, would destroy the world order as we know it; the nuclear proliferation treaty would no longer be in effect. Actually, we will see a race, a nuclear arms race, which we have never seen before, not just here in the Middle East, not just in countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Egypt, but also countries in Asia, of course North Korea. Just think of Venezuela or other countries which would seek and would try to obtain nuclear capabilities. Certainly we cannot afford it.

But Iran is a specific threat, and this is not just the nuclear one, because if you marry their nuclear aggression and ambition with very, very radical, fundamental, extreme policies, together with their active support of terrorism, together with their call (for which, again, nobody calls them to task, nobody demands their accountability) for the annihilation of another member state, which is, by the way, an egregious breach of the UN charter, if you put all these elements together, you see that if they had the nuclear capability, then they could do all this and much more with impunity. But we trust that this is the understanding today, pretty much universally, and we hope that a united front can be found or can be generated, because - and this is the key to everything - we have to understand that Iran is a very vulnerable country; it's a very weak country, not only politically and socially but also economically.

And, unfortunately, today they play cards that they don't really have, but they are trying to fool everyone or use psychological warfare to intimidate, and we see it through their very aggressive rhetoric. And not only rhetoric but also with all their testings of missiles and drills and military exercises. And they're also banking on driving a wedge between the different members of the Security Council or the international community. If they were assured that none of these cards could be played - or if we called their bluff - I believe we would see much, much more timid, and maybe even responsible, conduct coming from Tehran. Without a united front, we will never see it. But we have a few more weeks to hopefully gain this consensus, that the P5+1 is working on.

QUESTION: I work for the Romanian News Agency. And I have two questions for the deputy foreign minister. The first question is, the Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos is on record as saying that during the Spanish presidency of the European Union he would like to see a Palestinian state proclaimed through negotiations. Do you count on the Spanish presidency to be able to bring Abu Mazen to the negotiation table? Does he have the leverage to convince him to give up his position?

And the second question relates to the legal battle. A group of 15 Israeli citizens, who also hold Belgian citizenship, brought a legal suit against - and they were wounded during Operation Cast Lead - they brought a legal suit against Hamas leaders. Now, why has it taken Israel so long to bring such a suit, and will the Foreign Ministry get involved in such initiatives in the future, in addition to the Justice Ministry?

QUESTION: I am Walter Bingham of Israel National Radio; that's Arutz Sheva in English.
Increased sanctions on Iran were scheduled to start at the end of the year. Today it’s January 6 and we still haven't seen it start, and the latest we hear is that it's going to be effective perhaps at the end of this month. How credible is that date that was given? And then the second question: At what point would military action be advised?

DFM AYALON: First about the EU and the Spanish presidency, certainly we look up to the Spanish presidency. We greatly appreciate Spain and the EU. We have to remember that we are on the side of the EU, not just culturally and historically and traditionally and in terms of values, but also in terms of interests. And of course sometimes there are different political views, but we should always remember that they should not translate themselves into a conflict with the EU, because we are actually on the same side now.

Mr. Moratinos, the foreign minister of course, is a great diplomat, he knows us very well, he has been in the area. I think his expertise is really the Middle East. So certainly the Spanish presidency can be very, very instrumental and helpful.
But I beg to differ about the goal. When everybody asks: What is the objective? What is the thing that will really end the conflict, or make this a better place? It is a Palestinian state. I think this is a very narrowly determined goal. I think the goal is really to have an everlasting peace. The goal is to achieve a peaceful or historic reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. The goal really is to achieve a peaceful coexistence. This is the goal, not a Palestinian state.

Now, if the means to get to this goal is through a Palestinian state, so be it, but let's not confuse what we are really working for: an everlasting peace. And peace will only be sustained here with security, with everybody's interests assured, and this is something which is of historic proportions, and nobody can take it very lightly. This conflict is already 120 years old. Certainly nobody can expect to solve it in six months or in seven months or hold a stopwatch. What we need to do is measure the development, not through dates but through performance and results. And this, by the way, is why I like the Roadmap so much which, by the way, nobody is mentioning now. But the title was a Performance-Based Roadmap to Peace. Performance is much more important than anything else.

So, definitely the EU and the Spaniards are welcome. We will continue our very intense and frank dialogue with them in a very respectful way, in a very friendly way, but whether they can make things change in the next six months, is not up to them unfortunately. It's not up to the United States; it's not up to any mediator who comes from the outside. If the right elements are not there, if the reality is not changed, then no matter what we do, we need to change the basics here. And the basics are many, not just among the Palestinians but also in the surrounding - what should be the supportive - environment as well. And unfortunately we do not see a supportive environment. If the Saudis don't even have the decency to talk to us or, let alone us, if they are not willing to help the Palestinians politically or economically, and we all know that they have the means to do it, then we need to work on that. So it cannot be measured in a very instantaneous way.

Secondly, about this current battle, legally, I don't know, we're looking into different ways, but certainly there is a case to call to justice all the terrorists of Hizbullah or Hamas or the PLO and many of the Iranians. Look at the matter today. The Iranian Minister of Defense is a gentleman named Vahidi, who was implicated, who was caught red-handed in the bombing of our embassy and the Jewish Federation building in Buenos Aires, 1992 and 1994, and he has an Interpol injunction about them. So certainly we have the case, and these things should be considered to counter it.

On the question of Iran, I'm not at liberty to mention too many things here operationally. Suffice it to say that I take the American President and Secretary of State at their words, and I believe that they are right to say and to state that all options are on the table.

QUESTION: The EU recently said they were going to fund Israeli NGOs, such as Adallah, Musawa, El Am, and I wanted to know what the State of Israel has to say and what the State of Israel plans to do about such funding of Israeli NGOs.
And the second question is you said that you are taking down roadblocks. Now, as of last week we saw a roadblock came down 100 meters from the site where Rabbi Avshalom Chai was shot by terrorists. Is there any plan to start instituting roadblocks?

QUESTION: I'm Hanan Cohen. We accept what you say about the challenge of the underdeveloped countries; yet the budget for MASHAV hasn't changed for the last three years. That's the important aspect of the Foreign Ministry. How do you explain that? And how do you expect to change it unless you increase the budget for these sort of programs?

DFM AYALON: You are so right. I do not have a good explanation why the MASHAV budget has not increased, but I can tell you that by joining the OECD, and this is also one of the objectives for the foreign policy for 2010, I believe by next summer we will see Israel as a member of the OECD. And as a member of the OECD, we'll be obliged to maybe double, or even triple, our MASHAV budget. But certainly we need to corroborate MASHAV with the funds if we want to have a successful policy. As I mentioned, thank you very much for that.

On your two questions, on the roadblocks, yes, everything is being considered. We have taken calculated risks, but we will not be risking lives. On the issue of NGOs, we are working on it.

Thank you so much.

National Security Adviser Says Airline Bomber Report Will 'Shock' Americans

FOX News.com

James Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, says Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the Christmas Day attack.

Americans will feel "a certain shock" when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the alleged Christmas Day airline bomber from ever boarding the plane.

In an interview Wednesday with USA Today, White House national security adviser James Jones said President Obama "is legitimately and correctly alarmed that things that were available, bits of information that were available, patterns of behavior that were available, were not acted on."

"That's two strikes," he was quoted as saying, referring to the failed Northwest jet attack and the shooting massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November. The Army base attack left 13 dead after officials failed to act on intelligence identifying suspected gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as a threat to fellow soldiers.

Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, told the paper that Obama "certainly doesn't want that third strike, and neither does anybody else."

The White House on Thursday plans to make public the declassified account of the near catastrophe on Christmas Day, and President Obama was to address Americans about its findings and recommendations. Obama, too, was to reveal new steps intended to thwart terrorist attacks, as he promised earlier in the week.

No firings over the December security debacle are expected -- for now, at least.

For an administration rocked by the breach of security, the day was meant to be a pivot point from an incident that has dominated attention.

"In many ways, this will be the close of this part of the investigation," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday.

For nearly the last two weeks, Obama and his team have spent enormous time responding to the crisis of a 23-year-old Nigerian man who was in a database of possible terrorists and managed to fly from Nigeria through Amsterdam to Detroit with an explosive concealed on his body. The White House is eager to start putting public attention back to its efforts to expand health care and boost the economy, while careful to say Obama will be monitoring security improvements.

The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was indicted Wednesday on charges of attempted murder and other crimes for trying to blow up an airliner.

His father had warned U.S. officials that Abdulmutallab had drifted into extremism in the Al Qaeda hotbed of Yemen but that threat was never identified fully by intelligence officials, a breakdown that has drawn intense, candid criticism from the president himself.

Still, even with whatever details and improvements are revealed Thursday, questions will remain. Senate committees plan hearings later this month.

And it remains unclear whether any top officials from Obama's not-quite-year-old administration will be fired over the debacle.

"I don't know what the final outcome in terms of hiring and firing will be," Gibbs said.

He said no personnel announcements were expected on Thursday.

Two legislative officials familiar with intelligence matters, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate, said Wednesday that it appeared unlikely that anyone in the Obama administration would be fired over the incident. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Obama's comments Thursday will be his sixth on the incident, encompassing two statements to reporters during his Hawaii vacation and two more from the White House, a written statement on New Year's Eve and his radio address last weekend.

The president blistered the intelligence community earlier this week, saying flatly that the government had enough information to uncover the plot and disrupt the attack. "It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had," Obama said.

Charlie Allen, the former head of collection at CIA, said the government suffers from a shortage of experienced intelligence analysts.

Analysts take pieces of information -- like the disparate threads available before Christmas -- look at them, correlate them, and then make a "very strong leap in order to reach a decision," Allen said. "It takes experience."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bomb suspect faces life

BY BEN SCHMITT and DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will get his day in court Friday when he is to be arraigned on a six-count federal indictment that could bring him a life-plus prison sentence.The grand jury indictment, filed Wednesday in Detroit, charged the 23-year-old Nigerian national with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction to destroy a Netherlands-to-Detroit jetliner with a homemade bomb sewn into his underwear as it prepared to land Dec. 25.

"This investigation is fast-paced, global and ongoing, and it has already yielded valuable intelligence that we will follow wherever it leads," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement Wednesday. "Anyone we find responsible for this alleged attack will be brought to justice using every tool -- military or judicial -- available to our government."

There was no immediate comment from the Federal Defender Office in Detroit, which is representing Abdulmutallab.

Abdulmutallab, the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker, is in custody at a federal prison in Milan, near Ann Arbor.
The bomb plot, on Northwest Flight 253, raised security restrictions at airports worldwide and reminded Americans that they still are vulnerable to terror attacks.

Federal prosecutors and court officials in Detroit have been deluged with worldwide media inquiries about Friday's scheduled arraignment.

But for all the buildup, the hearing could turn out to be a routine two-minute court appearance where Abdulmutallab may stand mute to the charges and be quickly hustled by marshals back to the federal prison in Milan, near Ann Arbor. Cameras won't be allowed in the courthouse.

Prosecutors wouldn't be required to present more evidence unless Abdulmutallab's lawyers at the Federal Defender Office request a detention hearing. That's unlikely because Abdulmutallab isn't in the U.S. legally and would immediately be detained by U.S. immigration authorities if a judge released him.

Also unclear is whether there will be a post-arraignment hearing on prosecutors' request to obtain a DNA sample from Abdulmutallab. His lawyers have opposed it, but legal experts have said prosecutors can obtain the evidence through a search warrant.

The Federal Defender Office declined to comment.

"The attempted murder of 289 innocent people merits the most serious charge available, and that's what we have charged in this indictment," U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade of Detroit said Wednesday.

Friday's arraignment is to be conducted by Magistrate Judge Mark Randon. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds.

The indictment says the 23-year-old Nigerian national tried to kill 279 passengers -- including himself -- and 11 crew members with a weapon of mass destruction on Dec. 25.

"The bomb was designed to allow defendant Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to detonate it at a time of his choosing, and thereby cause an explosion aboard Flight 253," the 7-page indictment said.

The document made no mention of terrorism, but the most serious of the six charges he faces -- attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction -- falls squarely under federal terrorism statutes.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. Had anyone died in the bomb plot, the charge could have brought the death penalty.

The other five counts carry maximum penalties ranging from 20-30 years in prison. Two of the counts -- possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence -- can add 30-year mandatory consecutive sentences to the weapon of mass destruction count. If convicted, Abdulmutallab could face a life sentence, plus 90 years.

Abdulmutallab was subdued by passengers on the plane after they noticed his pant leg and the side of the plane's cabin were in flames. No passengers or crew were injured in the attack, which resulted in increased airline security worldwide.

When he was arrested, authorities said the bomb consisted of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, a colorless, crystalline material that is highly explosive and in the same chemical family as nitroglycerin.

Wednesday's indictment also revealed that the device contained triacetone triperoxide, another high explosive known as TATP. It's one of the most sensitive explosives known and has recently appeared as a popular weapon in the Middle East. It can be easily prepared using commercially available materials, according to a government Web site.

Both explosives were used by Richard Reid, who tried unsuccessfully to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight in 2001. He is serving a life prison sentence in Colorado.

The indictment is straightforward, said Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor and former federal prosecutor.

"This could be a two-week trial, maybe even less," Henning said. "It will not be a complex case."

David Griem, a prominent Detroit criminal lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the case "the trial that cannot be lost."

"This is a case that my 14-year-old daughter could prosecute," he said after reading the indictment. "We could try this case 100 times, and she'd beat me every time."

Griem said any plea bargain would be tricky, especially with a life-plus offense on the table. "What would the government be willing to offer this guy?" Griem said. "You can't plea-bargain your case away. What message are you sending to terrorists then?"

Dearborn attorney Majed Moughni has helped organize a demonstration, scheduled for Friday in front of the federal court building in Detroit, where Muslim Americans plan to denounce terrorism.

"We want to send a message to these terrorists that you're not welcome in our religion," he said. "We want the world to see our faces. Our goal is to ignite a peaceful protest throughout the Muslim world. We want the world to see what we can do here."

Moughni said he expects thousands from southeast Michigan to attend the protest.

Contact BEN SCHMITT: 313-223-4296 or bcschmitt@freepress.com. Staff writer Todd Spangler contributed to this report.