H/T Zion Fighters
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Pray for Israel - Support Israel
Dear Israel,
Our souls cry out and we plead for your safety and that justice be served.
and, to all politicians in Washington - Americans beg you to stop sending support to the Palestinians/Gaza/Hamas! How is it that through loopholes, you find ways to support terrorism against our friends in Israel?! You dare use American taxpayers monies to support those who arm themselves against Israel - when or what do we have to do to get your attention?! We will remember Israel's friends in Washington, come next elections - bank on it!
Bee
Israel pounds Gaza, kills 3 after missile hits bus
NAHAL OZ — Gaza militants on Thursday fired an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus, critically injuring a teenager, prompting the army to pound the Strip, killing three and wounding more than 30.
After the missile slammed into the bus, the Palestinians lobbed at least 45 mortar rounds into southern Israel, hitting a house, and the army responded by staging multiple raids across the enclave, one of which hit an ambulance, Palestinian medics said.
As the rockets flew over the border, Israel's Iron Dome short-range missile defence system intercepted a projectile heading for the southern port city of Ashkelon, in what was the first time the system has ever been successfully used in a combat situation.
The bus attack was the first time an anti-tank missile had hit a civilian target in Israel, prompting Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak to order the army "to act swiftly" in response.
"An anti-tank missile was fired directly at the bus," police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld told AFP shortly after the attack on the school bus which was passing in front of kibbutz Nahal Oz, just across the border from Gaza City's eastern flank.
A spokesman for the Israeli medical services said a 16-year-old boy was critically wounded in the attack, while the bus driver sustained only light injuries.
Television footage showed the yellow bus with the back end badly damaged and the windscreen blown out, as a small teddy bear lay on the ground among shards of glass and pools of blood.
The bus had just finished dropping off dozens of schoolchildren.
"Defence Minister Ehud Barak ordered the IDF (army) to act swiftly with all the necessary means and to respond to the attack on the bus," a statement from his office said, noting that Barak "considers Hamas to be responsible for all incidents coming from Gaza."
Immediately after the bus was hit, militants in Gaza fired at least seven mortar rounds at the area, complicating efforts to evacuate the teenager and the bus driver, an AFP correspondent said.
By early evening, the army said at least 45 mortar rounds and rockets had slammed into southern Israel, one of which scored a direct hit on a house.
But one rocket aimed at Ashkelon was shot down by the multi-million-dollar Iron Dome system, which first went into operation on March 27, in what was the first time a short-range interceptor has been deployed anywhere.
As the rocket flew through the air, the interceptor missile streaked up into the sky to hit it, their two trails converging in an explosion, an AFP correspondent said.
A military source confirmed to AFP it was the first time Iron Dome had hit a rocket in actual combat.
Following the surge in violence, the Israeli military hit back immediately, shelling an area in eastern Gaza City and killing a 50-year-old man and wounding another five people, including a small child.
Air strikes hit two Hamas positions in and around Gaza city, and other raids hit targets in the southern cities of Rafah and Khan Yunis, killing another two people and wounding tens more, eight of whom were injured when shell fragments hit an ambulance, Palestinian medical sources said.
In total, some 34 people were wounded across the Gaza Strip.
A spokeswoman for the military confirmed troops had launched multiple attacks on targets in Gaza, saying it "fired at places from which mortars are fired at Israel."
Over the past month, dozens of rockets have hit southern Israel, some reaching cities as far as 40 kilometres (25 miles) away, prompting a series of retaliatory air strikes and raids.
So far, Israel's response has been muted.
Many believe the Jewish state is reluctant to be dragged into another bloody war with Hamas akin to Operation Cast Lead, the 22-day war which began at the end of 2008 and left more than 1,400 people dead.
But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently en route to Prague after talks in Berlin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, said he would deal with the surge in violence when he returned to Israel on Friday.
"I'm not going to manage things from Berlin airport... when I get to Israel tomorrow, we shall, of course, continue the necessary actions to ensure the safety of the citizens of Israel," he said in comments broadcast on Israel's Channel 10 television.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
My note:
It is amazing to me that Hamas expects Israel to remain sitting on its hands, while Hamas murders Israelis. Hamas commits acts of war and then, Israel buries her dead .... when is enough, enough? How long, O Israel?
Teen critically injured in attack on Negev bus
Initial report suggests anti-tank fired from Gaza Strip hit bus driving near Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council; 16-year-old boy critically injured, another man sustains leg wounds. IDF bombs target in Gaza, killing one, according to Palestinians
Ilana Curiel
| |
A 16-year boy was critically injured after a bus driving near the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council was hit, apparently by an anti-tank missile, fired from the Gaza Strip on Thursday. He is currenlty being treated for severe trauma to the head, after sustaining shrapnel injuries.
An hour later the fire from Gaza continued, with more than 15 mortar shells launched at Israel. One of the shells exploded inside a town in Eshkol Regional Council. No injuries or damage were reported.
Afterwards three rockets were fired towards Ashkelon, and witnesses reported seeing one of them explode in midair, apparently due to interception by the Iron Dome defense system.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on an official visit to Germany, remarked on the violence in the south. "I have just received updates on this criminal attack," he said, but added that he was allowing officials in Israel to handle the outbreak.
Student bus hit by anti-tank missile (Photo: Tsafrir Abayov)
The bus was hit in the rear, causing its windows to shatter. Rescue forces were quick to arrive on the scene to evacuate the victims, and the roads were immediately blocked for fear of additional attacks.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the IDF to respond immediately, and Palestinian medics in Gaza reported soon after that Air Force craft had bombed a target east of Gaza City, killing a 50-year old man and injuring at least six people, including a child.
The army said its helicopters had bombed a number of targets, all of which were Hamas headquarters or areas from which rockets and mortars had been launched.
Barak's office stated that the defense minister ordered the strike because "he sees Hamas as responsible for every attack originating in Gaza".
Dr. Arnon Vizhenitzer, the lead doctor on call at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, described the 16-year old victim's condition. "The boy came to us by helicopter, unconscious and on artificial respiration, and in very bad shape. He is suffering from multi-system injury and head trauma. He is being operated on by our best specialists, who are fighting to save his life," he said.
Hanania Reich, a paramedic who arrived on the scene, recounted the horror. "We were first to arrive together with soldiers. On the road lay a young victim, unconscious and bleeding. We began to resuscitate him and eventually MDA came and evacuated him by helicopter," he said.
"The driver was hysterical. He had shrapnel in his leg, he was lightly injured." Reich added that the front of the bus had also been hit.
Tamir, who got off the bus just a short while before it was hit, said the critically injured teen was the only one who remained on the bus when the missile hit it, aside from the driver.
"I think he caught a ride with the driver because when we got on at school he was already there," Tamir said. "The ride went to one of the kibbutzim and dropped students off there. When we got off at the kibbutz only he stayed on, he must have had to go somewhere else with the driver."
Tamir got off the bus and began to walk towards his family's place of business. "Then I heard blasts and more mortar fire started. I ran to the clubhouse, which has a bomb shelter, and now I'm here with a few friends," he said.
"It's really scary," the boy added. "There are Qassams and mortars all the time here, but it's the first time the incident was so dangerous. It could hit any one of us."
Ilana Cohen's only son, 13-year old Adir, also disembarked just moments before the attack. She said he had very nearly escaped being on board, but that she had told him to get off at home instead of continuing on to an after-school class.
"Now I know why I said it," she said. "The bus dropped him off, left the kibbutz, and 50 meters after got hit… This is my only son. I don't have any more to give to God. This is a very difficult situation."
Minister rushed to shelter
Ronit, who was driving before the bus, narrowly escaped being hit. "I heard a blast and saw smoke," she said. "The thought that it could have been me was very scary. I just saw the smoke and realized we were under attack."
Minister of Science & Technology Daniel Hershkowitz, who is currently on a visit to the south, was rushed to a bomb shelter in one of the Negev communities.
"It's intolerable that, in a sovereign state, children are murdered and hurt every day," he said. "Israel must put an end to this and I will make sure the government of which I am a part makes the proper decision."
The fire from Gaza Thursday began a few hours after the Air Force bombed two smuggling tunnels in the northern Gaza Strip. The army said direct hits were identified. Palestinian sources reported that four people had been injured.
Dagerous new trend
The security establishment has raised concerns about a dangerous new trend by which Gaza terror organizations use anti-tank missiles to target civilian vehicles inside Israel.
The missile fired on Thursday was the second anti-tank missile launched into Israel in 48 hours.
Unlike mortar shells and Qassam rockets, the anti-tank missile is extremely accurate and launching it requires a high level of skill.
Military officials noted that Palestinian terror organizations, headed by Hamas, need to understand that there are red lines that cannot be crossed.
"We will make it clear to them. We have a large toolbox and these violations will be answered with harsh means," said an IDF source.
Hanan Greenberg and Reuters contributed to this report
First Published: 04.07.11, 15:43 - YNet News, Israel
_____________________________
And this, just after Judge Goldstone recants and states his Report not accurate; not true! Must have angered the Hamas terrorists and they are so foolish to think that these latest attacks will go unnoticed by the world community! Hypocritical United Nations may remain silent, while Israelis and children are murdered by terrorists, but the United States must call attention to the fact that there can be no peace as long as Hama remains in Gaza.
My prayers are with the injured victims and also, with all Israel. My heart breaks to hear and see this news go on and on, almost daily, and I think that our Congress, if not our entire Administration from the White House on down, must take a stand with Israel. Condemnation from the White House must be strong and adressed to these terrorists known as Hamas.
To the IDF: Break out the toolbox, now! End what should have been ended during the first Cast Lead war and stop the madness of Hamas.
Bee
Also, please note that Israelis are in grave danger from threats of kidnappings:
Warning: Hamas plans to abduct Israelis
Officials issue grave warning saying terrorists plan to kidnap civilians from within Israel, Sinai
Attila Somfalvi
| |
| Hamas is planning to kidnap Israeli citizens from within the state's territory, including Judea and Samaria, defense officials warned Thursday after an anti-tank missile hit a student bus in the Negev, critically wounding a 16-year old boy. The officials say the warning is especially applicable to Israelis residing in Judea and Samaria, but that the danger has increased throughout Israel. In addition, the Counter Terrorism Bureau issued a travel warning ahead of the Passover holiday, during which many Israelis frequent tourist destinations abroad. The bureau stressed the warning against travel to Sinai this year, saying intelligence exists that terror agents will attempt to abduct Israeli citizens there. Other countries in which travel is advised against include Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Georgia, Armenia, Kenya, and Nigeria. The bureau advises Israelis already traveling in these countries to keep a low profile and prefer flights and daytime travel. |
"Terror agents in Sinai are preparing an attack of this kind together with local Bedouin tribes," the warning said.
Ynet news
US Withdrawal from UN Human Rights Council Proposed in Congress
NEW AMERICAN
Written by Daniel Sayani
Tuesday, 29 March 2011 09:42
Human rights advocates maintain that the U.N. — especially including its Human Rights Council — is in actuality a hostile opponent of human rights, even allowing on the Human Rights Council at one point or another such brutal regimes as Russia, China, Libya, Iran, and Vietnam.
The watchdog group Human Rights Watch declared in its annual report that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon had at times gone “out of his way to portray oppressive governments in a positive way.” Moon was criticized for his lukewarm response to the awarding of the 2010 Nobel peace prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. His guarded comment about the award did not include a call for Liu to be released.
In November he was again censured when during a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing he openly appeared at a round-table meeting of the Chinese Communist Party Central School, which trains party officials in Marxist principles and other subjects. The U.N. head proudly accepted an honorary doctorate at the state-run Nanjing University, where he declared that he saw parallels between the U.N. Charter and the principles of Chinese communism:
For me, we find those common values and shared principles in the United Nations Charter, as well as the body of international agreements that are the foundation of our common quest for development, peace and security and human rights. In all this, we need China’s full engagement. We need China’s leadership.
Ros-Lehtinen’s comments on the HRC formed part of a broader statement announcing her intention to introduce a revised version of a bill she first put forward in 2007. “Its fundamental principle will be ‘reform first, pay later,’” she said in a statement Monday, adding,
Current events at the United Nations are demonstrating again the failures of that organization and the need for reform.
From shams like the Human Rights Council, to corruption scandals, to mismanagement, and more, it is clear that the UN is broken. But what can be done about it?
Lesson One: Money talks. The biggest problem with the UN is that those who call the shots don’t have to pay the bills. Most UN member nations pay next to nothing in assessed contributions, work together to drive the UN’s agenda, and pass the costs on to big contributors like the United States. The U.S. government goes along and pays all assessed contributions — 22 percent of the UN regular budget — plus billions more every year. The UN bureaucracy and other member countries know that we will pay in full no matter what, so they have zero incentive to reform.
While Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen has demonstrated that she is anti-communist in her foreign policy (she is a critic of the U.N., a supporter of America’s allies, and an opponent of hostile socialist and communist regimes such as China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela), she falls far short of being an advocate for the reversal of U.S. internationalism — she has no intent to support a total withdrawal from the United Nations.
However, she does admit that the U.N. Human Rights Council is beyond redemption, noting that since the HRC was established it has been “as bad as its predecessor,” the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights. She continued,
The council’s rare resolutions criticizing real human rights abuses are usually too little and too late. Why did it take the massacre of hundreds of people in the streets for the U.N. to throw Libya off the Council? Why was Gaddafi’s regime permitted to join the council to begin with in 2010? Why are other human rights abusers — including China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia — still on the council?
The Obama administration has tried to reform the council from within, but has failed. We should finally leave the council and explore credible, alternative forums to advance human rights.
Like other U.N. reformers, she falls into the dangerous trap of believing that despite the many problems of the org the U.N. and its fundamental structures should be retained, in spite of the many criticisms of the organization. The ideological danger in this position lies in that such individuals do not exhibit any criticism of the fundamental theoretical origins of groups such as the U.N. which advocate one world government, world federalism, liberal internationalism, and Wilsonian neoliberalism.
Even Citizens United (an organization affiliated with Newt Gingrich) realizes that our membership in the U.N. involves the loss of American sovereignty. Citizens United has an American Sovereignty Project which advocate total withdrawal from the U.N. and opposition to the International Criminal Court.
Despite the dominance of Islamist regimes on the council, which are generally hostile to the United States, the Obama administration believes that it is proper for the U.S. to maintain a presence on the committee, quixotically believing that one country (the U.S.) is capable of influencing and swaying the other members of the council.
Ahead of the current HRC session, Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, said that “the Human Rights Council and other UN bodies have improved as a result of U.S. engagement, and how these bodies do advance U.S. foreign policy goals. Critics ignore the reality that without U.S. engagement, these bodies likely would have been dominated even more by our adversaries.”
Brimmer’s defense of American membership on the council fails to acknowledge that the council has also been unfairly critical of the United States.
Iran's delegation accused the United States of violating human rights though covert CIA operations "carried out on pretext of combating terrorism.” European countries said Washington should ban the death penalty. Mexico urged it to halt racial profiling and the use of lethal force in controlling illegal immigration over its border. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, called on Washington to better promote religious tolerance.
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's legislation to defund the Human Rights Council will no doubt easily pass in the House, but is expected to be rejected in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
MICHAEL COREN ON THE KORAN BURNING .... (video)
TUNDRA TABLOIDS
Vlad: This, is what I call perspective.
Thank you very much Michael. You have been one of the very few intelligent and clear voices on these matters on Canadian TV, or any TV for that matter, for some time now.
_____________________________
Koran Burning: I’d Listen to another Lecture, But Someone’s Trying to Behead Me
I thought, upon seeing the title, that I was going to be placed on the unfamiliar ground of disagreeing with Ann Coulter. So, imagine how delighted I was upon discovering that on the Koran burning, we are in perfect harmony.
I’m sure she’d be thrilled–if she knew.
Bonfire of the Insanities
In response to Gen David Petraeus’ denunciation of Florida pastor Terry Jones’ right to engage in a symbolic protest of the 9/11 attacks by burning copies of the Quran this Sept. 11, President Obama said: “Let me be clear: As a citizen, and as president, I believe that members of the Dove World Outreach Center have the same right to freedom of speech and religion as anyone else in this country.”Exactly.
Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida lauded Obama’s remarks, saying America is “a place where you’re supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can’t.”
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called Obama’s words a “clarion defense of the freedom of religion” — and also claimed that he had recently run into a filthy jihadist who actually supported the Quran-burning!
Keith Olbermann read the poem “First they came …” on air in defense of the Quran-burners, nearly bringing himself to tears at his own profundity.
No wait, my mistake. This is what liberals said about the ground zero mosque only five minutes ago when they were posing as First Amendment absolutists. Suddenly, they’ve developed amnesia when it comes to the free-speech right to burn a Quran.
It would be interesting to compare the “burning the Koran” naysayers with what they had to say on “burning the American flag.”
Where are all of these true champions of religious faith and civility to folks just trying to practice their religion when Saudi Arabia Bible-shredding is going on? Koran Burning Outrage: Saudi Government Shreds Confiscated Bibles
Crickets.
Coulter gets the entire issue exactly right.
Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the “it will help them recruit” argument yet?There are more considerations at play than “rights.”
The reason not to burn Qurans is that it’s unkind — not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero — in both cases, it’s not a question of anyone’s “rights,” it’s just a nasty thing to do.
“Living together in a civil society” is one of them.
However, that argument always gets short shrift from the same crowd questioning the Koran burning with the Rodney King-like “Can’t we all just get along?”
by Mondo Frazier
image: RAPH
Barack Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Zionism
April 07, 2011
"stop the settlements"
Dark clouds over the White House"
AMERICAN THINKER
By William SullivanMahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran has predicted a shameful end to the political career of Barack Obama. He contends that Obama offers the guise of "change and defending the rights of nations" only to use military force in order to protect American interests and Israel as George Bush did. But he will be far more shamed than Bush, he says, because at least Bush was honest about it.
Who knows, maybe purveyors of deception can just smell their own. But we Americans, and certainly the Israelis, are more than a little confused by the substance of his contention. If Mahmoud really thinks that Barack Obama has done anything to helpAmerican or Israeli interests, he obviously can't see the desert for the dunes.
Despite overlooking the human rights nightmare in the popular revolution in Ahmedinejad's country, Barack Obama has endorsed deposing Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and is currently exacting forceful measures to oust Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.
Principal among the opposition groups ready to seize influence in these countries is the Muslim Brotherhood, whom Obama has all but endorsed as the new political power in Egypt. And in Libya the group is emerging as a prominent political factor.
But in deposing these dictators and clearing the lane for the popular Muslim Brotherhood, what has Barack Obama really done for America or Israel? For example, has he helped to thwart future terror attacks and Islamic jihad?
A recent CNN piece authored by Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister makes the claim that he has. The article explains that the Libyan faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, though not directly linked to other factions, shares the "philosophy of the pan-Arab Islamist movement founded in Egypt in the 1920's," and that if the Muslim Brotherhood has a "prominent role" in a new Libyan government, it would "dent support" for other "jihadist groups."
It's interesting that the article doesn't go to any effort to expand on what that "Islamist movement" of the 1920's was all about. Half of America can't tell you the three branches of our own government, but the writers of CNN assume that Americans might know the basis for a purposefully obscure Islamic movement from nearly a century ago? But as you might expect, this turns out to be a pretty handy omission if you're trying to present the Muslim Brotherhood in a positive light. The philosophy of the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily based on Hassan al-Banna's 1928 treatise, Jihad. Do you have any guesses as to what it's about?
Your everyday Islamic apologist may guess that it is about that contrived "internal struggle" all Muslims endure to be peaceful, loving, and compassionate to their neighbors. Do you know what al-Banna had to say of this so-called "jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego?" Talk like that, he said, "is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way." No, in al-Banna's philosophy, sending a mandatory "military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb" (the non-Muslim world) at least once or twice a year is preferable to that "internal struggle" nonsense.
So though the article makes the contention that the Muslim Brotherhood having power in Libya would "dent support" for jihadist groups, it conveniently leaves out that the Muslim Brotherhood clearly subscribes to a core jihadist philosophy in the most literal sense.
What about advancing human rights? Will the disappearance of Mubarak and Gaddafi make the Middle East a nicer place to live?
The Egyptian faction of the Muslim Brotherhood thinks so, but only if your idea of human rights includes "the preservation of honor by stoning adulterers" and "punishing gays." It's nice that Barack Obama thinks that dictators committing "potential humanitarian" crises are bad, but how does he feel, I wonder, about burying a woman condemned for adultery to her waist and having children and strangers hurl rocks at her until only a mangled corpse remains? We may find out, because that is what democracy will likely yield in Egypt, considering the Brotherhood is the leading spearhead for social reform.
And as far as the immediate substance of Ahmedinejad's claim, have Obama's actions protected Israel at all?
Presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei of the Muslim Brotherhood has announced that, if he is elected, Egypt would declare war against Israel if it decides to attack Gaza. This means that Israel, though perpetually absorbing rocket fire from Gaza, cannot defend itself without anticipating violent reprisal from Egypt. Where Mubarak's Egypt has many times remained relatively uninvolved when Israel was forced to combat its aggressive Arab neighbors, the new Egypt that Obama is helping to democratically birth may do no such thing. This amounts to more powder in the Middle Eastern keg and more suicide bombs and rockets in Israel's future. And, at least in part, they can thank our president for that.
Obama's foreign policy has not made America or the Middle East safer, and contrary to Ahmedinejad's belief, it is beyond dispute that our president is no friend of Israel. Obama is the product of progressivism, and progressivism is largely the product of 60's counterculture. And as such, he likely sees Zionism as an extension of American imperialism, and therefore loathsome. This is evidenced by his incessant apologies to the Middle Eastern world for America's past actions.
But I do have to admit, the fact that Obama is so politically aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and is never seen to be at odds with them does suggest a far more sinister reason for his anti-Zionism. Like maybe he was listening more closely in Jeremiah Wright's church than he lets on.
Can Obama be Beaten? - By Sultan Knish
The answer is yes. If.
If means that just about anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is possible. Whether it can be done or not depends on how hard and how well people are willing to work for it.
In short incumbents lose for one reason. They no longer enjoy the public's confidence. But even if that happens, the incumbent is still favored to win if their opponent is not a credible candidate. In recent political history, Americans are usually dissatisfied with whoever is in the White House by the end of term one. But they're also willing to play the game of "Better the devil we know", if the other party can't bring a serious competitor to the table. And that's what often happens. Second term elections often get thrown by the other party. A political hack is trotted out by party loyalists to give him a shot at the big time while preserving their dignity. The serious ammunition is saved for the next election.
The one overriding reason in recent political history that incumbents win is because the other side doesn't even bother showing up. Defeat is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Campaigns cost money and no one is going to put down serious money on your side if they don't think you can win. Low energy campaigns plus a candidate who's out there because it seems like it's his time and no one else wanted this badly enough are a white flag being waved before the battle has even been joined.
Let's list some names here. George McGovern. Walter Mondale. Bob Dole. If we go that route, then we're toast. And deservedly so.
Now let's list two more names. George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Strip away the party affiliation of these two incumbents who lost their second term races and what do you have in common? They were both weak candidates. Two men who had more in common with the names on that first list. They still might have made it to a second term, but they faced opponents who were strong and bold personalities. Men who registered on a national stage the way they didn't. And the rest is history.
Incumbency has its weaknesses and its strengths. Its chief strength is that unless you completely outrage and disgust 51 percent of the country as distributed across key battleground states, the voters may be disappointed in you, but they will still let you stay. That is unless your opponent beats your name recognition and familiarity factor and comes in like a breath of fresh air. And that is the chief weakness.
Voter complacency is the chief strength of the incumbent. That is why Obama's campaign opening video looked so bland. He's not out there to win, just to stay ahead of the competition. And voter dissatisfaction is the chief strength of his opponent. Not the mob with pitchforks kind, but the "We could use something better about now" type.
So back to the original question. Can Obama be beaten? Yes he can. The economy is in a bad way. The wars are unresolved. The issues that made voters want to trade in the Republican years are not only out there, they've been filled out by entirely new issues. 51 percent of the public does not hate Obama. But they would like a change. Our job is to give it to them.
It sounds simple. But it's not. Remember this can't be a close race. If it's a close race, then we can go home now. There was extensive voter fraud last time around. There will be plenty of it this time too. Unless Obama loses by Ahmadinejad numbers, he will win. If he can't win when the polls close, he'll win in the courts. And remember what the media did last time around. They'll do it this time around too. Whoever goes up against Obama has to be able to take month after month of that. To be ridiculed and demonized day in and day out. And still walk out for the next campaign rally with flag flying high and public image untouched.
How they'll do that is up to them. But they will have to do it. Not just for the faithful, but for the average man or woman on the street who just know what they read in the newspaper or see on TV. And when they see our candidate interviewed, they'll have to come away with the impression that despite whatever dirty tricks got played and leading questions got asked, that our candidate made a favorable impression on them. This isn't asking the impossible. But it is asking the very difficult. But both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were able to do it. And anyone who can't is not going to win.
Go back to Doug Hoffman and NY-23 back in 2009. Then look at the 2010 election again. And imagine that you had a product. How many of these people would you hire to sell it to strangers? And if you wouldn't, then what makes you think they can win an election. It's a cynical way to look at politics, but those are the rules of the game. And they can't be set aside, just because they reward all the wrong things. There's no innate contradiction between presentability in person and on television, people skills, a good speaking voice... and a passion for the Constitution and an understanding of the reforms this country needs. And anyone who wants to accomplish those things by running for public office will need to learn those skills. And they are skills that can be learned.
In 2008, Obama sold the country on himself. He's got less of an uphill battle now because the sale has been made. Plenty of people want to ask for a refund, but not a strong majority yet, and what they're being offered is a trade-in. Give back your Obama, for a Romney, a Pawlenty, a Herman Cain or Sarah Palin. Now are they going to want to make that trade-in? That's where the salesmanship comes in. It doesn't all come down to the public impression that the candidate makes. But that's the core that any campaign has to work with. The public's impression of the candidate defines their reaction. That impression can be shaped, spun, marketed and telemarketed-- but there has to be a core there to work with.
It's not about the haircut, the set of the jaw or even the delivery. Plenty of candidates work with what they have. Bush fumbled lines over and over again, and no matter how often he was ridiculed for it, it came off as a mark of sincerity and authenticity. An awkward sincerity that cut directly against the slick deceptive speechifying of the Clinton years and Gore's awkward verbosity that the public was sick of. The ability to do that. To turn your flaws into assets that actually adds value to your message is what makes all the difference in the world. It's not about finding a clone of presidents past, but a man who can dominate a stage and get his message across on his own terms.
And the message is at the heart of it. The candidate is the message bearer. If he bears it well enough, then he may get a chance to be its message-implementer. The essential parameters of the message are very simple. It is the same message in every election. "The country is going the wrong way. We are in big trouble and I want to step in and put us on the right track." That framework isn't hard to put over now. But it's not enough.
Few people are really happy with the way things are now. That includes liberals and most of O's own grassroots. It won't mean that they will go out and vote Republican. All that may do is limit turnout. And it doesn't mean that much of the country which is unhappy with Obama will do so either. The car salesman can point out that your car is in bad shape, leaking fuel and costs more to run than buying a new car would. But does saying that put you in a new car? It doesn't. Pointing out the problem is only halfway to a solution. The solution's positives have to offer hope for a better future and its negatives have to be ones that people can live with. That's easy sell for Democrats who can just promise more goodies, harder for Republicans who have to talk about reforms.
We won't be dealing with a single demographic or people who agree with us. They're the easy ones. The ones who don't agree or don't know what they believe or just want some assurance that everything will be alright is where the hard work goes. We are dealing with multiple demographics even within the Republican party. And then the independent voters who distrust both parties. Working class Democrats who don't like a lot of what Obama has done, but want to protect union power and maintain entitlements. Growing numbers of minorities who are told that Republicans want to destroy them. We won't win all of them over, but we need to be competitive, without compromising on the core issues. It is doable. Whether we will do it is another matter.
If we bring together the candidate and the message, back it with real organization and hard work, than we can win. If we don't, then we won't. That's the big 'If'. And it's not the only 'If' either.
The Republican establishment has its own thoughts on the candidate and the message. And that's like to be Romney with the slogan, "Change for the Better". A safe and inoffensive candidacy that may alienate some of the base, but is meant to bring over wavering voters. The safe alternative. Who knows it may even work. I wouldn't count it out.
Those would be victories over Obama, but in the long run they would look a lot like defeats. The Republican revival wasn't just about winning the short game, but the long game. That doesn't mean losing the short game. It means winning it in a way that meets long term goals. Republicans have played to win the short game, compromising on everything just to come out as the safe moderate alternative. Now we'll need someone who can do both.
That's what everything hinges on. A candidate who is as good with patriots as he is with the public. Who can navigate both worlds, bringing authentic conservative ideology to the table and project real popular appeal at the same time. Who combines faith with the skill to win. I would love to be able to point at the possible candidates and say that I found the man or woman who can do it. But no, I haven't. And that's the challenge. We have the product. Now we need someone who can sell the country on it. That is what it will take to beat Obama.
From NY to Jerusalem,
Daniel Greenfield
Covers the Stories
Behind the News
Israeli winery wins international competition
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
ELDER OF ZIYON
From AFP:
A young Israeli winemaker stood out among a pool of more than a thousand competitors to take the Wine ‘World Cup' in Italy.
Golan Heights Winery, founded in 1983 in Katzrin, Israel, beat thousands of winemakers over the weekend to take the top spot as the best wine producer in the world at the International Wine Competition. The award was announced just ahead of the 45th annual Vinitaly conference in Verona, Italy, an international wine show that attracts 47,000 visitors every year.
The award is presented to the producer who achieves the best overall results at the show, calculated as the sum of the highest scores for two wines which take medals in different categories. A panel of 105 oenologists and wine journalists participated in the judging.
The 3720 wines submitted came from 30 countries including Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Venezuela.So now you now the types of wine to find for your Seder table.
Though the Israeli winemaker has won awards at Vinitaly in the past -- Grand Gold Medals in 2004 and 2006 -- this year's win marks the first time the Gran Vinitaly Special Award was bestowed to an Israeli wine-maker.
The chief winemaker for Golan Heights Winery is Victor Schoenfeld, a graduate of the University of California at Davis, who works alongside professional winemakers educated in California, Burgundy and Bordeaux. The wines are produced under three labels -- Yarden, Gamla and Golan --and are aged in oak barrels.
The Passover Seder Symbols Song
Passover Story
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Obama’s ineligibility: Congress will plead temporary insanity
By Lawrence Sellin Monday, April 4, 2011
-SatireLet’s stop kidding ourselves. Our political elite and the main stream media (MSM) are not as stupid as they appear.
Through a combination of arrogance, fear and a lust for political power, they were complicit in or acquiesced to installing what is arguably a Constitutionally ineligible individual in the White House.
Now they are hoping that either we didn’t notice or, if anyone did, they are desperately trying to change the subject. The politicians’ fear is palpable, not so much for America, but for their jobs.
As rumor has it, our political and media elitists are concerned that if Barack Obama is removed from the Presidency without being voted out of office, race riots and politically-motivated violence will ensue.
The political leadership themselves should be removed from office, if for no other reason than they lack a sense of irony.
Race riots and politically-motivated violence can be mitigated by the rule of law, the very thing our political elite and the MSM helped to undermine by reinterpreting the Constitution according to their own whims.
In addition, they now insist that, if Obama is to be removed, it must be done by the Constitutional electoral process in contrast to the manner in which they allowed him to assume the Presidency.
When considering the possibility of race riots, unfortunately, our political elite and the MSM see the African American community as millions of Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons, both of whom would be out of business in a genuine post-racial society.
Please forgive ordinary Americans for believing that there is a greater amount of diversity in the African-American community. We would argue that it is composed of far more productive people than race-baiters and political ambulance-chasers.
One irony is, while claiming to oppose racism, the left wing of the Democratic Party and the MSM must benefit from propagating it because they seem to endorse elected officials and TV personalities whose livelihood depends on a need to perpetuate racial polarization.
Americans, nearly unanimously, view the MSM as biased in favor of the Democratic Party. The MSM’s intellectual inbreeding, which results from listening only to themselves and politicians with similar pre-approved opinions, has both lowered their tolerance for dissent and their collective IQ.
Together with their allies on the Democratic left, most of the MSM will no doubt support Obama for re-election. Like a gaggle of zombies, they will continue in a mindless fashion to attack and ridicule anyone, who questions their version of the conventional wisdom.
Who then are the real haters and perpetrators of incivility?
When the Obama mystique finally begins to unravel, members of Congress, in order to save their skins, will have no recourse, but to plead temporary insanity.
They could also try to claim that they spent the last few years living in an alternate reality within a parallel universe, but that would too much resemble business as usual.At the risk of enduring the female wrath of Reid-Pelosi-Rove and turning Chris Matthews’ leg tingle into sciatica, I say it is far better to face the issue now, head on than let this Constitutional crisis fester.
Judge Billings Learned Hand said: “Heretics have been hated from the beginning of recorded time; they have been ostracized, exiled, tortured, maimed and butchered; but it has generally proved impossible to smother them; and when it has not, the society that has succeeded has always declined.”
Beyond all the pompous and self-serving rhetoric being spewed daily out of Washington, D.C. and from TV talking heads, there remains one enduring element that underlies the tragic situation in which we find ourselves.
Our political elite and the MSM do not trust the people or our democracy. Ordinary Americans have become the heretics that they intend to smother.
And our country will be lesser for it.
__________________________
My Note:
Hmm! Perhaps I'll go back in time when there were animal cracker's in my soup!
All hail the Monarch of these United States, Barack Obama
CANADA FREE PRESS
Jim Byrd, April 5, 2011
Oh, the times they are a-changin’.
Seems like just yesterday that when one nation aggressively amasses eleven U.S. naval ships, which include three submarines, two destroyers, and various sundries of amphibious and supply ships, in another nation’s sea, starts launching missiles, rockets, and whatnot at said country, dispatches fighter jets on bombing missions around said country—especially the leader of said country’s personal compound—receives return fire that downs a dispatched fighter jet, this was called a war.
Mr. Webster describes said action as thus: “a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.”
But what did the authors of the Constitution mean by the word “war,” one might ask? Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755, forty years before the ratification of the Constitution. His dictionary was the pre-eminent guide to the English language until the Oxford English Dictionary was published 150 years later. The Dictionary of the English Language defined the term “war” as, “War. n.s. [werre, old Dut. guerre, Fr] War may be defined the exercise of violence under sovereign command, against withstanders; force, authority, and resistance, being the essential parts there-of.” This is what war meant in 1776.
Times have sure changed since the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama now defines military action against another country as an “overseas contingency operation,” “a kinetic military action,” “a time-limited, scope-limited military operation.” Anything and everything but a war. What if George Washington had to work with such beguiling balderdash from an impotent Continental Congress? How would the Revolutionary War have ended if the politicians during the founding era administered a lethal dose of subterfuge, fraud, and delusory discourse to Washington and the public regarding the Revolutionary War? What if the Revolutionary War was actually not a war but just a “kinetic separation exercise,” or perhaps a “colony contingency operation?” Afternoon tea anyone?
Obama, to date, has yet to cultivate a legitimate reason to have started a non-war with Libya within the guidelines of United States policy and law, nor has he produced a coherent and static legitimate reason that does not expire at the end of the day. Obama operates in that penumbra of politics that dictates that partisanship, ideology, and power will always trump principle. Not only is Obama incapable of explaining why we are bombing Libya in a non-war fashion with the remotest semblance of coherency, or what his end game is, he cannot explain why he lacked the patience to consult with Congress about launching a non-attack against Libya, but he was able to demonstrate the patience of Gandhi mid hunger strike while cooling his heels with the United Nations, backing from the Arab League, a nod from the Security Council, and just enough patience to fly to Brazil for Spring Break as this was unfolding.
Regardless of what linguistic shenanigans Barack Obama uses while employing a Three-card Monte with the American people on what constitutes war, and his licentious use of the American military at his reckless discretion, he is in the wrong for myriad reasons. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives the power to declare war to the Congress, not the President: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….”
Barack Obama engaged the United States in a war with Libya, and according to three of the most highly esteemed and knowledgeable scholars of the United States Constitution, this act is unconstitutional.
In descending order of presupposed knowledge in the area of constitutional law, and in accordance with self-proclaimed scholarship of said law beyond the scope and reach of the authors of the Constitution, the three experts weigh-in on the constitutionality of not attacking Libya with a non-war.
Joe Biden will tell you he is smarter than you are. In fact, when pressured about his God-awful academic performance in law school, Joe replied, ‘‘I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.’’ Joe graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School, with congruent bottom of the class achievements from both, but was only expelled from Syracuse for plagiarism, thus breaking the parallelism of his higher education. But Joe shines when speaking on matters of the Constitution. During Robert Bork’s hearing for the Supreme Court, and upon discerning that Bork was a Yale law professor, somewhere within the dark and empty caverns of Joe Biden’s brain, there was a chemical synapse heard throughout the chambers. Joe’s brain, the one organism that abandoned him in school, manifested a statement of profound and esoteric depth. Joe vociferated the following to Bork: “We have enough professors on the bench. I want someone who ran for dog catcher.”
After countless hours of study, analyzing, cogitating, and ruminating, Joe Biden, after pushing his cerebral capacity beyond the manufacturer’s stated limits, concluded the following regarding military force and the original intent of the Constitution. By Joe’s calculation, even the slightest military skirmish needed congressional approval—unless the U.S. was being attacked, of course. Joe also concluded that if a president used military power indiscriminately without a congressional thumbs-up, then the president was acting as Monarch of the United States. This was Joe’s oral precursor to introducing his bill that would limit the President’s ability to engage in military action without congressional approval. In Joe’s own words:
Congress’s responsibilities could not be clearer. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “to declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.”In 2004, then Senator Hillary Clinton stated that she did not regret voting in 2002 to authorize military action against Iraq. She did regret the way the President used his authority, though. Fast forward to 2006, while on the presidential campaign trail, she stated that she would not have voted for military action if she knew what she knew today, but did not elaborate. When questioned by the Boston Globe during her campaign for President, Clinton stated the following:
To the President, the Constitution provides in Article II, Section 2 the role of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
It may fairly be said that, with regard to many constitutional provisions, the Framers’ intent was ambiguous. But on the war power, both the contemporaneous evidence and the early construction of these clauses do not leave much room for doubt.
The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization.
Also in 2007, regarding a what-if George Bush had used military force against Iran, she stated, “President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
Barack Obama, the sensei of constitutional authority. From Harvard Law School graduate, to untitled part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, to Illinois State Senator, to United States Senator, to President, Obama has become the Zen of constitutional law—he became the law. This explanation is as plausible as others are: either he took to heart the disdain and loathing that Harvard harbors against the original meaning of the Constitution, or he really just doesn’t understand the document.
Candidate Obama was asked two questions by the Boston Globe during his presidential campaign in 2007:
The Boston Globe: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites—a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?).
Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
The Boston Globe: Does the Constitution empower the president to disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops—either by capping the number of troops that may be deployed to a particular country or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments? In other words, is that level of deployment management beyond the constitutional power of Congress to regulate?
Obama: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.
In October of 2002, while doing what radicals do, hanging out and speaking at an anti-war rally, Obama called the war in Iraq a dumb war. He believed it was a dumb war because using military force to remove a dictator of unsavory character is just plain dumb. He was speaking at the anti-war rally because he opposed the war in Iraq on the premise that it was dumb, and he could quite possibly pickup a few votes along the way. Iraq was never a direct threat to the United States, so giving Saddam the boot with our military was bad foreign policy and dumb. Obama’s admirable and patriotic speech at the anti-war rally:
Now let me be clear. I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors.
At this juncture in their political careers, and after reading the statements regarding the president and war powers, Biden, Clinton, and Obama seem to repudiate the truth in perpetual paroxysms of prevarication. The truth is that which will only enhance their political expediency. After one week of non-war kinetic bombing of another country with our military, Obama relented to pressure to inform the American people why we are engaged in a war but not in a war. The delineation was 30 minutes in length. It happened at the National Defense University in Washington—war speeches are given from the Oval Office, and since this was a kinetic something or other, it warranted a historically non-war venue.
Parts of the speech contained Obama’s orthodox finger pointing—this is Obama’s default nuclear option: reference Bush, Iraq, and Afghanistan—which was delivered in a poorly orchestrated extraneous effort. The speech was a maze of incoherent, contradictory, and sophomorically disguised nomenclatures and terminology that were scattered about and lost in the maze along with Obama’s non-point.
Here is a summation of the speech as clearly as can be presented: There was no explanation why Congress was not consulted, no explanation of our military goal, and no explanation of the end game. Ousting Qaddafi is not the goal, but Obama wants him out. The military is not there to oust or kill Qaddafi, but his personal compound was bombed, but there is no connection. This mission is not to oust Qaddafi, but it is, but not really, technically, but if he did leave, it would not be because of our bombing. Disregard what Obama said two weeks ago about deposing Qaddafi, that is not what the goal is now, but if the goal is to oust Qaddafi, that is not why we are bombing Libya, except if maybe we are attempting to oust, but that is not the goal of this kinetic something or another.
With the assumption of being immune from self-indictment, Hillary Clinton made this bizarre and delusive statement defending Obama and herself regarding the bombings and their prior statements about presidential limitations of war acts:
Well, we would welcome congressional support, but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago. I think that this had a limited time-frame, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling.
Obama’s razor thin veneer of a decoy for preventing the massacre of the rebels by Qaddafi was too far behind the curve for legitimacy’s sake; he will protect and bolster the innocent and covetously righteous seeking rebels that are fighting the good fight against Qaddafi. Yes, indeed they are. These rebels are fighting for the sake of…they defending against…they are rising up against…. Now who are these rebels again to whom we have committed our military? Why are we at a non-war with Libya? Hillary Clinton doesn’t know. Barack Obama doesn’t know. Joe Biden doesn’t know. The CIA doesn’t know. All that is known is that they are fighting Qaddafi. Mike Dunn, Retired Air Force General, was able to define the rebels perfectly:
It’s a poorly defined group of mutually hostile and suspicious tribes and factions that have thus far, at any rate, failed to coalesce into a meaningful military force. We’d like to think this is a group of democratic Jeffersonian type of people that just are fighting for their freedom, when in reality we don’t know a lot about them.
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, who is steadfast for this non-war, summed the rebels up nicely: the rebels are largely a mystery.
Here is what we do know about the non-war: we do know that we unleashed a kinetic military, time-limited, scope-limited, overseas contingency non-war against Qaddafi complete with rockets, missiles, and various other things that explode because he was killing the rebels, or citizens. We do know that Qaddafi’s troopers began disguising themselves as the John Q. Publics of Libya. We do know that our beloved rebels, not being of the patient sort, starting killing all the John Q. Publics of Libya. We do know that NATO is angry about this turn of events, and told the rebels to stick with killing the designated bad guys only or NATO will start unleashing kinetic whatnots upon the rebels.
We do know that NATO threatened to bomb the rebels if they kept killing citizens along with Qaddafi’s troopers parading around as citizens. We do know that if the rebels, who are citizens, keep killing the John Q. Public sector of this non-war, instead of Qaddafi’s troopers, who are dressed like citizens, who are dressed like the rebels, who are being imitated by Qaddafi’s bad guys, then NATO may be forced to give them all a taste of Kinetic…, including citizens.
During a time of war, the President should be supported. But what if the President insists he never started a war, but merely engaged in an overseas contingency operation, a kinetic military action, a time-limited, scope-limited military operation, that he initiated without consulting Congress or preparing the American people, then immediately handed over command of our troops to NATO, turning over leadership to a foreigner military leader for the first time, then let other countries volunteer our military to the operation to defend rebels that we have no idea who they are, or what they stand for, are we obligated to support this President for a non-war for which neither he nor the country know why we are there or what we expect the outcome to be?
Not one constitutional scholar, political pundit, or political adversary has been able to explain more perfectly and lucidly that Barack Obama’s bombing of Libya without congressional approval was unconstitutional and illegal other than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. But it was Hillary Clinton’s statement to Brad Sherman (D-CA), that manifested Joe Biden’s self-fulfilling prophesy that only a monarch would indiscriminately use military force without congressional approval:
She said they are certainly willing to send reports [to us] and if they issue a press release, they’ll send that to us too. The White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission. She admitted the administration would ignore any and all attempts by Congress to shackle President Obama’s power as commander in chief to make military and wartime decisions.
All hail the Monarch of these United States, Barack Obama.
CANADA FREE PRESS
Jim Byrd Most recent columns
Jim Byrd is a conservative writer of constitutional law and politics, with a couple of political satires thrown in per month. Jim generally challanges constitutional law articles that are misleading or just completely wrong. Jim can be reached at: Jim@jimbyrd.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)