Party Like It's 1773? ... Tea Parties

Real Clear Politics.com
By Richard Samuelson

Are this year's "tea parties" really tea parties? What could today's protesters have in common with the "Indians" who dumped 90,000 pounds of tea in Boston harbor in 1773? Quite a bit, actually.

What do today's tea partiers want? According to the Christian Science Monitor, the movement "is about safeguarding individual liberty, cutting taxes, and ending bailouts for business while the American taxpayer gets burdened with more public debt. It is fueled by concern that the United States under Mr. Obama is becoming a European-style social democracy where individual initiative is sapped by the needs of the collective." Broadly speaking, the tea parties reflect a growing anger in America that the government seems to be a closed circle, run by an elite in both parties. These elites, combined with a class of bureaucrats, lawyers, journalists and businessmen, use government power to serve their own ends, and not the public good.

The Boston Tea party was the most famous colonial American protest, but it was by no means the only one. In late colonial America, mass street protests, parades, and other events, often led by the "Sons of liberty," were a formal ritual. Some scholars have even described them as a legal practice. In an age when government was understood to be for the people, but not of or by the people, "out of doors protest" allowed British subjects to participate in the political process, and to shape the actions of government. Government was supposed to serve the common good, and it was supposed to be under law, and yet most colonists had no vote. How could they express their opinion? They could shout, protest, and even riot.

Inevitably, some demonstrations got out of hand, and spilled over into needless violence. Such excess led supporters of the King's government to condemn all protests. They wanted to rule without being questioned by the people. After all, the elites reasoned, they were smarter, better trained, and wiser than the common folk. The patriot response to this line of reasoning was that no one, however smart, well meaning, and wise had the right to rule another without his consent.

After the American revolution, we created a government that was much closer to being of, by and for the people. A little over a century later, however, it came under assault. In the early twentieth century America's leading intellectuals concluded that our constitution was out of date. Woodrow Wilson said quite bluntly that "we are in the presence of a new organization of society. Our life has broken away from the past." The founders, he noted, "speak of the ‘checks and balances' of the Constitution." Such ideas were passe. By replacing checks and balances with a simplified administration, he would update and rationalize the American state. Wilson, we should recall, was our first and only PhD president. The social science PhD was a new invention in his day. Wilson believed that experts, armed with PhDs and law degrees, could make better choices than the common people and the politicians they elected. Armed with expertise, Progressive bureaucrats would rule effectively and fairly. Checks and balances, he thought, were no longer necessary.

Wilson, his friends, and his successors in the New Deal and other Progressives (sometimes cleverly calling themselves "liberals"), did not achieve a full revolution. Anyone witnessing the gridlock over health care in Washington realizes that. That has always frustrated them. When Thomas Friedman, the voice of the establishment, declares that "one-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages," he reflects the goal of Progressive politics since Wilson's day. He also echoes the ideas of the Tories of the 1760s and 1770s. Like the Tories, today's would-be elites claim that better training and education gives them the right to rule, although the Progressives and their children have largely dropped birth and wealth as criterion for rule.

Even if their revolution was incomplete, the Progressives did transform American government. They expanded the role of experts in government at all levels in the U.S. This permanent bureaucracy has taken over sizeable chunks of American life, and has, at the same time, removed many areas of regulation from the political process. Our representatives have been only too happy to delegate broad swaths of power to these, unelected branches of government. That way they can blame someone else when things go wrong. Meanwhile, our courts, have taken away from our elected representatives the right to legislate about various issues. The upshot: even though almost all American adults have the right to vote, their votes matter less. Perhaps that's why fewer eligible voters vote today than was the case a century ago.

Now we can see how today's tea parties resemble those of yesteryear. As more and more government operations are taken off the books, popular frustration rises. Similarly, and ironically, bureaucracies often serve the industries they regulate rather than the public good. When the government is unresponsive to the views of the people, and, beyond that, when our administrative and judicial branches restrict the scope of the people's legislative rights, protest rises. President Obama, an heir to the Progressive tradition, wants to strengthen this unaccountable, administrative state. The response has been altogether fitting.

Richard Samuelson is the 2009-2010 Garwood Visiting Fellow at Princeton University's James Madison Program, and an Assistant Professor of History at California State University, San Bernardino.

Abbas seeks U.S. answers before talking to Israel

Reuters.com

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday he was still waiting for the United States to explain how it might help restart peace talks before he will consider reopening those negotiations

A senior aide to U.S. mediator George Mitchell will meet Abbas in the coming days, a senior U.S. official said.

Abbas has resisted U.S. and other Western pressure to resume negotiations with Israel which were suspended over a year ago. He has insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu impose a complete freeze on the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

"We are still awaiting the American administration's response regarding their proposals," Abbas said of suggestions that Washington could host "proximity talks" involving officials, but not leaders, from the two sides as a way of preparing for a full-scale resumption of negotiations.

He accused Israel of obstructing a process which has failed to produce a negotiated settlement and a Palestinian state in nearly two decades of talking. Israel says Abbas should return to talks, a view shared by the United States and its allies.

Netanyahu, who says he is ready to talk without conditions, ordered a 10-month freeze on some settlement projects in much of the West Bank. But, in line with Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem and its suburbs, he has refused to include building there in any settlement pause.

That annexation is not recognized internationally, and Washington and its allies have long urged Israel to comply with a commitment under the 2003, U.S.-brokered "road map" peace plan to halt the expansion of all settlements.

"SETTLEMENTS EXPANDED"

The Israeli lobby group Peace Now, which campaigns against the expansion of settlements and for a two-state solution to the conflict, said on Monday it had evidence building has continued -- sometimes under cover of darkness -- since Netanyahu's declared freeze in 34 settlements, a quarter of the total.

Diplomats say efforts to resolve the conflict, which was complicated by the seizure of the Gaza Strip in 2007 by Abbas's Islamist rivals Hamas, focus mainly on helping Abbas find face-saving ways to return to negotiations without securing the kind of settlement freeze that Netanyahu will not deliver.

Abbas noted that he would discuss any U.S. proposals with the Arab League. Diplomats say broader Arab backing for a return to talks with Israel would help Abbas make such a move, although few diplomats or regional officials hold high hopes of rapid progress toward a final settlement of the conflict.

Nabil Abu Rdainah, an aide to Abbas, told Reuters on Monday: "We have told the Americans we are ready for proximity talks but we want answers to certain questions."

Saying that Abbas had been waiting nearly three weeks for those answers, Abu Rdainah said Palestinians wanted to be sure that any talks would address all the "core issues" of the conflict. These are notably the establishment of state borders, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Some Israeli officials, as well as diplomats, have suggested phased negotiations where the borders of a Palestinian state might be agreed in advance of a resolution of other issues.

Abbas has said he does not want a partial or interim deal.

(Reporting by Tom Perry and in Ramallah, Alastair Macdonald in Jerusalem and Arshad Mohammed in Doha; writing by Alastair Macdonald, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

In early February, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!”

In early February, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”

Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.

The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com

February 14, 2010 7:16 AM

Muslim doctors inserting implants containing PETN

Canada Free Press.com

Surgical Implants Filled with Explosives Are Undetectable in Suicide Bombers

By Jerry A. Kane Friday, February 5, 2010

Britain’s MI5 intelligence service reports that al-Qaida is recruiting female suicide bombers who have had explosives surgically implanted in their breasts. Male suicide bombers are undergoing similar surgeries; but instead of the breast area, the explosives are implanted in the buttocks or appendix areas.

MI5 agents report that Muslim doctors who were trained at leading UK teaching hospitals are returning to their native countries to perform surgeries that involve inserting plastic implants containing PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) explosives into women’s breasts and men’s bodies.

PETN was used by British shoe-bomber, Richard Reid, who tried unsuccessfully to blow up an American airliner in December 2001.

Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, warns that the body-bombers pose a serious threat to security because they can circumvent current methods of detection. Surgeons from the UK’s National Health Service agree that plastic implants are “virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines.”

“Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner,” NHS surgeons said.

Explosive experts calculate that five ounces of PETN in a plastic sachet inside a bomber’s body could easily blow a large enough hole in a fuselage to crash an airliner. The bomber could detonate the explosives using a hypodermic syringe to inject TATP (Triacetone Triperoxide) through his or her skin into the explosives sachet.

Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day when he tried to inject TATP from a syringe to detonate the explosives he had stuffed down his underpants. Fortunately for the 280 passengers onboard, the fluid had ignited his clothes instead of detonating the explosives.

Security agencies fear that a body-bomber could board an airliner, subway train, or bus pretending to be a diabetic in need of an injection, and the ruse could prevent someone from intervening and stopping the suicide mission.

Officials think that body-bombers are al-Qaida’s response to body scanners at airports, whose purpose is to catch terrorists before they board flights.

Note: Cartoon added by BeeSting.

Jerry A. Kane has spent over five years as a technical writer, almost two decades as an adjunct English professor, and over a decade as journalist. His commentaries have appeared on WorldNetDaily, the American Thinker, Canada Free Press, American Daughter Media Center, MitchNews.com and in daily and weekly newspapers in western Pennsylvania. Visit his blog, The Millstone Diaries, for more commentaries and musings. Jerry can be reached at: misterjkane@comcast.net

Terrorist Attack Survivor: Try Them at Gitmo

By Joy Tiz Sunday, January 31, 2010

Louis Pepe was a federal prison guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

The savage attack on him by two of the African embassy bombers left him without his left eye and some brain damage.

“I was a federal prison guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. In 2000, I was with a prisoner, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, taking him back to his cell. His cellmate was Khalfan Khamis Mohamed. They were accused of bombing two embassies in Africa in 1998. Later they said that they worked with Osama bin Laden and that they helped set up al Qaeda.

“We were back at their cell. It’s only me and those two guys. No supervisors. Just the three of us. Somehow, they slipped out of their handcuffs.

They sprayed me with some kind of hot sauce. I couldn’t see. They pulled me into the cell and hit me — boom, boom. They hit me so much, I swear to God, like a hundred times.

I hit my radio. I thought help would come.

They wanted the keys for the other prisoners, but they couldn’t find them. They were in my front pocket. I used to be big, 300 pounds, and I was laying on them. I gave them my car keys.

About halfway through, they used a comb — thick and long, about 10 inches, with a handle. They’d taken the teeth out and sharpened it like a knife.
They put it in my left eye. It went three inches into my brain.

Nobody came. I kept calling and nothing. I was in there with them for an hour. It was f- - -ed up.

With my blood, they made the sign of the cross on my chest because they thought I was dead.

Finally, 12 guards came to my aid. They said they had the wrong keys.

When it was over, I got up and walked down toward the infirmary. I wanted to show them I could do it.

I thought I would go to a doctor right away. They kept me at the infirmary.

Finally, I was taken to Bellevue. I thought I was dead. I went into a coma.”

For the next two years, Pepe couldn’t speak or write. He still requires the services of a speech therapist.
Pepe remains skeptical about the Religion of Peace:

“I’m still afraid of Salim. When I was in the hospital, there were death threats. Salim wants to do something one more time.

These people want to kill and go to Allah and have 10 girls. That’s just the way they are.

They want to become martyrs. They want jihad. They want to kill people. And that’s all they want.

Federal prison officials are still naive. They give these terrorists toothbrushes, squirt bottles, items that can be used as weapons. Caught up by political correctness, they let them out of handcuffs to pray, leaving guards unprotected.

It’s going to happen again — unless the trial gets moved to where it belongs, a military prison.

We don’t need Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City. President Obama should do the right thing and keep him at Guantanamo Bay.”

Attorney General Eric Holder’s abominable plot to try self proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a New York criminal court is an affront but not inscrutable. Team O is, as in all other policies, doing the bidding of Obama’s boss, unrepentant Nazi collaborator, George Soros; he’s been a rabid critic of the war on terror for years.

Soros has always thought we made much too commotion about 9/11, which he insists is just a “single event”. He 9/11 sees as no more iniquitous than making prisoners wear underwear on their heads. As an active contributor to the Final Solution (Obamanutz), Soros manifestly regards the extermination of 3000 Americans singularly uninspiring.

Senator Lindsey Graham asked Eric Holder forthrightly if he could cite a single prior case in which an enemy combatant like KSM had been tried in a criminal court. If Lindsey Graham can make you sputter and writhe, your reasoning must be pretty puerile.

Of course Holder had no answer because there wasn’t one. There is no precedent for trying enemy combatants in criminal courts.

Graham’s fait accompli came when he asked a befuddled Holder whether he would try Osama bin Laden in a criminal court. That question bared the fatuousness of the entire enterprise.

The whole show trial scheme is yet another placation offering to Soros who craves the opportunity to prosecute the Bush administration.

Joy Tiz Most recent columns

Joy Tiz, Joytiz.com, born in Chicago, recalls when many democrats were actually normal people who were just wrong about everything. Joy holds a M.Sc. in psychology and a JD in law.

Joy has written extensively about current events and politics. She was a columnist at Americas Voices and now writes for Canada Free Press. Joy’s latest book, Obamanutz: A Cult Leader takes the White House provides an unblinking look at who Barack Obama is and what forces propelled him into the White House.

Email: joy@joytiz.com or Twitter at: Joytiz

Freed Belgians cite fears for U.S. hikers in Iran

Sarah Shourd, pictured in an undated family photo, is one
of three American hikers held in Iran since July

CNN WORLD.com
January 26, 2010 10:11 p.m. EST

Paris, France (CNN) -- Two Belgians recently detained in Iran said they had some contact with three U.S. hikers imprisoned there and are concerned about the Americans' well-being.

In a statement Tuesday, Idesbald van den Bosch and Vincent Boon Falleur said they were visiting Iran as tourists when they were arrested and imprisoned September 5 on suspicion of espionage.

The two said they spent three months in Evin Prison, where the U.S. hikers were in solitary confinement when the Belgians were freed in December.

"Iran, please, free the hikers," they said in a statement distributed to French-speaking media in Europe.

Their words prompted the hikers' families to say they "greatly appreciate" the Belgians' support and "share their families' joy that they are home safe."

The three Americans -- Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal -- accidentally strayed across an unmarked border from Iraq into Iran while on a hiking trip, according to their families. They are being held on espionage charges after being detained on July 31 and were to be put on trial.

"We are writing this statement because we had some contact in Evin Prison with the Americans who were hiking in Iraqi Kurdistan, Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal. We are deeply concerned about their well-being," van den Bosch and Falleur said.

"We were detained for half as long Shane, Sarah and Josh will have spent in prison on January 31, 2010. We appeal to the Iranian authorities to act in a humanitarian fashion and not politicize their case. Our hearts go out to them and their families."

In a statement, the hikers' families said they "remain deeply concerned about Shane, Sarah and Josh and their well-being."

"On Sunday, they will have been held for six months, with no contact with their families -- not even one phone call -- and have not had access to their lawyer," the families said. "We appeal yet again to the Iranian authorities to release our loved ones and end our sorrow."

The United States strongly criticized Iran on Tuesday for holding the three American hikers, especially after the Belgians' comments.

"What that tells us is that our three American citizens are potentially in deplorable conditions," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters.

"It is outrageous that Iran refuses to abide by international standards, international agreements in terms of treatment of those that were in their care. And we continue, we will continue to press the Iranian government so that we can see for ourselves what the conditions of our citizens are."

Van den Bosch and Falleur said they had been "interested in exploring the country's beautiful landscapes by bicycle" when their holiday "took an unexpected turn." Of the three months in prison, one was in solitary confinement, they said.

"We were freed without a trial and hope that the hikers will be freed as soon as possible. We do not know the current conditions of their detention since we left Evin Prison on December 8, 2009. At that point, they were still in solitary confinement," the two said.

In their statement, the Belgians underscored the ordeal of prison, saying, "The psychological stresses of detention were very great, especially during interrogation and solitary confinement," and adding that they "can only imagine that the pressure they [the Americans] are under to confess to crimes they are innocent of is extremely intense."

"The pressure during interrogation was psychological. In solitary confinement, we were in cells with no outside contact and a ceiling light on day and night. We could not make eye contact with some guards and other prisoners; no communication was possible with other prisoners or with our families. Everything was designed to make us feel very lonely."

The United States, which has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1979, has relied on Switzerland to appeal directly for the hikers' release. A Swiss diplomat has met with the Americans in their Iranian prison.

The Belgians said they identify with the hikers because "we, like they, were tourists celebrating the freedom to explore beautiful landscapes, rich cultural traditions and marvelous hospitality."

"Now more than ever, we appreciate that freedom and it should not be unnecessarily and arbitrarily denied to anyone."

‘PA’s corruption will enable Hamas to take power in W. Bank'

JerusalemPost.com
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
29/01/2010 03:25

Dramatic warning delivered by Abbas’s former corruption-buster Fahmi Shabaneh; Fatah personnel even stole US money intended to improve its image ahead of 2006 elections. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has surrounded himself with many of the corrupt officials who used to work for his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, and that’s why Hamas will one day take control of the West Bank, Fahmi Shabaneh, who was appointed by Abbas four years ago to root out corruption in the Palestinian Authority, said on Thursday.

In an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post, Shabaneh, who until recently was in charge of the Anti-Corruption Department in the PA’s General Intelligence Service (GIS), warned that what happened in the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, when Hamas managed to overthrow the Fatah-controlled regime, is likely to recur in the West Bank.

“Had it not been for the presence of the Israeli authorities in the West Bank, Hamas would have done what they did in the Gaza Strip,” Shabaneh told the Post. “It’s hard to find people in the West Bank who support the Palestinian Authority. People are fed up with the financial corruption and mismanagement of the Palestinian Authority.”

Shabaneh said that many Palestinians in the West Bank have lost hope that the PA would one day be reformed. “The Palestinian Authority is very corrupt and needs to be overhauled,” he said.

Shabaneh cited several specific cases of alleged corruption within Fatah and the PA in the course of the interview, including asserting that Fatah personnel stole much of a $3.2 million donation given by the US to Fatah ahead of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary election, won by Hamas, which had been intended to improve Fatah’s image and boost its chances of winning.

Shabaneh, a resident of east Jerusalem who worked as a lawyer before joining the GIS as its legal adviser after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, said he was forced to quit his anti-corruption job several months ago after exposing a sex scandal involving one of Abbas’s top aides in Ramallah in 2009.

Video footage and other documents presented to the Post by Shabaneh show the aide lying naked in bed after being lured to an apartment in Ramallah by an east Jerusalem woman.

The footage shows Shabaneh and other armed security agents storming the bedroom, much to the surprise of the Abbas aide who is heard uttering: “Thank God it’s you and not the Israelis.”

Shabaneh said in the interview, the first of its kind with a high-ranking PA security official, that he and his men had been operating on instructions from their boss, Gen. Tawfik Tirawi, the former head of the GIS. Tirwai, for his part, denied that he had authorized Shabaneh to spy on the Abbas aide.

The top aide, who is one of the closest advisers to Abbas, was caught on tape making derogatory remarks against Abbas and Arafat. “President Abbas has no charisma” and is “not in control,” he was quoted as saying. The aide was also caught on tape denouncing Arafat as one of the biggest dajjals (swindlers).

After the revelations, which were brought to Abbas’s attention and were embarrassing for the PA president, Shabaneh was removed from his anti-corruption post and reassigned as head of the GIS’s internal security force. More recently, he was promoted to overall commander of the GIS in the area.

Shortly afterwards, however, Shabaneh was arrested by Israeli police on suspicion of recruiting east Jerusalem residents to the GIS, spying on Israel, chasing suspected “collaborators” and Arabs involved in real estate deals with Jews, and threatening and blackmailing the senior Abbas aide.

Shabaneh has since been released from prison and most of the charges against him dropped. Today he remains under house arrest and is banned from entering the West Bank. The only charge he faces today is membership in a Palestinian military organization – a charge he claims is absurd given the fact that about 1,200 residents of east Jerusalem serve in the various security branches of the PA.

Shabaneh said that he had no doubt that his arrest by Israel was carried out at the request of “someone high in Abbas’s office to punish me for fighting corruption and exposing sex scandals involving not only the senior aide, but many other officials as well.”

He said that the decision to arrest him and prosecute him was also absurd because was always aware of his work and status in the PA security forces and never did anything to him.


“For many years I worked as legal adviser to the General Intelligence Apparatus and no one ever asked me anything,” Shabaneh noted. “When I was commander of the force in the area the Israelis even used to coordinate a lot with us.”

Shabaneh insisted that the decision to pursue corrupt officials in Abbas’s inner circle was part of the PA president’s declared policy to combat financial corruption. “In his pre-election platform, President Abbas promised to end financial corruption and implement major reforms, but he hasn’t done much since then,” he said. “Unfortunately, Abbas has surrounded himself with many of the thieves and officials who were involved in theft of public funds and who became icons of financial corruption.”

Shabaneh said that as head of the anti-corruption unit he and his men succeeded in exposing dozens of cases involving senior officials who had stolen public funds but were never held accountable.

“Some of the most senior Palestinian officials didn’t have even $3,000 in their pocket when they arrived [after the signing of the Oslo Accords],” Shabaneh said. “Yet we discovered that some of them had tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in their bank accounts.

Until today we didn’t hear about one official who was brought to trial for stealing money from the PA, although we had transferred many of the cases to the Palestinian prosecutor-general.”

Questioned as to why he had decided to go public now, Shabaneh said: “I’m not criticizing the Palestinian Authority simply because I like to criticize, but because I want to see a state of law, one with no room for corruption. I was offered $100,000 not to expose the last sex scandal, but I chose not to accept the bribe. I’m the one who resigned after my arrest, because after all that I’ve seen I no longer believe that Abbas’s authority can be reformed.


Asked whether PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is working to establish good government, Shabaneh said: “Salam Fayyad is a good man and I have a lot of respect for him. He’s really working to build professional institutions and good government, but the corrupt Fatah people around Abbas are doing their utmost to thwart his efforts.”

He added: “Even Abbas tried in the beginning, but the corrupt officials working with him didn’t allow him to make progress.”

Shabaneh also said he had managed to track down some of the financial aid that went missing during and after the period of Arafat’s death.

“I discovered, for example, that several senior officials had taken millions of dollars from the Palestinian leadership under the pretext that they wanted to purchase land that would otherwise be confiscated by Israel,” he said.

“Our investigations revealed that many of the purported land deals were fictitious transactions and we even forced one official to return more than $800,000. We had another case where a senior Fatah official and his brother pocketed about $2.5m. which they took from Arafat under the pretext that they wanted to purchase land in the West Bank before Israel lays its hand on it.

Asked whether he believed outside donors should stop channeling funds to Abbas, he said his advice to the donor countries “is to follow up on their donations to examine how and where the money is being spent. We caught some officials who stole about $700,000 from the donors to study the atmosphere in . Why do we need to spend such a huge amount of money on something trivial like this when many people are suffering and have nothing to eat or feed their children?”

Was he serious about Hamas taking over the ? “Yes, no question about that,” he said. “It will happen one day if the state of corruption and anarchy continue in the West Bank .Why do you think Hamas kicked us out of the Gaza Strip? Because the people there were fed up with the corruption and bad government of Fatah. What do you think the people in the Gaza Strip used to think when they saw a colonel in the Palestinian Authority driving in a big motorcade and surrounded by dozens of bodyguards and assistants?”

Did he see no chance that Fatah would reform? “As long as the same corrupt guys are running the show we shouldn’t expect real changes,” said Shabaneh.

“Before the 2006 parliamentary election, the Americans gave Fatah $3.2m. to improve the party’s image and boost its chances of winning. But the Fatah people even stole most of the money that was intended to help them improve their image and reputation. These corrupt officials know no limits. They even used to forge Arafat’s signature to obtain money by fraud,” he said.

Hamas' 54 Democratic Congressmen: Muslim Brotherhood is in da House

The Muslim Brotherhood is operating at breakneck speed with the Islamist in the White House. They have achieved absolute intellectual dominance. Everything you read or see about Islam from the media or government or public school or university comes from them (CAIR, MAS, ICNA, ISNA etc.)

The Muslim Brotherhood should be rebuked much the way the Nazi party was rebuked during WWII. Same war, different century.

Sultan has the dirt on the dirty who voted dirty:

Hamas' 54 Democratic Congressmen

Keith Ellison, widely hailed as America's first Muslim congressman, could more accurately be described as CAIR and Hamas' man in Congress. Congressman Ellison has been a regular presence at CAIR fundraisers and at pro-Hamas rallies in the United States. As a former member of Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Ellison has enough anti-semitic and Islamist credentials to satisfy anyone, and had expressed openly anti-semitic beliefs in the past.

[...]

The entire "Free Gaza" movement is a Hamas propaganda project that allows it to demand that Israel open its borders, without actually using the P word, for peace, since Hamas doesn't even believe in phony peace negotiations. So Pro-Hamas activists, whether it's former Saddam supporter, George Galloway's Viva Palestina or their American flavors talk only about "The People of Gaza", deemphasize Hamas and emphasize the supposed "suffering" within Gaza.

They are this century's nazis. Atlas covered them here and here and here.

But the call for Israel to open its borders is nothing more than a way of making it easier for terrorists to strike. Ellison's letter buries its real agenda in paragraphs of prose about how everyone will be better off, except somehow Hamas, if Israel complies with their demand... that Israel ease the movement of people in and out of Gaza. This of course is a fancy way of saying, "Let my Suicide Bombers go".

None of this is up till now is shocking. But what Congressman Keith Ellison accomplished was to convince 53 other Democratic congressmen to join him in this venture. It is not particularly surprising to find the House's most radical anti-Israel voices signing their names onto Ellison's letter. It would be inconceivable if a letter aiding Hamas did not carry the signatures of Barbara Lee, Jim Moran or Jim McDermott, who helped Ellison spearhead the whole campaign. It is essentially inconceivable that any letter circulated in congress opposing Israel would not get their signature.

Jim Moran had managed to blame even the Iraq War on the Jews and McDermott was actually named CAIR's Public Official of the Year. Neither is West Virginia Arab Congressman, Nick Rahall, who is the Democratic party's version of Darrel Issa, who is tied to CAIR as well, and previously voted against Israel's right to defend itself. Rahall is also the top recipient of CAIR donations. The likes of Diane Watson or Pete Stark aren't complete surprises either. Pete Stark has a history of being both anti-Israel and unstable. Neither is Carolyn Kilpatrick, who voted against Israel's right to defend itself, and against condemning terrorist attacks on Israel. Kilpatrick, like virtually every Democrat on the list, is also tied to CAIR.

Then there's William Delahunt, who all but openly expressed the hope that a former Cheney aide would be targeted by Al Queda. John Conyers signing on to this while awaiting prison is no real shocker either. The man has all but endorsed Sharia law in America. Or John Dingell who like many Detroit politicians has gone whole hog with the Islamist Follow Traveler thing.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas' shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gang's drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear. Again, no more surprising than Chaka Fattah's presence on the list.

Then there's Eric Massa, a former Republican turned turncoat Democrat, Massa has been consistently loudly anti-war and to the left. Like virtually every congressman on this list, he's pushed for a phony ceasefire, that would naturally be one sided. Considering his increasingly unhinged radicalism, and that he has an election coming up soon, Massa must be pretty confident that the nutroots can get him reelected.

It is of course no surprise that this list weighs heavily toward Minnesota and Michigan, where CAIR is strong. But it also includes twelve congressmen from California, 3 from New Jersey, 4 from New York and 6 from Massachusetts. These numbers are not mere statistics, they define the rising influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on American politics, state by state.

And it is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list are funded by CAIR money. Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.

Of the top 11 CAIR moneygetters in congress, Nick Rahall, James Moran, Darrel Issa, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Dingell, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Shelia Jackson Lee and Jim McDerrmott-- 7 out of 11 signed on to Ellison's letter. That makes the Gaza letter a CAIR project. 5 on that list voted against condemning attacks on Israel.

And the letter is simply an opening shot as part of a broader campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood and its American proxies to attack Israel and promote its own Hamas wing. Its proxies can't openly come out for Hamas, not in the United States anyway. Not from members of congress. But they can work toward a common goal. With this letter, Hamas's masters in the Muslim Brotherhood demonstrated that they can use CAIR to gather 54 congressmen together to push its agenda. That is quite a leap for an organization that is the unindicted co-conspirator in funding Hamas terror. It also demonstrates that Amerabia isn't as far away as we have thought.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 04:48 AM

Obama Wants Worst 53 Gitmo Jihadis in the US, indefinitely

Do not mention Islam!

Sick.

Obama wants worst 53 Gitmo inmates in the US, indefinitely Creeping Sharia

Bringing the worst of the worst to the U.S. heartland, forever. And releasing scores of others to a Yemeni jihadi rehab. via The Telegraph.

The administration wants to move 53 Guantanamo detainees to a federal prison in Illinois who are judged too dangerous to free but lacking the evidence against them for a trial, prompting accusations that Mr Obama would merely create a “Guantanamo North”.

A source close to the Obama administration said the Yemenis had agreed in principle to the establishment of a Reintegration and Risk Reduction Initiative, which would be internationally funded and monitored.

Aimed at steering detainees back into society, it would be modeled on previous efforts in Northern Ireland, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

The project has support from within the US state department and is gaining ground among White House advisers, said the source, because it would help the president dig himself out of a large hole created by his pledge to close the prison while trying to avoid releasing terror suspects back into the militant fold. Having missed his Jan 22 deadline to close the detention centre, as things stand Guantanamo is unlikely to shut this year.

It’s all about digging Obama out of a hole he dug himself into, even when it is contrary to national security. By Obama’s own logic, if Gitmo is a jihadi recruiting tool now, what do you think Gitmo on the Great Satan’s soil will be? Maybe that is what he is counting on?

Meanwhile, Obama is planting the seeds of jihad all across Europe:

US transfers two Guantanamo detainees to Algeria
US Transfers Guantanamo Detainee to Switzerland
US transfers 3 Guantanamo detainees to Slovakia
US transfers Gitmo terror suspects to Italy, France, Hungary, Albania

Former Republican congressional leader Newt Gingrich discusses the war on terror at the National Press Club.

Ummat-al-K


Gingrich: "I'm deeply worried"



He gave this brilliant, clear and insightful speech at the end of 2007. Over 1¼ million have watched this copy on YouTube alone, yet our so-called world "Leaders" are taking no notice. It is even more relevant today (if that is possible) than it was back then.

Please watch it then press your political representatives into action.... ...first we must STOP APPEASMENT! Let's not worry about whether we are showing them "proper respect at all times" - let's get on with the job of making them respect the laws of our countries and the lives of our fellow citizens.

A Messiah Treading Instead of Walking on Water

The magic, the tingle and the thrill were gone

Canada Free Press.com
By Judi McLeod Wednesday, January 20, 2010

There’s a bone-chilling, Siberian-like chill flowing among Obama’s czars today; a biting wind that can’t help but remind them that while seized power doesn’t last forever, the need to pay one’s bills does.

While the hippie czars were trimming their ponytails for the party bound to follow next week’s State of the Union address, something called reality happened.

Some guy, not even a redneck, drove right through Obama’s image as the Messiah leaving it in smithereens. It was a honkin’ green truck, and not even one of those dinky toys promoted by Greenpeace, Maurice Strong, George Soros and company!

The silence at the White House on the First Anniversary of the Obama inauguration is deafening. But in order to see how they’re all feeling, all you have to do is to tune in on the histrionics of MSNBC where the tingle of the thrill is gone.

Call off the cops. Obama senior adviser David Axelrod is not really missing. He’s only hunkering down under all his astroturf. Even the definition of astroturf: “Manufactured grassroots support” is today an ironic Axelrod humiliation. The manufactured grassroots of the Tea Party won big in Boston last night.

The fallout is rich in possibilities. Perhaps it won’t be long before big-talking White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel will come tiptoeing across the stage exiting left in his crisis-seeking ballerina slippers.

Must have been a glum pajama party last night when slum landlord Valerie Jarrett, New Age Queen Oprah Winfrey and Michelle, the three women to whose apron strings the president is hopelessly tied, held their wake.

When it was all over their emperor was standing there with no clothes.

The magic, the tingle and the thrill were gone, and the the emperor left standing there was only another politician as vulnerable as any other.

Worst of all it all happened on the very day when Madam Toussaud unveiled the wax form of Michelle standing next to her husband in a “fake Oval office.”

In reports of the fawning mainstream media, Michelle was still trying to find herself, to strike out for herself, to determine where to leave her mark.

Like many self-centered community street organizers, Michelle thinks it is important for us to know that she is still trying to find herself. Still trying to find oneself at age 46 is absurd.

Having her wax form unveiled by Madam Toussaud’s on yesterday of all days was a disaster because they may as well have carved Scott Brown’s face on it.

It’s over, the voters of Mass. took aim and shattered forever Obama’s image as “The Messiah”.

The last word here belongs to Canada Free Press commenter Turner Echols who posted these words this morning: “New Post-Election slogan: “So Can We!”

Judi McLeod Most recent columns

Copyright © Canada Free Press
Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Judi McLeod

The Jihad Decade Cometh……………………..

By Pamela Geller

As we look back on the past ten years, it is clear that we are now entering a post-American decade. How did it all go so wrong so quickly?

The year 2000 kicked off with the Democrat ruse of a “stolen election” — this from the racketeering party of ACORN — but thankfully, it was not stolen after all. George W. Bush took the reins, but soon thereafter came the culmination of all the Islamic attacks on the U.S. during the Clinton years. Islam’s fatwa on the West during the Clinton administration came home to New York and Washington on September 11th.

And while the Bush Doctrine (you are either with us or against us) was the right approach, the well dressed jihadists that Islamists like Grover Norquist ushered into the White House after 9/11 managed to sabotage the best strategy to fight Islamic jihad. The cowboy swagger set against the whole fantasy about the hijacking of Islam and the “religion of peace” nonsense was irreconcilable. It confused people. And it led to the marginalization and even dismissals of brave men and women who evaluated and exposed the jihadist ideology in our government agencies. Who can forget the case of counter-jihad expert Steve Coughlin, the Pentagon’s most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law and jihad terrorism? The Pentagon ended the career of its most effective analyst at the behest of a Muslim aide, Hesham Islam, within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Islam scholar Andrew Bostom observed that Couglin’s firing was symptomatic “of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global jihadism.”

In February 2009, former Bush administration official Douglas Feith told me that that kind of rot is systemic. He recalled that an Office of Strategic Influence was created within his Pentagon office to fight the ideological war — but then “somebody leaked — well, leaked, no. No, somebody lied to the New York Times and gave a report saying that this Office of Strategic Influence was intending to lie to foreign journalists. And the New York Times ran a front-page story saying that. It caused a big imbroglio that resulted in the shutting down of this office. I don’t think the U.S. government has recovered to this day from that fiasco, because every time anyone suggested creating an office to really deal with jihadist ideology in a systematic or strategic way at the Pentagon, people would say, oh, no, we are not going to have another Office of Strategic Influence problem.”

And so the drip, drip, drip of jihad continued through the last decade. We became more paralyzed, impotent, and deceived. Meanwhile, the Leftist/Islamic alliance, a deadly marriage between the Democratic Party and their propaganda handmaidens in the mainstream media, engaged in daily beatings of Bush and his administration.

Removing Saddam Hussein was good. There is no way around that powerful truth. But why stop there? Removing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well would have been even better. But Bush lost his mojo in 2006. The relentless pounding by the Left, Israel’s halfhearted performance in the war with Hezb’allah in the summer of 2006, and the loss of the House and the Senate in November 2006 all contributed to the rout.

But what really led to the downfall of Bush’s leadership was the falsity of his premise. He wanted to believe, like Condi and Powell and the soft diplomacy crowd, that Islam would negotiate with the West. Islam cannot negotiate. Yet still the West continues its pursuit of the impossible, despite great risk. This is a function of the Western mind. These people think it inconceivable that talk can’t solve anything and everything, that war is an indelible part of the human condition. But it is. War is as much in the makeup of man as sex, food, art, love, all of it.

And wars must be fought. They will not disappear, but we will.

Of course, we know this. But the Left, our in-house enemy, demonizes any war that America chooses to fight. The egregious, horrible crimes of Mao, Stalin, bin Laden, Che, Lenin, Pol Pot, Ahmadinejad, et al, which are so heinous and so enormous, are in their terrible minds a historical footnote. They become cultural icons for the “radical chic.” Cold-blooded monsters have co-opted our country.

And so successful was the Left at infiltrating our government, schools, and institutions that eight years after the most heinous attack on American soil, we elected an icon of our mortal enemy. A Kenyan, Indonesian, third-worldish boulevardier with as much understanding of the American experience as any foreign national. Don’t call me a racist for calling him what he is — I am not interested in the color of his skin, but in the content of his character. His lack of experience in all relevant areas to the office of the president is breathtaking. And his bowing to Islam and our enemies worldwide is disastrous.

Bush’s premise was false, but Bush was a patriot. Bush loved America, and he protected America, even if he refused to see the enemy for who and what it was. It was no accident that America was safe for eight years post-9/11. Eight years of safety is cracking apart now under a weak and pro-Islamic president. The jihadi attacks on America in 2009 were staggering. And it has only just begun. Dismantling the Bush protections against jihad and launching attacks on Americans, bloggers, tea partiers, town hallers, patriots, and vets is incomprehensible — and if I hadn’t lived through it, I wouldn’t believe it possible.

I pray that America examines the Left decade and takes stock. It was the appeasement of the Left that destroyed the foundations of this country. We must rebuild them. The advancement of Islam would never have been possible — could never have happened — without our surrender to the Left. The real war is against the Leftist/Islamic alliance.

This is a fighting year.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs website and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/the_jihad_decade_cometh.html at January 03, 2010 - 12:14:23 PM EST

The Breaking of Nations

Americans should pay attention to the Lisbon Treaty and the corresponding events in Europe. We're on the same road, and we're fast approaching a point of no return.

Europe -- the Europe of free and independent nations -- is no more. Sovereignty is all but dead there, and a collective behemoth, tellingly referred to as the "European soviet" by Mikhail Gorbachev, now straddles the continent, ushering in a new tyranny for the 21^st century. With the unanimous (and highly undemocratic) ratification of the infamous Lisbon Treaty on November 3, 2009, the European Union has achieved a transfer of authority that even the most aggressive military conquests could not. Even the German Anschluss can't compare to this unified surrender of freedom by stargazing Europeans.

Europe is now lost to history. In the Lisbon treaty are calls for E.U. treaty-making power (immediately "binding" on member states -- national parliamentary ratification not optional) [1], a common immigration and asylum policy (i.e., no more national control of illegal immigration flows) [2], and the most damning proposal, a requirement that individual nations receive permission from fellow member-states before military action can be taken in the self-interest of the nation concerned [3].

The agreement says, "The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy that might lead to a common defense" [4]. The new pan-European High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy now commands the largest collective military force in the region.

Borders are no longer an issue, because Lisbon solves immigration problems by "ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders" [5].

Even voting rights have been circumvented. Lisbon contains provisions granting foreigners the right to vote and stand in elections in nations not their own, so long as they are European s[6]. Should Germans represent British citizens? With no authentic collective interest, this development promises to sever citizens from their leaders and neutralize political accountability. Even U.S. states don't allow non-residents to stand in local elections.

Also in the Lisbon Treaty is one of the most destructive documents in European history, counterintuitively called the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Long resisted by some member nations due to the large seizures of individual liberty inherent in the document, the charter contains a provision that reads: "Limitations [on individual liberty] may be made ... if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognized by the union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others"[7].

The degradation of liberty has already begun. Lisbon comes complete with a European justice system, replacing centuries of Anglo-Saxon common law with the Code Napoleon -- i.e., guilty until proven innocent. European courts can now kidnap innocent British citizens to stand trial in foreign lands by way of the new European Arrest Warrant (EAW). So far, over two hundred Britons have been arrested under the EAW, and 101 have been extradited.

The unelected European Commission can revise, edit, or even remake the laws passed by the people's duly elected representatives. The "primacy of EU law," which has been compared to the American supremacy clause, has been used to overturn historic liberties in the 25 E.U. nations. In fact, significant elements of the Magna Carta were recently overturned with a simple majority vote in the European Parliament, and British leaders were obliged to conform. The exercise of British sovereignty today is a mere formality, as all European law and regulation is "binding in its entirety," leaving to the national authorities only "the choice of form and methods" [8].

The all-powerful European Court of Justice, which began as a trade court very similar to arrangements within NAFTA, has now become a virtual Supreme Court, striking down national laws and changing local cultures and identities artificially to conform to E.U. guidelines [9].

How did this happen? How did independent nations with separate identities and divergent cultures allow themselves to be bullied into submission by a gaggle of European bureaucrats in Brussels? The answer is that the attack on European nationhood was implemented brick by brick, piece by piece, bite by bite. Europe lost its sovereignty fifty years ago with the establishment of an incremental framework designed to feed Europeans an elephant one bite at a time. As the father of the European project Jean Monnet once said:

Europe's nations should be guided toward their super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.

Those responsible for these destructive steps knew what they were doing. A recently declassified Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) document reveals startling knowledge of the potential damage to British sovereignty prior to British entry into the European Common Market. FCO analysts concluded that "[t]he loss of external sovereignty will ... increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome 'to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples.'"

The end of nationhood in Europe offers a stern warning for the United States, because many of the same individuals involved in the creation of "Europe" are active in the U.S. And here, they won't need fifty years.

We can't comfort ourselves with the common American self-delusion of "that could never happen here," because it is happening here, and on a crash timetable. NAFTA, which was sold as a trade arrangement, has grown into something else, wielding actual power over the United States.

In 2001, a NAFTA panel required America to open its borders to Mexican trucks.

More recently, a NAFTA panel ordered America to rescind a defensive tariff on softwood lumber initiated in response to Canadian softwood subsidies. Americans are to feel comforted, since NAFTA panels have said they will "consider" the rulings of federal circuit courts when deciding cases.

Through international agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO), panels can overturn unique U.S. laws and privileges. Our elected leaders have shown a willingness to comply, making indirect world government a reality. The WTO requires all present, past, and future laws to be in agreement with WTO rules governing trade. This means that when writing laws, America must bind future generations and implement policies that meet WTO requirements, regardless of whether or not these requirements serve the interests of the United States, or are even constitutional.

Since the beginning of history, national governments have provided the best means of securing people's liberty. Government's limited power is legitimized by the "consent of the governed" within an arrangement called the social contract, usually implemented through elections. National governments, when founded on the Anglo-American tradition, are repositories of liberty. Therefore, the preservation of national sovereignty must be a prime goal of those seeking to preserve liberty.

Sovereignty is a one-way street. It can be regained only through enormous bloodshed. At some point, the loss of our national sovereignty will give unelected foreign authorities the unholy power of deciding the fate of American liberty. This is not a power our government should be allowed to give away. It's time to speak up. We must not follow Europe down the path of destruction.

---

[1] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Title V, Art. 216, International Agreements, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 142.

[2] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Chapter 2, Art. 77, Polices on Border Checks, Asylum and Immigration, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 74.

[3] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Chapter 2, Art. 24, Specific Provisions on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 31-32.

[4] Ibid., 31.

[5] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Chapter 2, Art. 77, Polices on Border Checks, Asylum and Immigration, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 74.

[6] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., "The Charter of Fundamental Rights," in the Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Title V, Art. 39, Citizens' Rights, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 204.

[7] Jens Peter-Bonde, ed., "The Charter of Fundamental Rights," in the Consolidated Lisbon Treaty, Title VII, Art. 52, Scope and Interpretation of Rights and Principles, (Notat Grafisk: Foundation for EU Democracy, 2008), 207.

[8] The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 9 May 2008, Chapter 2, Section 1, Art. 288, par. 3.

[9] See also, Open Door Counselling v. Ireland, 1992, A-246, par. 78-79, 14 Aug. 2009, , (retrieved 7 Jan. 2010).

US Loan Guarantees Cost US Nothing - Yet Cost Israel Her Sovereignty

By Rob Muchnick, Manigut Yehudit

American Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell stated last week that if Israel doesn’t advance the peace process, “[the United States] can withhold support on loan guarantees to Israel”. Manhigut Yehudit applauds Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz for telling Mitchell that “We don’t have to use those guarantees; we are doing very well without them” and Israeli Education Minister Gideon Sar for stating that “We will act in accordance with our own interests and not in accordance with external pressures.”

Though US Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman sought to minimize the threat, Mitchell’s statement sheds light on years of attempted American blackmail by which the United States placed financial pressure on Israel to gain the Jewish state’s surrender to and continuation of the ongoing false peace process.

In conjunction with the loan guarantees are the roughly 2.7 billion dollars that Israel receives annually from the United States. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction of the ruling Likud party, has been clear for years regarding US aid - that all US aid to Israel should be ended. The loan guarantees and the financial aid have come at a high price to Israel. By following this fraudulent Oslo “peace” process, Israel has suffered almost 2,000 dead and over 10,000 maimed at the hands of her so-called Arab “peace partner”.

Moreover, since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993 (by which Israel willingly offered to give away the Land where 93% of the places mentioned in the Jewish Bible are located), an ever increasing portion of world opinion (including Jewish opinion) questions whether justice is on Israel’s side. This “peace process” has therefore had a deleterious effect vis-à-vis anti-Semitism as well as strengthening terrorism and eroding Israel’s military security.

American aid to Israel comes at a heavy price with onerous strings attached. Seventy-five percent of all monies must be spent in the US thus making it a make-work program for America’s defense industry. These conditions have cost Israel 100,000 manufacturing jobs and Israel has been prevented from using its technology for the development of its own economy. The ending of American aid would solve Israel’s unemployment crisis and free Israel to reap a tremendous profit in arms sales that would more than offset any benefits of American largesse. Currently, Israel upgrades virtually all of the military equipment that it receives from the US and yet the American companies own the technology and are the only ones able to profit. Former Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs Ron Dermer publicly confirmed these assertions at the 2006 AIPAC Conference in response to a question from Manhigut Yehudit’s US Director, Rob Muchnick.

Israeli leaders typically state that they must continue the Oslo Process or else the financial spigot from the US will be shut, even though they know that the premise is false. As a case in point, former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated in 2005 that if Israel did not implement the “Disengagement from Gaza”, the United States would make Israel “do something worse”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued this trend by freezing Jewish construction in all parts of the Land of Israel liberated from the Arabs in 1967. When asked at the aforementioned AIPAC conference for his opinion as to why Israel continues to take American aid, Dermer - now a senior advisor to Netanyahu - responded that this “was a political decision made by each Prime Minister”.

Manhigut Yehudit does not blame America for attempting to co-opt Israel. The Jewish state must stand on its own feet and be led only by its devotion to its heritage, its Land, and its Creator.

This duplicity on the part of Israel’s leaders has caused her to give up her sovereignty to such an extent that many people now simply think of her as nothing more than an extraneous 51st state of America.

Rob Muchnick, US Director

NOTE: 3 COMMENTS in Israpundit worth reading:

1. 
   

   The Jewish state must stand on its own feet

   It would be a Moment For The Ages.

   Netanyahu should rise and say, “Obama has given us a choice between being annihilated or being independent, and we choose the latter. We sincerely thank the American people for their longtime generosity, but the time has arrived for them to keep their money and for us to gain our freedom. That new found freedom will enable Israelis to confront the existential threat that imperils our nation, rather than heeding the behest of our financial benefactor and passively waiting to be murdered en masse.”

   Whether the Israeli public possesses the emotional stability to cut the umbilical cord is another question.

   I could see Livni careening across the room like Fred Sanford, clutching her heart and getting the vapors.

   Comment by ayn reagan — January 13, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

   ---

2. 
   

   As the US looses power and influence around the world, she also looses influence over Israeli politics. Whatever the USA had to offer Israel in the past is not only becoming increasingly less valuable, but the Obama administration can’t be trusted to deliver on anything. Couple that with Israel’s increasing self sufficiency and the gap between the US and Israel will continue to widen. Once the O team realizes they can no longer manipulate Israel politics from the inside as the US has in the past, they will move outside and openly join in with the UN and other nations to force the M.E. “process” forward, regardless of the dangers to Israel.

   Comment by RandyTexas — January 13, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

   ---

3. 
   

   the Obama administration can’t be trusted

   Randy, that’s the bottom line. He is in my mind anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
   He prefers to sleep with the devils of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and the Palestinians.
   Israel needs to take a step back and ignore the present administrative with hope (all of us) that the next two elections will rid ourselves of these left leaning liberals. (So Help Us G-d).

   Comment by rongrand — January 13, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

Columnist in Syrian Government Daily: The Afghanistan Fire Will Roast U.S. Leaders

MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH

In his column in the official Syrian daily Al-Thawra, Dr. Jihad Taher Bakfalouni mocks senior U.S. officials, claiming that they have realized their mistake in entering Afghanistan yet are unwilling to take responsibility for it. He added that the American public's criticism of the continued presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would only increase.

The following are excerpts from his column:[1]

The "Afghan Restaurant" Has Disappointed the U.S. Politicians

"After all these years, the American politicians are discovering that the Afghan restaurant, of whose tempting dishes they dreamed, has disappointed them, dashing their hopes publicly. Today, their only way to express the bitterness that seized them after their dreams were shattered is to curse the moment in which their feeble spirit aroused their greed and they responded to it, thinking that [the food] served at this restaurant is delicious and would spark their appetite.

"Their ongoing lament over their bad fortune in Afghanistan emanates first and foremost from the steep increase in the price of the dishes at this restaurant – an increase that will get worse as the Afghan winter sets in and the fierce cold and snow accumulate around their strangled and shriveled souls, and as the dishes [served] become lower and lower in fat, down to nearly zero percent – not to mention the [restaurant's] terrible management."

The U.S. Leaders' Criticism Is Directed at the Plans They Themselves Drew Up

"In light of the embarrassing situation of the U.S. forces that invaded Afghanistan, the only way in which the American politicians and senior military personnel can express their abysmal despair is with relentless criticism. Their harsh lashes of criticism are directed at the plans that were drawn up and circulated as a 'philosopher's stone' that would make the Afghan rebels obey the American master of the [Aladdin-style] lamp, more than his own fingers obey him. But the [American leaders] were surprised to find that the situation was completely different – instead of the rebel obeying and being loyal to the bearer or owner of the lamp, he aimed to put the owner of the lamp into the lamp, to torture him with the harshest of torments...

"The strange thing is that the criticism of [the U.S.] plan [for Afghanistan] – criticism that will later become curses and invective – came from those who made this plan it in the first place. In order for the reader not to be confused, he must know that this [criticism] is not self-criticism, but rather an attempt to evade responsibility and avoid an accounting in the future, after the American citizens' resentment escalates because of the [war's] heavy financial price and because their husbands and sons are falling in Afghanistan with no clear purpose."

"[America's] Exit from the Afghan Stewpot Will Not Be Like its Entrance"

Bakfalouni then cites as an example the criticism by the U.S.'s chief intelligence officer in Afghanistan, Major General Michael Flynn, on U.S. intelligence operations there, and concludes by saying:

"[America's] exit from the Afghan stewpot will not be like its entrance. The U.S. forces involved in breaking into the Afghan restaurant will be forced to pay a heavy price – one that they will be able neither to hide nor to [pay]. The food will emerge from the intestines of the American soldiers, sent by his leaders to destroy Afghanistan, as a fire whose flames will roast these leaders. American public opinion will further fan this fire, making it even more deadly.

"The only way left for American politicians and military personnel to mitigate the impact of this fire is to return to their country, accompanied by the curse of history and the contempt of an [entire] Afghan generation that saw them sowing corruption and destruction in its land – for which loathsome crime they will never forgive them."

Endnote:

[1] Al-Thawra (Syria), January 8, 2010.