Obama re-assures Vladmir Putin of his “cooperation and flexibility” after his re-election!

 II Chas. Krauthammer on video following above Obama gaff. Copy and paste to your browser below.

By Ed Morrissey


 March 26, 2012

Congressman to Obama: 

You’d better not be trading away our missile defense system!

Update: A hint on Obama’s “flexibility” with Putin. 

Update: McCain calls Obama “a real Etch-a-Sketch leader”

It remains to be seen how the media will cover the explosive revelation from ABC’s Jake Tapper that Barack Obama asked Russian president Dmitri Medvedev to get Vladimir Putin to give him some “space” on missile defense so that he could be more “flexible” with the Russians in a second term. So far, the tepid coverage from National Journal and the Washington Post suggests that the media doesn’t consider a request to another nation to pipe down so an American President can win a second term and deliver more favorable policy to a potential antagonist more than a “gaffe.” They seem to be taking their cue from the White House, which attempted a little misdirection:

A senior administration official told ABC: “This is not the kind of year in which we’re going to resolve (an) incredibly complicated issue like this.”

Except Obama wasn’t caught telling Medvedev that he needed more space because missile defense was “incredibly complicated.” He told Medvedev that he needed more space on the issue — in other words, to have it downplayed as a national-security dispute with Russia — in order to win a second term, so that he could have “more flexibility” to deal with the Russians. Very obviously, Obama gave a strong hint that he could be more favorable to the Russian position, which completely opposes the deployment of a Western missile shield in Europe, when Obama doesn’t have to worry about being more accountable to the voters.

That’s not fooling Rep. Michael Turner, who chairs the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, which has direct oversight on missile-defense issues. Turner sent a letter to the White House this morning, demanding answers from Obama on whether he’s planning on defying Congress and trading away missile defense:

Dear Mr. President,

I request your urgent explanation of your comments to President Medvedev in Seoul this morning.

During the New START treaty ratification process, you made specific promises that Russian concerns about missile defense will not be allowed to affect U.S. missile defense deployment plans. You further committed that the United States will make both qualitative and quantitative improvements in its missile defenses. You have already walked away from detailed promises to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent; are you now planning to walk away from your promises regarding U.S. missile defense as well?

As you know, in the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress enacted, and you signed into law, a provision constraining your ability to share classified U.S. missile defense information with the Russian Federation. Congress took this step because it was clear based on official testimony and Administration comments in the press that classified information about U.S. missile defenses, including hit-to-kill technology and velocity at burnout information, may be on the table as negotiating leverage for your reset with Russia.

Despite signing the FY12 defense authorization legislation into law, you then issued a signing statement signaling that you may treat that provision protecting U.S. missile defense information as non-binding. This morning’s comments, on top of that action, suggests that you and your administration have plans for U.S. missile defenses that you believe will not stand up to electoral scrutiny.

Congress has made exquisitely clear to your Administration and to other nations that it will block all attempts to weaken U.S. missile defenses. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which authorizes U.S. missile defense and nuclear weapons policy, I want to make perfectly clear that my colleagues and I will not allow any attempts to trade missile defense of the United States to Russia or any other country.


Michael R. Turner

Chairman, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

House Armed Services Committee

II Chas. Krauthammer – Video on above Obama statement, copy and paste to your browser



Seaweed in your gas tank

Another deliberately destroy the US scam from Barack Hussein Obama

From the brilliant CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Seaweed in your gas tank

Posted March 18, 2012

Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The “fuel of the past,” he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn’t commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future.

President Obama incessantly claims energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is “all of the above.” Except, of course, for drilling:

• Off the mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants).

• Off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there).

• In the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts).

• In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles Airport).

• On federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).

But the event that drove home the extent of Obama’s antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline. It gave the game away because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.

Obama boasts that on his watch production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.

“The American people aren’t stupid,” said Obama (Feb. 23), mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home … that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”

So, decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?

Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.

Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollars within the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs, and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.

Instead, Obama offers what he fancies to be the fuels of the future. You would think that he’d be a tad more modest today about his powers of divination after the Solyndra bankruptcy, the collapse of government-subsidized Ener1 (past makers of the batteries of the future) and GM’s suspension of production — for lack of demand — of another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.

Deterred? Hardly. Our undaunted seer of the energy future has come up with his own miracle fuel: algae. Yes, green slime, upon which Steven Chu’s Energy Department will be sprinkling yet another $14 million of taxpayer money.

This is the very same Dr. Chu who famously said in 2008 that he wanted U.S. gas prices to rise to European levels of $8-$10 a gallon — and who Tuesday, eight months before Election Day, publicly recanted before Congress, Galileo-style.

Who do they think they’re fooling? An oil crisis looms, prices are spiking — and our president is extolling algae. After Solyndra, Keystone and promises of seaweed in their gas tanks, Americans sense a president so ideologically antipathetic to fossil fuels — which we possess in staggering abundance — that he is utterly unserious about the real world of oil in which the rest of us live.

High gasoline prices are a major political problem for Obama. They are not just a pain at the pump, however. They are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@ charleskrauthammer.com.

Inane Discussion with Chris Wallace and George Clooney

Fox News, Sunday, March 18, 2012

Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman from various previous Israel Commentary articles and Internet sources.


At least Chris Wallace was honest enough to admit to George Clooney that the only reason Fox was airing their interview about South Sudan was the celebrity of Clooney. And … Clooney was honest enough to admit his role.

Terrific! Now what?

Where was the beef? There was no beef. All we saw were groups of G-d forsaken or should I say man-forsaken scared people without food, without shelter, without defense, without protecting forces, hiding from those who had only one goal in mind and have had for years – to annihilate the people of South Sudan.

Yes, I could almost use the word “holocaust.” But, to my mind  “holocaust” means  annihilating a people only because of who they are – no other purpose. The prime example is the German Nazis killing of Jews with the enthusiastic assistance of most of the rest of “Christian” Europe, and with the only qualification the victims be Jews. South Sudan is different in that there are several purposes for killing these defenseless people – at least in the minds of their murderers.

First, a brief history authored by Daniel Pipes in Israel Commentary:  The beautiful unappreciated, unreported history of Israel in South Sudan | Israel Commentary, January 3, 2012.

“Today’s Sudan took shape in the nineteenth century when the Ottoman Empire controlled its northern regions and tried to conquer the southern ones. The British, ruling out of Cairo, established the outlines of the modern state in 1898 and for the next fifty years ruled separately the Muslim north and Christian-animist south. In 1948, however, succumbing to northern pressure, the British merged the two administrations in Khartoum under northern control, making Muslims dominant in Sudan and Arabic its official language.

Independence from Britain in 1956 brought civil war, as southerners battled to fend off Muslim hegemony. Fortunately for them, Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s “periphery strategy” translated into Israeli support for non-Arabs in the Middle East, including the southern Sudanese. The government of Israel served through the first Sudanese civil war, lasting until 1972, as their primary source of moral backing, diplomatic help, and armaments.”

Sudan’s civil war continued intermittently from 1956 until 2005. Over time, Muslim northerners became increasingly vicious toward their southern co-nationals, culminating in the 1980-90s with massacreschattel slavery, and genocide.”

The other paradigm to consider is, “Follow the Money.” Sudan is a treasure trove of oil resources, Although both countries are now independent, they remain interdependent in  terms  of the oil industry. About 75 percent of oil production (depending on specific field allocations) originates from the South, while the entire pipeline, refining, and export infrastructure is in the North. This situation has caused contention between the two countries over pipeline and export transit fees with the North attempting to solve the problem by simply annihilating the South and confiscating its superior oil resources.

To thwart these hundreds of years of Muslim aspiration, there was an election in the South. A referendum took place in January 2011 in which the people of South Sudan voted to secede from Sudan. In July 2011, Sudan became two countries: Sudan and South Sudan. The capital of Sudan is Khartoum and the capital of South Sudan is Juba.

Predictably, Sudan has deliberately ignored the election and is now waging an intense, virtually unopposed war on South Sudan attempting to fulfill their age old aspirations. The United Nations estimated that more than 2,300 South Sudanese have died in tribal and rebel violence this year alone.

On November 11, 2011, it was reported that Islamic North Sudan bombed free Christian South Sudan. How many millions of Christians, animists, and black moderate Muslims have to be slaughtered in the jihadi war in Sudan before the international community finally wakes up to its own vital interests and stands against this slaughter in the name of Allah?

What is the possible solution?

For the West, this means coming to the aid of  a loyal ally and a genuine bulwark against Islamic ambition. The crippling of the superior military of the North would be a great start. But, the South Sudanese must first survive. Otherwise we have nothing to  talk about. Then the vital contributions of agriculture, health, and education and the basic components of military defense.  A successful South Sudan could eventually become a regional power and a stalwart, important ally of the West.

Unfortunately none of the above discussion remotely entered the inane interview on Fox News. I expected a whole lot more from Chris Wallace. The contribution of the dilettante political activist, George Clooney, was as anticipated.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor

Israel Commentary









The Abominable Louis Farrakhan. May his soul rest in Gehenim.

Farrakhan’s Secret Relationship

By Charles Jacobs, President American Anti-Slavery Group

The Abominable Louis Farrakhan. May his soul rest in Gehenim.

First published in The Daily Californian, March 16, 2012

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan addressed an estimated 600 students at UC Berkeley last Saturday, and told  Black students not to befriend any Jew without first reading “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” a book whose thesis is that  “the Jews” were behind the black slave trade!  Heck of a way to start up a friendship!

Scholars both black and white have exposed the NOI book as a pack of lies, a modern day calumny which, much like their medieval analogues — “the Jews poisoned the wells,” “the Jews make matzo with the blood of Christian children”–is meant to incite hatred for Jewish people. Dangerous hatred.

The Daily Californian reports that Jewish students were hurt and shocked.  No doubt. But what will be more shocking perhaps is Minister Farrakhan’s own semi-secret relationship with the modern day slaving of African Blacks by people, and in countries, that the NOI leader has an interest to protect.

In 1994, an African Muslim from Mauritania  – Mohammed Athie — and I broke the story of a modern day slave trade in Mauritania and Sudan, in The New York Times .  We reported that   “perhaps 300,000” African Muslims were still serving Arab/Berber masters. 

“Black Africans in Mauritania were converted to Islam more than 100 years ago,” we wrote, “but while the Koran forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, in this country race outranks religious doctrine. These people are chattel: used for labor, sex, and breeding. They may be exchanged for camels, trucks, guns or money. Their children are the property of the master.”

In Sudan, Africa’s largest country, we reported that slavery was “making a comeback, the result of a 12-year-old war waged by the Muslim north against the black Christian and animist south. Arab militias, armed by the Government, raid villages, mostly those of the Dinka tribe, shoot the men and enslave the women and children. These are kept as personal property or marched north and sold.” We based our reports on government documentshuman rights publications  and a stunning interview with a UN official

The op-ed shocked many. We were encouraged to launch the American Anti-Slavery Group (AASG) which would document a modern day slave trade around the globe, but would focus on Sudan and Mauritania as the worst case of slavery, and the most controversial, and therefore least likely to be covered by others.

PBS’s Tony Brown Journal, the most popular Black news program at the time, invited Mohammed and me to speak about slavery. Immediately after our appearance, we were attacked by Farrakhan’s spokesman  who denied that Blacks served Arab masters in Sudan or – worse from NOI’s point of view, that Black Muslims served Arab Muslim masters in Mauritania. 

Farrakhan’s “calling,” after all, funded in part by Arab dictator Muammar Khadafy,  was to break the Black/Jewish civil rights alliance while teaching American Blacks that Islam was their path to freedom. Not in Sudan and Mauritania it wasn’t! NOI was serious about shutting us up.  

Samuel Cotton, a black reporter for the City Sun, NY’s second largest black paper conducted a thorough investigation that resulted in a five part series. “Arab Masters, Black Slaves”  screamed across the front page in NYC’s news kiosks. NOI warned Sam. They followed and menaced him when he spoke in Chicago, not far from their headquarters. Sam’s book, “Silent Terror,” has become an underground classic.

At a press conference in D.C in 1996, Farrakhan was asked about reports of slavery in Sudan. According to the NY Times , he angrily challenged them: “If slavery exists, go … to Sudan, and come back and tell the American people what you found.”The Baltimore Sun sent two reporters to Sudan. They found and liberated slaves and published a special four page insert in the paper’s weekend edition.  Farrakhan refused their request for an interview — and pretty much went radio silent on slavery issues…until fairly recently.

Farrakhan has always said that slavery in Sudan and Mauritania was a Zionist lie. Last week, South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, demanded the liberation of 30,000 slaves still held by Arabs in the North.   Minister Farrakhan, South Sudan is not a Jewish nation. You met with South Sudanese leaders in the Spring of 1994. They begged you for support – and to help free the slaves. They wrote that you told them “When it comes to a choice between religion or the dignity of the black man I will choose my skin.”  

You betrayed them. Why? Why has Farrakhan decided in recent days that he can safely  re-play his “Jews-were-the-slavers” card? I believe that the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic climate on California’s campuses emboldened him to regurgitate the attack.  

UC President Mark Yudof condemned Farrakhan’s message, but defended his rights to free speech. Interesting. I wonder what Mr. Yudof would do if a KKK speaker asked for the same rights — and a platform on his free-speech campus.

Meanwhile, I encourage the student body to visit our website at www.iabolish.org  to learn about the plight of modern day slaves, especially those in Sudan and Mauritania, where political correctness – and fear – have blocked human rights activists — who should be the slaves’ most vociferous champions — from taking moral action to set them free.


Reader Comment:

What soul? There’s more soul in the food he eats and in the shoes he wears than in him!

But couldn’t agree more with final destination (but not for “rest”).


The “Curious Speech” of Barack Obama

By Lawrence Kudlow, astute financial advisor

The Washington Times, March 5, 2012

Barack ‘All of the Above’ Obama


President Obama fought back against rising oil and retail gas prices in a speech in Florida. But it was a curious speech. He started out by mocking Republicans, stating that GOP candidates are licking their chops as gasoline prices rocket up. He said, “They are already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling.”

Very clever. It’s kind of what Newt Gingrich said in this week’s Arizona debate.

But here’s the curious part. Obama said, “If we’re going to take control of our energy future, if we’re going to avoid these gas-price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels and more.”

That’s a Republican policy. All of the above. George W. Bush used to say it. John McCain ran on it in 2008. And you hear Republicans talk in similar terms all the time. “All of the above.”

Obama next took credit for record oil and gas production. He took a bow for more rigs and the approval of pipelines (including from Canada!). He then argued that his administration has opened millions of acres for oil and gas exploration.

Well, I don’t know about the pipeline part. He sure hasn’t opened Keystone XL. And most people in the oil business say the administration has been slow-walking offshore permits, restricting access on federal lands, and excluding Alaska and the Arctic. They also note the general nuisance of the EPA, including its recent attack on hydraulic fracking.

But people in the business will tell you that production is high, and that things began turning around years before the administration took office. Of course, the great energy revolution has come with all the new shale fields in the Dakotas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere, which has led to a gusher of new oil and natural gas.

The fact that Obama sounds like a Republican doesn’t mean that he’s opened the barn door to all manner of new leases and permits. But the reality is that his administration has loosened things up a bit. Whether drill, drill, drill would produce $2 gasoline is an interesting debate. But surely the U.S. is on the road to energy independence if the government is more hands-off.

The fact remains, however, that right now there’s rising public angst over higher gasoline prices. That could become an economic problem, but it’s more rapidly becoming a political problem for the White House.

A lot of consumers and motorists are trying to figure out why all this new energy production hasn’t stopped prices from rising. The best answer I can come up with is Iran. As the Iranians rattle their sabers over the Strait of Hormuz, oil traders are taking long positions in the market. According to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, traders with net-long positions of oil contracts worth $100,000 have increased from 181,000 in early October to 281,000 lately. (Hat tip to economist Conrad DeQuadros).

During this period, oil prices have jumped about $35, or 37 percent. Today the WTI contract for light sweet crude closed above $108. And it’s worth noting that non-oil commodity indexes during this period have increased by less than 2 percent. That means the oil spike is a supply shock, not economic-demand driven. And since mid-December, AAA retail gas prices have increased about 11 percent from $3.22 to $3.60. Undoubtedly, gasoline prices are following oil prices higher. And the oil-price jump is a function of trader worries that Iran might choke off the Hormuz Strait, leading to a substantial, if temporary, oil-supply shortage.

Obama cites the Iranian situation in his speech, and he’s got an important point. We can debate the merits of Obama’s Iranian policy. But the reality is that energy prices are rising on speculative trading demands over a potential worst-case scenario.

If that worst case scenario doesn’t come to pass, energy prices could well retreat. In any case, even the oil and gas spike thus far is not likely to have a significant economic impact. All that oil and gas shale production from private, not federal, lands is a big reason why. The new natural-gas supplies have caused the price of natural gas to fall substantially. That means much lower home-heating bills for consumers. And the relatively mild winter so far is another factor contributing to lower utility bills.

The moral of this story is that America should continue to drill, drill, drill, and put up the Keystone XL pipeline, and work with Canada to build an energy-independent North America. But as long as the Iranian threat is unsolved, the future risk of higher energy prices is going to be a fact of life.


Who was Andrew Breitbart?

Conservative ‘happy warrior’ Breitbart dead at 43

By Jennifer Harper

 The Washington Times


March 1, 2012

Andrew Breitbart, the conservative journalist, Internet pioneer and provocateur who helped reshape the media landscape with tenacious and original political style, died early Thursday after collapsing on the street near his Los Angeles home. He was 43.

His passing was announced through a posting on his extensive online news empire at bigjournalism.com, mourning him as a “patriot and a happy warrior.” In the past decade, Mr. Breitbart bore witness to media bias, partisan spectacle and celebrity foibles, and relished publicizing damning details to expose erring public officials.

In recent years, Mr. Breitbart lent a forum to sting videos uncovering irregularities at the community organization ACORN and was the first to publish a lurid photograph of former New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner that led to his resignation. The accuser was always candid about his motivations.

“I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it,” he wrote in “Righteous Indignation,” his most recent book. “I love fighting back, I love finding allies, and famously, I enjoy making enemies.”

The news spawned a deluge of online tributes and reactions, and word was spreadby tweets and blog posts from friends and foes alike. Both House Minority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, and pundit Michelle Malkin said they were “stunned” by his death; Mrs. Malkin also noted that Mr. Breitbart “bane of the left” — had been a mentor to an entire rising generation of activists and citizen journalists.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum called his passing a “huge loss” for the nation, while campaign rival Mitt Romney deemed him a “brilliant entrepreneur, fearless conservative, loving husband and father.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Mr. Breitbart was a man of “great courage and creativity,” while Sarah Palin assured her Facebook followers, “We will continue the fight.”

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh told his audience Thursday, “Sometime during the 1990s, Breitbart had an awakening. He was constantly questioning what was all around him, which was really extreme liberalism, and he became … a bulldog.”

He was also at the center of a number of controversies about his writings and news-gathering methods. At the time of his death, he was defending a defamation suit filed by former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod about what Ms. Sherrod said were deceptively edited clips of her posted on Mr. Breitbart’s website.

Mr. Breitbart was born in Los Angeles, the adopted son of liberal Jewish parents. He ultimately emerged as a self-proclaimed “Reagan conservative” with a canny sensibility about American culture and political ironies. He was particularly irked by hypocrisy and corruption among public officials.

Like Matt Drudge, he was ahead of his time in recognizing the power of the Internet, joining forces with Mr. Drudge to search out and post the signature mix of online news and commentary as early as 1996 for the widely influential Drudge Report, at the very dawn of Web-based journalism. “In the first decade of the Drudge Report, Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening,” Mr. Drudge wrote in a remembrance posted across the top of his website Thursday.

Mr. Breitbart also developed considerable prowess as a public speaker and editorialist, including penning a regular weekly op-ed at The Washington Times and making multiple appearances at such major events as the annual CPAC gathering of conservatives in Washington. After collaborating with Mr. Drudge and with Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, he founded six popular websites five years ago, offering a kaleidoscope of videos, news and commentary on politics, the media and popular culture.

Though Mr. Breitbart reportedly died of a suspected heart attack. the Los Angeles County coroner’s office will review his death and conduct an autopsy. Mr. Breitbart is survived by his wife, Susannah; four children; his sister, Tracy; his parents, Jerry and Arlene Breitbart; and his in-laws, actor Orson Bean and Alison Bean.



The brilliant Brett Stephens, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, on Barack Obama

I The ‘Jewish’ President?

March 6, 2012


The brilliant Brett Stephens, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, on Barack Obama

II Video by Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, MK Danny Ayalon – Just the Facts, Ma’am

Should Israelis and pro-Israel Americans take President Obama at his word when he says—as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday—”I have Israel’s back”? No!

Here is a president who fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit. He inherited from the Bush administration the security assistance to Israel he now advertises as proof of his “unprecedented” commitment to the Jewish State. His defense secretary has repeatedly cast doubt on the efficacy of a U.S. military option against Iran even as the president insists it remains “on the table.” His top national security advisers keep warning Israel not to attack Iran even as he claims not to “presume to tell [Israeli leaders] what is best for them.”

Oh, and his secretary of state answers a question from a Tunisian student about U.S. politicians courting the “Zionist lobbies” by saying that  “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention.” It seems it didn’t occur to her to challenge the premise of the question. Still, if you’re looking for evidence of Mr. Obama’s disingenuousness when it comes to Israel, it’s worth referring to what his supporters say about him.

Consider Peter Beinart, the one-time Iraq War advocate who has reinvented himself as a liberal scourge of present-day Israel and mainstream Zionism. Mr. Beinart has a book coming out next month called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Chapter five, on “The Jewish President,” fully justifies the cover price.

Mr. Beinart’s case is that Mr. Obama came to his views about Israel not so much from people like his friend Rashid Khalidi or his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Instead, says Mr. Beinart, Mr. Obama got his education about Israel from a coterie of far-left Chicago Jews who “bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state.”

At the center of this coterie, Mr. Beinart explains, was a Chicago rabbi named Arnold Jacob Wolf. In 1969, Wolf staged a synagogue protest in favor of Black Panther Bobby Seale. In the early 1970s, he founded an organization that met with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) —this being some 20 years before Arafat officially renounced terrorism. In the early 1990s, Wolf denounced the construction of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. And, in 1996, the rabbi “was one of [Mr. Obama’s] earliest and most prominent supporters” when he ran for the Illinois state Senate. Wolf later described Mr. Obama’s views on Israel as “on the line of Peace Now”—an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Obama had other Jewish mentors, too, according to Mr. Beinart. One was Bettylu Saltzman, whose father, developer Philip Klutznick, had joined Wolf in “his break with the Israeli government in the 1970s.” Ms. Saltzman, writes Mr. Beinart, “still  seethes with hostility toward the mainstream Jewish groups” and later became active in left-wing Jewish political groups like J Street. Among other things, it was she who “organized the rally against the Iraq War where Obama proclaimed his opposition to an American invasion.”

Ms. Saltzman also introduced Mr. Obama to David Axelrod, himself a longtime donor to a group called the New Israel Fund. For a flavor of the NIF’s world view, a WikiLeaks cable from 2010 noted that an NIF associate director told U.S. embassy officials in Tel Aviv that  “the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”

Other things that we learn about Mr. Obama’s intellectual pedigree from Mr. Beinart: As a student at Columbia, he honed his interests in colonialism by studying with the late pro-Palestinian agitator, Prof. Edward Said. In 2004, Mr. Obama “criticized the barrier built to separate Israel and its major settlements from the rest of the West Bank”—the  “barrier” meaning the security fence that all-but eliminated the wave of suicide bombings that took 1,000 lives in Israel.

We also learn that, according to one of Mr. Beinart’s sources, longtime diplomat Dennis Ross was brought aboard the Obama campaign as part of what Mr. Beinart calls “Obama’s inoculation strategy” to mollify Jewish voters apprehensive about the sincerity of his commitments to Israel. Not surprisingly, Mr. Ross was a marginal figure in the administration before leaving last year.

In Mr. Beinart’s telling, all this is evidence that Mr. Obama is in tune with the authentic views of the American Jewish community when it comes to Israel, but that he’s out of step with Jewish organizational leadership. Maybe. Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those “real” views rarely seem to find much of a base.

But the important question here isn’t about American-Jewish attitudes toward Israel. It’s about the president’s honesty. Is he being truthful when he represents himself as a mainstream friend of Israel—or is he just holding his tongue and biding his time? On the evidence of Mr. Beinart’s sympathetic book, Mr. Obama’s speech at AIPAC was one long exercise in political cynicism.

II Video – MK Danny Ayalon






The Writing on the Wall for Barack Obama and Israel

By former governor and Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee


Huckabee: Americans Would Back Israeli Strike on Iran

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says the American people would definitely support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — but questions whether the Obama administration would back such a strike.

“I’m confident that there would be an overwhelming support from the American people,” the 2008 Republican presidential candidate told CBN News in Jerusalem on Monday.

“Whether the American administration would be as supportive, I don’t know.

“It’s one of those real concerns that many of us have — why the Obama administration hasn’t been stronger in its support for Israel in doing what it has to do.”

A bipartisan group of senators has passed a resolution declaring that it is unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability.

“Now it’s been pretty clear, saying it’s unacceptable and all the options are on the table to keep Iran from having a nuclear device,” said Huckabee, who is hosting a tour of about 175 Americans in Israel.

“But it hasn’t been as clear as saying that should Israel [act] as a sovereign nation to protect itself and to preserve its own survival, if it takes the action, we will stand behind her and accept that.”

He added: “They’re not just doing Israel a favor. They’re doing a favor for the United States, but they’re also doing a favor for the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the people of Qatar and the [United Arab] Emirates. Everybody in the world is safer for Iran to be disengaged from nuclear capacity.”

Middle East expert Walid Phares said in a Newsmax.TV interview on Tuesday: “If the Iranian regime is very close to putting a weapon on a missile, then no questions asked, [the Israelis] are going to try to take action. They will try to coordinate with us or inform us at the end of the day.

“It has to do with the width of Israel. It has to do with Israel unaccepting the idea that they could absorb one strike.”

Many Israelis and Israel supporters abroad are concerned that if Obama wins re-election, he would no longer be motivated to court the Jewish vote and could turn against Israel, CBN News reported.

Referring to those concerns, Huckabee said that in a second Obama term, when the “political consequences” are behind him, Obama’s “true sentiments” might surface.

“Effective Sanctions” against Iran an Oxymoron

Sanctions against Iran – Not an Option
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
“Israel Hayom” newsletter, February 21, 2012

“Effective Sanctions” against Iran an Oxymoron

The term “effective sanctions” against Iran on the one hand and global political reality on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron, playing into the hands of Iran.

Effective sanctions require the full cooperation of Russia and China, two strategic rivals of the US, as demonstrated by their UN Security Council double-veto of the October 2011 and February 2012 anti-Assad resolutions.  They do not fully cooperate with sanctions invoked against Iran, and assist the Tehran regime, as do some European countries.  Furthermore, Japan, India and Turkey have subordinated compliance with sanctions to their trade relations with Iran, as have some countries in Latin America and Europe.

Each new sanction against Iran requires several months for effectiveness assessment. Thus, it extends the time available to Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities, as well as to acquire critical technologies and systems from North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or China.

Forty years of US economic sanctions against North Korea – which does not harbor Iran-like megalomaniac aspirations – have failed to topple the regime or prevent its nuclearization. Fifty years of sanctions against Cuba has, also, reaffirmed the constraints of sanctions against rogue regimes, which subject their people to ruthless dictatorships and ideological brainwashing.

Sanctions have, usually, been employed in order to avoid the tougher – and more effective – options, which are required to produce regime-change or dramatic policy-alteration. Sanctions express loudly and clearly disapproval of certain regimes and policies, but generally fail to achieve their goal.

The preoccupation with “effective sanctions” and diplomacy ignores the gravity and immediacy of the clear, present and devastating threat to the US, posed by a nuclear Iran, independent of Israel’s existence and policies.

Just as Bin-Laden, who had ample opportunities to hit Israel, but preferred to hit the US and Western Europe, so does Iran consider the US and NATO (and Saudi Arabia) its top enemies, and most formidable obstacles in the way of assuming domination of the Persian Gulf, and therefore its top targets.

A nuclear Iran would cause a meltdown of pro-US Gulf regimes through a violent regime change, and/or via a dramatic policy change by the currently pro-US Gulf regimes. Iran’s nuclear intimidation of Central Asian (former USSR) countries would tilt them toward Teheran or Moscow and against the US.

A nuclear Iran would accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Mid-East, the role model of instability, unpredictability and violent regime change – a nightmare scenario for global sanity. According to former Vice Chairman of the US Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff Marine Corps General James Cartwright, and such a scenario would be “my number one proliferation concern globally…extremely, extremely dangerous.”  Saudi Arabia is currently registering its Iran-driven panic with US Senators and House Representatives, pleading for military preemption, while expediting its own nuclear initiative.  It could acquire nuclear capabilities from Pakistan, which has been a closely-aligned beneficiary of crucial Saudi financial support for its own nuclear facilities. Hence, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Founding Father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has recently visited Saudi Arabia, which has concluded a series of civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with China, France, South Korea and Argentina. Egypt would not lag behind Saudi Arabia, its intra-Arab rival, stepping-up its already advanced nuclear program, as would Turkey, which aspires to hegemony in the Muslim World.

A nuclear Iran would intimidate Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing Gulf States, threatening the normal operations of their oil infrastructure, dramatically influencing oil quota and price, interfering with – and possibly disrupting – the supply of oil, directly impacting the price at the pump and the level of unemployment in the US and the West.

A nuclear Iran would bolster its existing beachheads in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico, which host Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s elite extraterritorial Quds Force.  It could transfer some nuclear systems to its Latin American allies, which recently hosted six visits by Ahmadinejad, who is systematically enhancing Iran’s security profile on the American continent.

A nuclear Iran would provide a significant tailwind to scores, or hundreds, of sleeper cells in the US and Canada, as well as to anti-US global Islamic terrorism.

The highly exaggerated cost of military preemption – by the US or by Israel – would be dwarfed by the aforementioned threats of a nuclear Iran, in addition to the nuclear threat which would hover above US soldiers in the Gulf and above the US mainland. A regime which sacrificed 500,000 of its own children in order to clear minefields, during the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, is capable of launching nuclear warheads, irrespective of the cost.

An effective preemption should not be limited to critical nuclear facilities, but should simultaneously devastate Iran’s missile and air defense capabilities, thus minimizing the scope of Iran’s retaliation. An effective preemption would not include the occupation of Iran, thus distinguishing itself from Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran, which coalesced all Iranians against the threat to their sovereignty. An effective preemption is a prerequisite to regime-change through domestic opposition, which was disillusioned by the lack of Western support in 2009.

Refraining from preemption would gravely destabilize the Mid-East and beyond. The only effective way to prevent (Iran’s nuclearization and its devastating cost) is to preempt!

Why Muslim Student Group Concerned the NYC Police Department

I  Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News, February 24, 2012

Steven Emerson, Executive Director

II  Must watch video. Canadian Muslim, born in Pakistani, tries desperately to wake us up.


The Muslim community expressed its outrage this week over a New York Police Department surveillance report from 2006 that the Associated Press reported on Monday. The report disclosed that the NYPD monitored Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapters in the Northeast. The outrage, centered on the perceived violation of privacy, is based on an incorrect presumption that law enforcement had no cause for concern with the MSA.

The organization’s history with radical dogma, convicted terrorists and radicalized alumni tell a different story. NYPD officials say critics are off base when they claim the department did something wrong.

“Some of the most dangerous Western Al Qaeda-linked/inspired terrorists since 9/11 were radicalized and/or recruited at universities in MSAs,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said as an explanation for the surveillance. “We were focused on radicalization and/or recruitment, specifically by groups like Al Muhajiroun, Islamic Thinkers Society, Revolution Muslim and others.”

Criticism of the NYPD surveillance has been swift.

“We believe that the NYPD clearly overstepped its boundaries when it began spying on average American Muslim college students who were simply taking whitewater rafting trips or innocently participating in school activities at their college or university campus,” said MSA National President Zahir Latheef.

The NYPD has a duty to protect New York City from terrorist attacks. And MSA leaders and members have been convicted of terrorist activities and plots.

The list is extensive, but among the MSA alumni who went on to terrorist involvement are:

  • Anwar al-Awlaki, an influential American-born al-Qaida cleric who recruited a series of homegrown jihadists before being killed by a U.S. drone strike;
  • Aafia Siddiqui, convicted of attempted murder and assault on U.S. officers and employees in Afghanistan;
  • Zachary Chesser, convicted of attempting to provide material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab and soliciting attacks on “South Park” producers for an episode in which the prophet Muhammad was shown in a bear suit;
  • Jesse Morton, convicted with Chesser of threatening the South Park producers with murder;
  • Adam Gadahn, an al-Qaida spokesman who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for treason and material support to al-Qaida;
  • Waheed Zaman, who was convicted of plotting to blow up transatlantic flights;
  • Adis Medunjanin, who is awaiting trial for plotting to bomb New York subways;
  • Ramy Zamzam, who was convicted in Pakistan of conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks;
  • Omar Hammami, who was indicted on charges of providing material support to al-Shabbab and is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for his terrorist connections;
  • Muhammad Junaid Babar, who pled guilty to his support to al-Qaida; and
  • Syed Hashmi, who pled guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida.

MSA was founded in the United States in 1963 by members of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood seeks a global Islamic state and has spawned leaders of a series of Sunni terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood motto established by founder Hassan al-Banna is, “God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

MSA’s history and various connections are significant in evaluating the NYPD’s surveillance. Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the action as an important countermeasure to terrorist activity. “Of course, we’re going to look at anything that’s publicly available, in the public domain. We have an obligation to do so,” he said.

II Must watch video. Canadian Muslim, born in Pakistani, tries desperately to wake us up.

ideacity on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Rudy Giuliani Slams Romney, Praises Gingrich

II A former Israeli/American Mayor discusses Newt vs. Mitt

News Breaking from Newsmax.com, January 30, 2012

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently praised Newt Gingrich and criticized Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.

Rudy Giuliani Slams Romney, Praises Gingrich

“I’ve never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime, on everything,” Giuliani said about the former Massachusetts governor. “Pro-choice, pro-life.  And pro-choice because somebody, a close friend, died, and he became pro-choice because this woman died of an abortion. Then he figures out there are embryos and he changes.

“Then he was pro-gun control,” Giuliani opined. “Fine. Then he becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. Then he was pro cap and trade. Now he’s against cap and trade. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and he takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on.”

Giuliani concluded that Romney is a “man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”

Meanwhile, the 9/11 icon likened Gingrich to Ronald Reagan.

“I kind of go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying [to run against] Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said. “Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor, Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never knew what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy — The New York Times would write editorials. There was Bush, greatest resume of anyone who ever ran for president, solid citizen. They got Reagan and they got trounced.”

Giuliani continued: “I think Newt has a much more consistent position as a conservative, with some real exceptions like Ronald Reagan had. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in the state of California. Ronald Reagan did in fact raise taxes several times, not just as president, but also as governor of California.”

Giuliani also talked about electibility.

“It may be that Newt is appealing to some that maybe Mitt isn’t appealing to,” Giuliani explained. “There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent, and you don’t go much below, and you don’t go much above. Seventy-five percent of the other Republicans are telling you something.”

Breaking News from Newsmax.com 


InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for Newt Gingrich.

The poll has Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.

The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:

• Romney 36 percent
• Gingrich 31 percent
• Santorum 12 percent
• Paul 12 percent
• Other/Undecided 9 percent

“The race will be tighter than expected,” Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.

Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points. The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney’s resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.

The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich’s rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.

“The trend is favoring Gingrich,” Towery said, noting that while Romney’s lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, “It’s not by much.”

Towery said Gingrich is doing “substantially better” with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a “gender gap,” as women are still favoring Romney.

“Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney,” Towery said.

As for Florida’s important Latino vote, InsiderAdvantage has Gingrich beating Romney by a large margin, leading 42 percent to 29 percent.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Op-Ed: Florida Primaries: Gingrich vs. Romney on Israel


Published: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:37 PM


The writer delineates the difference between the two pro-Israel candidates on Judea and Samaria and the “Palestinian people”

 by David Rubin, former Shiloh Mayor

 For those pro-Israel Americans who are still on the fence about which candidate to support in the Republican primaries, this particular American-Israeli would like to briefly scan some of the nuances on the campaign trail.

With the notable exception of Congressman Ron Paul, who has harshly criticized Israel’s treatment of our Hamas-supporting neighbors in Gaza as being “like a concentration camp”, the contenders for the nomination have been considered to be staunchly pro-Israel. All support a strong stand against Iran, including the potential use of military force to end Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons, but are the candidates really all on the same page on the main issues that concern Israel?

Let’s examine the record. The differences become clear when they discuss “the Palestinians” and the so-called peace process.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Rick Santorum, whose campaign has been struggling recently, was questioned by a young voter about the Palestinians right to an independent state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Santorum responded sharply, saying, “There is no Palestinian people” and defending Israel’s right to call as its own land won in a defensive war (The 1967 Six Day War).

Similarly, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has referred to the Palestinians as “an invented people” that was never a nation, and, elaborating on this at an ABC News debate added, “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in theirschools. They have textbooks that say ‘if there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’ We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s time for somebody to say:  enough lying about the Middle East.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is on record defending Israel’s right to decide how to negotiate and has said that all disagreements between Israel and the United States should be discussed in private. He also has criticized President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus” (a nice clich?) and said, “I will stand by our friend Israel” (another nice clich?). In the most recent debate in Florida, Romney criticized Obama for failures in the peace negotiations, but didn’t criticize the so-called Palestinians. In that same debate,

Gingrich blasted the Palestinian leadership for enabling and/or allowing continued rocket attacks and pledged that on his first day in office, he would issue an executive order moving the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The differences between the two leading candidates are actually fairly substantial. Romney has made quite a few positive statements about the importance of the USA-Israel relationship, but has been carefully avoiding taking positions that might change the “land for peace” process (actually – land for a meaningless piece of paper) and the status quo of the “two-state solution” or that might offend the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, Romney was quite critical of Gingrich for making his “invented people” statement, saying that we shouldn’t “get ahead of our ally Israel.”

After years of American pressure, much of Israel’s leadership is endorsing suicidal positions that would hand over its strategic heartland, in which most of the biblical sites are located, to the Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihadists for an independent state. Is Romney suggesting that a true friend should let its ally commit suicide?

On the other hand, Gingrich has, on several recent occasions, taken bold, right-of-center positions on the Middle East that often defy the status quo, sending the clear message that his actions as president would be based on a historically-correct vision of peace through strength and Israel’s right to its biblical heartland.

The irrational need to adhere to the ridiculous land for “peace” mantra that has never worked should be carefully reexamined by all the presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has taken a giant step in that direction and he is to be highly commended for it.

“Newt, Newt, Newt. He was absolutely terrific tonight…he might win on Saturday!” – Dick Morris, Political Analyst

Dear Fellow American,


Newt Gingrich won the debate last night and put the campaign on track for success this Saturday. It wasn’t even close.


<a href=https://transaxt.com/Donate/Q4FREZ/Newt2012/Please watch this video</a>


Here’s what others said:

Frank Luntz: “I’ve never seen it in a debate and I’ve been doing these debates now for 16 years – a standing ovation in the middle of a debate!”

Kathryn Lopez of National Review said, “This will get watched and re-watched.”

Even the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “This was the former House Speaker’s best debate of the entire race…Gingrich let ‘er rip tonight and had the exuberant crowd…eating out of his hand.”

There’s nobody better to debate Barack Obama and beat him in the election than Newt Gingrich.

Thorsten Wagner – A Problematic Danish/German Speaker with a Problematic Message

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Thorsten Wagner, Professor and lecturer from Copenhagen, Denmark was hosted by Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach Florida, January 14, 2012.  His invitation was evidently based upon the fact that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer and Thorsten grew up in a disputed area of Denmark on the German border.  He now speaks as a historian supposedly empathetic to the tribulations of the Jews of Nazi Germany.


Curious with what this gentleman might have to say, I attended his lecture at the Temple and am still not sure the purpose or direction of his talk. The fact that he was a tall, handsome, apparently friendly man and totally effective in charming the receptive Jewish Temple audience was undeniable. What he was doing there, other than the obvious speaking engagement fee? I am not at all sure. Was he there to assuage the guilt of his grandfather, perhaps his inadvertent own or that of the other of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s, Hitler’s Willing Executioners? I doubt that.

The synagogue rabbi did present a clue in an incidental aside concerning Wagner’s address Friday night. Wagner had admonished the Jewish audience not to get hung up blaming the Muslims for the rejuvenated anti-Semitism in Europe and Islam’s virtual invasion of European nations and attempt to establish Sharia law in these nations. Did not the Jews remember when they too were labeled and despised as new immigrants?

Huh?  How dare he make such a preposterous comparison and how clever of him to mine the endless caverns of Jewish guilt. Never mind that the Jews have spent generations attempting to meld into American society and at an immense cost to their own religious observance. Is that the case with Muslims?

At the question and answer session I was able to pose this question to Wagner. How could he state that the Muslims were a minor factor in Europe, a very small percentage of the population and just another group of harmless refugees attempting to establish a foothold in a new society, just like everyone else?

Wagner declared that he based his conclusions on the Pew Report. I then went to the Internet and read two articles on the Pew Report and was convinced that there must be two different Pew Reports. Not So! There is only one report – that compiled by the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life itself plus several commentaries from other sources.

Professor Wagner evidently read the one by Tom Heneghan on his web site, FaithWorld. The opening remarks of this report are:

One of the most wrong-headed arguments in the debate about Muslims in Europe is the shrill “Eurabia” claim that high birth rates and immigration will make Muslims the majority on the continent within a few decades. Based on  sleight-of-hand statistics, this scaremongering (as The Economist called it back in 2006) paints a picture of a triumphant Islam dominating a Europe that has lost its Christian roots and is blind to its looming cultural demise . The Egyptian-born British writer Bat Ye’or popularized the term with her 2005 book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” and this argument has become the background music to much exaggerated talk about Muslims in Europe. (The article continued in a similar vein.)

Heneghan’s above interpretation of the Pew Report (and consequently Thorston Wagner’s) stands in stark contrast to the Executive Summary coming right off of the pages of the Pew Forum report itself, dated January 27, 2011 and shown below:

The Future of the Global Muslim Population

Projections for 2010-2030, ANALYSIS January 27, 2011

“The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Muslims will remain relatively small minorities in Europe and the Americas but they are expected to constitute a growing share of the total populations of these regions.”

Unfortunately, unlike other immigrants to these countries, Muslims have shown no desire or inclination to become part of the greater cultures. Quite the contrary, there is an outspoken declaration and action to make the greater culture conform to Sharia law via  intimidating school systems, legislatures, the court system and the present administration itself, which already abounds with intrinsic Muslim support, empathy and identification.

But where does all this place American Jews. Despite Wagner’s scholarship of the Holocaust and its virtual annihilation of the Jews of Europe, he admonishes Jewish audiences to not be frightened by the lethal verbiage and action against them by Islamists. Jews are to ignore Islam’s declared intention to annihilate the Jews and Christians and turn the world into a giant Caliphate. ( And … it is painfully obvious, they are doing exactly that all over the world, including the US, at this very moment!).

Do not those actions sound a whole lot like those of Adolph Hitler and now Ahmadinejad? Are Jews then to conform to the recommendations of Thorston Wagner and hide their heads in the sand as they have done on so many other existential occasions? I think not.  Furthermore, I would never allow Wagner to appear before another Jewish audience. I don’t trust him!

Comment from reader, Jan. 27, 2012

Thank you for sending me this alarming article. Unfortunately, most every one is blind to the obvious truth you brought out for me who survived the war and lost 22 members of my family in the death camps….We live today in the same atmosphere as the one I lived trough in 1938….and I am sick with worries. For this reason I work with all my heart for Israel …for Magen David Adom who is “Israel ‘s second line of defense,” to quote Yitzhak Rabin. Indeed MDA is vital to the survival of our Beloved ISRAEL….but I wish the world would start to open its eyes before it becomes too late to stop the evil forces at work against civilization and against the Jews in particular.

With renewed thanks,

Jacqueline Goldman       (French/American citizen)

The Disgraceful Compromise of the State of Israel and Magen David Adom

I  Magen David Adom and the Red Cross. By Yehudit Tayar

II “What Magen David Adom Victory? By Jerome S.  Kaufman

(Written June 30, 2006 after this disgraceful compromise was allowed by the Israelis)


I Magen David Adom and the Red Cross

By Yehudit Tayar

January 9,  2012

The Red Star of David, or as we know it here in Israel, Magen David Adom signed an agreement in 2005 with the Red Cross that MDA will work only within the ” internationally recognized borders of Israel” and thereby will cease the medical assistance in the Old City of Jerusalem, Gilo, Pisgat Ze’ev, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot,  (to name a few neighborhoods of Jerusalem that are affected by this agreement ), Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea Region.  In other words MDA agreed to cease rescue services outside of the pre-1967 borders.

Already the first implementation of this agreement has been the removal of the symbol of MDA from our ambulances in Judea and Samaria. 

We, the volunteers on the ambulance are still called out by MDA to try and save lives.  We get the calls from MDA with the old number that was removed from the ambulance and not the new one that was placed recently as a part of the signed agreement with the Red Cross.  We are on call 24/7 and yet MDA never even told us volunteers that they basically agreed that we are no longer an accepted part of our own country.

We, the heads of Yesha along with MK Uri Ariel and MK Arieh Eldad are planning to push forward in the Knesset a bill demanding the MDA to cancel this agreement, and as the official medical organization of Israel to protect Israeli interests, citizens and Land no matter where they live. The Minister of Internal Security has already passed a new resolution in the Knesset that MDA will no longer be the exclusive rescue organization of the State of Israel.

Not a word was said to any of us – hundreds of volunteers – regarding this vile agreement that MDA signed until the word leaked out.  When I asked the heads of MDA what this meant, I was told that the symbols would be removed from the ambulances and then after the inspection we could replace them.  Talk about duplicity….

These ambulances were leased for the immediate medical response to emergencies in Israel, and the donors who gave their money in order to save lives now rightfully, as we volunteers do, feel betrayed.

Any organization representing Israel must respect the lives of all the citizens of Israel and not draw their own new borders because of monetary greed.  MDA surreptitiously signed an agreement, never mentioned the implications of this agreement with the Red Cross, and thus betrayed not only the Israeli citizens, the volunteers in our ambulances but also the donors who gave their money with the understanding that MDA also serviced our communities.

MDA must retract this agreement immediately and if not it is not acceptable that they remain the medical organization for the State of Israel.

Yehudit Tayar was on the steering committee of the Yesha Council to bring MDA ambulances into Yesha (since previously it was MDA policy not to have ambulances in Judea, Samaria and Gaza), and serves as a volunteer emergency medic, as well as one of the veteran spokespeople for the Jewish pioneers who live in Yesha. 

II From Israel Commentary:

June 30, 2006

What Magen David Adom “Victory?”

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Once again Jews, especially Israelis, are advised that the Emperor is fully clothed when in fact he has no clothes, except for those viewers who prefer to live in their own self-delusion. The latest fiasco is the heralding as a great “Victory” the fact that the International Red Cross has finally condescended to allow one of the finest humanitarian emergency units in the world – Magen David Adom of Israel – to become a  part of the organization. The news is trumpeted by reporter Rachel Silverman in her Jewish Telegraphic Agency article as a “Magen David Adom Victory” which “reflects 58 years of aggressive sustained lobbying and a last-minute push.

But at what cost and what was the “last minute push (now six months in the making) dependent upon? Not much –  just that the Jewish organization hide its identity by changing its insignia – no more Jewish star on their ambulances in locations where the nation receiving Jewish aid and Jewish blood objected!  Evidently having the Jewish star on the ambulances would be too embarrassing and give the Jews and particularly the Israelis, too much credit. How could the sight of Jews and Israelis in such a favorable light be explained to the masses of population that had been taught so diligently to hate Jews?

Of course, these restrictions do not apply to the nations of the rest of the world. They will continue proudly to exhibit their Red Cross, the Muslims their Red Crescent and by the way, the Palestinian Authority will also be admitted, although no such nation yet exists, and will, of course, have a Red Crescent – no unidentifiable red square like the Jews!

So the “Jewish Problem” was again solved.  The Jews simply re-assumed their shtetl mentality, that they have never, in fact, lost – speak quietly, hide in your cellars at the time of another pogrom and try, at all costs, to not irritate your non-Jewish assailants.

The JTA article concludes:  “After the ruling, Rabbi Danny Allen of the American Friends of Magen David Adom called it a “vote for humanitarian over sectarian politics.” How noble, how very Jewish! Only in this case,  the very existence of Jews and the State of Israel, are the “sectarian politics’ at stake.

Once more, as Jews, as Israelis,  we take no pride in our own existence, our glorious history, our remarkable G-d-given achievements, and his return to us, after 2000 years, of our nationhood.  How then can we possibly expect more from those that surround us?


The beautiful unappreciated, unreported history of Israel in South Sudan

South Sudan, Israel’s New Ally

“Without you, we would not have arisen”


By Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
January 3, 2012

It’s not every day that the leader of a brand-new country makes his maiden foreign voyage to Jerusalem, capital of the most besieged country in the world, but Salva Kiir, president of South Sudan, accompanied by his foreign and defense ministers, did just that in late December. Israel’s President Shimon Peres hailed his visit as a “moving and historic moment.” The visit spurred talk of South Sudan locating its embassy in Jerusalem, making it the only government anywhere in the world to do so.

This unusual development results from an unusual story.

Today’s Sudan took shape in the nineteenth century when the Ottoman Empire controlled its northern regions and tried to conquer the southern ones. The British, ruling out of Cairo, established the outlines of the modern state in 1898 and for the next fifty years ruled separately the Muslim north and Christian-animist south. In 1948, however, succumbing to northern pressure, the British merged the two administrations in Khartoum under northern control, making Muslims dominant in Sudan and Arabic its official language.

Accordingly, independence in 1956 brought civil war, as southerners battled to fend off Muslim hegemony. Fortunately for them, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s “periphery strategy” translated into Israeli support for non-Arabs in the Middle East, including the southern Sudanese. The government of Israel served through the first Sudanese civil war, lasting until 1972, as their primary source of moral backing, diplomatic help, and armaments.

Mr. Kiir acknowledged this contribution in Jerusalem, noting that “Israel has always supported the South Sudanese people. Without you, we would not have arisen. You struggled alongside us in order to allow the establishment of South Sudan.” In reply, Mr.Peres recalled his presence in the early 1960s in Paris, when then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and he initiated Israel’s first-ever link with southern Sudanese leaders.

Sudan’s civil war continued intermittently from 1956 until 2005. Over time, Muslim northerners became increasingly vicious toward their southern co-nationals, culminating in the 1980-90s with massacreschattel slavery, and genocide. Given Africa’s many tragedies, such problems might not have made an impression on compassion-weary Westerners except for an extraordinary effort led by two modern-day American abolitionists.

Starting in the mid-1990s, John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International redeemed tens of thousands of slaves in Sudan while Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group led a “Sudan Campaign” in the United States that brought together a wide coalition of organizations. As all Americans abhor slavery, the abolitionists formed a unique alliance of Left and Right, including Barney Frank and Sam Brownback, the Congressional Black Caucus and Pat Robertson, black pastors and white Evangelicals. In contrast, Louis Farrakhan was exposed and embarrassed by his attempts to deny slavery’s existence in Sudan.

Israel’s long-term investment has paid off. South Sudan fits into a renewed periphery strategy that includes Cyprus, Kurds, Berbers, and, perhaps one day, a post-Islamist Iran. South Sudan offers access to natural resources, especially oil. Its role inNile River water negotiations offers leverage vis-à-vis Egypt. Beyond practical benefits, the new republic represents an inspiring example of a non-Muslim population resisting Islamic imperialism through its integrity, persistence, and dedication. In this sense, the birth of South Sudan echoes that of Israel.The abolitionist effort culminated in 2005 when the George W. Bush administration pressured Khartoum in 2005 to sign the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the war and gave southerners a chance to vote for independence. They enthusiastically did so in January 2011, when 98 percent voted for secession from Sudan, leading to the formation of the Republic of South Sudan six months later, an event hailed by Mr. Peres as “a milestone in the history of the Middle East.”.

If Kiir’s Jerusalem visit is truly to mark a milestone, South Sudan must travel the long path from dirt-poor, international protectorate with feeble institutions to modernity and genuine independence. This path requires the leadership not to exploit the new state’s resources nor dream of creating a “New Sudan” by conquering Khartoum, but to lay the foundations for successful statehood.

For the Israelis and other Westerners, this means both helping with agriculture, health, and education and urging Juba to stay focused on defense and development while avoiding wars of choice. A successful South Sudan could eventually become a regional power and a stalwart ally not just of Israel but of the West.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.


Dear Dr. Kaufman:  Thank you, Israel and Dr. Pipes for remembering those of us in South Sudan.  The struggle in 1972 prevented my wife and I leaving Uganda to go down(south) the Nile to Egypt and Israel. Today you have cleared that ancient river from the baneful governance of Islam and opened it in part to black south Sudanese Africans.  Neither Elijah Muhammad nor Louis Farrakhan would understand but Malcom ‘X’ might. Best, Dan Corbett