Yom HaShoa. Just because they were Jews? Impossible, Really?

Redacted from multiple internet sources.

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Please see Holocaust Documentary video at the end of this article

Yom HaShoah, also known as Holocaust Remembrance Day, occurs on the 27th of the Hebrew month of Nissan. This year, on the English calendar, it occurs Monday, May 2, 2011.

Shoah, which means catastrophe or utter destruction in Hebrew, refers to the atrocities that were committed against the Jewish people during World War II. This is a memorial day for those who died in the Shoah.

The Shoah (also known as the Holocaust, from a Greek word meaning “sacrifice by fire,”) was initiated by the members of the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party, which seized power in Germany in 1933, with Adolph Hitler as chancellor. The Nazis believed in a doctrine of racial superiority, centering around the idea that people of Northern European descent were somehow better than members of all other races – especially the Jews, who were “unworthy of life.”

After taking power, the German Nazis gradually restricted the rights of German Jewish citizens and encouraged their followers to commit acts of violence and destruction against Jews and their property. During World War II (1939-1945), the Nazis implemented their “Final Solution,” a plan to concentrate Jews in camps and annihilate all European Jews. Jews were first crammed together in ghettoes and slave-labor camps, where disease, brutality, and malnutrition ran rampant.

Eventually, they were sent to death camps, where millions were murdered in special facilities designed to kill a tremendous number of people over a brief period of time. In addition to the six million Jews who died – two-thirds of the European Jewish population – the “willing executioners” (Please read Hitler’s Willing Executioners by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen) of almost all of the other major countries of Europe (Poles, Austrians, Vichy French, Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians, Greeks, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc.) enthusiastically cooperated with the German Nazis killing millions of their own Jewish population that had live peacefully among them for centuries.

Also deliberately and systematically killed by the Nazi Germans and their “willing executioners” were Gypsies, Slavs, political and religious dissidents, the handicapped, gays and lesbians and hundreds of thousands of others.

Today, many Jewish communities commemorate Yom HaShoah by lighting yellow candles in order to keep the memories of the victims alive, declaring “Never Again” – which of course, remains to be seen – depending upon whether or not “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” are once again, ready to enlist.

Maniacs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran proudly declares that he plans to eliminate Israel which now contains approximately 1/3 of the world’s remaining Jews. Who is going to stop him? Will the Western so-called civilized nations stop them? Will the UN stop them? Will the European Union stop them? Will the United States stop them? Will these august bodies give the Israelis full license to defend their own people in every way possible? Will the Israeli government have the courage to do exactly that? And most important, will the almighty
G-d see that this monstrous travesty against humanity does not indeed, happen again.

Video on the Shoah

Netanyahu’s response after PA/Hamas ugly embrace?

MK Danny Dayan to Netanyahu: “Admit Oslo Is Dead”

By Israel International News Service (Arutz Sheva) staff
April 29, 2011

Yesha Council Chairman Danny Dayan called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to cancel his upcoming Bar-Ilan II speech and annex Area C in Judea and Samaria. “The prime minister must cancel Bar-Ilan II and say one thing,” Dayan said. “That Bar-Ilan I is off the table – a Palestinian state will not arise.”

Bar Ilan I is a reference to a speech given by Netanyahu at Bar Ilan University in June 2009 which he laid out his criteria for the creation of a PA state. Among those criteria were the exclusion and destruction of Hamas, defensible borders for Israel, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital.

On Wednesday PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas agreed to admit Hamas to the PA, and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said the PA would begin moving unilaterally to make eastern Jerusalem its capital.

Netanyahu’s upcoming speech at Bar Ilan, dubbed Bar Ilan II by pundits, was expected to be an updated installment of his original Bar Ilan speech for the Israeli public before Netanyahu travels to the U.S. where he will address Congress.

But Israeli politicians and pundits alike have been left guessing about the content of his Bar Ilan II speech as it comes after two years of stalled talks and the PA decision to abrogate the Oslo Accords and seek a unilateral declaration of PA statehood by the United Nations in September.

Dayan says he hopes Netanyahu will seize the maximum benefit from new developments. “There are now two crises,” Dayan said. “The PA has chosen to cancel all agreements with Israel and go to the U.N. and they also decided to admit Hamas to their ranks. Every crisis is also an opportunity. The prime minister should say he no longer consents to a PA state, that we are released from Oslo, and move to fulfull Zionist dreams.”

Dayan believes the annexation of Area C is now a required step. “It’s not enough for Israel say she no longer consents to a Palestinian state, but it’s time to exert Israeli sovereignty and annex the open spaces and Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. It is time we become citizens with equal rights like citizens in any other place in the country. The Palestinians launched a political war against us, but it’s not strong enough in real terms to win.”

Dayan called on politicians to restore the confidence and sense of security of Israelis in Judea and Samaria, who he says were often abandoned to the PA police under Oslo. “I’m having a lot of meetings with Central Command and the commander in Judea and Samaria,” Dayan said. “And in meeting with them I begin with a warning about security cooperation with PA security forces. The notion is completely surreal and the proof is what we saw happen at Joseph’s Tomb.”

Dayan argued that despite mistakes made since the Oslo Accords were signed, the Israeli army is a strong army and can solve the problems that now exist. “Of course we made mistakes and will pay them a price,” Dayan said philosophically. “We were wrong. But we should not scare ourselves. We should now restore confidence. If Hamas will take over the cities of Judea and Samaria, we must make it clear we will go back to them – Hevron, Shechem, and Ramallah – and return them to Israeli control.”

“We need to pressure Netanyahu to use the situation to Israel’s advantage… to declare the Oslo process, which was the biggest strategic mistake Israel ever made, dead. We’ve paid with over 1,000 dead already. Withdraw immediately the government’s assent for a PA state. The army needs to announce all security cooperation agreements are off and take full responsibility for all Israeli citizens’ security today, not tomorrow.”

“This is the responsibility of political leadership,” Dayan said. “The prime minister is the one who must take the decision. He should show he is committed. It is time to return to Zionist activism and leave the dark days of Oslo behind us.”

Joseph’s Tomb – Let’s put an end to this disgrace

Relinquishing Joseph’s Tomb was supposed to be temporary

By Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post, April 28, 2011

Earlier this week, an incident occurred that should have provoked outrage across the civilized world. In an act of wanton slaughter, Palestinian policemen opened fire at a convoy of Jewish worshipers near Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus on Sunday. The men had just recited morning prayers at the Jewish holy site in honor of Pessah, and were heading home to prepare for the end of the festival. But they never made it.

At a checkpoint near the tomb, our ostensible peace partners killed Ben-Yosef Livnat, 25, and wounded four other Israelis, one of them critically. Livnat, a nephew of Culture and Sport Minister Limor Livnat, left a wife and four young children. Even as the Israeli vehicles sought to escape, the Palestinian policemen reportedly continued to fire on them.

Although the IDF initially refrained from labeling the episode an “attack,” it’s clear that that is precisely what it was. And by Sunday evening, both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were calling the shooting an act of “murder.”

Palestinian officials were quick to point out that the Israeli worshipers had failed to coordinate their visit in advance – as though that somehow justified shooting at them. But as Barak rightly noted: “No problem of coordination can justify an incident like this and the shooting of innocent people.”

Even though the identity of the perpetrators is known, none have been detained as of this writing. And given the Palestinian Authority’s track record in punishing those who attack Israelis, there is no reason to suspect that the policemen in question will be made to pay for their crime.

Needless to say, barely a peep was heard from the international community over this brazen assault on the fundamental right of Jews to worship freely. Just imagine what the reaction would have been had Palestinian worshipers leaving a mosque been attacked by Israeli policemen.. We all know how that would have gone down. But the hypocrisy on display should hardly come as a surprise. After all, the Palestinians have been targeting Joseph’s Tomb for years with impunity.

Who can forget October 7, 2000, when Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists launched a coordinated assault on the Israeli soldiers guarding the site? After then-prime minister Barak ordered the army to withdraw, a Palestinian mob went on a rampage. Brandishing sledge-hammers and other tools of tolerance, they demolished the tomb – one of the most sacred sites of the Jewish people. In subsequent years, after the structure was repaired, Palestinian vandals repeatedly ransacked and desecrated it.

The Palestinian conduct vis-à-vis the tomb is a clear violation of signed commitments. The Oslo II Accords, signed on September 28, 1995, spelled out specific arrangements concerning Joseph’s Tomb in Article V(2b) of Annex I, which were designed “to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access” to the site.

So much for relying on the Palestinians to keep their word.

The murder of Ben-Yosef Livnat cannot be allowed to pass without a forceful Israeli response. It is simply intolerable that an Israeli can be gunned down in cold blood by a Palestinian policeman.To begin with, Israel should arrest the gunmen who carried out this attack and bring them to trial before an Israeli court. There cannot and must not be immunity for those who murder Israeli citizens.

Moreover, it is time to correct the error made nearly 11 years ago, when Israel forsook this holy place. After the IDF withdrew, the Israeli public was assured that the step was not permanent, but merely a tactical move dictated by the situation on the ground. Just hours after the retreat, the website of Yediot Aharonot reported: “Israel pulls out of Joseph’s Tomb – ‘Temporarily.'” But here we are, more than a decade later, and the tomb still remains “temporarily” abandoned by the Jewish state, in what has become a mark of shame for our nation.

Israel should annex the site, forever restoring it to our exclusive control. And measures should be taken to ensure that Jews can visit safely whenever they wish. As of now, Israelis are allowed to visit once or twice a month, under cover of darkness, like thieves in the night. No nation with even a modicum of dignity would allow such a situation to persist at the tomb of one of its founding fathers.

So let’s put an end to this disgrace. Doing so will send a strong message to our foes, underlining once and for all that the Jewish people will neither cower nor flee. It is time to raise the Israeli flag over Joseph’s Tomb and reclaim this site, and with it, our self-respect as well.

The West’s Misguided Victory in Kosovo

Serbia and Israel – Two Nations under Islamic Duress

Redacted from article by Victor Sharpe

See video at end of article:

James Jatras: Muslim Extermination Of Kosovo Christians

The Battle of Kosovo, 1389, on the “Field of Blackbirds.”
 
In the 14th century, the Byzantine Empire began to crumble, finally falling to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. But in 1389, the Ottoman Turkish sultan, Murad 1, began to lead his forces against the armies of the Serbian prince Lazar. The Serbian prince had already been active in resisting increasing Muslim raids against Christian lands in the Balkans and had called his barons, knights and warriors together to ask them if they should fight or become slaves, dhimmis, to the Muslims. The decision was made to fight although their forces would number some 35,000 against a Turkish Muslim host of 100,000. But better to fight than to be enslaved.
 
The place chosen to make a stand against the Muslim Turks was at Kosovo Polje (the Field of Blackbirds) in Kosovo — the heartland of the Serbian nation. It was in June, 1389, on St. Vitus Day (Vidovdan), that the rival forces met.  

The battle began at first light with Serbian successes and the great Serbian hero, Milos Obilic, killed the Turkish Muslim sultan, Murad. For a while the Turks were in disarray but they managed to recover and by their sheer weight of numbers ground down and defeated the Serbian army.


It was not a mere military defeat, but the end of Serbian independence and the beginning of 500 years of Christian suffering under the Muslim yoke. But worse still, the Serbian heartland of Kosovo was lost. For the Serbian people, the blood shed at the Battle of Kosovo in the Field of Blackbirds marks Kosovo as eternally Serbian
.
 

Another year in history that haunts the memory of a different people, who also suffered the loss of their eternal capital city, is the year 70 AD. It was in that terrible year that the Roman general, Titus, finally came with overwhelming force against the Jewish capital city, Jerusalem. Jerusalem was finally destroyed after a frightful siege in which hundreds of thousands died of disease and hunger.

Centuries pass but history has an almost supernatural way of repeating itself. Fast forward to the twentieth and twenty first centuries and both Serbia and the Jewish homeland are linked by eerie circumstances. Both are falsely demonized in the mainstream press as aggressors when, in fact, they are the victims, and both are under relentless aggression from Islam.

But let us consider the new gold of our times and how it shapes politics and war: Oil, which greases the machinery of geo-politics and lubricates the revenge and envy that nation states harbor towards each other.
 
The need for oil makes and destroys states and peoples and too often befouls humanity.

It is still a necessary evil, but much of this black gold happens by fate to lie under the sands of the Arab Middle East and the Islamic Republic of Iran and thus morphs into a terrible weapon wielded by Arab despots and Islamo-fascist fanatics.
 


The late 20th century’s insane rush to create Kosovo as yet another Muslim autonomous region in the heart of the Balkans, was a testament to the curse of oil. Ever ready to enrich their economies, the Europeans and, sadly, the Clinton Administration combined to appease and placate the Arab and Muslim kings, emirs, imams and assorted dictators. And it was in Europe that Arab oil drove the creation of a Muslim statelet, Kosovo, that is rapidly becoming a radical Islamist Balkan beachhead, filled with jihadists from around the Islamic world, ready to threaten what is left of Christian Europe. In time it will inevitably become a springboard for terror into both the United States and Russia.
 


And we must realize that Israel, too, is threatened by the same evil created by Arab oil. The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians demand Judaism’s eternal holy city of Jerusalem and the Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria (known by the erroneous Arab name, the West Bank). In this, the baleful influence of President Barack Hussein Obama looms large, just as the Serbian people’s heartland of Kosovo was stolen from them with the connivance and brute force of President Clinton and his diplomats, Richard Holbrooke and Madeleine Albright.
 


Under relentless U.S State Department pressure, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu is enduring the same attempt at the dismemberment of its biblical, ancestral, aboriginal, spiritual and physical Jewish heartland as the brave and ill served Serbian people suffered with the loss of their beloved Kosovo.
 


The lesson for Israel is that foreign powers have conspired to strip the expendable Serbs of their ancestral heartland and give it to the Muslims. These same western powers believe that by placating and ingratiating themselves with the oil rich Arab and Muslim world they enrich their own economies.

Caroline Glick, wrote in the Feb 23, 2008 Jerusalem Post: 



 “… the lessons of Kosovo are clear. Not only should Israel join Russia, Canada, China, Spain, Romania and many others in refusing to recognize Kosovo. It should also state that as a consequence of Kosovo’s independence, Israel rejects the deployment of any international forces to Gaza or Judea and Samaria, and refuses to cede its legal right to sovereignty in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem to international arbitration.”…
 

 

 
FamilySecurityMatters.org
Contributing Editor Victor Shar
pe
 

 

WHY OBAMACARE IS WRONG FOR AMERICA

Book review by Sally Pipes
The Washington Times, April 18, 2011

ObamaCare video at end of review, along with reader comment.

By Grace-Marie Turner, James P. Capretta, Thomas P. Miller and Robert E. Moffit, Broadside Books, $14.99, 272 pages

HOW THE NEW HEALTH CARE LAW DRIVES UP COSTS, PUTS GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF YOUR DECISIONS, AND THREATENS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

“ObamaCare is wrong for families, wrong for patients, wrong for business, and wrong for our children’s futures.” That’s the thesis, laid out on the first page of the must-read “Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America,” a powerful book co-written by four battle-tested veterans of Washington’s health policy battles.

There is no doubt that those concerned with less government involvement in our health care system lost the 2009 and 2010 health care battle, a discouraging episode in which facts seemed not to matter and wishful thinking and power politics prevailed. Yet this is not a bitter tale, and there are no sour grapes. It’s a positive book driven by the insight that nothing is ever final in politics and just as President Obama and his band of congressional Democrats could run roughshod over public opinion and force the unpopular plan through a compliant Congress, so too can committed individuals, armed with facts and logic, reverse this disastrous piece of legislation – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It won’t be easy, but then nothing worthwhile ever is. This book serves as a handbook for dismantling Obamacare and reforming American health care in a manner consistent with individual liberty and the U.S. Constitution. Upfront, the authors promise to detail what the “2,801 pages of legislation” will mean for “families, young adults, senior citizens, people with health problems, physicians and other medical professionals, small business owners and entrepreneurs, employers and employees, taxpayers, and citizens.”

In short, the authors provide a comprehensive examination of the biggest piece of social legislation since the Great Society. And it delivers.The book begins by reminding readers of the horror of Obamacare and how it came to be the law of the land. The numbers are staggering. The law “creates an estimated 159 new agencies, boards, commissions and government offices.”
It replays the deception.

Candidate Obama promised a plan that would reduce costs for average Americans by $2,500. His plan will actually increase costs by $2,100. Candidate Obama opposed both the individual mandate and new taxes on health benefits. His plan is based on an individual mandate and relies on taxes not only on health plans but on all Americans.

The book chronicles the smoke and mirrors and Beltway bookkeeping. Mr. Obama’s Democrats could plausibly balance the books over the first decade only by combining 10 years of taxes with just six years of benefits. The plan eliminates $575 billion in Medicare spending but, amazingly, double-counts the revenue as both available for funding subsidies for the Obama plan and as a major expansion of Medicaid. Most startling, it pegs the total cost of the first 10 years of the program at $2.3 trillion.

Then the book gets deep, making good on its promises in the early pages. The authors devote individual chapters to what Obamacare will mean for families and young adults, seniors, vulnerable Americans, you and your doctor, taxpayers, and you and your constitutional rights. In the chapter on young families, the authors detail how the shift of power and control to Washington already has destroyed markets, such as child-only policies, and how it soon will increase costs.

For seniors, the news is even worse, as Medicare became a chief funding source for the government expansion. “In short,” the authors write, “ObamaCare is going to reduce your choices, impair your access to care, and increase your costs.” For doctors, the net effect of the law, which produced more than 4,100 pages of new regulations in its first six months, will be a deluge of “red tape and bureaucracy.”

The book finishes as strong as it starts. The final two chapters are devoted to laying out a positive path to reform and guiding activists and concerned Americans on how to dismantle the current law. At the end of the day, there is little new under the sun.

The choice is – and always has been – between policies that reward politicians while building bureaucracy and those that respect individuals and harness the power of free markets and entrepreneurs. The authors outline a program they call a defined-contribution approach to health care, tipping their hats to the popular and liberating 401(k) retirement plans.

Their preferred program consists of meaningful tax credits that level the playing field between employer-funded and individually purchased health insurance, tort reform, high-risk pools for the uninsurable, and real reform for Medicaid and Medicare. It doesn’t promise universal insurance coverage. This too is an improvement over Obamacare, which promised universal coverage but doesn’t produce it.

  • By 2019, 23 million Americans will still be uninsured under Obamacare, unless it is repealed and replaced.
  • One of the book’s great contributions is its deft weaving of the important principles at stake and the details of how the mammoth law shifts our body politic in the wrong direction. “The health law reflects an ideology that moves power and control away from individuals and toward government and agents,” the authors write. In so doing, they make an important move in shifting the momentum back to individuals.

    Sally C. Pipes is president and health care studies fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is “The Truth About Obamacare” (Regnery, 2010).
    P.S. She is not a politician

    An astute reader just presented the concern that because the name of the web page is Israel Commentary, we should not be commenting on US domestic politics because it gives the impression that the state of Israel is somehow involved, which, of course, it is not. Israel is always extremely careful to stay out of American politics and I am sorry to generate the opposite impression. Perhaps I have to print a disclaimer for Israel every time I do present domestic issues? That’s probably what I will have to do because this web site is definitely involved with many issues that have nothing to do with Israel. Please accept my apologies for the understandable misconception now and in the future.

    Jerome S. Kaufman

    It’s the women, stupid

    Video following: Women’s Rights in Bangladesh

    By Kathleen Parker
    The Washington Post
    April 4, 2010

    NEW YORK — Whether the topic is Libya’s rebels or Afghanistan’s “reconciliation” with the Taliban, the pivotal question is, or should be: What about the women?

    During my brief tenure as a CNN anchor, I insistently raised this question and was consistently disappointed by the answer, which more or less, went like this: “Yes, well, the women. Too bad about the women. They’ll suffer.”

    Women, and by extension children, are what too many have come to accept as “collateral damage” in theaters of war. We hate it, of course, but what can one do? It isn’t in our strategic interest to save the women and children of the world. Or, as an anonymous senior White House official recently told The Washington Post: “Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, no stranger to the importance of advancing women’s rights, promptly refuted the comment. Even so, the anonymous spokesman’s opinion, though inartfully expressed, is hardly isolated. But what if this is a false premise? What if saving women from cultures that treat them as chattel was in our strategic and not just moral interest? What if helping women become equal members of a society was the most reliable route to our own security?

    One needn’t be a visionary to accept this simple tenet as not only probable but inescapably true. Without exception, every nation that oppresses women is a failed and, therefore, dangerous nation. This is not the stuff of stunning revelation, but it is often overlooked or minimized in importance. More typically pressing are armies and artillery. The real fight is in the trenches where men historically have clashed to resolve their differences.

    Ironically perhaps to those still waiting for the oceans to recede and the planet to heal, President George W. Bush and Laura Bush always understood the necessity of including women in the peace equation. Hence, the historic U.S.- Afghan Women’s Council established in 2002 by Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

    At a conference last week held by the former first couple — “Building Afghanistan’s Future: Promoting Women’s Freedom and Advancing Their Economic Opportunity” — the Bushes reiterated their commitment to the women of Afghanistan and their belief that protecting women should be at the core of our foreign policy.

    “We liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, because of providing a safe haven for al-Qaida,” George Bush told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. “I believed then and believe now we have an obligation to help this young democracy in Afghanistan survive — and thrive. And one of the best and most effective ways to do so is to empower women.”

    Such a simple concept – empowering women. Except that in a country where men feel free to throw acid in the faces of little girls trying to attend school, it is not so simple. In a nation where child marriage and “honor killings” are still accepted custom, it is not so easy. No one underestimates the challenges of helping women become equal participants in a civil society only recently concocted. But allowing progress to recede shouldn’t be an option.

    Recent negotiations between the Karzai government and the Taliban, in which women’s rights could be diluted, should have all of us worried. It is too bad, meanwhile, that we are restricted in these discussions by terminology that rings of cliché. “Women’s rights” sounds too much like debates about abortion and subsidized day care. What we’re really talking about is basic human rights. The freedom to work, to make decisions about one’s life, to seek an education and to be safe to walk on the streets without a male escort. To be fully human, in other words.

    Anything less is terrorism by any other name. The insanity that sends jihadists to rain hell on civilized nations is the same that stones women to death for failing to comport to primitive norms of behavior. As Clinton wrote in Time magazine in 2001, “The mistreatment of women in Afghanistan was like an early warning signal of the kind of terrorism that culminated in the attacks of September 11.”

    Women are not collateral damage in the fight for security. They are not pet rocks in a rucksack, nor are they sidebars to the main story. They are the story — and should be the core of our foreign policy strategy in Afghanistan as elsewhere.

    Kathleen Parker at kathleenparker@washpost.com.

    What Stunted Islam’s Growth?

    The Closing of the Muslim Mind
    BY Robert R. Reilly

    Video bottom of page, Muslims take over Madison Ave, NYC, NY USA

    Redacted from a much more detailed book review
    BY DAVID AIKMAN
    Weekly Standard April 11, 2011

    What happened to Islamic culture?

    Why did a civilization that may have produced more books in Muslim Spain alone in the ninth century than existed in the entirety of the rest of Europe subside into a civilizational torpor that is the wonder even of the U.N.? Why do countries of the Arab world always come close to the bottom of a global list that measures things like literacy or schooling for women? Why, in Freedom House’s annual compilation of countries that are “free,” is there not a single Arab country listed?

    Why, in 2006 to take a recent example, were there more foreign books translated in one European country, Spain, than were translated in the entire foregoing millennium in the entire Muslim world?

    These are hard questions, and they call out for a rational, unemotional answer. Robert R. Reilly comes closer to providing a persuasive explanation than any other account I have seen. As Reilly succinctly shows, Islamic civilization, not just in the Arab world but later in Anatolia, in the Indian subcontinent, and then throughout Southeast Asia, threw out of the intellectual window the principles of rational inquiry that the Greeks had first introduced to the West half a millennium before Christ.

    The collective Muslim ulema—theological leaders—decided that it would be too “dangerous” to allow free inquiry—not just of the Koran itself but of the daily reality before our eyes.

    The reason, as Reilly makes clear, was a theological controversy within Islam. Formalized Islamic doctrine holds that the Koran existed from all eternity with Allah, and that it was only when the Angel Gabriel revealed its contents to Muhammad that the world was able to hear, through the Koran, what Allah was saying.

    The Asharites (an early Muslim think tank) would have constituted a serious blockage to Islam’s philosophical development, but even they were topped by a Muslim theologian who nailed down the hatch on the use of reason even more tightly than the Asharites. He was Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), one of Islam’s most influential thinkers. Al-Ghazali vehemently rejected Plato and Aristotle in The Incoherence of the Philosophers and insisted that, in nature, there was no such thing as cause and effect. To question this, subsequent Islamic jurists averred, was to commit blasphemy by implying that there were limits on Allah’s power and authority.

    One tragic consequence of this mode of thinking was the complete withering on the vine within Islam of the spirit of scientific inquiry. Reilly quotes a prominent Pakistani scientist, Pervez Hoodbhoy, on this subject:

    Science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed. No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for over seven centuries now. That arrested scientific development is one important element—although by no means the only one—that contributes to the present marginalization of Muslims and a growing sense of injustice and victimhood.

    The absence within Islam of any ontological basis for belief in the equality of human beings is what led to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, signed in the Egyptian capital by 45 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 1990. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that such rights apply to the entire human race, without exception. The Cairo declaration added the chilling stipulation that all rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration were subject to Islamic sharia: In other words, they were null and void.

    Islamism, or the transformation of the Islamic faith into a political ideology, is the end result of the refusal to apply reason to either scientific or political problems.

    David Aikman is the author, most recently, of The Mirage of Peace: Understanding the Never-Ending Conflict in the Middle East.

     

    Congressman Peter King vs. United States Islamists!

    By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.

    Video at end of article, please view,
    Wake up America
    By Pat Condell

    The Washington Times

    It is not every day that Congress breaks a major taboo and, in so doing, performs a real service to the nation. Thursday, however, was one such day when Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, demonstrated impressive leadership in conducting a four-hour hearing on “extremism” in the American Muslim community.
    For his efforts, the Homeland Security Committee’s chairman was subjected to tremendous personal attacks and partisan sniping – the wages of taboo-busting.

    While those responsible for inflicting such slanderous criticism claim, in the words of one group, to have “defeat[ed] a major threat of Islamophobia,” the real story is that Mr. King began a conversation about an issue that has long been deemed politically untouchable. He also established that there is, indeed, a problem of “extremism” within the American Muslim community.

    One manifestation of that problem was the determined effort made by the so-called “leadership” of the Muslim population in this country, not only to impugn the chairman and several of his witnesses but to suppress these hearings altogether. For example, groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) lined up 55 House Democrats to insist that Mr. King “reconsider the scope of these hearings and instead examine all forms of violence motivated by extremist beliefs, rather than unfairly focusing on just one religious group.”

    One of the reasons for this demand became clear as witnesses shed light on the true nature of such self-appointed Muslim leaders: They do not speak for American Muslims and are either directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood – an organization whose mission is to “destroy Western civilization from within” – or sympathetic to its goal of bringing Shariah to the United States.

    Relatives of two young men who were recruited, indoctrinated and sent to engage in jihad provided frightening insights into the ways in which Muslim organizations, mosques, cultural centers and Islamic societies stealthily advance this objective. One means is via dawa – the proselytization of the politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah.

    Particularly chilling was the account of a Somali-American living in Minnesota by the name of Abdirizak Bihi. His nephew, Burhan Hassan, was among those killed while fighting on behalf of the Islamist terrorist group al-Shabab in Somalia. He relayed how his family was warned by community “leaders” not to go to the authorities for help lest they wind up in Guantanamo Bay or face “eternal fire and hell.”

    Was this an isolated incident? Hardly. At least since the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, prominent Muslim American organizations have encouraged their co-religionists not to cooperate with law enforcement. Among the most recent examples was a message on a CAIR website calling on its members to “Build a wall of resistance. Don’t talk to the FBI.”

    Of course, this narrative contrasts sharply with that promoted by the Muslim Public Affairs Council and its ilk, who take credit for successfully inseminating into the U.S. media the notion that they are actively “engaging” with law enforcement. Notably, MPAC takes credit for getting Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca called to testify at the King hearing for the purpose of attesting to their good citizenship.

    Unfortunately for both the officer sporting a uniform with five stars and his Islamist friends, freshman Rep. Chip Cravaak, Minnesota Republican, asked whether the sheriff was aware of CAIR’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood’s franchise in Palestine, known as Hamas. The sheriff professed to know nothing of those associations. When Mr. Cravaak pointed out that the Department of Justice has demonstrated in federal court that such ties do exist, Sheriff Baca demurred and simply said that if there is that evidence, then such individuals and organizations ought to be prosecuted.

    Well, no kidding. They certainly should be prosecuted. And here is a question that future hearings of the Homeland Security Committee should address: Why hasn’t CAIR been prosecuted for being tied to Hamas, for working on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood and, specifically, for fostering the efforts to bring Shariah to America?

    After all, Shariah is a seditious ideology and totalitarian program explicitly designed to hollow out – and ultimately destroy – representative government and the civil liberties that are enshrined in our Constitution. There is every reason for such a prosecution to go forward, and we need to know why has not it happened to date.

    There was one other evident reason why the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups were so determined to shut down the King hearing and excoriate the chairman for having as witnesses anybody other than its hand-picked candidates – the blubbering first-Muslim-in-Congress Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, and the clueless Sheriff Baca. Rep. King helped credential Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a former naval officer and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, as a credible and inspiring voice for pro-American Muslims and Islamic reform.

    We owe Mr. King a debt of gratitude for defying those who would have shut him up and shut his hearings down. In so doing, he has laid bare important truths about the threat posed by Shariah and its adherents, empowered those such as Dr. Jasser who are courageously standing up against it, and broken a taboo in a way that cries out for many more hearings on these subjects by his committee and others.

    Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on WRC-AM (1260).

    Now please watch, Wake up America by Pat Condell

    Barack Obama – A Terrifying Analysis

    Redacted from a speech by Dinesh D’Souza, President King’s College, NYC, NY

    By Jerome S. Kaufman

    On March 15, 2011, the Heritage Foundation sponsored a telecast featuring Dinesh D’Souza, President of King’s College New York and author of the best selling book, Roots of Obama’s Rage. After introducing himself, D’Souza got right into an in-depth analysis of current US President Barack Obama. Obama is the product of an unusual family history, far different from most Americans or people anywhere, for that matter. To say Obama is the product of his parentage and previous environment is a gross understatement.

    D’Souza first described his own difficulty understanding Obama. Who did Obama represent, what were his ambitions, his goals, his mind set, etc.? D’Souza concluded that Obama was a different leader from previous Democrats – especially different from so-called liberals like Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton.

    There are a host of theories trying to explain Obama. By the Right he has many different designations – a Progressive, a conventional Liberal, a Socialist, a Muslim, not born an American, an alien. But, all of these javelins bounce off Obama with no effect or just glancing blows. He continues to act in apparently mysterious ways – not easily explained. If he were truly a Socialist he would have tried to command the means of production. But, Obama did not nationalize banks but rather infused capital to them. Another inconsistency: Recently banks wanted to pay back their government loan and get off the hook with the Obama administration. But, Obama did not want to take their money. Rather he insisted that the bank undergo some sort of stress test before allowing them off the hook? Why?

    There are claims that he is an environmentalist and simply acting out that role – banning vital oil drilling in America, limiting the production of coal, introducing and pouring billions into hair brain solutions like wind mills and sun energy which are far more expensive and will not supply anywhere near the energy required besides, requiring years to develop properly.

    Others say he has been motivated by Al Gore’s global warming theory. Gore asks for the use of less energy and a smaller carbon footprint to solve this debatable problem. However, Gore wants everyone in the world to cut back, not just the US. Obama does not care who conforms or not. Faster growing economies like China and India, far more responsible for future theoretical global warming, are ignored. Obama’s thinking is thus, not that of a true environmentalist.

    In addition, Obama is blocking oil drilling all over America and its coastline while, at the same time, encouraging oil drilling in Mexico. To add salt to our wounds, The US Export Import bank has given a two billion dollar loan guarantee to Brazil to do their own off shore drilling. But, the oil is not to go to us but to the Chinese!

    Then, there is his inconsistent and apparently illogical approach to all our problems in the Middle East – one minute he is siding with the dictators of Egypt, Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the next minute, making obligatory gestures of compassion to their long suffering populations. (Not to mention his dissing and enthusiastic participation in the dismantling of our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel) jsk

    Other inane gestures: He somehow made the Muslims party to our space program praising them for their great contributions to its development – huh? He returned a bust of Winston Churchill given to us by the Brits that had been gratefully placed by us in the White House because of Churchill’s crucial contribution to the defeat of Adolph Hitler in WWII.

    D’Souza ended up concluding it was difficult accounting for all of Obama’s apparent weirdness until D’Souza came to his own epiphany that Obama is not weird, foolish, inexperienced naive or any of the above. He knows exactly what he is doing and we had better stop misinterpreting and underestimating the man.

    D’Sousa presented his conclusion combining these disparate facts in one impossible to refute hypothesis which negates all the previous theories we might have had. Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or just another American Black shake down artist. Obama has not really been raised American. His early years were in Kenya and then Indonesia. He was first thrust into American culture by his mother when he was already 10-12 years old.

    Then, D’Sousa read Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father. D’Sousa discovered that indeed, Obama has nothing to do with Black America. He never sat at a segregated lunch counter nor was he descended from slaves. His Dad was an educated immigrant from Kenya and his Mom was white from Kansas. His is not an American dream. He has no understanding or sympathy for American exceptionalism. In fact, he resents the concept.

    So, what is Obama’s dream? He tells us very explicitly that his dream is his father’s dream. Obama Sr. was raised in Kenya. In his 20‘s, he married a Black woman in Kezia, had two children by her, and while she was pregnant with the second, he left his family and went to Hawaii as a student. He there met Obama’s Mom – Stanley Ann, married her and before Obama Jr. was age two also left her. He then went to Harvard where he took up with a third woman, took her back to Africa and had two children by her. At the same time he reunited with his first wife, from Kezia, and had two more children with her. In total he had four wives, usually two at the same time, and 8 children and with no sense of obligation nor did he supply care for any of them.

    Obama Sr. was a chronic alcoholic who had multiple driving accidents. He kills a man in one, in another hurts himself so badly his two legs have to be cut off and replaced with iron rods. Nevertheless, his courtship style remains intact. He takes up with another woman who bears his eighth child, George Obama.

    In summary – he was quite an unusual role model for President Obama! Later, Obama Jr’s sister took him to task and demanded how could he admire this despicable man who had abandoned all his wives and children, never gave them a dime or even paid them a visit. Obama Jr., in fact, barely knew him since his Dad had visited him only once, when he was about 10 years old. Consequently, Sr. had no direct influence upon Jr.

    That influence was wielded by Obama Sr.’s first convert – Jr’s mother, Stanley Ann Obama. Obama’s mother was an only child. She grew up in Kansas and somehow became a bohemian rebel against her parents and her country. Despite her marriage and rapid abandonment by Obama’s father, she refused to learn from her experience. She finds and marries another third world, anti-American guy, Lolo Satora, He was Indonesian and grew up under the colonial Dutch. Satora wooed Stanley Ann Obama with stories of Indonesian colonialism, married her and took her and her son, Jr. to live in Indonesia.

    By a quirk of fate and bad luck for the American people, the Indonesian husband becomes more pro Western, pro American, and anti Communist. He signs up with an oil company and fights against Indonesian rebels in his own countryside. Ann then attacks him as a traitor to the greater cause and quickly sends Jr. back to Kansas to be raised by her parents and escape the pro-American thinking of the Indonesian husband. She remains in Indonesia the rest of her life.

    Obama’s father, Obama Sr., was basically an anti-Colonialist – the dominant idea in the third world of the 20th Century. The simple core of this idea was that the world is divided into two – the colonizers or oppressors and the colonized or victims. The colonizers used to be Europe, Britain, France and now it is America in this line of thought. Furthermore, the rich got rich only by looting the colonized and even when they left, powerful economic forces remained in a position of exploitation. Banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and anyone else that happens to make money are simply now the economic wing of colonialism still into exploitation. And, who to Barack Obama, Jr. is the lead elephant and current exploiter? Why we are, of course.

    How is Obama to deal with us, the problem? First, bring us under the rod of the Federal government. Obama’s father in 1965 wrote an article in an East African journal saying how this should be done. Bring down all the rich guys by the power of the state, confiscate their land, property, raise taxes as high as you want – 100% if necessary, and obtain their wealth through fiat and legislative piracy. The rationale is that the wealth is not rightfully theirs in the first place, but had been ripped off from the poor .

    That is Dinesh D’Souza’s basic hypothesis. So, Obama far from being a multi-culture guy, far from being the first African American president, is actually the first anti-American, anti-colonialism president and driven by that mind-set!

    Obama, like the naive would like to believe, is no buffoon, not inexperienced, not unworldly, not apolitical and not a mediocrity. He is a very clever but misdirected guy and out to do us all in. He is the most effective Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. He has gotten more programs passed in the shortest time, by Democrat or Republican, since Reagan.

    If he is to be voted out of office in 2012, Republicans will have to take the full measure of the man. They need a strong guy, perhaps a father figure, a person that appeals to the American public. It will be a very difficult election made more so by mindless, irresponsible media genuflections and the Obama useful idiots that may never see the awful danger that this man represents.

    Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) mourns Elizabeth Taylor, Ardent Zionist and Jewish Convert

    March 23, 2011

    The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) mourns the passing of legendary American actress and ardent Zionist, Elizabeth Taylor, who has passed away, aged 79. Ms. Taylor, who enjoyed a long and hugely successful career in Hollywood, was converted to Judaism in 1959 by the Rabbi Max Nussbaum, who served as National President of the ZOA from 1964 to 1966.

    Among Elizabeth Taylor’s outstanding work on behalf of Israel and Jewish causes was her participating in raising $840,000 for Israel in a 1967 London gala and purchasing personally $100,000 in Israel Bonds in 1959. The same year, she cancelled a visit to Moscow after the Soviet Union lashed out at Israel after the June 1967 Six Day War.

    In 1975, she was one of 60 prominent women to sign a statement to then-U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, condemning the U.N. General Assembly’s infamous Zionism-is-Racism resolution. Taylor offered herself as a hostage when 104 hostages aboard an Air France airbus were hijacked by PLO terrorists and held at Uganda’s Entebbe Airport, from which they rescued in a spectacular Israeli commando mission on July 4, 1976, America’s 200th birthday.

    Taylor frequently visited Israel and met with its leadership, including Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1983. In 1987, she signed a petition seeking the release from Soviet incarceration of leading refusenik, Ida Nudel.

    Elizabeth Taylor’s pro-Israel activism led to the banning of her films in several Arab countries. After purchasing $100,000 in Israel Bonds in 1959, the United Arab Republic (now Egypt) banned all her movies. Gen. Essam Elmasri, head of the Cairo regional bureau of the Israel Boycott Office, said that Miss Taylor would not be allowed to come to Egypt because she has adopted the Jewish faith and “supports Israeli causes.” Her movie, Cleopatra, was not permitted to be filmed in Egypt, but in 1964, Egypt dropped her from its blacklist when it decided that Cleopatra, which mentions Egypt 122 times, would be provide good publicity for Egypt (Ami Eden, ‘In the JTA Archive: Liz Taylor says trade me for Entebbe hostages,’ Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 23, 2011).

    ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Elizabeth Taylor was not only a wonderful actress but a wonderful Zionist. In the days of vicious Arab boycotts stronger than those today, she could have taken a self-interested line, as have many Jewish actors today, and failed to speak up or support Israel or, worse, engaged in anti-Israel slanders and other activities that harm Israel and aid its enemies, but she didn’t.

    The ZOA is proud of its connection to Elizabeth Taylor and expresses heartfelt condolences to her family and friends at her passing. Her rabbi was Rabbi Max Nussbaum, of Temple Israel, Hollywood, who was also a past National President of ZOA. Members of Temple Israel included Al Jolson, Sammy Davis, Jr., Eddie Fisher, Eddie Cantor, George Jessel and Leonard Nimoy, among numerous other Hollywood celebrities. ”

    May her soul rest in peace.

    And, many thanks to Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs for posting this fantastic video summary of Liz’s movie career. Here is the url link. I hope it comes up for you or try and paste the link on your own search engine. (jsk)

    http://www.conservativesforamerica.com/around-the-web/liz-the-passing-of-a-legend-the-end-of-an-era

    Muslims Take Over a Europe Afraid to Open Its Eyes

    (Rep. Peter King – please open America’s eyes!)

    Soeren Kern, Senior Political Analyst

    Hudson New York, January 20 th, 2011

    Europeans often fantasize about America’s so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe’s Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations — many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.
    In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe’s Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.

    Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain’s largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

    The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network’s headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

    Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a “creeping” acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)
    Although the MCB, which represents half of the country’s 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.

    Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB’s real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs.

    Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will “incorporate similar tragedies.”

    Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.
    During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: “Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby.”
    Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.

    MPACUK recently worked with Britain’s Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled “Operation Muslim Vote.” With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several “pro-Zionist war mongering MPs.”
    MPACUK’s website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: “MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a ‘clash of civilisations’ between Islam and ‘The West’. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora].”

    Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to “reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad.”
    Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

    The growing power of Europe’s Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union’s decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe’s Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.

    By bowing to Muslim pressure groups — such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee — and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe’s meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.

    In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country’s estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.
    In Germany, home to Europe’s largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government’s religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne’s skyline by taking attention away from the city’s Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.

    In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany’s secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany’s Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: “We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand.” She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.

    Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.

    In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools’ core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called “Islam and School,” which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.

    In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.

    As Europe’s Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel. Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded — a total abrogation of the UN’s signed Oslo accords.
    In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU’s efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.

    Europe has also been “ground zero” for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel’s hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such “lawfare” is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.

    The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

    Another report commissioned by the EU’s Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe.
    Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.

    Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

    A Beautiful Gesture From A True Friend, Glenn Beck

    By Jerome S. Kaufman

    One can’t help but wonder the reaction of the mainstream media if a killing squad of Israeli Jews had in the dead of night cut into the protective wiring surrounding an isolated peaceful Arab village and cut the throats, while they slept, of an innocent husband, his wife and three of their children – age 11. 4 and 3 months?

    The New York Times. Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, etc. etc. would have the story all over the front page for a week plus gruesome pictures and endless condemnation editorials. And, in that case, rightfully so. But, what happened when exactly that occurred on March 11, 2011, with Israeli Jews on the receiving end of these brain-washed, insane Arab fanatics taught since infancy to kill Jews? Not very much. The story barely made the innermost pages of these papers and only a momentary mention was made on the various Left wing TV and radio networks and gone within 1-2 days. Naturally even these abbreviated news items were accompanied by the usual countering garbage excusing these horrendous inhuman acts with some sort of moral equivalency and just another incident in the cycle of violence.

    Only one problem – Jews and Israelis have never been party to such inhumane acts. Israelis have responded with military not terrorist incursions, only after full warning to the civilian population. The incursions have alway been to eliminate military and terrorist locations repeatedly harassing Israeli civilian populations. Individual isolated acts of violence, and never of this sickening nature, are immediately condemned by the Israeli government and the perpetrators brought to trial and punished. Unlike the Arabs, the names of these rare, if any, perpetrators are not eulogized in the Israeli media, in the schools or have streets and sport teams named after them.

    Glenn Beck, to his great credit, took notice of the grossly uneven and unfair coverage of this awful massacre and produced a beautiful memorial program of his own. It was just shown on Fox TV, on what Glenn respectfully called Shabbat eve, Friday, March 18, 2011. He related the despicable Arab killings of the Fogel family in Israel. He then thoughtfully had a rabbi on the program to explain the importance of candles and hope generated by light, in the Jewish tradition. He had the rabbi explain the significance of the memorial candle (the Yar ziet candle) and asked every one in the nation-wide viewing audience to please light a candle to commemorate the slain Fogel family.
    My candle is still burning.

    Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor

    Please see accompanying video with introduction by noted Arab lecturer, Nonie Darwish.

    II An original poem submitted by a reader.

    LIKE IN RAMALLAH

    by Elaine Rosenberg Miller

    In the dark, the guiltless, moonless night

    They made their way along the walls of the modest house, along the stuccoed walls

    Soundless, sightless

    On they crept, swiftly, stopping to listen for restlessness, recognition, awareness, life

    Soon to be dawn, soon to be day, they hurried on

    Soon, blood, glistening blood, molten blood, then darkening blood, stiffening blood, streaking blood

    As in Ramallah

    In Ramallah, the young man raised his hands, palms up, fingers splayed

    On his hands, his scarlet hands, death

    In Ramallah, in Ramallah, one man’s blood painted another man’s upraised hands

    Blood!

    Blood coursing through the body

    To the heart, to the brain

    Bringing warmth

    The child fell back on his bed

    A single thin mattress

    He fell

    And his blood pulsed onto the mattress

    They slit the neck of the baby, the dewy folds offered no resistance

    They killed the parents.

    Young parents

    And when they were done, they fled into the darkness, softly, softly, the ancient stones recoiling in horror under their feet

    And when they returned to their children, their parents, their neighbors, the blood of the family was on their hands

    Garments

    Faces

    Souls

    Like in Ramallah

    Purpose Of Arms Sales To The Arabs?

    Time to Rethink Arab Arms Sales

    Cal Thomas
    Palm Beach Post, March 12, 2011

    For many years American policy has been to sell modern weaponry to Arab states. The reasons given are to maintain the “balance of power” in the region, but the unstated and most likely reason is to keep the oil flowing.

    The Obama administration has approved billions in arms sales and transfers to Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But public attitudes about arms sales to Arab countries appear to be changing, especially in light of the current upheaval in the region with some dictators using “Made in USA” weapons against their own people.

    According to a recent story in the Wall Street Journal entitled “U.S. Reviews Arms Sales Amid Turmoil,” even the government now, “has launched a review of military assistance and prospective weapons sales to countries caught up in a wave of popular revolts, underlining growing uncertainty about how the turmoil sweeping the Middle East will alter fundamentals of U.S. policy in the region.” And the review is long in coming given that Bloomberg reported way back in September 2010 that the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that “the U.S. authorized as much as $37 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations over five years without always documenting the potential effect on foreign policy and national security.”

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that “only 20 percent of American adults think the United States should continue providing foreign aid to Arab countries in the Middle East.” Along party lines, the survey also showed that 76 percent of Republicans, 48 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of adults “not affiliated with either major party” think this way.

    On the question of continued aid to Israel, the poll found 61 percent of Republicans, 46 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of unaffiliateds in favor.

    The idea of maintaining a balance of power in the region might make more sense if the Arab states had any real enemies. But their only declared enemy is Israel, which isn’t a threat, as long as it is not attacked again, as it has been many times by Arab states since 1948. There also have been, and continue to be, numerous attacks by non-states, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, all with the intention of destroying the Jewish state and eradicating the region of Jews. A “balance of power” policy against such aggression is not in the interest of our strongest Middle East ally, nor is it in America’s interest, as long as we still stand for freedom.

    Two other arguments one hears most for maintaining the arms sales to Arab states are: (1) If we don’t sell them arms, other countries will; and (2) Such sales bring money back into this country. A nation that prides itself on doing the right thing should abide by a higher standard than that of other arms providers. For the high ideals we profess, but don’t always attain, consider the lyrics from “America the Beautiful,” which includes, “Till all success be nobleness and every gain divine!”

    Foreign aid that produces results in America’s interest is a good thing. Helping to fight AIDS in Africa, for example, meets both American humanitarian and policy goals. Sending aid to Arab nations that teach in their schools, broadcast in their media and preach from their minbars that America and Israel are evil and must be destroyed serves neither of these objectives. At the very least, U.S. aid to Arab states should be tied to a change in ideological and theological behavior in those countries.

    Lack of aid isn’t the problem. The oil resources of many Arab states give them more than enough to care for their own people. Lack of modernity is the problem. So long as many Arab states continue in their feudalistic mentality and suppression of half their population (women), prosperity and the “blessings of liberty” will not wish to pay them a visit.

    No matter how these numerous uprisings turn out — and some could turn out very badly for the people of those nations and for U.S. policy — America’s policy of arms sales to Arab states definitely needs to change.

    Deliberately Crippling America

    by Richard W. Rahn

    The Washington Times
    March 1, 2011.

    The Obama administration’s policies are causing Americans to pay far more for gasoline and other fuels than necessary. America is awash in fossil-fuel energy sources with almost 30 percent of the world’s coal and 80 percent of the world’s oil shale which contains an estimated three times the recoverable oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Canada, with its oil sands, has the world’s third-highest oil reserves, after the United States and Saudi Arabia. New technologies that enable low-cost natural gas production from shale mean that many countries, including the United States, will have gas for centuries at current production rates.

    Fossil fuels at some prices are interchangeable. Coal, gas and oil can all fuel electric power plants. Liquid motor fuels can be made easily from natural gas, and, in fact, many auto, truck and bus fleets already use natural gas. For more than 70 years, the technology has been available to turn coal into liquid motor fuel.

    Natural gas now sells in the United States for a British thermal unit (BTU) equivalent of $30 a barrel of oil, and coal sells at roughly half that price. Much of the Canadian oil sands, U.S. domestic oil shale and offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico can be produced at prices well below $75 per barrel. The United States should be an energy exporter; Canada already is and is the single biggest source of oil for the U.S.

    Most countries try to produce oil, gas and coal and sell it on the global market as a way of increasing the real incomes of their citizens, but not the United States. The Obama administration has a hatred of fossil fuels and is determined to reduce their use despite the economic damage. So-called green energy often is not very green and cannot possibly serve as a substitute for most fossil fuels. Windmills and solar panels are far more expensive than coal and gas; their production is intermittent, unreliable and largely unstorable. Because of the physics of the electrical grid, wind and solar can never produce more than about 18 percent of electrical production at least not until low-cost storage devices are developed. Many biofuels, and in particular corn-based ethanol, are not only more expensive than the natural fuels but have a bigger total carbon footprint.

    The Obamaites believe carbon dioxide (CO2) is evil because they think more of it will cause global warming. They ignore the facts:

    Earth has been at times in the past both cooler and warmer with higher concentrations of CO2.

    Other factors, such as sunspot activity, are more important than CO2 in determining Earth’s temperature.

    Scientists are in the process of finding new commercial uses for CO2 and are experimenting with the use of biological agents to turn CO2 back into a useful fuel. CO2 always has been part of our atmosphere and is necessary for plants to grow.

    Just think for a moment of all the scientific advances that have been made during the past century. There is every reason to think that long before fossil fuels become truly scarce, meaning that their extraction cost begins to rise rapidly, mankind will have come up with cheaper and better energy sources and will have figured out what to do with excess CO2 if it really does prove to be a problem. For at least 100 years, “experts” have been saying we will soon run out of oil, but we are still finding more oil and gas than we have been producing in recent years.

    It makes no sense for the United States to hobble itself with less and more costly energy while much of the rest of the world is greatly increasing its use of fossil fuels. Both India and China have found huge new deposits of natural gas in recent weeks. Are they going to say to their still-poor populations, “We will not use this gas to better your lives”? Of course not. The Brazilians are about to enter the ranks of major oil producers. Are their leaders going to say to the people, “You may not have the benefits of these new oil discoveries”? Of course not.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration has stopped the new oil-production process in the Gulf of Mexico, even in the face of a court order requiring it to issue permits. The administration, through executive orders, has denied oil and gas producers access to millions of acres where large deposits of oil and gas are known to exist. The administration also is holding up permits for many new power plants, pipelines and industrial plants, all of which are costing Americans jobs and driving businesses to other countries.

    It is not unnoticed that the president is demanding that businesses create more jobs while at the same time denying them the ability to do so because of his environmental, energy and regulatory policies. It also is not unnoticed that the bureaucrats and officials in Washington who are so keen on killing job opportunities for those in the productive sector keep theirs. And, it is not unnoticed that people within the Obama administration and Congress are deliberately and unnecessarily making millions of the lowest-income Americans even poorer.

    Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth

    What Hallucinogenic Drugs Are Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu And Ehud Barak On?

    I. On Friday night, in the city of Itamar, there was a horrific terror attack in which 5 members of the Fogel family were brutally murdered. They were deliberately slaughtered by Palestinian Arabs with knives, while lying asleep in their own home.
    The Victims included the Parents Rabbi Udi and Ruth and three of their children Yoav, 11, Elad, 4, and Hadas, 3 months. Their crime? – Being Jews in the land that G-d had given to his people over 3500 years ago.

    At the funeral yesterday, attended by some 20,000 people, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, quoted from the book of Iyov (Job) 2:1
    “So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spoke a word unto him; for they saw that his grief was very great.”

    No words can rationalize or provide comfort for such a tragedy. The only words worth sharing are those of the parents and siblings of Udi and Ruth who said that such acts of terror don’t weaken their resolve and love for Eretz Yisrael. “This land is our life, we cannot be separated from it.”

    The Fogel family was murdered on Friday night of Shabbat Parshat Vayikra, when we begin reading the discussion of the sacrifices which were offered to G-d in the tabernacle…

    Hashem Yenakem Damam – May G-d avenge their blood.

    Rabbi Shneur Silberberg, Bais Chabad, West Bloomfield, MI

    II. What hallucinogenic drugs are Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak on?

    By Yehudit Tayar

    What we so obviously see from here (Judea and Samaria – “West Bank”) that they are not willing to see from there! (Jerusalem, Government of Israel)

    Just this past week my family sadly commemorated the brutal murders of Rabbi Elnatan and Dina Horwitz, my cousins HY”D, who were murdered in their home in Kiryat Arba, Hevron, Friday night Erev Shabbat Kodesh in 2003.

    Then, just like this past Erev Shabbat, the brutal murders of the Fogel family, mother, father and three children as they slept innocently took place. The murdering terrorists went from one member of the family to the next and slaughtered them with blind hatred.

    We hear Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, and of course Ehud Barak – the “Minister of Defense” — condemning these horrific murders. They have the audacity to stand in front of us and demand condemnation from the world for these actions, while they along with all of the heads of the Israeli governments since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, refuse to see or accept the truth.

    They continue to meet with the heads of the PLO and plan to continue to make “painful concessions” while willfully ignoring the reality that the hatred is bred inside of the official education facilities of the PLO. That no matter what Israel is willing to do in order to achieve the long anticipated and longed for “peace,” the other side will never stop hating us and trying to destroy us.

    How blind can these heads of government be? We open the official web sites of the PLO and learn what they are teaching their people including the lessons of hatred and lies to their children. We learn what their maps show – that there is no Israel – not only Yesha or Jerusalem, but they do not recognize our entire Land or our existence.

    We witness the official educational texts of the PLO and learn that these are identical to the official Nazi propaganda used before and during the Holocaust in Europe to annihilate six million Jews, including one and half million children.

    We hear the heads of the PLO declare that they will never accept that Israel is a Jewish State. So why do our leaders continue to ignore all of this blatant hatred and incitement? Why do they continue to play into the hands of the United States and the rest of the world who do not care if we disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth?

    Only a few days ago mass forces were sent with weapons against families living in Chavat Gilad in the Shomron in order to destroy two dwellings. Daily on our roads we are continuously attacked and do not see any proper response from the security forces.

    No matter how many cameras, guards etc, we use in our communities in order to try and protect our lives and the lives of our children it will not resolve the problem. The infrastructure of hate that is teaching would-be murderers like those who came in the night and butchered our families will continue to train and direct more murderers like them – that it is acceptable to continue to murder innocent people as long as they are Jews and especially if they are “settlers”.

    Let’s face it, the Israeli government led by the Prime Minister and the so called Minister of Defense continue to ignore the real situation in their dangerous and pathetic attempt to pretend that if Israel is only willing to make more concessions and accept a “Palestinian State” we would be left alone.

    There is a popular saying, “What is seen from here cannot be seen from there”. This is constantly used to explain that we, the simple folk, are unable to comprehend what our leaders face and how they understand what is needed to be done.

    I accept this theory but not in the way the media and government representatives wish for it to be understood. I accept that those heads of the government are disconnected from the reality of the situation and that they TRULY DO NOT SEE THE REAL PICTURE.

    It is us, the simple citizens of Israel, who continue to pay an unacceptable horrific heart-breaking price for their refusal to accept the truth. Israel does not have nor will she ever have a partner for peace let alone peaceful co-existence.

    I wish to quote a former leader of the Jewish people, David Ben-Gurion, who was also a settler. (Speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, Basil 1937) “No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist. No Jewish body is sanctioned to do so. No Jew alive today has the authority to yield any piece of land whatsoever. This right is preserved by the Jewish People throughout the generations and cannot be forfeited under any circumstance.”

    Even if at some given time there will be those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the jurisdiction to negate it for future generations to come … Our right to this Land, in its entirety, is steadfast, inalienable and eternal.”

    Perhaps if our so-called leaders were reminded of these words declared long before our Nation established a Jewish State in our eternal Land, they would accept the truth. The truth that must Israel stop pretending that there is some Arab leadership, including or perhaps especially the PLO, who will ever be willing to allow us to live safely in our Land.

    We do not wish to hear words of comfort, anger or sorrow, unless the remorse of these same leaders prompts them to immediately stop endangering us, and allowing the despicable murderers to come in to our homes and butcher innocent families-including infants and children.

    Yehudit Tayar is a veteran spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers who live in Yesha, and lives with her family in Bet Horon in the Benjamin Region of Samaria.

    Comment from reader, Rev. Legasi,
    March 14, 2011

    Dr. Kaufman,

    May i extend our condolences to you all who are in grief to the Brutal Murder of the Foggel Family. These Muslims are like the Philistines in the time of King David, They Have NO plan but for the Elimination of Israel. Mr. Kaufman i know it is near because The E.U. is now involved in the peace process. Remember Madam Merkel of Germany betrayed Israel last week by siding with PA. As i watch Prophecy unfolding in the Middle East i felt cold on my spine for what I saw and am seeing. Example, October 14,2009 Turkey, a Friend of Israel, turned her back. Four weeks ago Egypt sold out Israel. They even permitted two Iranian Warship to pass the Suez Canal. Last December Lebanon became the nation of HeZbollah. Time will come when Israel will have no friend but their King, the Son of David and Israel Herself.
    Zechariah 14:1-9

    Rev. Legasi