From the Great Chas. Krauthammer – Article 1, Chapter 12 of his best seller, Things that Matter

Plus: II The real truth about Palestine and Jesus Christ – Short Video by Member of Knesset Danny Ayalon

From the Great Chas. Krauthammer – Article 1, Chapter 12 of his best seller, Things that Matter




Originally in The Washington Post, June 4, 2010 (and nothing has changed)

The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual UN suspects – Third World and European – join in. The Obama administration dithers. But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Affairs writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal.

Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel – a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli territory. Yet, having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Arms-bearing ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew the US Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from lethal weaponry

Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that? But even more important, why did Israel even have to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, forward defense—fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example), Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don’t have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense — military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama’s description of our campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place.

Worse, the UN Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus celebri — the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war — effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terrorist enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses — a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these are permissible, what’s left? Ah, but that’s the point. It’s the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who have had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What’s left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing on to a consensus document that singles out Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons — thus de-legitimizing Israel’s very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide for which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.

The Washington Post, June 4, 2010

(And, here we are three and one half years later and Israel’s position is only worse with the same jackals, useful idiots, supine European Union, misdirected enemies John Kerry and Barack Obama yapping at Israel’s heels demanding more concessions that will indeed result in another Final Solution –  Exactly what they all have in mind, Hashem forbid!

Wake up Israel! Do not weaken yourself in any way and give succor to your dedicated, hate-filled enemies. And PM Netanyahu please finally conclude another Arab state two minutes away whose only goal is your destruction should have no place in your considerations.

If they want Israel to disappear let them lose their own lives in huge numbers in the attempt. No more Polish Ghetto, No more Holocaust, No more Willing Executioners without a whole lot of company on the other side. Let them be fully awakened to the reality that Jewish blood is no longer cheap.)

Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor Israel Commentary,

II The real truth about Palestine and Jesus Christ

By Member of Knesset Danny Ayalon

Israel’s impending raid on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Israel’s impending raid on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Redacted from: A Raid on Iran

The Weekly Standard
DEC 30, 2013

As world powers debate what a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran should look like, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to maintain that Israel is not bound by the interim agreement that the P5+1 and Iran struck in Geneva on November 24. Israel, says Netanyahu, “has the right and the obligation to defend itself.” One question then is whether Netanyahu actually intends to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The other question, no less important, is whether Israel could really pull it off.

American analysts are divided on Israel’s ability to take effective military action. However, history shows that Israel’s military capabilities are typically underestimated. The Israel Defense Forces keep finding creative ways to deceive and cripple their targets by leveraging their qualitative advantages in manners that confound not only skeptical observers but also, and more important, Israel’s enemies.

Military triumphs like the Six-Day War of June 1967 and the 1976 raid on Entebbe that freed 101 hostages are popular Israeli lore for good reason—these “miraculous” victories were the result of assiduously planned, rehearsed, and well-executed military operations based on the elements of surprise, deception, and innovation, core tenets of Israeli military thinking. Inscribed on one of the walls of the IDF’s officer training academy is the verse from Proverbs 24:6: “For by clever deception thou shalt wage war.” And this has been the principle driving almost all of Israel’s most successful campaigns, like the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, the 1982 Beka’a Valley air battle, and the 2007 raid on Syria’s plutonium reactor, all of which were thought improbable, if not impossible, until Israel made them reality.

And yet in spite of Israel’s record, some American experts remain skeptical about Israel’s ability to do anything about Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Even the most optimistic assessments argue that Israel can only delay the inevitable. As a September 2012 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies contends: “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” (Excuse me. What’s the matter with that? This is an existential problem for Israel)

Part of the reason that Israeli and American assessments diverge is the difference in the two countries’ recent military histories and political cultures. While the American debate often touches on the limits of military power and its ability to secure U.S. interests around the globe, the Israeli debate is narrower, befitting the role of a regional actor rather than a superpower, and focuses solely on Israel’s ability to provide for the security of its citizens at home.

Any account of surprise and deception as key elements in Israeli military history has to start with the aerial attack that earned Israel total air supremacy over its adversaries in the June 1967 war. Facing the combined Arab armies, most prominently those of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel’s Air Force was outnumbered by a ratio of 3 planes to 1. Nonetheless, at the very outset of the war, the IAF dispatched its jets at a time when Egyptian pilots were known to be having breakfast. Israeli pilots targeted the enemy’s warplanes on their runways, and in two subsequent waves of sorties, destroyed the remainder of the Egyptian Air Force, as well as Jordan’s and most of Syria’s. Within six hours, over 400 Arab planes, virtually all of the enemy’s aircraft, were in flames, with Israel losing only 19 planes.

The 1981 raid on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak is another example of Israel’s ability to pull off operations that others think it can’t. The success caught experts by surprise because every assessment calculated that the target was out of the flight range of Israel’s newly arrived F-16s. Washington later learned that Israel’s success came from simple and creative field improvisations that gave the Israeli jets the extra mileage needed to safely reach Baghdad and return, and also to gain the element of surprise by extending their reach beyond what the tables and charts that guided thinking in Washington and elsewhere had assumed possible.

Surprise won Israel a similar advantage one year later in the opening maneuvers of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. For students of aerial warfare, the Beka’a Valley air battle is perhaps Israel’s greatest military maneuver, even surpassing the June 1967 campaign. On June 9, Israel destroyed the entire Soviet-built Syrian aerial array in a matter of hours. Ninety Syrian MiGs were downed and 17 of 19 surface-to-air missile batteries were put out of commission, while the Israeli Air Force suffered no losses.

The 1982 air battle was the culmination of several years’ worth of tension on Israel’s northern border. Israel was concerned that Syria’s deployment of advanced aerial defense systems in Lebanon’s Beka’a Valley would limit its freedom to operate against PLO attacks from Lebanon. When Syria refused to pull back its defenses and U.S. mediation efforts failed, Israel planned for action. Although Israel was widely understood to enjoy a qualitative advantage, no one could have imagined the knockout blow it was about to deliver. When Syrian pilots scrambled for their planes, their communications had already been severed and their radars blinded. Israeli pilots later noted the “admirable bravery” of their Syrian counterparts, whom they downed at a ratio of 90 to 0.

And then there is Israel’s most recent high-profile conflict with Syria. When Israeli intelligence discovered that Bashar al-Assad’s regime was building a plutonium reactor in the northeast Syrian Desert, Israeli and American leaders disagreed on the best course of action. Israel’s then-prime minister Ehud Olmert argued for a military solution, while the Bush administration feared the risks, demurred, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed to take the matter to the U.N. (That would have been a big help — almost as big as John Kerry’s and Tzippi Livni’s current recommendations in the latest “peace proposal”) The Israelis, however, confident in their cyberwarfare capabilities, knew they could disable Syria’s air defenses. And on September 6, 2007, Israel once again overturned the expert predictions and assessments of others and successfully destroyed the Syrian reactor at Al Kibar.

The question of how exactly Israel might act to stop the Iranian nuclear program is an open one. …What is certain, however—what many historical precedents make clear—is that it would be an error of the first order to dismiss Israel’s ability to take meaningful military action against Iran. Israel has left its enemies, as well as American policymakers and military experts, surprised in the past, and it may very well do so again. (And, let us say, Amen)

Uri Sadot is a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations and holds a master’s degree in international affairs from Princeton University.

PM Netanyahu addresses the double crime of Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah

At the weekly Israeli Government Cabinet meeting today (Sunday, 29 December 2013):

1. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks:

“Today, the IDF responded quickly and forcefully to the rocket fire from Lebanon. This is our policy regarding Lebanon just as it is with the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a drizzle and we will respond strongly, and if need be, will carry out preventive action. We hold the Lebanese government responsible for firing that is carried out from within its territory. What is happening in Lebanon is that Hezbollah is stationing thousands of missiles and rockets in apartments, in the heart of the civilian population, and is thus perpetrating two war crimes simultaneously. It is organizing the firing at civilians, just as it did today, and it is hiding behind civilians as human shields.

This is a double war crime that that is being perpetrated under the aegis of the Lebanese government and army, which are not lifting a finger to prevent this arming and these crimes. We hold the Lebanese government responsible for this development. We also know that Iran, of course, is behind this arming by Hezbollah. It is the same Iran which is continuing to assist the Syrian government in slaughtering civilians and which is continuing to arm terrorist organizations that are perpetrating acts of terrorism in many countries. It is also the same Iran that is currently developing centrifuges that are capable of enriching uranium six times faster than its regular centrifuges.

All of this is being done now, before the agreement with Iran is written. Even before the agreement is signed I see that the Iranian economy is recovering somewhat. We are monitoring these developments and are pointing them out to the world. We continue to see preventing the nuclearization of Iran as our main goal vis-à-vis the national security of the State of Israel, as well as the security of the region and the entire world.”

II Iran disavows the nuclear agreement made in the minds of John Kerry and the rest of the world’s useful idiots.

Iran nuclear facilities will keep running
Thu Dec 19, 2013 1:9PM GMT

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) says the country’s nuclear facilities, including Arak heavy water reactor, will continue running, dismissing Western governments’ call on Tehran to suspend activities of the facility.

“Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the Arak reactor, will continue running at full capacity,” Ali Akbar Salehi said on Thursday. He made the remarks in a meeting with Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani in the holy city of Qom.

“We will never give up this important achievement and we have no intention of losing it,” Salehi said of the Arak reactor.

Earlier this month, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited the Arak heavy water facility as part of Tehran’s goodwill gestures to remove ambiguities about the peaceful nature of its nuclear energy program.

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear energy program. Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the IAEA, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Salehi also said Iran’s recent nuclear deal with the six world powers protects the Islamic Republic’s nuclear rights.

In November, Iran and six world powers ˆ the US, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany ˆ signed a landmark nuclear deal in the Swiss city of Geneva to set the stage for the full resolution of the Western standoff over Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Obama’s 2013 Foreign Policy report card via Chas. Krauthammer, Stephen F. Hayes, Nina Easton and Shannon Breen with the Fox News Special Panel

A redaction of the transcript from the TV show, 6:45 PM, December. 26, 2013

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Host – Shannon Breen with her usual excellent job.

Charles Krauthammer – Internationally syndicated columnist

Stephen F. Hayes – Senior columnist, The Weekly Standard

Nina Easton – Senior editor and columnist for Fortune Magazine

The lead-in TV clip to the show was a statement by Obama’s chief designated prevaricator, Susan Rice, who, for her supreme loyalty to Obama and personal sacrifice giving patently false testimony concerning BenghaziGate, has been awarded the critical role of United States National Security Advisor.

Rice did exemplary work obscuring the role of Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the awful fiasco where you may remember (Hopefully at the 2016 election) Clinton stated, “What different does it make” referring to the deaths of a US ambassador and 3 other staunch American patriots in the line of duty!

In the clip Susan Rice claimed that Obama’s foreign policies had not been a disaster at all and went on to have the temerity (read “chutzpa) to declare the Arab Palestinian/Israeli and Syrian efforts as high points of the Obama administration’s successes! The Panel had no difficulty using her statements as a launching pad for their own evaluation.

Steve Hayes: “Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster. The problem with President Obama’s foreign policy is that there is no foreign policy. It is an ad hoc policy with decisions made moment to moment. Our allies and our enemies have no idea what he is doing and have no faith in whatever it may be. Furthermore, there is no follow-up after the campaign speech, as usual. Consequently we are in real trouble for the next 3 years of his administration.

Shannon Breen: According to a new Pew poll, 53% of Americans see the United States as less powerful and with a less important role in the world than we had a decade ago. This is the worst evaluation since Pew began that question in 1974.

Nina Easton: This is especially true in the Middle East. The most under reported story affecting our own security is the explosion of the presence and influence of Al Qaeda and the implosion of Iraq – the country that cost us 4500 American lives! This administration thought they could deal with Al Qaeda simply by killing Bin Laden and then using drones and not getting involved beyond that. The fact is that Al Qaeda is on the rise throughout North Africa, flourishing in Syria as a result of our not helping the rebels against Assad while Iraq has become a client state of Iran.

Furthermore, Al Qaeda is now staging 30-40 suicide bombings per month in Iraq. We spent 10 years in Iraq trying to save the country and Obama left leaving no US troops in place to safe guard our interests. The result – Iraq is on the brink of disappearing as an independent nation.

Shannon Breen: Afghanistan is another hot spot in which Obama’s vacillating policies with President Karzai have weakened our power. What will happen in 2014 remains to be seen.

Charles Krauthammer:

Let’s start by answering some of the data points that Susan Rice presented in the video clip.

In Egypt Obama gave the heralded Cairo speech announcing his “leading from behind” policy. It was really a foretelling of the policy of retreat.

Now if we look at Egypt, we have managed to make everybody hate us! The Brotherhood, the Religious, the Secular arm and the Secular opposition. That is quite a feat for one brief administration.

In Libya where Obama again led from behind, he left a disaster which has become another staging center for Al Qaeda and where we saw the resultant shameful Benghazi massacre.

In West Africa, Al Qaeda would now be in control if it had not been for the French who interceded in their and our behalf despite the opposition and deliberate lack of participation by Obama.

As Nina (Easton) indicated, in the Middle East, we now have Iraq as a client state of Iran and Obama boasted in his year-end press conference about “our success in ending the war in Iraq.” In fact, Obama abandoned Iraq. It was a won war until his intervention. The level of violence was historically low. The civil war had ended. Al Qaeda was not only defeated but humiliated when the Sunni Muslims joined with Infidels (meaning us) in defeating Al Qaeda, a fellow Muslim entity. Now Al Qaeda is revived. It controls wide swaths of Iraq and Syria and forced its way into the Middle East beyond their wildest expectations.

One other of Susan Rice’s data points – Obama has somehow managed the miracle of uniting the Gulf State Arabs, Saudi Arabia and Israel in their mutual astonishment at Obama’s conceding the nuclear bomb to virtually unfettered Iranian development. This policy shift was sprung upon them by Obama leaving the Gulf States with no information and virtually defenseless. At least, the Israelis are still able to defend themselves. (Although, John Kerry with Obama’s encouragement, is working diligently to destroy that ability)

Because of all of the above everyone in the Middle East is wondering where the United States really is? Obama’s policy of retreat has allowed the bad guys to fill the vacuum. What catastrophic lead from behind is next?

(On a personal note: Again, all these illustrious speakers refer to Obama as if he were some kind of inept nincompoop. I wish they would spend some time with my hero, Dinesh D’Sousa, who pegged Obama, a long time ago, not as a nincompoop but a deliberate destroyer of the US both internationally and domestically — a genuine Manchurian Candidate who knows exactly what he is doing.)

Wake up America!

Jerome S. Kaufman, Producer/Editor

Ignoring the Grace of G-d

Redacted from portions of To Pray as a Jew
By Rabbi Hayim Halevi Donin
Basic Books 1980

In the Jewish tradition prayers and blessings are not confined to the synagogue or limited to the formal religious service. Though sanctuaries are built and set aside as special places for prayer, we do not believe that the Shekhinah, the Divine Presence, is restricted only to such places. God’s abode is the entire universe.

“Thus said the Lord: The heaven is my throne and the earth is My footstool; is there a house that you can build for Me, is there a place that can be My abode?” (Is. 66:1). If God commanded the Israelites to “make for Me a sanctuary” (Exod. 25:8), it was not for Him to dwell in it, but so that he could dwell “in their midst.” The language of Torah is very precise and revealing. The purpose of the sanctuary was not to house the Divine Presence, but to create an environment that would allow His spirit to penetrate the community and be reflected in the life of the people.

The synagogue is indeed vested with greater holiness than are other places, and the sages made it abundantly clear that they regarded it as the preferred place for prayer. While not discounting the enthusiasm shown for praying in the synagogue, the Talmud is equally clear that a prayer service may be held anywhere.

The only places where prayer is forbidden are places identified with idolatry or sexual lewdness, or places that are foul smelling or in sight of excrement. A hazardous place is also unsuitable for prayer. No one who has ever prayed in the splendid isolation of nature, where hills and valleys, forests and fields, skies and oceans provide inspirational testimony to God’s handiwork, can ever again think of the synagogue as the only place suitable for prayer.

But of all places outside the synagogue where Jewish prayer may take place, the home is first in importance. Like the synagogue, the Jewish home has also been described as a “small sanctuary.” There too does the Divine Presence dwell. Aside from those times when one prays privately at home because one cannot be at the synagogue there are many prayers and blessings that were from their inception intended to be said at home.

… Jews are to take special pains to make sure and pray after their meals not just when they are hungry. It often happens that when people are comfortable and their basic needs are met they turn away from God. This is precisely what troubled Moses when he instructed the Israelites to follow the commandment to bless God after eating.

Moses expressed his concern: Take care lest you forget the Lord your God and fail to keep His commandments . . . lest when you will eat and be sated and will build fine houses to live in, and your herds and flocks will multiply and your silver and gold will increase, and everything you own will prosper. Beware, lest your heart grow haughty and you then forget the Lord your God … and you say to yourselves “My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me.” (WRONG)

(I just came upon these passages and was struck by their pertinence perhaps because I see so much of this arrogant secularism around me and sometimes in my own family and it annoys and frightens me.

I can only pray that it does not annoy my G-d who is able to take it all away with one incidental gesture and allow instead, the burning bush to be consumed) jsk

Senator Tom Coburn unveils his new book – “Federal Waste Book 2013”

By Veronique de Rugy
December 17, 2013

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) will unveil Wastebook 2013, his annual report on egregious federal spending, at a press conference on Tuesday, December 17, at 10 a.m. EST in Room S-325 of the Capitol.

There are many problems with government intervention. It’s expensive, it introduces distortions into the market, and it’s often unfair. It can introduce major costs to people’s lives, as people have discovered when their insurance policies were canceled and they were forced to buy more expensive and sometimes less-comprehensive policies because of Obamacare.

But then there’s the fact that government spends a lot of money on ridiculous causes of which almost no one approves. Senator Coburn and his staff have produced their annual list of outrageous stuff that the government spends with your hard-earned money. This year, it adds up to $30 billion. Here are a few examples from last year:

Tax loopholes for the NFL, NHL, and PGA – professional sports leagues that generate billions of dollars annually in profits ($91 million in lost tax revenue)

Moroccan pottery classes (part of a $27 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development)

Efforts to promote caviar consumption and production ($300,000)

A robotic squirrel named RoboSquirrel (part of a $325,000 grant from the National Science Foundation)

Promotion of specialty shampoos and other beauty products for cats and dogs ($505,000)

Corporate welfare for the world’s largest snack food producer, PepsiCo ($1.3 million)

Government-funded study on how golfers might benefit from using their imagination to envision the hole is bigger than it actually is ($350,000)

“Prom Week,” a video game that allows taxpayers to relive prom night ($516,000)

A scarcely used airport in Oklahoma that only exists to transfers federal funds elsewhere in the state ($450,000)

The 2012 Alabama Watermelon Queen tour, paid for in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture “to promote the consumption of Alabama’s watermelon” ($25,000)

Sean Davis over at the Federalist has more from this year’s list:

Tax breaks for brothel-worker breast implants

A government study on why wives should calm down

Life-coaching for Senate staff

A million-dollar bus stop in Arlington, Va.

$3 million of NASA work looking for signs of intelligent life . . . in Congress (This has to be a spoof?)

Federally funded solar panels at a New Hampshire airport covered up because the glare blinds pilots

The Bridge to Nowhere, still getting taxpayer cash

(For more detailed information, I guess you have to buy the book, if your stomach can take it.

In the meantime, the Obama government is cutting benefits to American war veterans!)

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

I Peres Meets With Gulf Arab Leaders II Mordechai Kedar: The West’s Great Betrayal of Israel and Itself

Peres Meets With Gulf Arab Leaders

I Peres Meets With Gulf Arab Leaders II Mordechai Kedar: The West’s Great Betrayal of Israel and Itself

By: Steve K. Walz
December 4th, 2013

II The West’s Great Betrayal
Western countries ignore the rights of Iranians to live in freedom like the citizens of the West.

By Dr. Mordechai Kedar
December 1st, 2013

I Steven K Walz:

As the Iranians move closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb, an unprecedented meeting and a startling admission have buttressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertions that President Obama’s Iran policy is alienating America’s Mideast allies.

Earlier this week Israeli newspapers reported that President Shimon Peres had been invited to speak at the Gulf Arab Security Conference in Abu Dhabi attended by 29 high-ranking ministers from Arab and Muslim countries. Peres, who spoke to conference attendees from his office in Jerusalem, focused on combating Iran’s nuclear program and Islamic extremism, urging Arab leaders to turn their attention toward building a dialogue for peace between Israel and the Arab world.

“There was a lot of excitement from both sides about Peres’s address” an Arab official associated with the event told Yediot Aharonot. “Everybody understood that this was something historic: the president of the Jewish State sitting in his office in Jerusalem with an Israeli flag and the foreign ministers sitting in the Persian Gulf discussing security, the war on terror and peace.”

Peres’s address coincided with the statement on Fox News by Michael Hayden, former head of the National Security Agency and director of the CIA during the George W. Bush administration, that the Iranians are “far too close to a nuclear weapon” and that the interim agreement signed in Geneva by the P5+1 powers will eventually lead Iran to becoming a “nuclear threshold state.”

Netanyahu and Saudi leaders have reportedly lost confidence in Obama’s diplomatic gambit and believe the White House is on the verge of accepting the inevitability of a nuclear Iran.

In a last-ditch effort to prove to President Obama and the leaders of France, Germany and the UK that Iran is lying about the military aspects of its allegedly peaceful nuclear program, Netanyahu has reportedly ordered Israeli military intelligence and Mossad teams to find irrefutable evidence of Iranian subterfuge.

An Israeli intelligence operative told the Sunday Times of London, “Everyone has his own view regarding the Geneva agreement, but it is clear that if a smoking gun is produced, it will tumble like a house of cards.” Israeli agents are focusing on three aspects of Iran’s nuclear efforts including secret nuclear enrichment locations, bomb-building blueprints and the expansion of ballistic missile sites that could deliver a nuclear weapon. At the same time, there have also been reports in the Arab media that Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service may launch a cyber attack upon key Iranian installations associated with the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

II The West’s Great Betrayal Western countries ignore the rights of Iranians to live in freedom like the citizens of the West.
By Dr. Mordechai Kedar
December 1st, 2013

The masses were threatening to topple the regime in Tehran during the 2009–10 Iranian election protests. The new Geneva agreement tore the mask from the face of hypocrisy that characterizes the politicians in the West today, who don’t care at all about Iranians’ right to freedom.

Since the signing of the Geneva agreement between Iran and the group of six countries at the end of last week, media outlets the world over have been discussing the agreement and the easing of sanctions, what Iran will give in return and the ability — which exists or does not exist — to oversee whether the Iranians, who have lied and cheated the world for many years, will faithfully carry out what they agreed to and signed on.

There were those who wondered about the absence of the demand for Iran to dismantle the plutonium reactor in Arak, whose purpose is only military, and there were those who calculated the time that would be required for the Iranians to renew the activity toward producing a bomb.

The media outlets of the world dealt quite a bit with Israel’s concern, the rage of the Saudis’ and people in the Gulf Emirates, and everyone wonders what Israel will do, who is not part of the agreement. The common element among most of those who have been discussing the matter is that everyone sees only two sides, Iran and the West, and ponders which of these two sides has gained more from the agreement.

Most of the commentators ignore the third party, large but silent, in pain but obedient, who experienced a major defeat as a result of the agreement. This party is the majority of eighty-million Iranians. It is no secret that the great majority of Iranian citizens hate the regime of the Ayatollahs with all their hearts, and from time to time express this hatred with demonstrations and street disturbances, such as those that swept the streets of Iran after the “elections” for presidency in June of 2009 and which brought about the deaths of hundreds of demonstrators who were champions of liberty and hungry for freedom.

They, the restless young men and women, secular up to their ears, aspiring to freedom but living under oppression, educated but unemployed, suffering from the terrible corruption that the regime of the ayatollahs is immersed in, hoped that the economic sanctions on the dark regime would suffocate it and bring it to its end.

This was not a wild hope: in the past it was learned that at the height of the wave of protest demonstrations about the stealing of the elections in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “reelected” in 2009, the rulers of Iran had two jets prepared in order to leave the country and escape from the raging masses. Now, after the agreement that was signed in Geneva, the sanctions are eased and the regime is beginning to breathe more easily.

The Iranian Rial – which had lost about half of its value in recent years — rose last week by two percent. The economic optimism causes new blood to flow in the clogged veins of the regime, and all of the freedom seekers in Iran feel that the historic opportunity to rid themselves of the dark fanatics who rule their lives and deaths has been squandered.

The sanctions, which were a non-violent weapon, could have subdued one of the most violent regimes in the world, if the Western countries had only maintained them. But the West has again shown its ugly face and the fact that money is more important in their eyes than values: the deals with the regime of the ayatollahs have so blinded the leaders of the western countries that they don’t see the rights of the Iranians to live in freedom like the citizens of the West.

The Geneva agreement tore the mask from the face of hypocrisy that characterizes the political behavior of many politicians in the West today. From their point of view the eighty-million Iranians can continue to live lives of misery, oppression and degradation under an illegitimate, cruel and bloodthirsty regime that spreads terror and death all over the world and is directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of many thousands in Syria, in Iraq, in Yemen, in Israel and in many other countries.

But the Geneva agreement brings Western hypocrisy to a new extreme: despite the fact that the experience of the Second World War still lives in historical memory, despite the fact that the entire world knows that submission to a dictator causes him to raise his demands and will not satiate his lust for power, despite the fact that “peace in our time” when it is based on concessions to a bloodthirsty tyrant brings “war in our time”, despite the fact that the West says that it is guided by its values, the bitter truth must be said: the right of the Iranians to free themselves of the oppressive regime does not really matter to any of the politicians who are responsible for decision-making in the West today, and the Jews’ right to live in the land of their forefathers also does not interest them. Money is the answer to everything and to Hell with truth and values.

Americans urged to support Black Republicans and help cure their dilemma with Barack Obama

Americans urged to support Black Republicans and help cure their dilemma with Barack Obama

From: Edward Cousar, Executive Director

As you know the lone black Republican in Congress — U.S. Senator Tim Scott is up for election this year after being appointed to his seat. The Democrats absolutely do not want to see Tim Scott win this Senate seat. Because Tim Scott is a strong conservative who is getting noticed by black voters. He is making the case loud and clear that the Republican Party is the party of hope, growth, and opportunity for Blacks.

Democrats believe that black voters belong to their party and should never abandon them. But they couldn’t be more wrong. Day by day, black voters are seeing that Obama just isn’t working for them.


Obama’s ultraliberal policies are crashing and burning in the most obvious way possible. And black voters are beginning to turn their backs on Barack Obama and his flailing presidency. A WSJ/NBC poll found that black voters support for Obama has dropped a WHOPPING 15 points. Yes, you read that right. Black support for Obama has DROPPED 15 points.

This offers Republicans an unprecedented opportunity to reach out to black voters and bring them into our party. But, to fund our efforts to reach out to the black community and to help black Republican leaders like Tim Scott…I need your dedicated financial support today.

More and more black Republicans are running for office. A few days ago, Black Entertainment Television (BET) ran a story on the exploding numbers of black Republicans fighting to be elected.

Black Republicans running for Congress include:


That doesn’t even touch, the dozens that are running for governor, state representative, sheriff, commissioner, treasurer or other elective office.

In 2010 BLACK REPUBLICAN PAC helped Tim Scott and Allen West to the U.S. Congress — a historic first. While Tim Scott was elevated to the Senate, Allen West unfortunately, was defeated in 2012 in a close election and now there are no black Republicans in the House.

In 2014 we must help black Republicans win their races and send a larger contingent of black Republicans to the House than ever before. Victories for black Republicans, and among the black community, would be an enormous blow to Barack Obama and the worn-out corrupt black leadership. It will strike them where they’re most vulnerable — their Achilles’ heel.

Our work is key to expanding our party and dealing the Democrats a crippling blow! We must show the black community that Republicans are the true-big, tent party.

Can I count on you for a donation of $100, $150, or even $200? Send directly to:

Black Republican PAC
PO Box 17457
Washington, DC 20041-0457

If we’re going to carry out our ambitious agenda of electing black Republicans to high office, I need you.

Please find your checkbook right now and join us to make the Republican Party relevant to the Black community. The United States of American can only benefit from such a turn of the political wheel.


Edward Cousar, Executive Director

One man’s Advice: To Bomb or not to Bomb?

Strike Iran Now to Avert Disaster Later
Redacted from an article By NORMAN PODHORETZ

Wall Street Journal
Dec. 11, 2013

Not too many years ago, hardly anyone disagreed with John McCain when he first said that “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is letting Iran get the bomb.” Today hardly anyone disagrees with those who say that the only thing worse than letting Iran get the bomb is bombing Iran. And in this reversal hangs a tale.

The old consensus was shaped by three considerations, all of which seemed indisputable at the time.

The first was that Iran was lying when it denied that its nuclear facilities were working to build a bomb. After all, with its vast reserves of oil and gas, the country had no need for nuclear energy. Even according to the liberal Federation of American Scientists a decade ago, the work being done at the Iranian nuclear facilities was easily “applicable to a nuclear weapons development program.” Surprisingly, a similar judgment was made by Mohamed ElBaradei, the very dovish director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The second consideration was that the prospect of being annihilated in a retaliatory nuclear strike, which had successfully deterred the Soviets and the Chinese from unleashing their own nuclear weapons during the Cold War, would be ineffective against an Iran ruled by fanatical Shiite mullahs. As Bernard Lewis, the leading contemporary authority on Islam, put it in 2007, to these fanatics “mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already [from the Iran-Iraq war] that they do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. . . They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.”

Nor were the rulers of Iran deterred by the fear that their country would be destroyed in a nuclear war. In the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who brought the Islamist revolution to Iran in 1979: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. . . . I say let this land [Iran] go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.” (The quote appeared in a 1981 Iranian collection of the ayatollah’s speeches. In later editions, that line and others were deleted as Iran tried to stir up nationalistic fervor amid the war with Iraq.)

And here, speaking in particular of a nuclear exchange with Israel—that “cancer” which the mullahs were and are solemnly pledged to wipe off the map—is the famous “moderate” Hashemi Rafsanjani, in an Al-Quds Day sermon at Tehran University on Dec. 14, 2001: “Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” Mr. Rafsanjani, an earlier president of Iran, is the sponsor and mentor of its current president, that other celebrated “moderate,” Hasan Rouhani.

The third consideration behind the old consensus was the conviction that even if the mullahs could be deterred, their acquisition of a nuclear capability would inevitably trigger a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Because the Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere throughout the region were all terrified at the prospect of being lorded over and held hostage by an Iran ruled by their ancestral enemies the Shiites, those regimes would rush to equip themselves with their own nuclear arsenals.

Yet as the years wore on, it became clear, even to the believers in this strategy, that the Iranians would not be stopped either by increasingly harsh sanctions—or by endless negotiations. One might have expected the strategy’s proponents to conclude, if with all due reluctance, that the only recourse left was to make good on the threat of military action. Yet while they continued to insist that “all options are on the table,” it also became increasingly clear that for Western political leaders as well as the mainstream think tanks and the punditocracy, the stomach for the military option was no longer there, if indeed it had ever been.

And so began the process of what Col. Allard calls “learning to love the Iranian bomb.” The first step was to raise serious doubts about the old consensus. Yes, the Iranians were determined to build a bomb, and, yes, the mullahs were Islamist fanatics, but on further reflection there was good reason to think that they were not really as suicidal as the likes of Bernard Lewis persuaded us. That being the case, there was also good reason to drop the idea that it would be impossible to deter and contain them, as we had done even with the far more powerful Soviets and Chinese.

It was the new consensus shaped by such thinking that prepared the way for the accord reached by six major powers with Iran in Geneva last month. The Obama administration tells us that the interim agreement puts Iran on a track that will lead to the abandonment of its quest for a nuclear arsenal. But the Iranians are jubilant because they know that the only abandonment going on is of our own effort to keep them from getting the bomb.

Given how very unlikely it is that President Obama, despite his all-options-on-the-table protestations to the contrary, would ever take military action, the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb. And when it does, the Israelis will be forced to decide whether to wait for a nuclear attack and then to retaliate out of the rubble, or to pre-empt with a nuclear strike of their own. But the Iranians will be faced with the same dilemma. Under these unprecedentedly hair-trigger circumstances, it will take no time before one of them tries to beat the other to the punch.

And so my counsel to proponents of the new consensus is to consider the unspeakable horrors that would then be visited not just on Israel and Iran but on the entire region and beyond. The destruction would be far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today when there is still a chance to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960-95. His most recent book is “Why Are Jews Liberals?” (Doubleday, 2009). (I don’t know if reading the book or any thing else will answer that one)

I Obama’s Soft Despotism by Mona Charen II Explaining Obama Economics by Dinesh D’Sousa video

By Mona Charen
Washington Times
Nov 25, 2013

The talking heads love presidential analogies. Is Obamacare’s rollout Obama’s Hurricane Katrina or his Iraq? Is Obama’s false promise that you could keep your health care plan like George H. W. Bush’s “read my lips” pledge, or is it like Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? Iran-Contra anyone?

These comparisons don’t take you far. The president’s troubles are unique to his particular vanities and blind spots.

Some of Obama’s most devoted admirers are at pains to distinguish his current fall from grace from George W. Bush’s. Chris Matthews, for example, argues: “The problem with Katrina was apparent indifference. One thing you can’t hold against the president is indifference about health care. He’s the guy that rushed in, pushed through a program with pure Democratic support and took all the risks involved in it.”

The accusation that Bush was “indifferent” to the suffering caused by Katrina is to take as fact the slanders of Bush’s detractors. Matthews also extends gracious allowances for Obama’s motives (though his suggestion that Obama “took all the risks” might not go down well with the 63 Democrats who lost their seats in 2010).

This tendency to judge liberals and leftists only by their intentions is very old. At its worst, it has been offered as justification for the foulest crimes. “In order to make an omelet,” Vladimir Lenin is supposed to have said, “you have to be willing to break a few eggs.” Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, years later, replied, “I have seen the broken eggs, but no one I know has ever tasted the omelet.”

The unraveling of Obamacare is a kind of poetic justice, not just for Obama, whose overweening and utterly groundless arrogance now stands rebuked, but also for liberalism. Until Obamacare, liberals had been able to boast of providing benefits to various constituencies while forever pushing the costs onto future generations. This time is different. Why?

Republicans can take a bow on this one. Despite having lost the 2008 presidential election, they had not forfeited all influence over the political culture. Their focus on debt and excessive spending forced the reigning Democrats to trim their sails. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid troika did not dare to pass another new entitlement that would further bloat the deficit. Instead, they had to jury rig a law that would seem to be deficit-neutral.

And while Obama lied about the price to be paid (“the average family will see premiums decline by $2,500”), the costs were built into the system in various forms. The young would be forced to pay higher premiums to support the older and sicker, Medicare would take cuts, those with more beneficent plans would pay a “Cadillac tax,” inexpensive bare-bones coverage would be disallowed, medical device makers would pay a tax, Medicaid would be expanded, the uninsured would pay a fine (oh, excuse me, a “tax” according to the chief justice) and more.

Those are just the obvious costs. The less apparent include the incentives for employers to shift people to part-time work (less than 30 hours per week by the law’s terms), the increased costs of compliance with the law’s 10,000 pages of regulations, decreasing physician satisfaction, excessive centralization of care and the inevitable premium increases for those with employer-provided coverage.

Unlike Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Head Start and the rest of the federal cornucopia, the costs of Obamacare are being felt immediately. That’s a trap door for Democrats.

Obama’s admirers may offer him credit for seeking to do good, but at what price? The Hippocratic oath for physicians should also apply to leaders: First, do no harm. The entire health care system now trembles with uncertainty because Obama imposed his vision of “fundamental transformation” on a reluctant nation.

Even assuming that Obama had the best motives — a desire to see the uninsured covered — his greed to control and regulate the entire health care system revealed a man without wisdom or prudence. He didn’t realize buying health insurance was so complicated, he explained on Thursday. Anyone who’d even run a Kinko’s would know better. He didn’t keep tabs on those tasked with creating this massive, hydra-headed system. Perhaps he thought there were no problems in the world that wouldn’t yield to another Obama speech.

C.S. Lewis, who died the day John F. Kennedy was shot 50 years ago next week, warned of soft despots: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

II Video – Dinesh D’Souza with a short, simplified version of Obama economics

The politically incorrect version of Nelson Mandela from a respected journalist.

By Michael Freund

Misrepresenting Mandela

by Michael Freund
The Jerusalem Post
December 10, 2013

Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property. A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people. A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.

Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela. The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man. Highlighting his principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new, post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin. But such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.

Take, for example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to Moses and labeled him “the conscience of the world.” And then there was Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, who wrote a piece entitled, “Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one.”

Even taking into account Mandela’s astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out to be. After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents.

Indeed, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200, including many innocent civilians, asserting that, “Such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle.” His record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the lefties at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a “political prisoner” because “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence.”

No less distasteful was Mandela’s unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs and killers. Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka, Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.

Three months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as “our brother.” While there, Mandela told journalists, “The ANC has, on numerous occasions, maintained that the PLO is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.”

The following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen. “We support the cause,” Mandela said, “of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades whom you refer to” (New York Times, June 22, 1990).

Even in later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve their aims. In November 2004, when Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend, saying that “Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation.”

Now you might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided. By painting Mandela solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others are falsifying history and concealing the truth. They are putting on a pedestal a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those with blood on their hands.

By all means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country, the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is hagiography, not history. And that is something Mandela himself would not have wanted. In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one term in office, he said, “I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.”

Sure, we all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations and inspire us to strive for greatness. But Mandela was not Superman. He was neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter “S” on his chest along with a red cape. He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.

And that is how it would be best to remember him.

The writer served as deputy communications director in the Prime Minister’s Office of Binyamin Netanyahu. He is the founder and Chairman of Shavei Israel (, a Jerusalem-based group that facilitates the return of the Bnei Menashe and other “lost Jews” to the Jewish people.

Surprise, Surprise! Iran takes no time spitting into the faces of Obama/Kerry/World while negating Nuclear Agreement

Surprise, Surprise! Iran takes no time spitting into the faces of Obama/Kerry/World while negating Nuclear Agreement

SOURCE: Saudi Gazette Dec.1 2013

Iran Foreign Minister Zarif states unequivocally, “Iran has final say on Nuclear enrichment”
Agence France Presse

His (F.M.Zarif) remarks appeared to conflict with the landmark nuclear deal struck with world powers in Geneva last weekend.

TEHRAN “Iran will decide the level of uranium enrichment in its nuclear program based on its energy and other civilian needs,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in remarks reported Saturday[20 Nov.].

His remarks appeared to conflict with the landmark nuclear deal struck with world powers in Geneva last weekend, which states that the enrichment level must be mutually defined and agreed upon by both sides in further negotiations.

“Iran will decide the level of enrichment according to its needs for different purposes,” Zarif said late Friday night, according to the official IRNA news agency.

“Only details of the enrichment activities are negotiable,” he said, referring to a final accord with the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany-known as the P5+1 group — that the parties hope to negotiate within a year.

The interim agreement reached in Geneva set out trust-building measures by both sides to be implemented in a six-month period, during which negotiations over the final accord must begin.

Iran agreed to freeze expansion of its nuclear activities — which Western powers and Israel suspect mask military objectives despite repeated Iranian denials and to cap enrichment of above low-level purity, including 20 percent.

Israel and Western powers “hope” (What a ridiculous word to use in International crucial negotiations, especially with a completely unreliable, false partner!) the final accord will drastically scale back Iran’s enrichment program, which is currently producing the low-enriched uranium required for electricity and medical isotopes but could be ramped up to produce the highly enriched uranium which is a key element of a nuclear weapon. Iran has repeatedly said it will not seek nuclear weapons while insisting it has the “right” to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“We have always said we will not allow anyone to determine our needs,” Zarif was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency. “But we are prepared to negotiate about it.” (As the centrifuges keep spinning)

According to the interim deal, the final accord must “involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs.”

But it also calls for limits “on scope and level of enrichment activities, capacity, where it is carried out, and stocks of enriched uranium, for a period to be agreed upon.”

Gov. Mike Huckabee and Cong. Michelle Bachman address National Zionist Org of America Convention Nov. 24, 2013

900 plus ardent Israel Supporters attend

I Cong. Michelle Bachman

ZOA Board Member James Pollack introduced Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who said that, if either Mike Huckabee or Michele Bachmann had been elected president, the security situation of Israel, the United States and the world would be very different today. No-one in Washington, he said, is more focused, more supportively intellectually or more knowledgeable about Israel than Michele Bachmann.

Michele Bachmann opened by saying that she was absolutely thunderstruck at the events in the world of the past few weeks and especially last night in Geneva, when the hinge of history turned. A spiritual darkness has descended on our world with this decision of the P5+1and Iran, a decision with the import to change the world. Yet I think this agreement has more to do with Israel than with Iran. Israel may be forced now, when abandoned by the world, not to strike Iran even if Iran continues its march towards a nuclear bomb.

I served on the House Intelligence Committee. There have been intelligence leaks regarding Israel’s preparation to deal with Iran in the event that it has to do so, leaks that Israel might be planning to strike in the next 2-4 months, Israel investigating the possible use of airbases in Azerbaijan. Many of the secrets coming up would be secrets known to only about ten people in the whole country. Every leak puts Israel in a more dangerous position than it has been in before.

Meanwhile, Iran has obtained six months in which to continue its deceptions and preparations to become a nuclear power. Prime Minister Netanyahu will be forced to make a decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. One can’t believe the Iranian regime is serious about this agreement. Ali Khamenei made a vile speech attacking Jews and crowds in Tehran have been chanting ‘Death to America’ — this, at a time you’d think they’d be trying to put their best foot forward. Where has the Senate been? Where has the House been? Where have the pro-Israel organizations been, besides the ZOA? Where are they all at a time like this? Meanwhile President Obama is permitting Iran to keep on keeping on. Iran has been made to give up nothing or next to nothing.”

II Gov. Mike Huckabee

Sheldon Adelson, in his introductory remarks for Governor Huckabee, said that “I think few Jews are as true Zionists as former pastor and governor Mike Huckabee.”

Governor Huckabee than addressed the crowd saying, “The Land of Israel was promised to the Jews by G-d. The division of Jerusalem is unimaginable. You don’t negotiate with those who don’t want you to exist. I support a Palestinian state — outside Israel … The ZOA is the strongest Jewish voice for Israel on the face of the planet. Other Jewish organizations are sometimes afraid to ruffle feathers. Mort Klein and ZOA are prepared to pluck the chicken.

It is time for the others get over their throat colds and speak out as well.” Turning to the deal with Iran signed in Geneva, Governor Huckabee said, “This is the equivalent of giving them a shot of whisky, the keys to the sports car and telling them to go out and impress their girl.” Yet Secretary Kerry spoke, in fact, he is still talking, about what a good deal this is.

This is the time that we need a Churchill and instead we have a Chamberlain. It is Israel that has a Churchill in Benjamin Netanyahu. It is also time that we took the jack hammer to the United Nations, disassemble it, and let it float out into the East River. The UN takes our money and insults us … Our relationship to Israel is not organizational, it’s organic.

The greatest gift of G-d is to be free, and Israel is free and its borders are not set by the UN or the Balfour Declaration, but by G-d Almighty … Israel cannot talk peace to people who deny it the right to breathe. The U.S. should be saying, ‘You cannot attack Israel. An attack upon them is an attack upon us’ … Israel has been revived. The dry bones that Ezekiel saw have been revived because G-d’s hand is upon her. Standing with Israel is standing with G-d’s Chosen. G-d has never abandoned Israel and he’s not about to start and I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history … Never, never, never, never again — that is the true basis for peace.

The brilliant Dinesh D’Souza re-visits Obama’s Dream for America on Thanksgiving/Chanukah eve.

The brilliant Dinesh D’Souza re-visits Obama’s Dream for America on Thanksgiving/Chanukah eve.

Two fantastic videos with Dinesh D’Souza speaking now and at the Nixon Library one year ago


NOVEMBER 21, 2013

The American dream is a dream that goes back a couple of hundred years to when a bunch of guys got together in Philadelphia and came up with a formula for a new kind of country. The American founders believed that if this recipe was adopted, this new country would become the strongest, most successful, most prosperous country on the planet. And so it has been. Here we are, and we are on top of the world. The idea that America is based on a unique formula is called American exceptionalism.

In 2009, President Obama was asked, “Do you believe in American exceptionalism?” He gave a very odd answer. He said, “I believe in American exceptionalism” but then he added this, “Just as the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believed in Greek exceptionalism.” If everyone believes they are exceptional, then clearly no one is.

It’s worth stepping back for a moment and asking, “What is exceptional about America?” What would happen if you were to come to my native country of India; what if you lived there, worked there, stayed for many years, and maybe even took Indian citizenship Could you actually become Indian? No. Why not? Because to be Indian, you need two things; brown skin and Indian parents. Being Indian is a function of birth and blood. And so it is in most countries in the world.

But, not in America. In America, the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Koreans, and the West Indians can come here and can, in fact, become “American.” You become American by assimilating into a way of life, to a constitution and a rule of law. So that’s one aspect of American exceptionalism.

Here is another: America is a country founded on entrepreneurship, on trade, and on business. This may seem sort of obvious, but historically the entrepreneur, the merchant, and the trader have been reviled and looked down upon. Confucius said that the noble man knows what is virtuous but the low man knows what is profitable.

Even in Europe today, inherited money is better than earned money. Why? Because inherited money is innocent. It fell out of the sky. If you earned it, the assumption is that you probably had to run over some guys to get it. There is a prejudice against the nouveau riche, against earned wealth.

Historically there is a totem pole, and the businessman and the entrepreneur is at the bottom. But the American founders took that totem pole and flipped it. The entrepreneur is at center stage.

For me, the American dream is not merely a dream of economic opportunity. There is economic opportunity in America. But what is remarkable to me is how well ordinary citizens have it in America.

There is a material allure to America, but when I think of my own life, what has mattered most to me in coming to America is that here is a country where I get to write the script of my own life. Here is a country where my destiny isn’t given to me, it’s constructed by me. Here is a country where my life is a blank sheet of paper and I am the artist. I think this is why young people around the world are magnetically drawn to America: because America represents the self-directed life. This is the core of the American dream.

And then we have a different dream. This is Obama’s dream. Before we get into Obama’s dream, I do want to point out that there is a common view even among conservatives, even among Republicans, that the problem with Obama is that he is a bungler, he is an amateur in the title of a recent book, he tries to do x but he gets y.

This has produced a whole set of conservative punditry essentially lecturing Obama on things like, “Obama, don’t you realize that confiscatory taxation does not produce economic growth?” “Oh, Obama, don’t you realize that by blocking oil drilling in America you aren’t going to create jobs?” “Oh, Obama, may we advise you that Assad, the dictator of Syria, or the Mullah’s in Iran are not our friends?” “Obama, you should wake up to the fact that if we slash our own nuclear weapons this will not inspire the Iranians to do the same.”

Now you can begin to see why people get conspiracy theories about Obama. He’s a traitor. He’s a secret Muslim. He’s a Manchurian candidate.

I would like to offer a little different theory, and that is that Obama subscribes to an ideology that aims to reduce America’s influence in the world. He wants to cut America down to size. He doesn’t want America to be number one. He would be perfectly happy if we were number 18 or number 37.

Why does Obama want to reduce America’s footprint in the world? Because he believes we’ve been stepping on the world. This is his ideology. What Obama really wants to do is redistribute power globally. He would like to see many countries on the world stage – Brazil, India, China, Russia, all vying for power. No single superpower calling the shots.

YouTube Video: Obama’s dream is not the American dream


II Unfortunately, this is just the cover of the 8 minute update of the 2016 Movie. He did e-mail the update video to me but it will not embed on this site or forward. You might be able to enroll on D’Sousa’s web page list and then get a copy directly? jsk

Savvy multibillionaire Saudi Arabian Prince’s analysis of Obama, US Politics and the Iran Nuclear Fiasco

Why are we feeding Palestinian terrorism? Iran Is Playing Obama, Says Savvy Saudi Prince

Jeffrey Goldberg – Bloomberg News Service
November 22, 2013

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the Saudi royal who seems to own most everything there is to own — a chunk of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, a piece of Twitter, all of Paris’s George V Hotel, the Savoy in London, and a Boeing 747 for his personal use — was sitting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago the other evening (he and Bill Gates own most of Four Seasons Holdings), offering up the view — the view of an experienced negotiator from the Middle East — that U.S. President Barack Obama is outmatched by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(By the way, this the same Arab Prince whose 10 million dollar attempted bribe donation to NYC following the September 11, 2001 Twin Towers bombing Mayor Rudy Giuliani refused. The Mayor was well aware that 11 of the 15 terrorists on the suicide mission drove 3 planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Saudi Arabians and was not in the mood to accept this attempted whitewash of this awful Arab terrorist act that killed near 6000 innocent civilians. In response to the Major’s refusal this same prince accused Giuliani of being a Jew and a tool of the Jewish lobby. Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg seems to have forgotten this part of bin Talal’s history.)jsk

Be that as it may, the Prince seems to be on a more rational tack in the present discussion:

“There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran,” he told me, with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush. “We’re really concerned — Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East countries — about this.”

It is quite something for a Saudi royal to state baldly that his country is part of a tacit alliance with Israel, but Saudi leaders, like Israel’s leaders, are frantic with worry that an overeager Obama will accede to Iran’s desire to become a threshold state, one whose nuclear program is so advanced that it would only need several weeks to assemble a deliverable weapon. Alwaleed, like Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, believes that Iran, in its ongoing negotiations with the world’s major powers, will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program. “Why are they offering relief?” he asked. “Keep the pressure on. Sanctions are what brought about the negotiations to begin with! Why not keep the pressure up?”

Obama, Alwaleed says, is a man who is in desperate political straits and needs a victory — any victory — to right his presidency. “Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obamacare. That’s scary for him.”

Alwaleed believes a stronger president would have the willpower to say no to a flawed deal with Iran. Like the Israelis, the Saudis believe a flawed deal is one in which Iran isn’t forced to put its nuclear program in reverse, by shuttering facilities and mothballing centrifuges. (Alwaleed is not a Saudi government official, but he often floats trial balloons on behalf of the members of his family who rule his country, and they consider him free to make impolitic statements they believe but cannot publicly endorse.)

“This has been going on for 30 years plus, since the Iranian revolution in 1979,” he continued. “And his people bragged about the first call between President Obama and President Rouhani. But what does a call mean? It’s nothing.” He went on to condemn Obama for folding when confronted with proof that Syria, Iran’s proxy, used chemical weapons against civilians. Obama had previously warned Syria not to cross the red line he drew on the deployment of chemical weapons.

If the negotiations don’t succeed — and clearly, Alwaleed sees no chance of success — then what? Anti-proliferation by force? I asked him if he thought the Arab states would actually back an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, if this terrible option should come to pass. “Publicly, they would be against it,” he said. “Privately, they would love it.”

What about at the level of the so-called Arab Street? “The Sunnis will love it,” he said, referring to the dominant branch of Islam, to which most Arab Muslims adhere. “The Sunni Muslim is very much anti-Shiite, and very much anti-, anti-, anti-Iran,” he said.

You’re sure they loathe Iran more than they loathe Israel?

“Look, Iran is a huge threat, historically speaking,” he said. “The Persian empire was always against the Muslim Arab empire, especially against the Sunnis. The threat is from Persia, not from Israel. This was a great empire ruling the whole neighborhood. I’ll tell you something — they are in Bahrain, they are in Iraq, they are in Syria, they are with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, which is Sunni, in Gaza. They are intruding into these areas. King Abdullah of Jordan had a good statement on this — he said that a Shiite crescent begins from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and goes down to Palestine, to Hamas.”

Alwaleed, who spent much of our time together criticizing Obama, also reserved some criticism for Saudi Arabia’s Jewish ally. He said that if Netanyahu would make advances in the peace process with Palestinians, he would help marginalize Iran. “If you want to weaken Iran’s position in the Arab world, you should have peace with the Palestinians. This would help move Iran away from this issue. This is the heart of it. Hezbollah will not go away, but they will be weakened.”

“This last piece of analysis made good sense to me” (Jeffrey Goldberg).

(And, that’s where Jeffrey Goldberg lost me and all credibility as a political analyst by ignoring Alaweed’s previous political position vis-a-vis Jews and Israel. Any political analyst, without some “liberal” agenda of his own, knows that the Israeli/PA dispute has absolutely nothing to do with Iran’s frantic efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. This Arab, Alwaleed, is just another Arab taking a shot at Israel that will forever, please G-d, act as a thorn in their throats. The Arabs know very well that Israel is the major obstruction to Islam’s goal to rule the Middle East now and the rest of us as soon as possible – no matter how many centuries it may take. And, if Jeffrey Goldberg does not understand that and evidently he does not, he is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is and I had some doubts of my own, even before this outrageous aside “made good sense” to him.)

Jerome S. Kaufman