Democrat Chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz: Saying Life Begins at
Conception Is ‘Extreme and Radical’
by Stephen Frank
When does life begin? “Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is “an extreme and radical step.”
If life does not begin at conception then when. A nut at the University of Pennsylvania, a profess named Singer, believes abortions should be legal until a children is two years old. So at 18 months if you do not like them, you can drown the kid and call it an abortion. The Left is plainly sick.
When conceived the result is a human child–not a dog, monkey or elephant. It knows pain. The chair of the Democrat Party is the extremist, to her a baby, born and unborn are inconveniences that can be thrown away lick a gum wrapper. She has no respect for life–she prefers savings murderers than babies. Maybe some sensitivity training and therapy would help her.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz: Saying Life Begins at Conception Is ‘Extreme and Radical’
By Matt Cover,cnsnews.com.11/3/11
(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that for states to enact constitutional amendments that say human life begins at conception is “an extreme and radical step.”
“For the vast majority of Americans, including people on both sides of the abortion issue, this is an extreme and radical step,” she said.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call, Wasserman-Schultz said that so-called personhood amendments are a “divisive, dangerous, and destructive” attack on women.
“To American women, their reproductive health and choice is an intensely personal and private issue between themselves, their families, and their doctors,” the DNC chairwoman said. “But Republicans in Washington and across the country have tried to limit these rights, with their assault on Planned Parenthood in Congress and restrictive laws in the states being among several examples.”
“Now,” she said, “the effort by the far right [is] to pass these so-called personhood amendments–divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman’s right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk.”
Wasserman-Shultz called the personhood amendments being considered or petitioned for in Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Kansas, and Florida “the most extreme assault on a woman’s right to choose.”
Personhood amendments define when a human being becomes a “person” under the law. An amendment proposed in Mississippi, for example, says that a person is “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”
Wasserman-Shultz said that the Mississippi amendment–which will go before voters on Nov. 8–will outlaw all abortions and some forms of birth control (presumably because they kill human embryos) and also IUDs, the morning-after pill, and in vitro fertilization procedures that create and discard human embyros.
Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states are required to provide equal protection of the law to all persons.
Wasserman-Schultz said that one of her main goals was to dissuade Florida voters from signing a petition needed to get a personhood amendment on the ballot there in 2012.
“We’re sounding the alarm bells now because it’s absolutely critical that Floridians understand just how extreme this personhood campaign is, what it would do to not only a woman’s right to choose but to saving the lives of women, to the opportunity for parents to be–the opportunity for men and women to become parents when they’ve not been able to,” she said.
Florida’s proposed amendment says: “The words ‘person’ and ‘natural person’ apply to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, health, function, condition of physical and/or mental dependency and/or disability, or method of reproduction, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
The Kansas Citian
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Barack Obama accused by two men of inappropriate
During Barack Obama’s tenure as the president of the Harvard Law Review in the late 1980s, at least two male student editors complained to colleagues and senior
university officials about inappropriate behavior by Obama, ultimately leaving their positions at the journal, multiple sources confirm to THE KANSAS CITIAN.
The men complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Obama that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the
university that gave them financial payouts to leave the journal. The agreements also included language that bars the men from talking about their departures.
In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints.
THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.
White House spokesman Jay Carney told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.
Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review from late-1988 to mid-1989. THE KANSAS CITIAN learned of the allegations against him, and over the course of several weeks, has put together accounts of what happened by talking to a lengthy roster of former university officials, current and past students and others familiar with the workings of the journal at the time Obama was there.
In one case, THE KANSAS CITIAN has seen documentation describing the allegations and showing that the university formally resolved the matter. Both men received separation packages that were in the five-figure range.
On the details of Obama’s allegedly inappropriate behavior with the two men, THE KANSAS CITIAN has a half-dozen sources shedding light on different aspects of the complaints.
The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the men upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned journal events and at the journal’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made men who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.
UPDATE: Third man comes forward to AP.
A third former editor says he considered filing a workplace complaint over what he considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Barack Obama when he
worked under the president in the 1991 at the University of Chicago. He says the behavior included a private invitation to his apartment.
He worked for the University of Chicago when he was a Visiting Law and Government Fellow. He told The Associated Press that Obama made sexually
suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that the two editors of the Harvard Law Review had settled separate harassment complaints against him. The
employee described situations in which he said Obama told him he had confided to colleagues how attractive he was and invited him to his apartment outside work. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he feared retaliation. The White House declined to comment.
Obama Team Says Prayer ‘Dilutes’ WWII Memorial Message
There’s common sense. There’s the faith in God that helped build this country and hold it together through trying times such as World War II. Then, there’s the Obama administration, which appears to lack both of the above. During a congressional hearing on whether to include President Roosevelt’s famous prayer as part of the WWII Memorial, an Obama administration official objected, saying the prayer would “dilute” the memorial’s central message. What is happening to this country?
As reported by Fox News, “Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.”
“It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation’s distinguished World War II veterans,” Rep. Bill Johnson said. “President Roosevelt’s prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression.”
But Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would “dilute” the memorial’s central message and therefore “should not be altered.”
“It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in HR 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial’s central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors,” Abbey said in written testimony.
CNSNews.com reports that in trying to cover himself, Abbey said his opposition is not to the prayer itself but that the prayer would “intrude” on the memorial, “something that is technically prohibited by federal law.”
“The Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new commemorative work shall be located so that it does not encroach upon an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in H.R. 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial’s central message,” Abbey said.
In other words, the Obama administration argues that Congress is trying to create a separate memorial commemorating FDR’s prayer, rather than an addition to the national World War II Memorial.
It’s sad how times change. On the one hand, we have Barack Obama omitting “endowed by our Creator” on several occasions when he has referenced the Declaration of Independence. On the other, we have Franklin Roosevelt who took to the airwaves to ask the nation to pray with him. Here is Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer spoken on June 6, 1944 that Johnson seeks to have included in the memorial:
My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them–help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Dilute the message? This IS the message. We won WWII because we were fighting the forces of evil, and we turned to God for help. We can’t turn away now
Swiss Politician Speaks Out Against Radical Islam in Europe
Muslims in Switzerland Demonstrate With Yellow ‘Star of
Jewish leaders from around the world were enraged when Muslims protesting in Switzerland last weekend used the yellow Star of David symbol as part of their demonstration against discrimination.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported Saturday that 2,000 people showed up last week for a demonstration in Bern initiated by the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland, a conservative Islamic organization, to protest anti-Muslim discrimination.
Protesters wore a yellow star sticker printed with the word “Muslim” reminiscent of the one that the Nazis forced Jews to wear during the Third Reich.
Edith Bino, president of the Jewish community in Bern, told the Basler Times that she found the use of the yellow star “so obviously wrong that it could not be taken seriously.” And Yves Kugelmann, editor in chief of the Jewish newspaper Tachles, said he found the choice of symbols “simply idiotic.”
Nicolas Blancho, head of the Islamic Central Council, defended his choice of symbols, telling the Tages Anzeiger newspaper that “Muslims are treated as second-class citizens and are discriminated against, for example because they wear a headscarf or because of their name when they look for an apprenticeship or are looking for an apartment.”
Among the speakers were British journalist Lauren Booth, sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Booth, who has converted to Islam and wears a veil.
How absurd that this community of Radical Islamists chose to use a symbol that so painfully recalls the victimization of Jews during World War II and yet so many in the Muslim world deny the very existence of the Holocaust.
Boko Haram Wants to Put Nigeria Under Islamic Law
By Clare M. Lopez
The armies of Islam arrived in the Nigerian kingdoms as early as the 9th century. The forcible conquest of North Africa—including present day Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco—imposed Islamic law (shariah) according to the Maliki school of Sunni jurisprudence over this vast swath of territory. Over subsequent centuries, relentless jihadist raids (razzias) as well as the penetration of Muslim merchants, scholars, and traders into areas of the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa eventually succeeded in subjugating Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and the entire northern half of the modern country of Nigeria to Islam.
Today, Nigeria is a large and populous West African country of some 160 million people, about half of whom are Muslim and half Christian and animist. Nigeria is comprised of 36 states, 12 of which have implemented shariah in the northern half of the country. As the renowned political scientist, Samuel Huntington wrote, “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards.” Islam in Nigeria, as in every other place on earth where it establishes power, has shown itself aggressive and violent. Shariah commands Muslims to jihad to spread the faith and, especially throughout the second half of the 20th century, Nigeria’s Muslims have obeyed: wars of domination against non-shariah-adherent Muslims like the Hausa exploded into jihad against non-Muslim tribes like the Yoruba and the Ibo (Biafra) leaving as many as a million dead. Shariah Implementation Committees drew up detailed plans to establish Shariah Courts, train and hire shariah judges, create a Religious Affairs Ministry, set up a Zakat Board, codify the Islamic penal code (hudud punishments like amputation, lashing, and stoning), and make the educational curriculum shariah-compliant.
In 2002, a fanatic jihadist group calling itself “Boko Haram” emerged from among the vast network of Nigeria’s savage Islamic militias, determined to conquer all of Nigeria, seize its oil wealth (largely concentrated in the south), and impose shariah on the entire population, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. “Boko Haram” means “Western education is forbidden” in the local Hausa language and expresses the group’s visceral hatred of all things modern, Western, and non-Muslim. Boko Haram leaders have expressed solidarity with al-Qa’eda, explicitly rejected the Nigerian constitution and democracy, and demanded nation-wide implementation of Islamic law.
Since its inception, Boko Haram, which is loosely modeled on Afghanistan’s Taliban, has unleashed a wave of vicious attacks against Nigeria’s central states that border the Muslim north and Christian south. Abuja, the country’s capital, is a planned city that was built mostly during the 1980s, became the official capital in 1991, and was deliberately positioned almost exactly in the middle of Nigeria. Unfortunately, this location puts Abuja squarely on the Nigerian fault line between the jihadist north and Christian south, sometimes called the “Middle Belt.”
A steady stream of murderous Islamic attacks against Christian churches, towns, and villages across northern and central Nigeria exploded into large-scale terrorist assaults in early November 2011 that killed more than 100 people. A car bomb that killed a number of security personnel outside a military barracks in the northeast state of Yobe was followed by a night of rampaging gunmen who blew up a bank, and attacked multiple police stations and churches, leaving behind a trail of destruction. That wave of deadly attacks was followed by U.S. Embassy warnings that Boko Haram planned to bomb three luxury hotels in Abuja over the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which fell on November 8th this year. An August 2011 suicide car bomb attack against the UN Headquarters in Abuja that killed 24, including 12 UN staff, left no doubts about Boko Haram’s willingness to attack targets identified with the West.
Media reports that describe the violence and refer to Boko Haram as “Islamists” or a “radical Islamic sect” miss the point: just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the mullahs’ regime in Iran, al-Shabaab in Somalia, or the al-Qa’eda rebels that have seized control of Libya, Boko Haram is following in the footsteps of Muhammad, obeying the command of Islamic law to wage war against infidels “…until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.” (Q 8:39) According to shariah, there is nothing particularly radical about this command, which is the same command given to every generation of Muslims since the time of the earliest Muslim warriors.
Mistaking Boko Haram’s jihad for mere disgruntlement over poverty or wealth disparity plays into its hands, enabling this sophisticated Islamic terror organization, with possible ties to al-Qa’eda, to claim its war of conquest against non-Muslim Nigerians is nothing more than a righteous effort to end corruption.
Jihad is about waging war in the name of Islam in order to spread the religion. Nigeria, with its vast oil wealth, is a coveted prize and would make a formidable base from which the armies of Islam might link eventually with al-Qa’eda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to threaten all of West Africa.
Islam’s Conquest of Europe
by Clare M. Lopez
Western liberal democratic civilization is under assault by the forces of Shariah Islam. The so-called “Arab Spring” that swept across the Middle East in 2011, while encompassing the hopes and dreams of millions who seek freedom from tyranny, unfortunately has been commandeered for the violent phase of the Islamic Awakening that began in the 20th century. The jihadist drivers of that Islamic movement seek the re-establishment of the Caliphate and global imposition of Islamic law. They are determined and sophisticated, deftly deploying information warfare to co-opt and neutralize what little remains of Western defenses.
There will be no democratic transformation of the Arab Middle East until and unless the United States and all who treasure the principles of equality, individual liberty, pluralism, and tolerance as understood through exercise of human reason begin to champion those ideals and confront those who are willing to fight and kill and die for Islam not just on the kinetic battlefield but in the far more important War of Ideas. The war we fight is far along at this point: Shariah is advancing not only across North Africa and the Middle East, but throughout the Western world as well.
Jihadi terror and violence on the physical battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and the streets of Jerusalem, London, and New York are important to the enemy but secondary to the ideological confrontation taking place inside Europe and the U.S.
While jihadis with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and Kalashnikovs sap our will to fight by draining us of blood and treasure, front groups posing as the “moderate” alternative and led by the Muslim Brotherhood, boast openly that they are working at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their [our] hands and the hands of the believers so that Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Both the terrorists who grab so much of the public attention and the stealth warriors of groups like the Brotherhood seek the same two objectives: Shariah and the Caliphate. Shariah is Islamic law derived from the Qur’an and hadiths; it’s the basis for constitutions in Muslim countries around the world and is utterly antithetical to Western law and the U.S. Constitution in myriad respects. The Caliphate is an Islamic empire. It is obligatory for all Muslims everywhere for all time to engage in warfare (jihad) to spread Islam as a “complete way of life” and to subjugate the entire world to its dictates.
Our failure to understand these fundamental realities cripples our ability to mount an effective strategy to defeat this enemy. Distracted, as intended, by the bombings, kidnappings, and killings of the kinetic wars, and unwilling to acknowledge and name the enemy even as he describes himself, we are gradually succumbing to that subversion from within. In the end, the battlefield that matters, the one where we will lose our civilization if we don’t wake up is the Information Battle Space.
In Europe, where Shariah has made extensive gains in recent decades, dozens of Islamic Courts disenfranchise Muslim immigrants and citizens alike from the local legal system. So-called “No Go Zones,” micro-states governed by Islamic law, are proliferating across Europe. Muslim residents of these enclaves demand recognition of their Shariah infrastructure and violently prevent local police from enforcing local laws. In hundreds of municipalities, the authorities simply give in, or worse yet, willingly collaborate to permit these parallel Islamic societies effectively to secede from secular national control. Mega-mosques, many built with Saudi money, are transforming the landscape while cathedrals and churches become tourist attractions (or rental space for Muslim prayer services).
Most troubling of all, though, is the proliferation of so-called “hate speech” laws. Unbeknownst by many, enforcement of such laws (intended primarily to criminalize criticism of Islam) is a top agenda item for the global Muslim head of state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Shutting down free speech is the necessary prelude to attacking other human rights with impunity. The laws of slander under Shariah are broad and subjective: slander is anything deemed offensive by a Muslim— and may be punishable by death.
European elites, who have lost their appreciation of the Enlightenment that gave Westerners the highest standards of living in the world based on the freedom to speak without fear and challenge authority and established doctrine, are now enforcing shariah language codes even as unassimilated European Muslims increasingly take shariah law enforcement into their own hands.
The Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim who took offense at his views; the fearless Dutch parliamentary leader, Geert Wilders, was hauled into court to defend his right to speak freely about Shariah’s encroachment in the Netherlands. In Austria, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff must defend herself against charges of offending Islam, Scandinavian champions of free speech like Lars Hedegaard and Kurt Westergaard battle courts and axe-wielding assassins, while Ayan Hirsi Ali had to flee the Continent altogether.
Islamic law obviously is about much more than amputations, floggings, stoning and execution of adulterers, apostates, and homosexuals. Its fundamental ideas about how society should be governed clearly are radically different than our Western ones. This is why the Information Battle Space is so crucial and education about shariah so critical to the defense of liberal democratic society. The more we know and understand about Islamic law, and how it differs from Western-style law, the better prepared we will be to defend the system that undergirds our way of life.
Iran Backs Islamic Jihad’s 8,000-Man Army in Gaza
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Hamas’ rival Islamic Jihad has built an 8,000-man army supported by Iran and “ready for martyrdom or victory.”
“Martyrdom is the more desirable,” it says.
Its estimate of the number of terrorists trained for war against Israelis the first time Islamic Jihad has disclosed how many fighters it has.
“We are proud and honored to say that the Islamic Republic of Iran gives us support and help,” Abu Ahmed, the spokesman for Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades told Reuters in a rare interview.
He denied that its weapons come from Iran and refused to comment on whether its fighters were trained by Iranians. Israeli intelligence officials previously have said that Hamas and other terrorists often travel to Iran, where Revolutionary Guards teach them.
“What I will say is that we have every right to turn to every source of power for help,” said Abu Ahmed.
He told the interviewer that there is a demand from young people to join Islamic Jihad but that it “can’t accept everyone … It is a question of quality, not quantity.”
Concerning Israel’s successful targeting of Islamic Jihad terrorists last week, Abu Ahmed commented, “It is a good feeling to be under drone attack. When we chose the path of resistance, we opted either for martyrdom or victory. Martyrdom is the more desirable.”
Islamic Jihad has become more prominent by virtue of its not being in an official political role in Gaza, which officially is governed by Hamas.
It has been the most prominent holdout in a number of “ceasefires” from Gaza, none of which has held for a long time.
Abu Ahmed boasted of an advanced missile launcher that it showed on a video last week as it fired multiple missiles almost simultaneously from a pick-up truck. Israeli military officials think the video may have been taken in some other area, such as Lebanon or Iran.
However, Abu Ahmed maintained, “The al-Quds Brigades really surprised Israel, forcing them to rethink their assessment of us … I don’t think they realized we had that weaponry.”
Is the U.S. a Friend or Enemy of Israel?
This question always elicits different opinions. Obviously, in part, the answers depend on one’s definition of “friend” or of “enemy.”
The most famous articulation of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Israel was made by Henry Kissinger in 1975 when talking to an Iraqi diplomat. To wit:
We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world[.] … We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions[.]
Before the ’67 War, U.S. policy was mostly hostile in that the U.S. imposed an embargo on arms to Israel for 20 years, from ’47 to ’67; was passive during the War of Independence, expecting Israel to be defeated in short order; and ordered Israel out of Sinai after Israel conquered it in the Sinai Campaign.
This policy was ameliorated in the aftermath of the ’67 War as reflected in Res. 242 of the UNSC, which established the principle that Israel was entitled to secure and recognized borders before withdrawing from the conquered territories.
By that resolution, the U.S. recognized that an agreement on borders had to be negotiated and that of necessity, Israel would be retaining some of the land. Of course, a friend should have taken the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired in the defensive war.
But the U.S. was committed to being friends with the Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, and this commitment excluded it. That has always been U.S. policy, right up until today.
The Arabs totally objected to this resolution and set out their rejection at the Khartoum Conference in 1968, which reiterated the three “nos”: no negotiations, no recognition, and no peace. President Nixon, who subsequently hired Kissinger, assumed office shortly thereafter and tried to move the U.S. position closer to that of the Arabs.
He presented the Rogers Plan, which required full withdrawal. This plan never got traction but always reflected the opinion of the Arabists in the State Department.
Kissinger’s statement, above quoted, begged the issue and merely referred to the reduction of Israel’s size to “historic proportions.”
When Israel negotiated the Oslo Accords without the knowledge of the U.S., the reference point was Res. 242, and nothing was said about the creation of a state, settlement construction, or Jerusalem except that it would be a final status issue.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. quietly negotiated an agreement with Israel limiting Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria to infilling for natural growth. I am sure Israel didn’t ask for such an agreement.
During the intifada II, Sen. Mitchell was sent to study the Arab violence. On April 30, 2001, he submitted the Mitchell Report, which rewarded the violence by demanding that settlement construction cease.
As part of the lead-up to the Iraq War, President Bush openly announced his support for a Palestinian state in 2002 and entertained the Saudi Plan which the Saudis presented in 2002. He agreed to set up the Roadmap for negotiations and agreed to include a reference in it to the Saudi Plan and the Mitchell Report.
The U.S. obviously hadn’t given up on the Rogers Plan and the demand for full withdrawal. PM Sharon was given no choice in the matter. The Roadmap was launched one week after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
President Bush recanted a bit in his letter to Sharon in ’04 in which he referred to Res. 242 but not the Saudi Plan, which was then called the Arab Initiative, as the basis for negotiations.
Upon taking office, President Obama disavowed Res. 242, the longstanding agreement permitting infilling, and disavowed the Bush letter as binding. He openly has embraced the Saudi Plan and has called for negotiations based on the ’67 armistice lines with swaps. In doing so, he has pulled the rug out from under Israel — or, in today’s parlance, has thrown Israel under the bus.
Of course, the U.S. would be a real enemy were it to declare Israel has no right to exist. The fact that the U.S. is committed to Israel’s existence, or so we are told, and has extensive military cooperation with Israel, suggests that she is a friend. But, given this history, requiring Israel to return to the ’67 lines, even with swaps, suggests that she is really an enemy.
Survey Finds Anti Semitism Rising In America
Swastikas were found painted on the facades of the Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst branches of the Queens Library and on the door of Congregation Tifereth Israel on Thursday.
The Anti-Defamation League today condemned the anti-Semitic graffiti. The ADL says there were 133 anti-Jewish incidents reported across New York City in 2010.
A nationwide ADL survey released just yesterday found that anti-Semitic attitudes have risen in America.
The ADL survey found that 15 percent of Americans – nearly 35 million adults – hold deeply anti-Semitic views. That’s up three percent from 2009.
“The fact that anti-Semitic attitudes have increased significantly over the past two years is troubling and raises questions about the impact of broader trends in America – financial insecurity, social uncertainty, the decline in civility and the growth of polarization – on attitudes toward Jews,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.
19-percent answered “probably true” to the statement “Jews have too much control/influence on Wall Street,” an increase from 14-percent in 2009.
Several cases of anti-Semitism have been documented at various Occupy Wall Street across the country.
The survey also found that anti-Semitic views among the African-American population have remained steady, but are consistently higher than the general population.
In 2011, 29-percent of African-Americans expressed strongly anti-Semitic views, according to the survey.
Tehran: For an Israeli Attack, Four Iranian Missiles Would Hit a Million Israelis
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) new agency Fars headlined a threat Sunday, Nov. 6: Four Iranian missiles can destroy tiny Israel, said the paper in Tehran’s first reaction to the flood of conflicting reports about a possible Israel attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.
However, Iran’s leaders are divided on how to assess the seriousness of an Israeli or American threat to their nuclear program and this is reflected in their various media.
The writer of the Fars story is identified by debkafile’s Iranian sources as Saad-allah Zarey, its senior military commentator and a crony of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
He stressed that the four missiles capable of causing the Zionist entity a million casualties would be conventional.
According to those sources point that the experiences of the Gulf war show that this number of ordinary missiles could not cause anything like the damage calculated by the writer.
What Zarey may be referring to are the stubborn rumors going around Western intelligence circles since early 2005 that during the breakup of the Soviet Union, Tehran laid hands on black market nuclear cruise missiles from the Ukraine and 3 to 5 more from Belarus.
debkafile cites a BBC report of March 18, 2005:
Ukrainian arms dealers smuggled 18 nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in 1999-2001, Ukraine’s prosecutor-general has said. The Soviet-era Kh-55 missiles – also known as X-55s – have a maximum range of 2,500km. They are launched by long-range bombers. The Kh-55, known in the West as the AS-15, is designed to carry a nuclear warhead with a 200-kiloton yield.
Our military sources add that with these missiles in hand, Iranian warplanes could bombard Israel 1,200 kilometers away without leaving their own air space.
The Ukrainian prosecutor-generalclaimed at the time that the missiles were not exported with nuclear warheads.
However our sources cite Western intelligence as suspecting that Tehran obtained those warheads from Belarus or from unconventional arms traffickers based in the Muslim Republics which were part of the USSR up until the 1990s. And indeed the Fars report did not specify what warheads the “conventional” missiles would carry.
Saad-allah Zarey described Israel as so small and vulnerable that even 100 Israeli bombs would not substantially damage Iran which is 80 times larger in area, whereas in a missile war Israel would not have enough time to rally its defenses. Therefore, he concludes, the chances of Israel or the US launching a military operation against Iran are slight.
Iran’s most radical publication Kayhan finds in its Sunday editorial that Israel is too weak and America too exhausted to do much harm to Iran. Past experience has consistently shown that outside pressure makes Iran stronger, this paper says. Iran will come out on top of threats and sanctions compared with “Israel’s defeat in its 33-day war against Hizballah,” and America’s “defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
However, another state-controlled paper, Tehran Emrooz, takes the opposite tack. Its editorial writer advises against underestimating the chances of an American military assault. According to this publication, Washington is preparing a “shock and awe” strike on Iran while at the same time stepping up sanctions.
Another editorial in Sharq agrees that “enemy plans” to attack Iran should not be taken lightly.
While all these comments reflect the debate underway among the various factions in the Iranian regime on the likelihood of an attack, no Iranian official has so far stepped forward with a definitive position.
Sunday, Ayatollah Khamenei sent a message of greeting to the Iranian pilgrims in Mecca, but made no mention of the nuclear issue except for a warning of the “perils and enemies” in wait for the Islamic Republic. And Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi likewise held his tongue on the issue in a speech he made Sunday in Tehran.
A Homosexual Activist Butchers The Bible
Ross Murray’s article on CNN’s Religion Blog, entitled “My Take: Why Christians are embracing their LGBT neighbors,” is the most recent in a steady stream of editorials and articles on liberal news outlets devoted to promoting a common theme: The Bible really doesn’t speak against homosexual practice and enlightened Christians are recognizing this in ever increasing numbers.
Although Murray repeats much of the standard rhetoric, he does distinguish himself by offering one of more egregious applications of a scriptural passage I have seen in nearly 40 years of studying and teaching the Scriptures. But first a word of background.
Murray is director of religion, faith and values at GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
This is a gay activist organization which would better be called the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement, glaringly demonstrated in their petition earlier this year which called on CNN to stop inviting “anti-gay” guests on their network to offer opposing viewpoints. (Yes, this is the voice of “inclusion,” “tolerance,” “equality,” and “diversity.”)
In his article, Murray argues that while “there is still a variety of scriptural interpretations, an increasing number of Christians are reading scripture and understanding that God’s design for the world includes LGBT people.”
Those who with agree with his position he dubs “good Christians”; those who differ are described as “vocal anti-gay activists” who are putting forth “vocal misinformation” and becoming “more shrill.”
This is GLAAD-talk at its biased best, and to decode the language used, you are “anti-gay” if for religious, moral, social, or any other reasons you do not affirm homosexuality, no matter how much you love LGBT people; you are “vocal” if you write, say, or post anything that GLAAD does not agree with (although those on the LGBT side can write, say, or post anything they want without being “vocal”); you are spreading “misinformation” if you have any scientific, academic, or theological differences with the gay activist mantras; and you become “more shrill” if you do not capitulate to gay activist pressure.
And what is it that drives the views of the “vocal anti-gay activists” who by implication are not “good Christians”? It is “fear” and “lies,” since, in the logic of GLAAD, only fear and lies could cause a Bible-believing Christian to think that God is not giddy about homosexual practice.
In contrast, LGBT Christians “build up love and break down fear.”
As for the “good [straight] Christians,” they are embracing LGBT people and their practices because they realize that “if God made them, then [they are] called to love and support them.”
But didn’t God make everyone? Didn’t He make the “vocal anti-gay activists” too? Then why does Murray disparage them? Why doesn’t he feel “called to love and support them”? And aren’t there others whom “God made” whose lifestyles or convictions Murray rejects?
Murray observes that, “Whole Christian denominations have accepted and embraced the reality of LGBT believers within their ranks and in their leadership. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ and Unitarians have formally accepted LGBT people within their denominations.”
What he fails to note is that these denominations (or the parts thereof that are gay-affirming) have also moved away from other historic biblical values and beliefs, meaning that their embrace of homosexuality should be seen as a sign of spiritual regress rather than progress.
In similar fashion, he points to the large ideological gap “between those ages 18 to 29 and those ages 65 and older . . . with younger Americans gravitating toward [LGBT] equality,” without pointing out that surveys indicate that less than one percent of these young people have a biblical worldview.
But all this is standard fare. It is his closing (mis)use of Scripture that is so troubling.
He writes, “Those who oppose equality can call it what they like, but the reality is that we are living in a society that has learned how to value LGBT people as they would others. That attitude doesn’t rely on fear or lies, but on caring relationships and trust.
It lives out the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians that someday we will know fully, even as we are fully known. It is a biblically informed reality that is helping to make the world a better place.”
What does Murray mean when he speaks of “the apostle Paul’s wish for the Corinthians”? He is referring to 1 Corinthians 13:12, which is not a “wish” but rather a prophetic anticipation of what will happen when Jesus returns. At that time, Paul writes, “I shall know fully, even as I am fully known [by God],” in contrast with our present, earthly state, in which “we see in a mirror dimly” and “know in part.”
So, the glorious hope that we will know God fully at the second coming of Christ is twisted into a wish that we will get to know LGBT people better, thereby making the apostle Paul, arguably the strongest voice in the Bible against homosexual practice, into a gay advocate.
This is what happens when GLAAD does theology. Would it be an overstatement to call this a perversion of the Scriptures?
Iranian Leader calls for ‘Islamic power bloc’
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called on the world’s Muslim nations to form an international Islamic power bloc.
Referring to the popular uprisings in the Arab world and the recent anti-capitalism movement across the world in his message to Hajj Pilgrims in 2011, Ayatollah Khamenei called on the Muslim world to “make the most of this opportunity for the formation of an international Islamic power-bloc.”
Ayatollah Khamenei said such global developments “can change the destiny of the Islamic Ummah (nation)” and herald “a bright future accompanied with dignity and progress.”
“Today, the West, the United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before,” the Leader pointed out.
The message was addressed to more than 2.5 million pilgrims from around the globe who converged in the vast plains of Mount Arafat in Saudi Arabia to perform a ritual of the annual Hajj pilgrimage.
The leader described the present era as a “new chapter” in the history of the Islamic world in which “a young generation has emerged from the heart of these nations.”
Islam has become the guiding principle of popular movements despite the efforts of secular rulers to curtail the influence of religion in the Muslim countries, Ayatollah Khamenei added.
Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the victory of Islamic Ennahda Party in Tunisia’s recent elections and noted, “Without doubt, free elections in any Islamic country will result in nothing but what happened in Tunisia.”
In late October, Ennahda, Tunisia’s largest Islamic party, won the country’s first elections since the ouster of Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidin Ben Ali in January.
“During the last decades, arrogant powers, led by the United States, had reduced regional states to a state of subjugation through their political and security ploys … But now, they are the primary target of disgust and hatred of the region’s nations,” the Leader said.
“To be certain, the governments and powers emerging from these revolutions will never submit to the disgraceful inequalities of the past; the political geography of the region will be determined by these nations,” he reiterated.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the entire Islamic Ummah (nation) and especially the revolutionary nations stand in need of “continuity of their stance and avoidance of slackness in their resolve” and “vigilance against the plots of arrogant international powers.”
The Leader warned that the global hegemonic powers “will reenter the arena with all their political, financial and security power to reestablish their influence in these countries.”
He advised the revolutionary nations to maintain “national unity and official recognition of sectarian, tribal and ethic differences” as “a precondition for future success.”
Anti-Jewish indoctrination in Spanish public schools
The following video is deeply disturbing. Reported in Spain’s ECD Seguridad newspaper, the video portrays two of Spain’s apparently famous clowns visiting a public pre-school in the Basque city of Navarre and then joining with the toddlers in a local folklore festival.
Anti-Jewish indoctrination in Spanish public schools
The following video is deeply disturbing. Reported in Spain’s ECD Seguridad newspaper, the video portrays two of Spain’s apparently famous clowns visiting a public pre-school in the Basque city of Navarre and then joining with the toddlers in a local folklore festival.
15 Statistics Which Prove That The U.S.
Economy Is In Much Worse Shape Than
Most Americans Think
The American Dream
Posted: 08 Nov 2011 05:30 PM PST
Yes, most Americans realize that the economy is not doing well right now, but most of them also believe that this is just a “temporary” downturn. The mainstream media tells us over and over that a “recovery” has either already begun or that one is right around the corner. Sadly, the truth is that the U.S. economy is in much worse shape than most Americans think. Yes, there will be economic “peaks and valleys” as we move along, but it is absolutely imperative that all of us understand that we are in the middle of a long-term economic decline that has been caused by decades of horrendous decisions. Thousands of businesses and millions of jobs have left the country and they aren’t coming back. Last year, 23 manufacturing facilities a day were shut down in the United States and we have lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001. Without enough good jobs to go around, millions of American families have lost their homes and millions of American families have been pushed into poverty. Less good jobs also means that there are less people to pay the taxes we need to keep government services going. Government debt at the local, state and federal levels has exploded as the tax base has dwindled. We have become a nation that is very good at consuming wealth but that is not very good at creating wealth. Just “tweaking” a couple of things here or there is not going to get our economy back “on track”. We need fundamental changes to the way that we are doing things, and there are currently no signs that this kind of change is going to happen any time soon.
But many Americans don’t even realize what is happening. As I wrote about recently, Americans are increasingly being segregated by income. If you live in a “good neighborhood”, there is a decent chance that you might not know anyone that is having financial problems right now. If you live in a “bad neighborhood”, it might feel like you are living in the middle of the Great Depression.
We live such insulated lives today. We all get into our cars, go to work, get back into our cars, drive to the store, get back into our cars and drive home. For most of us, interactions with other human beings are fairly limited. Our perception of what is going on “in the real world” is greatly shaped by what the mainstream media tells us.
And the mainstream is constantly telling us that everything is going to be okay.
But is that the truth?
The following are 14 statistics which prove that the U.S. economy is in much worse shape than most Americans think….
#1 According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years.
#2 Sadly, it looks like this trend is picking up momentum. During 2010, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day closed down in the United States.
#3 Since 2001, the U.S. has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities.
#4 There are way too few jobs and this is leaving a lot of people out in the cold. The average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is now a whopping 39 weeks.
#5 Only 48 percent of all unemployed Americans are currently getting unemployment checks from the government. Early last year, that number was at 75 percent.
#6 There doesn’t seem to be much hope that the job market will improve significantly any time soon. One recent survey found that 77 percent of all U.S. small businesses do not plans to hire any more workers.
#7 Without enough good jobs to go around, millions of Americans are losing their homes. Over the past four years, more than 100,000 homes in Las Vegas alone have been lost to foreclosure.
#8 As the economy struggles, new home sales continue to suffer as well. In fact, new home construction is poised to set a brand new all-time record low in 2011.
#9 As family budgets get tighter, Americans are saving less money and a significant percentage of them say that they have no extra money left to spend at this point. The savings rate in the United States in September was the lowest that it has been since December 2007, and according to one recent survey one-third of all Americans say that they have absolutely no spare cash to spend on anything right now.
#10 According to one recent survey, one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.
#11 If you can believe it, extreme poverty is now at the highest level that the U.S. government has ever recorded. Today, more than one out of every seven Americans is living in poverty and more than 20 million of them are considered to be living in extreme poverty.
#12 State and local governments all over the country have gotten into massive debt problems. At this point, the municipal bond market in the United States is coming apart at the seams. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article that appeared on biggovernment.com….
Moody’s Credit Rating Service just announced the ominous trend that credit quality in the municipal bond market is falling at the fastest rate since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Data released showed that 5.3 times as many municipal bonds were credit downgraded over the three last months than were upgraded.
#13 Today, more Americans than ever are relying on the government in order to survive. A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.
#14 Young people in particular have been hit really hard by this economy. If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.
#15 The “wealth gap” between older Americans and younger Americans continues to grow. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data done by the Pew Research Center, the median net worth for households led by someone 65 years of age or older is 47 times greater than the median net worth for households led by someone under the age of 35.
If you are doing good in the economy, you should be very thankful because there are tens of millions of Americans out there that are deeply, deeply suffering.
Most Americans understand that something is wrong with this country. According to a recent Fox News poll, 76 percent of all Americans are “dissatisfied with how things are going in the country”. At the beginning of this year, that number was only at 61 percent.
So obviously frustration is rising and a lot of Americans are extremely pessimistic right now. But most of them also believe that things will get better soon if only they vote the “correct” politician into office.
So what do you think?
Do you believe that you have the answer to the economic problems facing this country?