HOME Featured Stories October 2008 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 31, 2008.

GOLD IN THE GALILEE — A fall scene in Northern Israel

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

Walking through the hills near my home earlier this week, I thought about how I find the visual clues that are the first sign of a good photo opportunity. Much of the visual hunting I do is simply honed instinct; I let my eyes wander and they come to rest at the place of greatest interest, usually a bright spot or an area with strong colors or patterns. When light and color and pattern come together, it's an easy task to merge them into a photographic whole.

I stumbled onto this scene while hiking through a small forest in the Galilee not far from Rosh Pina at the height of last fall's color display. In the dark of the tree cover, a golden glow caught my eye and aroused my curiosity because the colors seemed unnatural. Most of the colors of fall are found in decaying leaves, such as the grape vines seen in the foreground. The intense yellow of this barren field is the result of the scattered remains of decomposing hay. Having found the photo's subject, I climbed up a small hill to get a better perspective and to add a strip of the orange vineyard, whose colors provide a nice complement to the green and gold that dominate the rest of the image.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, October 31, 2008.

The continuing existence of the Jewish people during the 2,000 years of the post-biblical era is surely a miracle, an enigma, and an astonishing phenomenon. For all of those long years the Jews lived in almost perpetual danger of extinction because they were stateless and at the mercy and whims from those within whichever nation they could find refuge.

Despite all oppression and misery, the People of the Book, defenseless and powerless, despised and persecuted, nevertheless survived in the fiery crucibles of Christian Europe and the Muslim Arab world. The two daughter religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, though meting out horrific slaughters upon the Jews, nevertheless could not exist were it not for Judaism or Israel. And the world, be it religious or secular, has been forever touched by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Spinoza, Freud, Einstein, and by so many others who have sprung from this remarkable people.

Yet another miracle occurred to the remnant of the Jewish folk who survived the Holocaust. They arose like a phoenix from what the European continent had become: one giant Jewish graveyard. They fought back against a cruel world and against incredible odds until the ancient 2,000-year-old dream of rebuilding and reconstituting the ancestral, biblical homeland in Israel became a reality.

Yet with all the long and blood soaked history that the stateless Jews endured during their dispersion, there are Israeli Jews in leadership today who would give away yet more of the biblical homeland, which many of their parents and grandparents gave their lives to redeem.

Binyamin Netanyahu, who is the leader of the Likud party in Israel, has stated that, "Today, in light of our abandonment of Gaza and the Hamas takeover there, it is clear to anyone who considers himself a 'State of Israel lover,' and not just a 'Land of Israel lover,' that if we give away more territory, it will be taken over by Iran and its appendages."

Netanyahu was Israel's Prime Minister some ten years ago and at the time was responsible for giving to the Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, the city of Hebron, one of the four holy Jewish cities — the others being Tiberias, Safed and, the jewel in the Jewish crown, Jerusalem.

Netanyahu nevertheless claims that unlike his abandonment of much of the ancient Jewish city, the present leadership of Ehud Olmert, and his possible successor as Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, are obsessed with a death wish of giving even pre-1967 land to the Palestinian Authority.

Indeed they seem possessed of a psychotic need to bribe an insatiable enemy with any and all Jewish land, and for what? Peace? Never in a million years will the Arabs and the Muslim world accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state or any other state for that matter if it is not Muslim and Arab.

Netanyahu, for his part, responds that the real debate between him and the Left, as represented in part by Olmert and Livni, is about " ... the little Land of Israel ... We're not talking now about annexing Ramallah, but rather the fate of the Jordan Valley ... about the abandonment of areas with no Palestinian presence."

Netanyahu implies that Olmert and Livni, and so many Israelis who have lost their sense of Jewish history,"... want to give away as much of ancestral Israel as possible, and we want to retain as much as possible in areas that are saturated with both historic significance and security significance for us."

For those in Israel and the Diaspora who have forgotten the bloodstained pages of Jewish history during the long night of Israel's dispersal, it would be instructive for them to be reminded of the price a people pays for statelessness.

Those rushing to bribe and placate the relentless hatred and aggression of the Arab world by giving to them the reclaimed Jewish birthright in its ancestral homeland — including eternal Jerusalem — should read the following words from the searing passion of their ancestors.

Kalonymos ben Yehuda wrote this poem about the first Crusade which took place in 1096, and about the slaughter of the defenseless Jews in Europe.

"Yea, they slay us and they smite, vex our souls with sore affright; All the closer cleave we, Lord, to Thine everlasting Word; Not a line of all their Mass, shall our lips in homage pass; Though they curse and bind and kill, the living God is with us still; We still are Thine, though limbs are torn, better death than life foresworn; The fair and young lie down to die, in witness of Thy Unity; From dying lips the accents swell, Our G-d is One, O Israel."
The French scholar, Peter Abelard, wrote in 1135 about the Jews:
"No nation has ever undergone such sufferings for God. Scattered among all the nations, having neither king nor secular prince, the Jews are oppressed with heavy taxes as if they must buy their lives anew every day. Except for heaven, they have no safe refuge. When they wish to travel to the nearest town, they must pay large sums of money to buy their protection of the Christian princes who, in truth, desire their death in order to sieze their inheritance. The Jews are not permitted to own fields and vineyards because there is no one to guarantee their possession."

Abelard remained a lone non-Jewish voice crying in the wilderness. He himself was persecuted by the Church for his outspoken compassion towards the staeless and ever suffering Jewish communities.

Ephraim of Bonn wrote in 1190 about the second Crusade:

"In the year 1146 the Jewish communities were terror stricken. The monk, Rudolph, who shamefully persecuted Israel (the name often given for the Jews of the Diaspora) arose against the people of God in order, like Haman of old, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish."

In 1793, Isaac D'Israeli wrote about the slaughter of the Jews of York, England, in 1190:

"When Richard 1 ascended the throne, the Jews brought their tributes to honor him. Many had hastened from remote parts of England and, appearing at Westminster, the Court and the mob imagined they leagued to bewitch His Majesty. A rumor spread rapidly that the Jews were to be massacred and the populace at once murdered the devoted Jews."

Sadly, news traveled north to the city of York and the townsfolk soon imitated the people of London. A cruel multitude, united with the soldiery, forced the Jewish residents to seek shelter in York Castle. The Jews held out as long as they could against the fanatical mob that by now were roused to extremes of murder and plunder. But in the end, the survivors chose to die by their own hand rather than see their loved ones slaughtered before their eyes by the mob.

Just as the Church did in its canon law, Islam instituted many prohibitions against members of other religions. Some of the Islamic restrictions resembled the anti-Jewish laws imposed by the Church throughout the Christian world. The severest punishments — usually death — were meted out to any who dared question the writings and sayings of Mohammed.

With the decline of the Islamic empire in the medieval period through the ascent of Christian Europe, the Muslim masses turned upon the hapless Jews who were increasingly forced to live as dhimmis (inferior and third class citizens) among them. Periodic persecutions and slaughters took place against the Jews who were forced to wear distinctive clothing, often absurd and humiliating, and live in ghettoes (mellahs) similar to those they endured in Christian Europe.

Though the ever present danger of Muslim fundamentalism could break out at any time (for example the 12th century Almohads) Islamic persecutions of the Jews paled against those they suffered at the hands of the Church. However, the yearning for relief from discrimination or worse, and the desire to return to Zion and the ancestral homeland, was as compelling for the Jews in Arab lands as it was for their brethren in Europe.

On August 3rd, 1492, the ancient Jewish population of Spain was driven out in the infamous Expulsion. Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled, forced to leave all that their ancestors had built in Spain over centuries, and walk in a long trail of the dispossessed to the seaports. Here are a few lines from the long poem by Emma Lazarus called, The Exodus, written in 1883:

"The hoary patriarch, wrinkled as an almond shell, bows painfully upon his staff. The beautiful young mother, ivory pale, well nigh swoons beneath her burden; in her large enfolding arms nestles her sleeping babe, round her knees flock her little ones with bruised and bleeding feet. 'Mother, shall we soon be there?'

"The halt, the blind, are amid the train. Sturdy pack horses laboriously drag the tented wagons wherein lie the sick athirst with fever. Noble and abject, learned and simple, illustrious and obscure, plod side by side, all brothers now, all merged in one routed army of misfortune.

"They leave behind the grape, the olive and the fig. the vines they planted, the corn they sowed, the garden cities of Andalusia and Aragon, Estremadura and La Mancha, of Granada and Castille; the altar, the hearth, and the grave of their fathers.

"Whither shall they turn for the West has cast them out and the East refuses to receive?"

Heinrich Heine wrote this poem in 1824 about Jewish suffering in Germany:

"Break forth in lamentation, my agonizing song; That like a lava torrent, has boiled within me long; My song shall thrill each hearer, and none so deaf but hears; For the burden of my song, is the pain of a thousand years; It melts both gentle and simple, even hearts of stone are riven; Sets women and flowers weeping, they weep, the stars of heaven."

This, from Solomon Shechter, 1903:

"I remember when I came home from the religious school, bleeding and crying from the wounds inflicted upon me by the Christian boys, my father used to say: 'My child, we are in exile and we must submit to God's will.' And he made me understand that this was only a passing stage in history, as we Jews belong to Eternity, when God will comfort His people. However, my real suffering began later in life when I emigrated from Romania to so-called civilized countries and found there what I might call the higher anti-Semitism, which burns the soul though it leaves the body unhurt."

Mary Antin wrote in 1911 about the horrors inflicted upon the Jews of Russia especially at Passover:

"The Passover season, when we celebrated our deliverance from Egypt was the time our gentile neighbors chose to remind us that Russia was another Egypt. They made it a time of horror for the Jews. Somebody would start up that lie about murdering Christian children and the stupid peasants would get mad about it, fill themselves with vodka, and set out to murder the Jews. They attacked them with knives and clubs, and scythes and axes, killed them or tortured them, and burned their houses. This was a pogrom. Jews who escaped came with wounds on them and horrible stories of little babies torn limb from limb before their mother's eyes. People who saw such things never smiled again."

In Russia, the Jews endured centuries of such pogroms. Lucien Wolfe wrote the following in 1912, titled, Under the Romanoffs:

"The plaything of a heartless bureaucracy, the natural prey of all the savage elements in society, loaded with fetters in one place, and in another driven out like some wild beast, the Russian Jew finds that for him, at least, life is composed of little else than bitterness, suffering and degradation."

In 1920, Nahum Sokolow wrote about the Massacres in the Ukraine:

"For this cold murder of whole communities, not Heaven itself, nor all the mercy of the angels, could find palliation. There is no instance that shows so much as this, the ghastly descent of human character into primitive brutality and cannibalism. This is a deed, which in its horror and wicked purposelessness should have stunned the world."

But these few examples of the many frightful persecutions and slaughters that the Jews experienced in their 2,000 year old exile are but a series of fearsome dress rehearsals before the great Destruction: the German Nazi Holocaust of the Jews.

In the mid Twentieth century, perverted science and German efficiency, along with the age old evil that is Jew hatred, combined to systematically exterminate nearly all of European Jewry — reducing the world Jewish population from 18,000,000 to barely 12,000,000 in less than a decade.

Now, in the first decade of the 21st century, a new Hitler is spewing the same familiar poison against the Jews, which the world has wallowed in for all the previous centuries. The Islamic Republic of Iran's Ahmadinejad is promising to murder yet another six million Jews; the Jewish population of Israel. He has declared that the Jewish state will be exterminated and is feverishly working towards that end with nuclear weapons.

But it should also be understood that Ahmadinejad, speaking in late September, 2008 at the United Nations, exposed his belief that in time the United States would bow down to Iran. The megalomania of Iran's president should lie to rest any belief that what he says is just foolish posturing and babbling. A terrible mistake was made once before about a man who uttered similar rants. That man was the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

It is against the backdrop of the threats of this new Hitler of our time, and with the historical memories of the 2,000 years of unbearable suffering that the Jews experienced as stateless refugees, driven from one land only to be persecuted in another, that those Israelis who today plot to give away the one and only Jewish homeland should take note.

Their foolish and prideful claims to speak for the Jewish and Israeli people in matters of security are invalid. Worse still, their betrayal and ignorance of Jewish history in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora is breathtaking in its enormity.

Prime Minister Olmert, who still remains in office in a caretaker capacity, only a short while ago told his cabinet that he was willing to even give away the Jordan Valley itself to the Arabs. And rumors are rife of his desire to give away the Golan Heights, suffused as it is with immense Jewish biblical and post-biblical history. He and his supporters should be reminded of the great Zionist poem — The Watch on the Jordan. Here are a few selected lines from that epic written by N.H. Imber:

"Like the crash of the thunder which splitteth asunder the flame of the cloud. On our ears ever falling, a voice is heard calling from Zion aloud. Let your spirits, desires, from the land of our sires, eternally burn. From the foe to deliver, Our own holy river. To Jordan return. "And in pride of our people we will fearlessly face the might of the world. When our trumpet is blown and our standard is flown, then set we our watch. Our watchword, The sword, of our land, and our Lord. By Jordan then set we our watch."

Through heroic toil and immense sacrifice in blood, the sovereign and modern State of Israel was restored and Jewish patrimony once again brought alive in its ancestral land.

Is it now to be thrown away in stages by an ignorant and fraudulent leadership who would thus consign the nation to yet another inevitable dark and tragic exile? Is it to experience once again an existence as a stateless people at the mercy of strangers?

The words in Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah, the Hope, include the following:

We have not lost our Hope, of two thousand years, to be a free people in our land, Land of Zion and Jerusalem.

Let us hope that Israel's leaders, now and in the future, do not forget those words. Let us pray that they are reminded of the horrors of exile and, in so doing, never lose the hope of two thousand years to truly be a free and sovereign people in its own land: Zion and Jerusalem.

Let us also pray that they forever resist betraying Hatikvah: The Hope.

Victor Sharpe is the author of Politicide — The attempted murder of the Jewish state. This article was published 22 October 2008 by Israel Hasbara Committee — http://www.infoisrael.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steve Kramer, October 31, 2008.

I read Alan Kligerman's letter to the editor of the Jewish Times (Oct. 17) with some alarm. I'm a "settler", as are my wife Michal, our two sons, and the rest of the 7,000 residents of our town, Alfe Menashe. We don't like being demonized by repeatedly being called Settlers with a capital S, as Mr. Kligerman wrote. There are about 500,000 so-called settlers living beyond the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line), who constitute 9% of the five and a half million Jewish Israelis. 200,000 live within Jerusalem city limits, 280,000 live in the West Bank, and 20,000 live in the Golan Heights. Among this large population, the firebrands number in the hundreds, a minuscule percentage — and some of those hooligans don't even live in settlements. It goes without saying that none of them are suicide bombers.

Let's review where the word "settler" comes from. Communities in Israel are often called "yishuvim" in Hebrew, which comes from the verb "leshev": to sit. Yishuvim can be translated as "settlements", which makes the residents "settlers". Tel Aviv is the largest example of the hundreds of towns and cities in Israel built by settlers. But in mainstream mediaspeak about Israel, the terms settlements and settlers have been given a negative connotation. This is not the case when those terms are used in any other context, such as the settlement of Jamestown in 1607, the Dutch settlers who built New Amsterdam (later named Manhattan), or the settlers who opened the American West.

What's Peace Now's beef with Jewish residents (a neutral name for Jewish settlers) anyway? Peace Now is one of several far-left Israeli-based organizations promoting Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and the removal of all Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria. It's largely funded by foreign governments like Britain, Norway, and Finland. This is from their website: "Peace Now continues to view the illegal outposts and the settlements as major obstacles to ending the occupation and promoting an agreement, as well as an element that contradicts the Israeli national interest." In addition, Peace Now believes that Jews living anywhere beyond the Green Line are attempting "to derail peace negotiations and progress towards a peace agreement".

Some Jews who live beyond the Green Line do so to build a Jewish presence while others are primarily interested in a better lifestyle, but all believe that Jews have a right to live anywhere in what the League of Nations designated as the "national home for the Jewish people". Jews who live beyond the Green Line aren't opposed to having peaceful relations with the Palestinians, but they disagree that their homes are an obstacle to peace. Unlike Peace Now adherents, almost all of these Israelis think peace is unattainable, so long as Arabs continue to use terror to deny Jews the right to live independently on either side of the Green Line.

Members and supporters of Peace Now, who are mostly Jewish, diligently join in Arab efforts to deny Israelis a place in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan, which are clearly disputed territories. Any reading of history — except in Muslim history books — points out that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish kingdom of Judea, while the Arabs, who ruled the area for hundreds of years, never made Jerusalem a capital of anything. Nor did the Ottoman Turks have a capital there after they usurped the Arabs in 1517 and established their control over the entire region bordering the eastern Mediterranean (Greater Syria).

The Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea, which devolved from King Solomon's kingdom thousands of years ago, were located primarily in today's disputed territories. The Romans renamed the area Palestine after defeating the Jews in the 2nd-century CE. Following the Arab conquest in the 7th-century, Palestine was most commonly considered part of Greater Syria. When the British defeated the Ottoman Turks in 1917 during WWI, ending 400 years of Ottoman sovereignty, they revived the name Palestine and kept control of the area until the dissolution of the Palestine Mandate in 1948. Ever since the Jews declared the independence of Israel and fought off the six invading Arab armies, the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines have been disputed by Jews and Arabs. Lately, the Arabs have even begun to question Israel's territory within the armistice lines — that is, most of Israel — by belatedly "agreeing" to the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which called for two separate states in Palestine — a larger one for the Arabs and a smaller one for the Jews, with Jerusalem to be internationalized.

Peace Now folks agitate for Palestinian rights, but have little sympathy for Jewish rights. In and around Israel, Jews are fighting a continual battle to retain our independent state. The Arabs are implacable about their demand that the original hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees and their millions of descendants should settle inside Israel. Of course, this demographic flood would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. And despite protestations in English (but not in Arabic) that they're willing to live side by side in peace with Israel, the Palestinians continue to imbue their children with hatred against Jews, to glorify martyrdom against us, and to attempt to terrorize us.

A logical but ignored target for Peace Now's complaints should be the Muslim states. These nations, especially the Arab ones, have little or no tolerance for Jews or other minorities in their own countries. While there is a tiny remnant of Jews in some Arab countries, they only highlight the huge expulsion of 800,000 Jews and the expropriation of their property in the two decades after 1948. Peace Now isn't interested in that or with the fact that Arab countries are Judenrein. Instead, their wrath is directed toward Israel, where 20% of the population are Arab citizens who have the democratic right to vote, attend Israeli public schools and universities, and participate in the work force. Peace Now concentrates on pressuring Israelis to further compromise "for peace", after Israel has already left Lebanon and Gaza "for peace". Because the Palestinians, as practitioners of Middle Eastern "bazaar diplomacy", will not compromise on their demands, extremists "for peace", such as Peace Now, have no one to badger except the more moderate Israelis.

Israel is not "Goliath" fighting the Palestinian "David". Besides America and a few other English-speaking countries, the world lines up with the Arabs against Israel. One of the reasons for this is the huge contingent of Muslim and so-called non-aligned nations which automatically vote against Israel in the United Nations. Another reason is the Western wish to curry favor with the oil-rich Arabs. But most galling are the misguided efforts of Jews and others who are quick to condemn Israel for defending itself, and slow to recognize the growing Muslim threat to Israel and to all Western countries.

Contact Steve Kramer at sjk1@jhu.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 31, 2008.

This is from the desk of Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal and this article is archived at

Paul Belien is the author of numerous articles, essays and books, including, most recently, A Throne in Brussels. He is the co-author — together with Lady Thatcher, Lord Tebbit, Philippe Seguin and others — Visions of Europe (Duckworth, 1994) and — with Harvard Business School's Prof. Regina Herzlinger — Consumer-Driven Health Care (Jossey-Bass, 2004). He has given lectures on European health care systems in various countries, including the U.S., Canada, Japan and Australia.


One will not likely find many people in the Boston phone book who would prefer to join the foreign army than their own in the event of a war between the United States and a foreign nation. In Europe, that certainty no longer exists.

Last week, my good friend David Brooks reminded us of a famous saying of the late Bill Buckley. As Buckley said, he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty.

There is usually more common sense, indeed wisdom, in the opinions of the common man than in the theories of intellectuals and even of professional politicians.

On opening the Brussels phone book and browsing through its first 2,000 names, however, one quickly realizes that to advocate Buckley's advice in contemporary Western Europe would lead to the installation of rulers with names reminiscent of Arabian Nights, names such as Aarab, Abbas, Abdel Kader, Abdellaoui, Al Mahi, Al Maghreb El Jadid, ...

The face of the old continent is changing faster than many realize and the repercussions are already being felt in Europe's elections. In many countries the Muslim vote is on the brink of tipping or has already tipped the electoral balance.

Most immigration into Europe has been welfare immigration. Hence, it is no wonder that the immigrant vote favors the Left.

In the Netherlands, 70% of the immigrants participated in the 2006 Dutch general elections, with over 80% of them voting for the left. In the 2005 German general elections, 94% of the Germans of immigrant (mainly Turkish) origin voted for the parties of the left — Socialists, Greens or "Post"-Communists — who gained 51.1% of the national vote. In France, a country with over 10% Muslims, their electoral clout has become so important that even the far-right Front National tries to attract part of the Muslim vote.

The new generation of immigrant politicians cater for their fellow Muslims. They have little in common with the former Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born immigrant who was a Muslim apostate advocating anti-islamic legislation. Ms Hirsi Ali left the Dutch parliament in 2006 and moved to the United States.

The newly elected immigrant politicians, on the contrary, represent a growing and demographically young electorate that insists on asserting its Muslim identity.

Their loyalties lie more with their countries of origin than with the Dutch nation, which they look upon mainly as a welfare distributing Santa Claus. In Belgium, Ergün Top, a Turkish-born Muslim politician who ran for the Senate last year, admitted that he feels more loyalty towards Turkey than towards Belgium. He told an audience of Turkish-born Belgian voters that if there ever were a war between Belgium and Turkey, he would join the Turkish army and fight Belgium.

This indicates that turning the tide of Islamization in Europe will be very difficult.

So here is a new statement to replace Bill Buckley's famous words: If the first 2,000 names in the phone book sound more exotic than the university's faculty staff, elections are likely to be won by the Left and Sharia law is just around the corner.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 31, 2008.


The former Fatah leader of Gaza, Dahlan, disparages the armed uprisings against Israel, because they didn't work out well. He does not condemn their terrorism. He has incorrectly been portrayed as "moderate." (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/29).

The distinction between moderates and extremists usually is false. It is a ruse, a pretext for pretending there are some jihadists with whom Israel can deal and make concessions.


Three boys in an Israeli public school wanted to don phylacteries. They found an unoccupied room in which to do it. Eventually, other children joined them. All this was voluntary.

When the principal found out about it, she forbad them. She said, ""What you are doing is religious coercion and missionary incitement. There are students in this school whose parents won't have them exposed to religious characteristics." The principal did not cite any coercion. Apparently the Left talks about pluralism but does not believe in it (IMRA, 10/1).

Coercion is against freedom of religion, and so is prohibition of religious practice.


Mediocre professors, subsidized from abroad, advocate withdrawal. The media mostly ignores polls against withdrawal and arguments against it (IMRA, 10/2).


A man from Yitzhar was arrested and held in jail, accused of firing in the air during a demonstration against the Arab village that harbors terrorists who repeatedly raid, burn, and stab in Yitzhar. The court criticized police and prosecutors for an illegal arrest (Arutz-7, 10/3).


Abbas asks the State Dept. to intervene in lawsuits against the P.A. and PLO for damages from their terrorism. The State Dept. successfully got the courts to see to it that victorious victims did not collect financial awards. Lately, the Dept. has been asking Abbas, instead, to respond to the courts promptly and to settle out-of-court if he thinks he won't like the court awards (Arutz-7, 10/1).


Funded by Iran, N. Korean scientists are building more than one nuclear facility in Syria, to replace the one Israel bombed. Syria is not cooperating with the IAEA inspectors on this (IMRA, 10/3).


The U.S. set up a permanent military base in Israel, to detect Iranian launches of missiles at Israel. The US is not feeding its findings to Israel, and not letting Israelis at the monitor. It promises to inform Israel of a missile launch.

Some Israelis wonder whether the radar gives the US an ability to spy on Israel. Dr. Aaron Lerner: "It isn't clear what 'secrets' about Israel the radar would supply considering that tiny Israel is already well within range of ship- board radar systems." (IMRA, 10/3.)


Israel can't stand a Lebanese war of attrition. Israel should respond swiftly and disproportionately. It should destroy Hizbullah's military capability and punish Syrian centers of political and supportive civilian power with damage that would take years to repair, even if it misses a few missile launchers. Force a ceasefire upon the enemy and give their rulers reason not to try again (IMRA, 10/3).

I agree. However, Israel should start now to explain to the reset of the world the need for disproportionate retaliation against such aggressors. At present, the rest of the world feigns indignation at any strong Israeli retaliation as "disproportionate." Phony ethics. Disproportionate retaliation is more ethical.


A.I. boasted that it persists in monitoring the "suffering" in Gaza, even while most of the world was preoccupied with Russian aggression against Georgia, with its human rights abuse and suffering and much greater casualties. But the ceasefire in Gaza ended most IDF involvement there, and the big news, which A.I. ignored, was intra-Gaza fighting. Having little new to report, A.I. recycled old reports. It failed to report Israel's sanctuary to Fatah refugees from Hamas.

"As NGO Monitor analysis has demonstrated, the (A.I.) report lacks evidence and credibility, largely ignores the context of terrorism, exploits international legal terminology, and presents data in a highly selective and distorted manner." A.I. did not condemn Russia! During the Lebanon War, it condemned Israel daily (IMRA, 10/3). Any excuse to bash Israel.


Candidates often fight rear-guard action. Sen. Kerry ran against the Vietnam War of decades earlier. Sen. Obama is running against the Iraq War that is almost over and won. As far as I know, neither current candidate seized the opportunity to save the hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown at banks without purpose.

As the pro-Democrat NY Times has pointed out and earlier warned against, the Treasury Dept. offered the banks hundreds of billions, ostensibly to keep credit liquid. Instead of lending the money to keep corporations and mortgages going, or to buy failing banks to salvage what they can, the banks are hoarding the money or save it to buy thriving banks so as to expand their market. That was not the purpose. It does not help the economy. It strains and drains the Treasury to no avail.

The Administration was irresponsible not to specify the condition it ostensibly lent the money for. The candidates should demand that the condition be specified, especially for the half of the funds not already lent.

Here was an opportunity for Sen. McCain to have differentiated himself from Pres. Bush.

The Obama campaign showed itself flexible in replying almost instantly to every barb by Clinton with a barb of its own. It also shows nimbleness in finding an excuse for everything negative coming out about Obama or his policy of the day. But it missed the opportunity to play a constructive role in correcting a Bush error, if error it be. Our governments have a way of wasting money on corporations.


The L.A. Times reported having a videotape of the 2003 farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the PLO, listed as a terrorist organization. William Ayers was there. So was Sen. Obama. He praised Khalidi. Party goers condemned the US and Israel. The McCain campaign asked for the tape to be released. The newspaper claims that its source asked it not to (Arutz-7, 10/30).

Why would a source give a newspaper a tape to report about, but ask it not to let the tape be screened? Doesn't make sense.

Ayers and Obama, again. Obama keeps associating with enemies of our country, especially Islamists. [Then he claims to be pro-Israel.] He says don't vote for fear. McCain doesn't preach fear, but there is reason to fear Obama.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, October 31, 2008.

With just days before the US Presidential elections it appears that Barack Hussein Obama will be declared the 44th President of the United States.

Gaps are narrowing in most polls and it is likely that certain swing states will be crucial in deciding the outcome of the election campaign.

Pundits have expressed opinions as to the voting patterns of ethnic groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and the Jewish vote.

With the sensitivity of political correctness little has been said about the power of the Arab-American vote. This is so solidly behind Obama that it rarely comes up for discussion. Some will vote for him as a reject vote against the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Others identify Obama as having a shared background and, therefore, common interests. It is not presumptive to assume that a large number of Arab-American voters choose Obama in the expectation that he will enforce a different and more favourable policy in the Middle East and the Arab world.

But what of the Jewish vote? All indicators show that a large majority will go for Obama. Though they will vote for a candidate out of personal and national interests, many selected their candidate as one who will be good for Israel and help bring peace to the region. Liberal Jews express a keen opinion that Barack Obama will stand firmly with Israel, but on what is this judgment based?

The enigma is that Obama's foreign policy is an empty page on to which the American electorate are writing their personal wish list.

Liberal Jews are chanting the mantra that Obama 'will be good for Israel' without pointing to any convincing evidence to support that view.

On the contrary, there is clear proof that Obama has politically surrounded himself with people who are radically opposed to anything that will be good for Israel.

When faced with Obama's intimate contacts with characters such as Rashid Khalidi and Khalid al-Mansour, Liberal Jews dismiss this as 'mud-slinging' and irrelevant to a future Administration's policy towards the Jewish state.

Even before Obama and Joe Biden enter the White House they both were two of a minority of Senators who opposed a congressional resolution calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be named a terrorist organisation. The vote did pass, but with no credit to either the potential incoming President and Vice President.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been training and arming both Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists. Both terror organsiations have avowed, and are acting towards, the destruction of Israel. When it came to the vote neither Obama or Biden placed themselves in support of the motion. This is seen in Israel as the opening blow in the future deteriorating relationship between Israel and the United States.

In America, people such as Jesse Jackson, General Tony McPeak, and Zbigniew Brzezinski are gleefully rejoicing over what they see as the impending end of the 'Zionist lobby' and Jewish influence on American foreign policy with an incoming Obama Administration.

Voices in Israel express concern that the new American Administration will impose sanctions on Israel — due to Israel's settlement policy — before they will impose sanctions on Iran.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that exit polls, conducted by the non-partisan VotefromIsrael.org., of early American voters in Israel show a distinct preference for John McCain. A huge 76% of those polled said they had voted for McCain. One interesting statistic in Israel was that 46% of registered Democrats voted for McCain with only 2% of Republican going for Obama.

Israel has the third largest group of American voters after Canada and Britain but the vote in Israel was strongly influenced by deep personal concerns for security and the safety of its citizens. This was a vote of no confidence in an Obama Administration when it comes to Israel.

In America, the numbers of the Jewish vote is expected to be reversed with around 70% voting for Obama. This exposes a clear misunderstanding of the issues by one of the electoral groups — Americans in Israel against Jews in America. This threatens to lead to a harmful rift between the two communities should Obama foreign policy impose strictures on Israel that are perceived here as having the potential to weaken and isolate the Jewish state.

The View from Here articles are written by Barry Shaw Contact him at netre@matav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 31, 2008.

This letter was written by Hillel Neuer and published in today's Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199599393&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hillel Neuer is Executive Director, UN Watch, based in Geneva.



The latest condemnation of Israel by Richard Falk, the UN Human Rights Council's "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967," requires some context ("UN: Israel violated Geneva Conventions," October 25).

First, Falk's UN title is deliberately deceptive. The actual terms of his mandate do not address the overall "situation of human rights" in the area concerned. Rather, the Arab-controlled council decided in 1993 to investigate only "Israel's violations of the principles and bases of international law." That means Hamas brutality against Israelis and Palestinians alike is entirely excluded.

Falk's is the only UN mandate that is inherently one-sided, presumptive of guilt and immune from regular review. What kind of person would accept such a biased mandate?

One with the moral compass to argue, as Falk did in 2002, that suicide bombings were the "only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the (Palestinian) struggle could go on." One with the political judgment to write, in a 1979 New York Times op-ed, that Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution "may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane governance for a third-world country." One with the good sense to support — as Falk has done openly and repeatedly — conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks.

In March 2008, he told a radio interviewer that there are "a lot of grounds for suspicion" that the attacks were an inside job. In June, he called for an investigation into whether "some sort of controlled explosion from within" destroyed the Twin Towers. Finally, Falk praised "the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence" of conspiracy theorist David Ray Griffin, to whose 2006 book, 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Falk contributed a chapter.

How tragic that in the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN's representative figures have gone from luminaries like René Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt to loonies like Richard Falk.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 31, 2008.

Those of us immersed in the battle for public perception realize we are in the middle of a fierce war, one like no other before. It would be a mistake to try and understand today in the context of even twenty years ago, not because the communication means are vastly different, but because the enemy continuously reinvents itself. We, on the other hand, seem to lag behind.

An effort by theory specialists in the academia to provide models for a systematic, empirical analysis of public diplomacy looks at processes rather than a particular point of time. For practitioners in the foreign ministry to join forces with the academics is a worthy endeavor. Apparently, a consensus exists within that Israel is in a crisis and that public diplomacy is a national asset which must be protected and utilized to its fullest potential, although neither side has the courage necessary to look at itself and admit — first and foremost to itself — that it is part of the problem.

Such a lofty effort must start with a present day case study, an actual example that will provide, by its hands-on nature, a mechanism to focus the attention, define the problem and provide for practical solutions. Analysis done from a distance has its value, yet there is nothing more conducive for a real analysis to take place than a true understanding of the nature and the extent of the problem. For many years I was teaching Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). I would tell the students — many health care professionals including MDs — what they need to do and the mistakes they need to avoid. Everything was well understood until I asked the first person to practice on a mannequin. The same mistakes I warned against were repeated time and time again.

When one tries to understand the influence of today's internet and the vast fields of beyond-ordinary-imagination activities it offers, one would often consult a kid. Youth at the high school level might be considered "too old." Likewise, this group of very well respected professionals and leading academicians should have invited a Dr. Daryl Temkin of the Beverly Hills-based Israel Institute to start and end the two day conference about Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century that just ended in Tel Aviv Israel.

The closing remarks pointed out that nothing we do will provide an equal response to a picture of an ambulance trying to stop a tank or of a young kid raising his hands looking at the tall soldier pointing a gun at him. [The latter is also a not-so-subtle reminder of the picture of a child raising his hands with the Nazi war machine not shown but understood to be the setting.] Dr. Temkin would have started the conference by saying that to tell a lie takes a fraction of a second, to refute a lie will take so much time and effort rendering the mission close to impossible. The way to fight it is not by responding to a web of lies, trying to explain, analyze or rebuff, but be our creative, tenacious, inventive and spirited self.

Dr. Temkin, unabashed, often goes to Muslim gatherings, to anti-Israel and virally-anti-West demonstrations or lectures and calmly stands up to offer a voice of reason, a single light in this darkness threatening to engulf us. Dr. Temkin represents all of us, a small light that dares to flicker — like a candle in the wind. He combines an ability of an orator, the knowledge of ancient and recent history as well as current events, the usage of the Bible and the clarity of the path he chooses. He often does so at a risk to his life. Like Dr. Temkin, student members of ZOA, American Jewish Congress, Stand With Us, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other organizations do wonders on the (US) campuses where they study. They are the soldiers on the front line, they participate in the ongoing battle for public perception. Not only do they serve as beacons of light, they have amassed personal, first hand knowledge of the war on public opinion.

But Dr. Temkin was not here, nor were the Israeli representatives of any of the above or other organizations whose mission is to promote Israel, defend it and fight the war in the arena of public opinion.

In war, much like in life, we must be proactive. Being reactive puts us at a disadvantage. Israel used to be smart, full of energy, daring, innovative, creative. In the area of public diplomacy Israel seems to have lost it edge and the enemy continues to gain strength and have the upper hand. Thus, when discussing Public Diplomacy, it would have behooved the researchers and practitioners to have invited those on the front line to participate. First, they could offer invaluable insight as to what is happening today on the ground. Second, they could have learned as well from history and experience amassed by the collective of those in attendance over many decades of collaborative, methodological work in their respective fields. The synergies could have been many.

Recognizing "The Conflict"

Other than two or three comments-in-passing, there was no mention throughout the sessions of the conference on Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century of the elements and substance of "The Conflict." Let one make no mistake — this is a group of very opinionated leaders, very well respected in their respective fields, and yet they all purposely avoided the subject as if afraid of fire. The silence was deafening. "Israel Beyond the Conflict" was the buzz-phrase used constantly. "'Branding Israel' will take us in the right direction," we were told.

Branding Israel, its many achievements and all its has to offer is a marketing tool whose place is in the Ministry of Tourism. Funding has been granted and the benefits will spill over, but this is not what would make public diplomacy. Indeed, "The Conflict" is the battlefield where we should all be. We must first define to ourselves this is not a conflict but a war to destroy us in a greater war to end the Western dominance and establish Sha'aria Law in a worldwide Caliphate. Israelis have internalized this notion (as evident from the fact that so many otherwise-competing egos were gathered in one place working as a team toward a mutual goal) but are still too busy arguing with themselves if they are on the "Right" or the "Left" (or avoiding this discussion altogether).

We need to face the thing we dread most: Define to ourselves who we are and what is important for us. We must first be sure we have a right to exist, that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish Homeland, a sovereign country, right in the Promised Land. Only then will we be able to fight, for we will know what it is we are fighting to achieve. Let us be very clear, it is a fight, an existential war, and we must find the thread, the tiniest of fibers which is the least — not the widest — common denominator. We are a society whose strengths are its diversity and openness and the numerous freedoms it affords. But we have gone astray due to the blinding force of the arguments and propaganda against us. For those of have not noticed, or possibly did not pay attention, the "Occupation" argument used against us has already turned into "Israel is a Nazi-regime" and the latter is gaining strength. (This is a very interesting notion on its own merits, since the same propagators of this argument deny there was ever a Holocaust although they are willing to admit the Zionists have invented it as a ruse to gain sympathy in order to claim a land not theirs.)

Like fiber optics that can transmit enormous amounts of data at an amazing speed yet are hardly visible to the eye, so is this crucial understanding of who we are, what are we fighting for, and the conscientious disengagement from being the blame. Blaming ourselves for a phenomenal marketing creation of our enemies' imagination simply falls into the hands of the enemy and the trap it has set up methodologically not too many decades ago, waiting for us to walk like a lamb ready to be slaughtered.

Public Diplomacy starts right here at home. The systematic evaluation of the history or our failures has its merits, but we will not find the energy to bring about the change, the single atoms that when colliding will create an atomic blast, the fiber optics infrastructure connecting us enabling communication to take place at ever increasing speeds, until we look inward and resolve our differences. Presenting a united front does not mean we given in or give up. It means we have recognized the threat and realize the way to confront it. When we realize that an "end to the Occupation" will not resolve "The Conflict," we will be able to create the tools, utilize the best technologies (many not yet invented) and fight the war for public opinion. We have no other choice.

The real wakeup call is to bridge the gap that currently divides Israel over the abyss between "Right" and "Left." It is exactly the one obstacle we must overcome to be able to continue. If one thinks of an obstacle course, with the world community as spectators on the sides, one must realize these are active participants, firing at us, using live ammunition, hand grenades and other lethal weaponry. The only possibility for the soldiers under fire and under close scrutiny to succeed is to work as a team. Israel knows this but is yet to externalize and implement its knowledge. Israel has the will, conviction and ability to survive, but to have a chance to continue in this struggle, we must unite.

Israel is a miracle, a blessing unto the Nations, and it is our one and only homeland. It is incumbent upon us to take the necessary steps to ensure it continued survival, its growth and prosperity. The time to reinvent ourselves is now.

Reporting from Israel,
Ari Bussel

Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonas S. Lieberman, October 31, 2008.

Sent to members of the media


I have written to all of you numerous times. If you look back on the e-mails that I have forwarded you, it will verify that I am genuinely concerned about the election and foremost that I am not a kook. Barack Hussein Obama the PREACHER that has bullied and intimidated and mesmerized the voters and the media, will probably be the NEXT PRESIDENT of the most powerful country in the world. And you are all letting a newspaper to withhold a video tape that could change the perspective of presidential race. The Democrats want to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine", however they only want it to work one way, for their benefit only. I find it very difficult to believe that none of you are concerned about these implications. If Obama becomes the next president this video will be destroyed and so will Freedom of Speech & Freedom of the Press.

Please one of you must have a few moral bones left in your body. You will let this country elect an American hater who will give away this country to only his own people! These are facts that each of you know are true but are too scared to discuss because you will be called a racist. What about a black racist, they don't exist? WAKE UP G-D DAMN IT, WAKE UP! Is it really about race or is it really intimidation by the left? You have the power to make the truth known, a member for 20 years with a spew hating Reverend wright and he remembers nothing. Would you believe that a 20 year old growing up in the same household remembers nothing? He remembers nothing he learned in school, he remembers nothing his parents taught him? How dare you believe such a liar! HOW DARE THIS MAN LIE! When he is PRESIDENT DO YOU EXPECT HIM TO SUDDENLY TELL THE TRUTH? Do any of you realize the danger we will face from a man that is lying to all of us now and once he is president. Has John McCain ever been caught lying. From the beginning of the campaign to the present he has never deviated, he never hated the United States, he does not hate the Jews, he does not hate the black people. How far do you think John McCain would get if he was accused of any of this? And if there was anything to accuse him of the Democrats would have used it months ago!

Jonas S. Lieberman
Brooklyn, New York

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, October 31, 2008.

Dear Fellow Activists,

Last Sunday morning, the Israeli Government ordered the execution of appalling actions against two Jewish families in Kiryat Arba. (Click the link to learn the details directly from one of the victims: http://www.hebron.com/english/) I urge you to send a fax (202-364-5423) and postal letter of any length, to Sallai Meridor, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. And, please forward this email to everyone on your list.

Here is my letter, for your reference:

October 30, 2008

The Honorable Sallai Meridor
His Excellency Ambassador of Israel
3514 International Drive, NW
Washington, DC 20008

Dear Ambassador,

I am sure you are aware of the tragic events that took place this past Sunday morning (actually, in the middle of the night) at the Federman and Tor homes — the smashing of their windows (reminiscent, dare I say it, of an event that took place 75 years ago) and forced entry by Israeli soldiers; the dragging of the startled, shocked children from their beds after being shaken awake; the beating of some children; the families' forceful expulsion from their own homes; and, finally, the crushing destruction of their homes, without them even having the opportunity to take any of their personal possessions! What type of state is it that treats its citizens in such an appalling, sickening fashion!

I am a secular Jew who has supported Israel my entire adult life. This support includes 25 years of volunteer service to my local Jewish Federation (Greater Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey) as a fundraiser, officer, and Board of Trustees and Executive Committee member, as well as numerous financial contributions to the Jewish State through Federation. IT IS OVER! Until the Israeli Government publicly apologizes to the Federman and Tor families and compensates them fully for their loss and suffering, including emotional trauma, and until Mr. Olmert and Mr. Barak are criminally charged for inciting and ordering the above inhuman behavior, I will not give one more cent to the State of Israel. And I will begin to suggest to others, some with substantial resources, to consider ceasing their Federation giving and, instead, contributing directly to specific pro-Jewish Israeli causes.

Ambassador Meridor, I hope you have the moral courage to call for such immediate action.

Most sincerely,
Buddy Macy

EDITOR'S NOTE: Also see David Wilder's account below

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 30, 2008.

The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, World Net Daily (WND) has established. This was written by Jerome R. Corsi and it appeared in WND http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79467 Jerome Corsi is author of "The Obama Nation."


HONOLULU, Hawaii — The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, WND has established.

A credible source, a well-known resident of Honolulu who spoke at length with WND on condition he not be named, disclosed that Davis was the source of drugs consumed by Obama.

Davis was also the author of an autobiographical novel boasting of "swinging" and sex with minors, a copy of which WND obtained from Andrew Walden, a resident of the Hawaiian island of Hilo and publisher of the Hawaii Free Press.

Obama, in his autobiographical book "Dreams from My Father," discloses that he used both marijuana and cocaine as a high school student living with his grandparents in their Honolulu apartment.

The source said that on more than a dozen occasions he purchased "8-balls" consisting of approximately 3.6 grams of cocaine from Davis at the hot dog stand when Obama was presen

"Obama was a young kid, about 14 or 15 years old," the source told WND. "I was told his name was Barry, and there was no doubt Barry knew Davis was selling marijuana and cocaine as well as hot dogs from the stand."

"Barry was also there with an older white gentleman I'm told was Stanley," the source said. "I thought Stanley was Barry's father."

WND has established that Stanley was Stanley Armour Dunham, Obama's grandfather.

"I bought cocaine from Davis at the hot dog stand," the source said. "The first purchase I made was in 1975. In total, I bought 14 purchases of cocaine from Davis. I bought what Davis called an '8-ball' that consisted of about 3.6 grams of cocaine. An '8-ball' cost $300."

As was established in "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," Obama lived with his mother and his Indonesian Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in Jakarta from 1967 to 1970, when Obama was approximately 6 to 10 years old.

Obama's mother sent him back to Hawaii alone in 1970 to live with his grandparents while she and Obama's sister, Maya, remained in Indonesia to continue living with Soetoro.

Ann Dunham subsequently divorced Soetoro and returned to Hawaii to continue pursuing a master's degree in anthropology from the University of Hawaii.

For a period of three years, Obama lived in what he described as "a small apartment a block away from Punahou," his high school.

Obama's mother returned with Maya to Indonesia to complete her anthropology field work in Indonesia.

Obama reports in his autobiography that he refused to go back to Indonesia to attend the international school there, preferring instead to remain in Hawaii and live with his grandparents in their apartment.

Obama reported that his grandfather at this time had a number of black male friends who "were mostly poker and bridge partners," describing them as "neatly dressed men with hoarse voices and clothes that smelled of cigars, the kind of men for whom everything has its place and who figure they've seen enough not to waste a lot of time talking about it." Obama then reports that an exception was "a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki."

The WND source confirmed this description matched Frank Marshall Davis's residence on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki.

In "Unfit for Publication," the 40-page rebuttal the Obama campaign submitted to "The Obama Nation," the Obama campaign admitted for the first time, on page 9, that Frank Marshall Davis was the man Obama had identified in his autobiography as "Frank."

"Unfit for Publication" says under the heading "Reality" that Obama's memoir characterized Davis as a figure from his youth who "fell short" and whose view of race was "incurable," attempting to rebut the charge in "The Obama Nation" that Davis was a mentor to Obama during Obama's teenage years at Punahou.

In "Dreams from My Father," Obama admits his grandfather drank alcohol with Davis, "sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar."

Obama also admits in the autobiography that his grandfather took him "downtown to one of his favorite bars, in Honolulu's red-light district."

Both Walden and the WND source on Davis' drug-selling both affirmed that the bar involved was one of several then located in the largely black red-light district on Smith Street, at that time located near Honolulu's Chinatown.

Obama also admits drinking whiskey with Davis, describing in his autobiography that he drove to Waikiki to visit Davis and drink whiskey with him out of plastic cups. On that evening Obama had become upset learning that a black panhandler had approached his mother and scared her at a bus stop while she was waiting to go to work.

In the incident, Obama reports "reaching for the bottle, this time pouring my own," while listening to Davis explain that Obama's grandmother was "right to be scared."

Davis told Obama, "She understands that black people have a reason to hate."

In response, Obama said, "The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone."

Obama also admitted in his autobiography that in his first two years in college at Occidental he was involved with drugs: "I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."

Obama has never disclosed his source for purchasing drugs.

The Telegraph of London reported in August that Davis and Stanley Dunham smoked marijuana together and that Obama was first introduced to Davis by Dunham in 1970, when Obama returned from Indonesia.

Hard core

The Telegraph also documented that Davis was the author of "the hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Green."

WND received independent confirmation that Davis was the author of "Sex Rebel: Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet), from an established academic expert on Davis, who wished to remain anonymous.

In a forward to "Sex Rebel," Davis openly discussed that he lived the life of a sexual swinger, writing: "I admit, however, that my sex syndrome may be more complex than that of many swingers and swappers."

He continued to disclose, "Under certain circumstances I am bi-sexual." After enumerating various unusual and scatological sexual techniques he liked, Davis added: "I'm also a voyeur and exhibitionist. Occasionally I am mildly interested in sado-masochism."

Writing as Green, Davis admitted in the foreword that he "often wished" he had two male sex organs to double his sexual pleasure: "As you see, I partake of many of the variations that our Puritans label 'perversions' — a term which to me carries moral judgment and therefore has no place in my erotic vocabulary."

According to Walden, a typical passage beginning on page 274 of "Sex Rebel" describes Davis in November 1958 stalking Kapiolani Park in Waikiki. Davis, writing as Greene, "soon encounters two tourists — a Seattle couple he calls 'Dot' and 'Lloyd.'"

"Lloyd brags to the complete stranger [Davis] about Dot's figure," Walden explained. "After a few minutes of small talk to establish their mutual interest in 'swinging' ... Davis then devotes almost all of Chapter 27 to a graphic and detailed description of their three-way sexual encounters over the next few days."

Although "Sex Rebels" is openly discussed as autobiography, Walden notes Davis/Greene frequently changes names and identities, even though Davis/Greene confirms that "all incidents I have described here have been taken from actual experiences."

Madelyn and Stanley Dunham came to Hawaii from Seattle, but there is no way in what is admittedly a fictional book to establish that "Dot" and "Lloyd" from Seattle were the Dunhams.

"Sex Rebels" also describes sexual encounters the fictional Greene and his wife had with underage children of both sexes, again without any possibility of reliably identifying the children who may have been involved.

Soviet activity

On Dec. 5, 1956, Davis appeared in executive session before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee investigating "the scope of Soviet activity in the United States," one of the McCarthy-era committees seeking to expose communists considered to be a security threat.

Invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, Davis refused to answer a direct question asking if he was then a communist. A year earlier, in 1955, a Commission on Subversive Activities organized by the government of the Territory of Hawaii identified Davis as a member of the Communist Party USA. The committee singled out for criticism several articles Davis published in the "Communist Honolulu Record" that were critical of the commission.

The commission also found objectionable a 1951 story Davis published, entitled "Hawaii's Plain People Fight White Supremacy," in the November 1951 issue of a New York City communist tabloid.

The two African-American writers Obama mentions to give "Frank" some context both had communist connections as well. Langston Hughes and Richard Wright were the two African-American writers most identified with the Communist Party USA in the 1930s.

Hughes, a prolific writer who was best known for his 1921 poem "The Negro Speaks of Rivers," told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1953 that he had been a communist sympathizer.

Hughes further testified there was a period of his life when he believed in the Soviet Union's form of government and that books he authored were written to follow the communist line. Wright, best known for his 1940 novel "Native Son," was the Harlem editor of the communist newspaper Daily Worker in 1937.

John Edgar Tidwell, a professor of English at the University of Kansas who produced an anthology of Davis' poems also confirms Davis joined the Communist Party. Tidwell argued Davis' radical poetry and newspaper articles "put him on a collision course" with the House Un-American Activities Committee and the FBI.

In his autobiography, "Livin' the Blues," Davis himself tells of being pursued by the U.S. government, saying it did not bother him.

Openly, he wrote, "I knew I would be described as a Communist, but frankly I had reached the stage where I didn't give a damn. Too many people I respected as Freedom Fighters were listed as Red for me to fear name calling."

Davis wrote, "The genuine Communists I knew as well as others so labeled had one principle in common: to use any and every means to abolish racism." Davis said he wrote to give "the widest possible publicity to the many instances of racism and the dissatisfaction of Afro-American with the status quo."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, October 30, 2008.

This comes from Debbie Schlussel's website, posted yesterday


Muslims persecuting, torturing, gang-raping, and murdering Black Christians in Africa is nothing new to me. My late father crusaded against this going on in Sudan for over two decades.

It's a reason why there are basically almost no Christians left in Sudan. And it's also the reason, as I've noted before, that liberals — especially celebrity liberals like Oprah who refused to acknowledge Sudanese genocide against Black Christians for decades — have suddenly become vocal, in recent years, about Darfur, Sudan . . . because they care only about Black Muslims who are now being persecuted, and not the Black Christians, who were under brutal attack for decades.

Here's the latest of many such "peaceful" "Religion of Peace" acts of "tolerance"

"Religion of Peace":
Muslims Behead Christian Convert Mansuur Mohammed

This was written by James White and it appeared October 28, 2008 on the Alpha & Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog.

NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) — Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness.

Muslim extremists from the al Shabab group fighting the transitional government on Sept. 23 sliced the head off of Mansuur Mohammed, 25, a World Food Program (WFP) worker, before horrified onlookers of Manyafulka village, 10 kilometers (six miles) from Baidoa.

The militants had intercepted Mohammed and a WFP driver, who managed to escape, earlier in the morning. Sources close to Mohammed's family said he converted from Islam to Christianity in 2005.

The eyewitness, who requested anonymity for security reasons, said the militants that afternoon gathered the villagers of Manyafulka, telling them that they would prepare a feast for them. The people gathered anticipating the slaughter of a sheep, goat or camel according to local custom.

Five masked men emerged carrying guns, wielding Somali swords and dragging the handcuffed Mohammed. One pulled back Mohammed's head, exposing his face as he scraped his sword against his short hair as if to sharpen it. Another recited the Quran as he proclaimed that Mohammed was a "murtid," an Arabic term for one who converts from Islam to Christianity. . . .

The Muslim militant announced that Mohammed was an infidel and a spy for occupying Ethiopian soldiers.

Mohammed remained calm with an expressionless face, never uttering a word, said the eyewitness. As the chanting of "Allah Akubar [Allah is greater]" rose to a crescendo, one of the militiamen twisted his head, allowing the other to slit his neck. When the head was finally severed from the torso, the killers cheered as they displayed it to the petrified crowd.

The militants allowed one of their accomplices to take a video of the slaughter using a mobile phone. The video was later circulated secretly and sold in Somalia and in neighboring countries in what many see as a strategy to instill fear among those contemplating conversion from Islam to Christianity.

Unconfirmed reports indicated that a similar incident took place in Lower Juba province of Somalia in July, when Christians found with Bibles were publicly executed. Their families fled to Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, and such killings are forcing other Christians to flee to neighboring Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti.

Why are Alpha & Omega Ministries and a couple of foreign Christian websites the only ones covering this? Well, we know why. It shows the real Islam in action. And we can't have that.

Nor can we have any condemnations from CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, ADC, MAS, and the rest of the usual suspects in the halal alphabet soup of Islamic violence's apologists throughout America.

All we can hear are the chorus of chirps from Jiminy Cricket and his cousins in the newsrooms and mosques all over America.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, October 30, 2008.

View (Hebrew-Arabic) conversation of admission by Arab seller

Beit HaShalom: The Hebron Jewish Community presents new dramatic evidence: An audio cassette which recorded the Arab admit he sold the building and renovated the property for the buyer.

Yesterday the Supreme Court discussed Beit HaShalom in Hebron. The discussion focused on the question of purchase and possession. This, following presentation of a report authored by an expert, testifying for the community, which contradicted the state's claim concerning validity of the purchase documents. The judges stressed throughout the discussion that even if the building was legally purchased, it is still possible to issue an expulsion order because the building was still in the possession of the Arab seller, Rajbi. For example, the judge Procatzia said, "I am struck, by the evidence presented concerning the beginning of the process and the conclusion of the process, an issue concerning purchase."

Possession, according to the judges, is expressed by the fact that the seller continued renovations in the building. Hebron claims that these renovations were implemented for them and paid for by them. However the judges did not accept this claim and informed them, at the conclusion of the discussion, that they would probably order that the Hebron residents be expelled from the building. The building would then remain empty until the question of ownership was decided in a Jerusalem District court. The Hebron community was given 24 hours to decide if they would agree to voluntarily leave the building. The ultimatum was due to expire at twelve noon today.

However, the community surprised the Supreme Court and prosecution with new dramatic evidence: An audio cassette which documents the seller, Rajbi, in a friendly conversation with a friend, saying:

1. that he sold Beit HaShalom to Eiub Jabber and received the full amount for the building.

2. That he implemented renovations in the building for Eiub Jabber and was paid for his work.

3. Shech Paroun brought him the money for the renovations.

4. That he is under pressure from Palestinian intelligence forces.

Some quotes from the conversation on the cassette:

Faiz Rajbi: (on the story of the building) ...by Allah I didn't know...
Friend: So what are you, how did you get to this subject?
Rajbi: I sold it to E i u b.
Friend: Which Eiub?
Rajbi: Eiub Jabbar
Friend: Ah, the one in Amman?
Rajbi: Yes, Eiub. I don't know, he sent me some money to renovate it. What he sent me (hinting) I don't know and afterwards I renovated for him and later investigated and... I was disgraced.
Friend: OK, who brought you to renovate, who you say stole half of it?
Rajbi: He (Eiub) sent me Shech Paroun..
Friend: Shech Paroun?
Rajbi: Shech Paroun. He sent him for me to renovate it (the building).
Friend: OK, and you didn't know he was a spy and sold it to a Jew?
Rajbi: How would I know? Tell me my friend, Jews — and the man who sold fled.
Friend: You didn't know he had contact with Jews — which Jews?
Rajbi: Never
Friend: And the money you took, for the entire renovation?
Rajbi: No.
Friend: And the price for the building, he really paid you?
Rajbi: Yes

Attorney Nadav HaEtzni sent this material to the State and the court and pointed out that this new evidence should put an end to the argument focusing on the purchase, renovations and possession and should prove once and for all that we have evidence which is the admission of the seller himself.

The cassette was transferred, together with the statement signed yesterday in Attorney HaEtzni's office by the person who recorded the conversation. Concurrently the material was transferred to some of the others involved in the case but not all, and to the court. In addition Attorney HaEtzni requested that the court order the identity of the signatory sealed and that any and all details concerning his identity be so sealed, for two reasons:

1. A suspicion that his life could be put in danger

2. A suspicion that the court proceeding could be interfered with from the moment that his identity became known, should he feel threatened. (Attorney HaEztni pointed out that this is similar to similar events which occurred with Rajbi himself, who, due to threats gave false testimony to the police and signed a false statement for the court.)

Of all of the versions Rajbi has given concerning the building (3 versions till now), this is the first one which was given in an open, heart-to-heart conversation with a friend, without any fear and this is the first one which is compatible with facts presented in the documents and the report of the criminal police identity squad (ignoring the twisted significances given by the prosecutor's office), this is the authentic version.

According to this version, Rajbi implemented the renovations in the building for Eiub, as a representative of Eiub, and in return we received payment from him. If the act of renovation is an act of his own possession, as was expressed yesterday in court by the president of the Supreme Court Bainish, "your claim is that Mr. Rajbi held the building for you in the form of a contractor, and he claims that he renovated for himself" — this question has now been fully answered.

As stated, this serves as admission by the person in question, and this should serve to finalize the entire case. So writes Attorney HaEtzni to the State attorney,

"and in conclusion, in light of the above findings, you are hereby requested to express your agreement to halt the clarifications of the petition under your consideration, until a renewed investigation and a determination of your position concerning this order, as a result of the new admission by Rajbi."

You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.
Hebron Web address: http://www.hebron.com
Ma'arat HaMachpela Web Address: http://www.machpela.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Chuck Brooks, October 30, 2008.

This comes from Israel Insider


Award-winning blogger Doug Ross reports that a reliable source has provided an eyewitness account of what he saw on the videotape of the Rashid Khalidi farewell bash that the LA Times is suppressing.

The paper used the tape as the basis for its watered-down story about the event and has been suppressing ever since, despite massive appeals — including an official request by the McCain campaign — to release indisputably newsworthy evidence that could inform voters about where Barack Hussein Obama really stands.

The eyewitness source, who Ross calls "a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before" writes:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."

It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.

The eyewitness' use of the word "we" suggests that he is a Times staffer.

In a separate development, a European financier, cited by the Atlas Shrugs blog, has offered a $150,000 reward for provision of the tape.

After four days of hemming and hawing, and trying out other excuses for the suppression, the LA Times' editor Russ Stanton came up with the following "reason": "The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it."

Ross retorts: "How frickin' stupid do they think we are?" Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?"

Now we may know why not. At the very least, the leak of the quotes may compel the paper to release a transcript, or the Obama campaign to confirm or deny their veracity.

Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 30, 2008.

O shapes 'n things
Fred Reifenberg was born in Germany, and grew up during the Hitler period. In 1940's he moved to NY. A veteran of the Korean War, he currently lives in Israel. He enjoys harmonizing with nature, and photographing nature in its many wonderful forms. Also creating a variety of abstracts, combining photography and graphics. Contact him at fred343@gmail.com. See more of his work at http://fred343-enjoy.blogspot.com/
To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, October 30, 2008.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated this week that he will use an "iron hand" to destroy the settlers of Judea and Samaria. (Since Jews have settled the entire state of Israel, it stands to reason that Barak is using his "iron hand" against the entire nation.) Barak's disgraceful statement stands in stark contrast to the words of the great Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky who stated that the Jews must build an "iron wall" to defend themselves from the Arab enemy.

In Jabotinsky's time, even the leftist, socialist anti-Jewish predecessors to Barak, Olmert, Livni, et al. cared about the Land of Israel. David Ben-Gurion went so far as to say that "no Jew has the right to give away any of the Land of Israel". While the successors to Jabotinsky remain true to our Land, the successors to Ben-Gurion only remain true to keeping their stranglehold on the levers of power.

The Jews who live in Judea and Samaria are the most patriotic and nationalistic sector of the entire nation, and they are well over-represented in the Israel Defense Forces. Their simple existence in these areas that were won in the 67 War protects the lives of the rest of the Israelis, as they provide a human shield in front of the enemy. However, Barak, Shimon Peres, Tzipi Livni, et al wish to evict 100,000 of these great Jews from their homes and hand our biblical heartland over to the Arab enemy. Barak's wish is to move Israel back to what the dovish Abba Eban called "Israel's Auschwitz borders".

So now we are faced with a renewed campaign to systematically demonize those Jews who remain loyal to G-d, the Land of Israel and their fellow Jews. If the Israeli leaders can successfully show those Jews who they condescendingly call "settlers" to be the cause of all of Israel's problems, then — it is reasoned — it will be easier to destroy their communities and evict them from their homes in Judea and Samaria.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak implied this week that most Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are dangerous to the state when he said that "not all Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are a threat to law and order." He also advocated using an undemocratic pre-state British law which calls for "administrative detention" against settlers who protest the destruction of their houses. Administrative detention means that a person is jailed indefinitely without hearing any charges against them, and without being able to defend themselves.

While Barak is tough on Jews, he's soft on terror. As Prime Minister he was a complete failure. In 2000, Barak ordered the IDF to hurriedly retreat from Southern Lebanon. Since then, PLO and Hamas leaders look at the Barak "unilateral retreat" as the example of what "prizes" they can get from Israel for staying steadfast in their opposition to accepting any Israeli sovereignty.

Barak then offered Arafat almost all of Judea and Samaria, parts of Jerusalem, and even control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem — Judaism's holiest site. A few months later, in September of 2000, Arafat turned down the offer, and commenced the new intifada with the goal of Israeli retreat from Judea and Samaria without conditions, just as Israel had left Lebanon without conditions. This war left almost 1,500 Jews dead, and thousands more maimed.

As described by Moshe Feiglin, the real war in Israel is being fought between the Ehud Baraks (who consider themselves "Israelis") and the people who consider their primary identity to be Jewish. Sadly, many Jews in Israel are unaware that this is even a war and that contrary to what they are lead to believe by the Baraks, "peace" with the Arabs will only lead to more catastrophe instead of preventing their children from dying. Barak's war is much more deadly as it not only empowers the Arab enemy, but it leads to the loss of belief in the justice of our cause on the part of many Jews in Israel and worldwide.

Ariel Sharon destroyed 25 Jewish towns in 2005, Ehud Olmert ordered the brutal beating of 325 Jews in Amona the next year, and now Barak destroyed the Federman home in Hebron this week. These and countless other examples show the true goals of the Israeli leadership — namely to rid Israel of its Jewish connection.

In order to achieve this, The Israeli government has also been an active partner to the Arab enemies' attempts to destroy the roots of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.

In an attempt to rewrite history and remove its own Jewish heritage, Israel allowed the Arabs to build a new mosque on the Temple Mount. Additionally, the Israeli government still refuses to allow Jews to pray there. Last week a Jew — Rabbi Yehuda Glick was even arrested because the police simply thought he was going to pray.

Without a past, a people has no future. It is one of the saddest stories in all of humanity that the leaders of the Jewish people are actively trying to destroy our own unique, amazing and holy history.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 30, 2008.

This was written by Bob Unruh and it appeared today in World Net Daily
Bob Unruh is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.


Facing fraud investigations, prosecutions, over aggressive 'voter registration' drives

Sen. Barack Obama at a presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York.

Acorn "shock troops" have been linked to or convicted of perjury, forgery, identity theft and election fraud in recent years, and now are facing investigation for alleged violations of federal election law in 12 states, according to a new report from Matthew Vadum, a senior editor for the Capital Research Center.

Vadum, whose work with the Research Center includes studies of non-profit organizations, has released a report titled, "ACORN: Who Funds the Weather Underground's Little Brother?" documenting the troubled past and current problems facing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

The organization for which Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama at one point trained activists and to which he directed grants while aboard the management of the Woods Fund has established a reputation for doing pretty much as it pleases, the report said.

"In 1995, ACORN sued the state of California seeking an exemption from the law that requires that it pay its own employees a minimum wage. ACORN, which argued that keeping its employees in poverty helps to boost their zeal to help the poor, lost," according to the report.

The group, described by one critic as a "hydra" for its many interconnected boards, foundations, groups and organizations, essentially has created its own economy, with the tens of millions of dollars that are donated by foundations or paid by the government being directed to whatever cause or course of action ACORN officials deem worthy, the report said.

The "30-year-old radical left-wing activist group" has taken in a minimum of $126.4 million in donations and tax dollars since 1993, the report said.

That has been used for its manifesto, which states: "Enough is enough. We will wait no longer for the crumbs at America's door. We will not be meek, but mighty. We will not starve on past promises, but feast on future dreams," Vadum wrote.

While the election 2008 controversies over electoral fraud efforts "have been indelibly imprinted in the public consciousness," Vadum said, that work is only a "smidgen of what ACORN actually does."

This year, it boasted of registering 1.3 million new voters but had to backtrack and admit only a few hundred thousand registrations actually were valid.

Some of the other "activities" cited by Vadum:

* Having 500 activists storm the Washington Hilton and forcing then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to cancel a speech.

* Pressuring Congress and financial institutions for a social basis for mortgages, rather than determine loans by a borrower's ability to repay. Critics say this is a large part of the reason for the Wall Street meltdown in the past few months.

* Disrupting a congressional panel considering changes in the Community Reinvestment Act.

* Harassing motorists waiting for traffic at intersections with donation campaigns.

* Staging protests outside the home of the chairman of San Diego Gas & Electric that were so disruptive a judge issued a temporary restraining order to keep them away.

* Dumping garbage in front of Baltimore's city hall and demonstrating outside the mayor's home, terrifying his wife and children.

* Suing the state of California seeking an exemption from a requirement to pay its employees minimum wage.

* And turning in hundreds of thousands of voter registrations that have been tossed by election officials.

The report also cited ACORN's refusal to follow basic civil rights laws or pay required taxes.

"Even though it supports the continued imposition of equal employment opportunity laws on the rest of America, it argued it shouldn't have to comply with those same laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had to sue ACORN to force it [to] comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," the report said.

"Ironically, ACORN and its affiliates, all reliable cheerleaders for higher taxes, are longtime tax deadbeats. A search of public records found more than 200 federal, state, and local tax liens adding up to more than $3.7 million that are associated with groups that share ACORN's address on Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans," the report continued.

According to the report, John Fund, a vote fraud expert, attributes ACORN's rising level of aggressiveness to its "desperation."

"He argues that ACORN had to join with unions and other left-wing groups in an all-out push for an Obama victory in the hope that the scandals would all get swept under the rug," the report said.

There also have been racketeering allegations about ACORN, officials said.

"ACORN officials 'bill themselves as nonpartisan community organizers merely interested in giving a voice to minorities and the poor,' notes the Wall Street Journal, but that façade is fading fast," Vadum said.

"In reality, the organization is 'a union-backed, multimillion-dollar outfit that uses intimidation and other tactics' to advance a 'highly partisan agenda.' Its community organizers 'are best understood as shock troops of the AFL-CIO and even the Democratic Party,'" he said.

ACORN has become an issue in the 2008 presidential race because of Obama's ties to the group as well as its own admission that more than 400,000 of the 1.3 million voter registrations it claims to have collected were not valid.

Obama has been trying to disassociate himself from the group.

"The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs," Obama declared in one of the presidential debates.

"Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names," Obama said.

But Obama's 1995 suit on behalf of ACORN, in which the state of Illinois was compelled to implement the federal "motor-voter" bill, was just a sampling of Obama's association.

Among other involvements, Obama trained ACORN activists and while working on the board of the Woods Fund, channeled millions of dollars to ACORN.

Vadum told WND ACORN had a major role in the meltdown of the stock market by lobbying for programs to loan massive amounts of money for questionable mortgages to people who probably never had the resources to repay the loans.

"It is also implicated in vote fraud schemes from coast to coast," his report added.

"With an FBI probe under way, millions of dollars in back taxes owing, and a racketeering lawsuit pending, it may finally have to answer for its many misdeeds," he wrote.

Barack Obama during a 2004 meeting of an ACORN affiliate

Of course, with a friend in the White House, answering for misdeeds could be easier. According to the report, during the primary season, the Obama campaign paid $832,598 to an ACORN affiliate for get-out-the-vote activities, and Obama has said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it."

A WND call to ACORN offices in Louisiana was referred to a "spokesman" at another office, who did not return a WND message left there.

Obama also has promised to consult with ACORN even before taking office to establish priorities.

In an address only a year ago, he told an ACORN forum that, "Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."

Vadum said the activities also represent the organization's foundations.

He cites the socialist New Party, "which served as ACORN's electoral arm, endorsed Obama, who was one of its members, when he ran for the Illinois state senate in the mid-1990s."

But he said ACORN's foundations can be traced to the 1962 Port Huron Statement, "a manifesto of radical students disillusioned with America."

The statement was written largely by famed anti-war activist Tom Hayden, who claimed America was "hopelessly racist, militaristic, and soulless,"

The result was the formation of the Students for a Democratic Society, perhaps the pre-eminent group in the New Left movement in the 1960s, a group that later broke apart.

One faction became the Weathermen Underground, for which Obama's friend Bill Ayers was a leader. Another leader was Ayers' wife, Bernardine Dohrn. They were described by Vadum as "would-be mass murderers ... who would later become members of the faculties of, respectively, the University of Illinois, Chicago and the Northwestern University School of Law."

In recent interviews, Ayers has shown no regret for his active radical days when he participated in several bombings, saying he only wished he could have done more.

Another faction, which rejected terrorist violence, was led by Wade Rathke, who had worked as a draft resistance organizer for SDS. He believed, according to Vadum, in "welfare rights" and in 1970 founded ACORN to carry out his agenda of attacking society through ever-increasing burdens on its social systems.

Not only did Ayers host a fundraiser in 1995 to launch Obama's political career, Hayden also has endorsed Obama, as have other former SDS members, including Michael and Susan Klonsky, Fred Klonsky, Carl Davidson and Marilyn Katz.

Vadum told WND that the organization simply does what it wants, even to the point of ignoring ordinary laws that are binding on the rest of America.

Wade Rathke, the report explained, "failed to notify policed when he discovered in 2000 that his brother Dale, ACORN's chief financial officer, had embezzled $948,000 from the group. Instead, Wade Rathke engineered a cover-up for his brother and allowed him to leave the payroll of Citizens Consulting Inc., the ACORN affiliate that handles its financial affairs, and go to work as his $38,000 a year 'assistant' at ACORN headquarters. The missing money was disguised as a loan to an officer of the ledgers of Citizens Consulting."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 30. 2008.
"Settler who said he hopes soldiers get harmed arrested:" See below. The article was written by Efrat Weiss and it appeared in Ynet News

The number of Arab leaders and Jewish leftists who have been arrested for cheering terrorist atrocities against Jews and suicide bombings remains zero!


Shmuel Ben-Yishai released under court restrictions after police complete interrogation. Qiryat Arba resident arrested for saying he wished IDF troops 'kidnapped, slaughtered' following evacuation of illegal Hebron outpost

Shmuel Ben-Yishai (Photo: Channel 2)

The police decided to release Qiryat Arba settler Shmuel Ben-Yishai from custody on Thursday afternoon, after completing his interrogation.

Ben-Yishai was arrested earlier in the day for inciting against IDF soldiers following Saturday night's evacuation of an illegal outpost in the West Bank city of Hebron. He was released to his home under court restrictions.

Ben-Yishai told Army Radio after security forces cleared and then demolished the home of extreme right-wing activist Noam Federman "we hope they (soldiers) are defeated by their enemies, we hope that they all become (kidnapped soldier) Gilad Shalit, that they are all killed and that they are all slaughtered, because that's what they deserve."

Ben-Yishai was summoned by police for an interrogation on Tuesday and Wednesday, but he failed to appear on both dates. Consequently, police asked the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court to issue a warrant for his arrest.

A few days after making the inflammatory remarks, Ben-Yishai said his outburst was aimed only at security personnel who participated in the evacuation.

In a statement published Monday the settler said, "Upon witnessing the brutality of the police officers during the evacuation, the abuse of the Federman family's women and children while the police offices were gloating, I was overcome with emotions, it was unlike anything I'd ever experienced before.

"I do not have to explain what a person feels when he sees soldiers and police officers snatching babies away from his friend's mother and throwing a family out of its home," the statement read.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 30, 2008.


Abbas visited Pres. Bush. Bush welcomed him as "my friend." (IMRA, 9/28.)

Abbas is a lifelong terrorist, who still praises terrorists and whose propaganda is antisemitic and anti-US. But he is the stand-in for getting Israel to emasculate itself territorially and culturally in behalf of the common Muslim Arab enemy and so Bush can pretend that he attained something worthwhile when a phony peace treaty of appeasement is signed.


MK Netanyahu said that PM Olmert is trying to give away as much land to the enemy as possible. This includes areas of significance to Israel historically and for security. He even wants to cede areas of insignificant Arab presence. I think that includes the Jordan Valley.

The last give-away was the abandonment of Gaza. Iran's proxies took it over. Whatever land Israel gives away would come under Iranian influence or control. Netanyahu learned that; Olmert has not.

Netanyahu challenged the notion that existing Arab towns may develop in Judea-Samaria but Jewish ones may not. If he becomes Prime Minister, he said, he would resume settlement activity. He made a deal giving the P.A. some control in Hebron, but did not cause any Jews to be dispossessed. However, he is allowing prominent leftists into Likud.

"Peace is made with an enemy," he said... but he must stop being your enemy — and even then, the negotiations must be handled with firmness. Today we have no partner who will obligate himself to take action. The other side must recognize not only Israel's existence, but also our right to exist, and must impose this recognition on his countrymen. These conditions do not currently exist..." (Arutz- 7 & IMRA, 9/29).


A false distinction used to be made between the military and the political wings of Hamas. That distinction implied that we could hope for a resolution, that not all the Hamas terrorists were the same.

Now a false distinction is being made between the military and political wings of Fatah. This implies that we can make peace with the military wing, if the politicians don't launch another Intifada, as they are considering doing. If they did, the military wing would join them (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 9/29).


Yediot Ahronot interviewed PM Olmert more like cheerleaders than like reporters. They asked no challenging follow-up questions. Neither did they ask him about the corruption charge of triple-charging charities for the same expense.

Do you think that these statements of his should have been left without challenge? He said, We must reach an agreement to withdraw from almost all of the Territories. [Why?] He admits he doesn't know what will happen in the P.A..

He doesn't believe in taking drastic risks, only risks that can bring dramatic change. [Since the Arabs haven't changed before the concessions, why should they after getting them?]

He claims that reserve generals who criticize him haven't learned that controlling territory is useless, the real danger is from missiles, whose range keeps increasing. [Then get the terrorists out of the Territories and out of southern Lebanon, if not get the Arabs out of the Territories.]

Israel doesn't know better than the big powers how to handle Iran, and Israel should leave the problem of Iran up to the international system. [The international system is not handling Iran. The lesson of the Holocaust is that the Jews must defend themselves.]

The Lebanon war showed that classical military warfare no longer exists. More Israeli troops would have produced more Israeli casualties without different results. [He didn't let the IDF fight in the classical way. With the powerful effort that the IDF wanted, and sufficient time, Israel could have destroyed Hizbullah, freed Lebanon, and not sign a ceasefire that left border security up to a proven misfit, UNIFIL (IMRA, 9/29).

Do Israel's rulers do anything that rebuts Barry Chamish's theory that they want to get Israel destroyed?


Attorney-General Mazuz said that PM Olmert's resignation has turned his regime into an interim government. Therefore, it should not be deciding major issues without consulting him, it should act just as a caretaker (IMRA, 9/29). Why him?

Foreign Min. Livni, now head of Kadima, said she is continuing fateful negotiations. She is not pulling back.


Evelyn Gordon claims that a growing minority of settlers are attacking soldiers and Arabs regularly, now. She this this is because the Left does not follow the rules of democracy and subverts popular mandates. She cites these examples of repression, none of the alleged attacks:

Rabin won election by promising no negotiations, but signed Oslo in 1993.

Terrorism soared, so people lobbied MKs to defeat Rabin and Oslo 2 in 1995, but Rabin illegally bought two MKs, enough to pass Oslo 2, and then got the bought majority to authorize his illegal means. Leftist MKs, journalists, academics approve overwhelmingly his conniving. A month later, violence was directed at Rabin. [It was by the Left, one of its dirty tricks Gordon forgot to mention.]

Barak won in 1999, promising withdrawals, and withdrew from Lebanon [so precipitously as to put Israel into its present strategic disadvantage]. [He did not promise withdrawals. He promised security and mentioned withdrawals in such a muted way as not to impinge on people's consciousness.] Hence there was no violence. The Knesset forced new elections, which his party lost.

[The election was won by Netanyahu, who promised security, but who used some obscure or ambiguous language that allowed for concessions. When he granted concessions, and his supporters were dismayed, he pointed to that deceptive language.]

Promising not to withdraw, Sharon won election by a landslide. Within a year, he adopted withdrawal. As a concession, he did promise to abide by a party referendum on the proposal. He lost 60:40. He ignored his promise. He refused to hold a national referendum [after having promised that, too].

The Right protested by blocking roads. This is illegal, but when unions [and students] did it, punishment was mild. When the Right did it, police arrested many of them and jailed them for a long time.

The Right has learned that the Left does not follow the rules of democracy. It may as well become violent. The Left must restore a fair political culture and put in a law requiring a big majority to alienate territory (IMRA, 9/29).

The Left always has been violent and undemocratic. Israel is not a democracy. Its rulers have a defeatist, psychotic ideology. They are striving now to recycle the MKs with whom the people are disillusioned, to avoid another election. The Left almost monopolizes the media. Likud and Shas really are leftist. The Left is plotting withdrawals sure to bring a holocaust. Violence may not be efficacious, but it is not unethical.


If Muslims stopped thinking of derived principles of Islam as divine but saw them as fallible human deductions, they might perceive and end the horror of "honor killings" (MEFNews, 9/29). The brief's original wording was confused. Relatives "honor"-murder "loved ones," without evidence, even for minor "sins." They think differently from us. Our policy makers ought to study that.


Syria traced the suicide bomber to a terrorist organization and his car's entry via a "neighboring" Arab state (IMRA, 9/29).

Syria can run and publicize a professional criminal investigation? Usually it just blamed Israel for intra-Muslim violence.


P.A. Journalists were polled about their media's reporting on the Fatah-Hamas conflict. Most of them thought that their media is largely biased (IMRA, 9/29).

Well of course they are biased. Their media is totalitarian and factional. What's the NY Times excuse?

What would the Arab journalists admit their media is biased on jihad?


It happened again. An Arab shepherd was killed violently in the P.A.. Israel's ruling elite did not wait for an investigation. It immediately accused "settlers." Unnamed settlers, of whom there are hundreds of thousands. Then the leftist media, politicians, and academicians tried to link his death to the pipe bomb attack on Prof. Sternhell by an unknown assailant, whom they also assume to be right wing, even though Sternhell had enemies elsewhere [and the government plays dirty tricks in order to bring out leftist prejudice against the Right].

By accusing settlers, the fools enabled world public opinion to think less of Israel as a whole. No matter, they dislike Israel, too. They will do anything to defame the settlers, who thwart the Left's ideology of appeasement. They think that if they make concessionss to Islamo-fascists, the Islamo-fascists will be nice back to them. Guess they never heard of the Holocaust.]

An autopsy was made. The shepherd had picked up a stray grenade. It exploded. No crime, no criminals. Just defamation. I'm waiting for the Left's apology. Usually the Left does not apologize.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 30, 2008.

This comes from the International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/30/ news/ML-Israel-Ancient-Inscription.php


An Israeli archaeologist digging at a hilltop south of Jerusalem believes a ceramic shard found in the ruins of an ancient town bears the oldest Hebrew inscription ever discovered, a find that could provide an important glimpse into the culture and language of the Holy Land at the time of the Bible.

The five lines of faded characters written 3,000 years ago, and the ruins of the fortified settlement where they were found, are indications that a powerful Israelite kingdom existed at the time of the Old Testament's King David, says Yossi Garfinkel, the Hebrew University archaeologist in charge of the new dig at Hirbet Qeiyafa.

Other scholars are hesitant to embrace Garfinkel's interpretation of the finds, made public on Thursday. The discoveries are already being wielded in a vigorous and ongoing argument over whether the Bible's account of events and geography is meant to be taken literally.

Hirbet Qeiyafa sits near the modern Israeli city of Beit Shemesh in the Judean foothills, an area that was once the frontier between the hill-dwelling Israelites and their enemies, the coastal Philistines. The site overlooks the Elah Valley, said to be the scene of the slingshot showdown between David and the Philistine giant Goliath, and lies near the ruins of Goliath's hometown in the Philistine metropolis of Gath.

A teenage volunteer found the curved pottery shard, 6 inches by 6 inches (15 centimeters by 15 centimeters), in July near the stairs and stone washtub of an excavated home. It was later discovered to bear five lines of characters known as proto-Canaanite, a precursor of the Hebrew alphabet.

Carbon-14 analysis of burnt olive pits found in the same layer of the site dated them to between 1,000 and 975 B.C., the same time as the Biblical golden age of David's rule in Jerusalem.

Scholars have identified other, smaller Hebrew fragments from the 10th century B.C., but the script, which Garfinkel suggests might be part of a letter, predates the next significant Hebrew inscription by between 100 and 200 years. History's best-known Hebrew texts, the Dead Sea scrolls, were penned on parchment beginning 850 years later.

The shard is now kept in a university safe while philologists translate it, a task expected to take months. But several words have already been tentatively identified, including ones meaning "judge," "slave" and "king."

The Israelites were not the only ones using proto-Canaanite characters, and other scholars suggest it is difficult — perhaps impossible — to conclude the text is Hebrew and not a related tongue spoken in the area at the time. Garfinkel bases his identification on a three-letter verb from the inscription meaning "to do," a word he said existed only in Hebrew. "That leads us to believe that this is Hebrew, and that this is the

oldest Hebrew inscription that has been found," he said.

Other prominent Biblical archaeologists warned against jumping to conclusions.

Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was "very important," as it is the longest proto-Canaanite text ever found. But he suggested that calling the text Hebrew might be going too far.

"It's proto-Canaanite," he said. "The differentiation between the scripts, and between the languages themselves in that period, remains unclear."

Some scholars and archeologists argue that the Bible's account of David's time inflates his importance and that of his kingdom, and is essentially myth, perhaps rooted in a shred of fact.

But if Garfinkel's claim is borne out, it would bolster the case for the Bible's accuracy by indicating the Israelites could record events as they happened, transmitting the history that was later written down in the Old Testament several hundred years later.

It also would mean that the settlement — a fortified town with a 30-foot-wide (10-meter-wide) monumental gate, a central fortress and a wall running 770 yards (700 meters) in circumference — was probably inhabited by Israelites.

The finds have not yet established who the residents were, says Aren Maier, a Bar Ilan University archaeologist who is digging at nearby Gath. It will become more clear if, for example, evidence of the local diet is found, he said: Excavations have shown that Philistines ate dogs and pigs, while Israelites did not.

The nature of the ceramic shards found at the site suggest residents might have been neither Israelites nor Philistines but members of a third, forgotten people, he said.

If the inscription is Hebrew, it would indicate a connection to the Israelites and make the text "one of the most important texts, without a doubt, in the corpus of Hebrew inscriptions," Maier said. But it has great importance whatever the language turns out to be, he added.

Saar Ganor, an Israel Antiquities Authority ranger, noticed the unusual scale of the walls while patrolling the area in 2003. Three years later he interested Garfinkel, and after a preliminary dig they began work in earnest this summer. They have excavated only 4 percent of the six-acre settlement so far.

Archaeology has turned up only scant finds from David's time in the early 10th century B.C., leading some scholars to suggest his kingdom may have been little more than a small chiefdom or that he might not have existed at all.

Garfinkel believes building fortifications like those at Hirbet Qeiyafa could not have been a local initiative: The walls would have required moving 200,000 tons of stone, a task too big for the 500 or so people who lived there. Instead, it would have required an organized kingdom like the one the Bible says David ruled.

Modern Zionism has traditionally seen archaeology as a way of strengthening the Jewish claim to Israel and regarded David's kingdom as the glorious ancestor of the new Jewish state. So finding evidence of his rule has importance beyond its interest to scholars.

The dig is partially funded by Foundation Stone, a Jewish educational organization, which hopes to bring volunteers to work there as a way of teaching them a national and historical lesson.

"When I stand here, I understand that I'm on the front lines of the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines," said Rabbi Barnea Levi Selavan, the group's director. "I open my Bible and read about David and Goliath, and I understand that I'm in the Biblical context."

While the site could be useful to scholars, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University urged adhering to the strict boundaries of science.

Finkelstein, who has not visited the dig but attended a presentation of the findings, warned against what he said was a "revival in the belief that what's written in the Bible is accurate like a newspaper." That style of archaeology was favored by 19th century European diggers who trolled the Holy Land for physical traces of Biblical stories, their motivation and methods more romantic than scientific.

"This can be seen as part of this phenomenon," Finkelstein said.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by M. Sliwa Public Relations, October 30, 2008.

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared in WorldNetDaily

But this organization is pro-Western, while Obama supported the professor's anti-Israel efforts

JERUSALEM — Sen. John McCain chaired an organization that granted substantial funding to a Palestinian research group co-chaired by Mideast professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel and apologist for Palestinian terror.

The report — first carried by the Huffington Post website — comes amid harsh criticism from McCain's campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for his personal and financial ties to Khalidi.

The website documented how in the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several documented grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi.

Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel.

Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda."

In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama.

JERUSALEM — Sen. John McCain chaired an organization that granted substantial funding to a Palestinian research group co-chaired by Mideast professor Rashid Khalidi, a harsh critic of Israel and apologist for Palestinian terror.

The report — first carried by the Huffington Post website — comes amid harsh criticism from McCain's campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for his personal and financial ties to Khalidi.

The website documented how in the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several documented grants, including one worth about half a million dollars, to the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, or CPRS, a West Bank organization associated with Khalidi.

Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel.

Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda."

In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama.

A 1998 tax filing published by the Huffington Post found the McCain-led IRI group granted $448,873 to the CPRS. Also in 1993, seven months after McCain became IRI's chairman, his group funded several extensive CPRS studies, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

The CPRS, which bills itself as an independent Palestinian think tank, was founded in 1993 by seven Palestinian activists, including Khalidi and Khalil Shakaki, who for a time was a visiting professor at several U.S. universities. Khalidi several years later terminated his involvement with the organization while Shakaki became CPRS chairman.

The group has conducted scores of polls that drew the ire of the Palestinian leadership, including in 1993 when it was tasked by McCain's group. One 1993 poll reviewed by WND showed most Palestinians were not fully confident in the fairness of elections that then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had pledged to hold.

Another 1993 survey found most Palestinians wanted independent Arafat opposition groups to have more ability to freely express themselves. A number of other polls showed the Palestinians were unhappy with their leaders.

A particularly dramatic recent poll that contradicted years of Palestinian claims showed the vast majority of Arabs living in so-called refugee camps would accept compensation instead of "returning" to Israel.

This issue is particularly visceral since the Khalidi organization funded by Obama's nonprofit took the opposition position.

While Obama served on the Woods Fund with Ayers, the group in 2001 provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, for which Khalidi's wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

The AAAN, headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Palestinian immigrant community, describes itself as working to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities."

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948. According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands — some Palestinians claim over 1 million — Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.

Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded. The theme of AAAN's Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was "the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life ... under [Israeli] occupation ... home demolition ... statelessness ... bereavement ... martyrdom, and ... the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom."

Another AAAN initiative, titled, "Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians," seeks documents related to the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.

A post on the AAAN site asked users: "Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?"

That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.

The AAAN reportedly sponsored a farewell dinner for Khalidi in 2003, when he was leaving his post at the University of Chicago for a new teaching position at Columbia University. Obama attended the event and reportedly offered a glowing testimonial for Khalidi amid multiple anti-Israel speeches.

An article last April in the Los Angeles Times documents how at the Khalidi farewell dinner one young Palestinian American recited a poem in Obama's presence that accused the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticized U.S. support of Israel.

Another speaker, who reportedly talked while Obama was present, compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, the Times reported.

Obama himself said his talks with the Khalidis served as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. ... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

In the piece, the L.A. Times reported it obtained a copy a videotape of the dinner, but it has refused to release the video, stating it was obtained by a source who asked that it not be made public.

McCain's campaign had accused the Times of intentionally suppressing the video.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb.

Obama and Khalidi closely tied

Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel. He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state. He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a response to "Israeli aggression."

He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.

While McCain's known association with Khalidi apparently is limited to helping fund the CPRC, Obama has close ties to the professor.

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor radio show, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.

"I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician," Khalidi stated.

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president "because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause."

Khalidi also lauded Obama for "saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can't talk with the Iranians."

In 2001 and 2002 the Woods Fund provided the grants to Khalidi's wife's anti-Israel group.

Obama borrowed phrase from Khalidi?

In May, WND noted Obama termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a "constant sore" in an interview just five days after Khalidi wrote an opinion piece in the Nation magazine in which he called the "Palestinian question" a "running sore."

In his piece, "Palestine: Liberation Deferred," Khalidi suggests Israel carried out "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians; writes Western powers backed Israel's establishment due to guilt of the Holocaust; laments the Palestinian Authority's stated acceptance of a Palestinian state "only" in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem; and argues Israel should be dissolved and instead a bi-national, cantonal system should be set up in which Jews and Arabs reside.

Contact M. Sliwa Public Relations at media@msliwa.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 29, 2008.

In honor of the retirement of Yossi Beilin from treason, er, I mean, from his political career, I thought the time apt for reprinting this:



The sun did not shine.
It was too wet to play.
So they sat in Geneva
With murderers all day.

And then
We connected the dots!
How those dots made us plotz!

We looked!
Could not believe the nerve of the brat!
We looked!
And we saw it!
The Brat with no Hat!

And he said to us,
'We're gonna make peace just like that!'
I know it is dumb
And this brat is not funny.
When he mails us this treason, using lots of bad money!

'I know some appeasements we can play,'
Said the brat.
'I know some new tricks,'
Said the Brat with no Hat.
'Capitulations, to terrorists true,
Your mother,
Will be blown to bits when we do.'

Then you and I
Did not know what to word.
We were tongue tied and forlorn, when we read the 'accord.'

But our lemmings said, 'No! No!
We can make the war go away!
'Just tell all them settlers that they just cannot stay
They should not be there.
They should not be about.
They should not be around
When the bombers come out!'

'Now! Now! Have no fear.
Have no fear!' said the brat.
'My accords are not bad,'
Said the Brat with no Hat.

'Why, we can have
Lots of fun, yes we shall,
With a game that I call
Send the Guns to the Pals!'
'Stop the deaths!' cried the Jews.
'Stop, stop, we see red!
'Reverse course!' said the Jews.
'Before we're all dead!'

'Have no fear!' said the brat.
'When have I been wrong?
'Their right of return should be implemented 'fore long,
With a pen in my hand!
And sly tricks up my sleeve!
That is not ALL I have done!
Just go and ask Steve.

'Look at me!
Look at me now!' said the brat.
'With a terrorist deal
I've pulled out of my hat!

I can set up TWO states!
One for them and one more!
Two states for two peoples!
And thereafter war!

And look!
I can hop up and down on the law!
But that is not all!
Oh, no.
That is not all...

'Look at me!
Look at me!
Look at me NOW!
It is fun to surrender
But you have to know how.

And look! With my arm
I can hold a red flag!
To promote my agenda
With that Aloni hag!
But that is not all.
Oh, no.
That is not all....
That is what the brat said...
Kassem rockets dead ahead!
And you and I,
We saw ALL the bombs fall!

'Now look what you did!'
Said the Jews to the brat.
'You gave them a state!
How could you do that?
You sank our own state,
Sank it deep in the mud.
You set them up armed
And sank us in blood.
You SHOULD NOT be here,
When common sense you have not.
You get out of this house!'
Said the Jews to the sot.

'But I like to be here.
Oh, I like it a lot!'
Said the Brat with no Hat
To the Jews on the spot.
'I will NOT go away.
I do NOT wish to go!
And so,' said the Brat with no Hat, So So So...
I will show you
Another good game that I know!.

And then he ran out.
And, then, fast as a fox,
He flew to Geneva and
came back with a box.

A treasonous box.
To be sold hook or crook.
'Now look at this deal,'
Said the brat.
'Take a look!'

'I will impose my will.
On the Jews, otherwise.
I will force upon them to submit to demise.'
The Jews and I
did not know what to do.

So we had to shake hands
with Thing One and Thing Two.
We shook Yassir's paw.
While our minds said, 'No! No!'

Those Things should not be,
In this land! Make them go!
'They should not be here,
When they shoot at us guns!
Put them out! Put them out!'
Said the Jews of the bums.

'Have no fear, little Jews,'
said the Brat with no Hat.
'These Things are good Things.'
And he gave them a pat.
'They are tame. Oh, so tame!
They have come here to play.
They will give you some peace
On this bright Oslo day.'

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 29, 2008.

This is an article that was published October 25, 2008 by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943


Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis developed by Milton Erickson, M.D.?

A fundamental tool of "conversational hypnosis" is pacing and leading — a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener's critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.

In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases "that's why I stand here tonight," "now is the time," and "this moment" 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as "and," "as," "because," or "that is why." For example, "we need change" (who could disagree?)...and...that is why I will be your next President."

Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: "Sixteen months have passed (paused)...Thousands (pause) of miles...(pause)...Millions of voices...."

Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the nondominant hemisphere to suggestion.

Hand gestures can be used as hypnotic anchors, or to aid in hypnotic command implantation. They can be difficult to distinguish from innocent gestures used for emphasis. Obama, however, uses some gestures extraordinarily often and for very specific words such as "believe" and "chose." His characteristic thumb-and-forefinger gesture looks like a hand holding a pencil — as if you were in a voting booth. The gesture of pointing sends the subconscious message that a person in authority is giving a command.

Obama actually said at one time: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"

You will not choose to vote for Barack: you will "have to." It is not a logical choice, but rather one directed by a mystical (subconscious) force. What purpose would a politician have for making such a statement? Obama used it only once. Perhaps he stopped either because he realized it was too obvious or because Hillary Clinton and John McCain ridiculed him for it.

Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation. Unlike other presidential logos, one looks through it, not at it. It might just be the letter "O," but it also resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists.

Obama is clearly having a powerful effect on people, especially young people and highly educated people—both considered to be especially susceptible to hypnosis. It is also interesting that many Jews are supporting a candidate who is endorsed by Hamas, Farakhan, Khalidi, and Iran.

While some believe that hypnosis is not real, others believe that it is very powerful, and very dangerous in the wrong hands. Dr. Erickson, father of modern hypnosis, was adamant that his techniques should only be used by physicians. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Leyra v. Denno that a confession obtained using hypnosis could not be used against the suspect in court.

A 66-page, extensively footnoted but unsigned article "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches" is available at:

The discussion should have broad applicability in analyzing political speech in general. Comments by those with knowledge of hypnotic techniques are especially welcome.

Additional information:

* Is Obama Constitutionally qualified to serve as President? Interview with Democratic lawyer Philip J. Berg, who has filed a lawsuit claiming that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 29, 2008.

To me it matters a lot:

It's being reported that French president Nicholas Sarkozy thinks Obama's position on Iran is "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Sarkozy hasn't said so publicly, only in closed forum, but as these things go, his words have been carried and are being reported here in Israel, notably by Haaretz. Sarkozy is no right-winger, and the fact that he's this disturbed carries weight. At least in private forum, if reports are accurate, he's mincing no words. This ought, at very least, to give serious pause.

According to the senior Israeli source cited by Haaretz, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of [the united front against Iran] and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions. Sarkozy met with Obama in July and expressed disappointment that Obama's policies on Iran were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open." Apparently Sarkozy advisors who participated in meetings came away with the same impression.

(I will add here, by the way, that Haaretz is a far left paper, undoubtedly with an Obama tilt, and would never carry something like this for anti-Obama propaganda value.)


Some foolish policies can be rectified after the fact. A tax plan isn't working? It's possible to present a new tax plan. But where Iran is concerned, there may be no way to rectify a bad move, and that bad move might be disastrous.

It thus seems to me essential to be confident that Obama's got what it takes before voting him into office. I confess readily enough on a person level that my concern about this is keeping me up at night.

If this information about Sarkozy also puts knots of fear in your stomach, share his words with others, please! The American people need to understand the implications of Obama's positions.


Actually, an enormous amount of material comes into my in-box with regard to Obama. Much I pass by because it feels too "far out" even if perhaps it is true. I aim to be taken seriously. But there is much that merits serious consideration. Michael Freund has just done a piece entitled: "Look Who's Rooting for Obama." It begins:

"What do Iran's ayatollahs, Hamas terrorists, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi have in common? They are all pulling for Barack Obama to win the US presidential election. When Israel's disparate foes manage to rally behind a single candidate, it should set off alarm bells for anyone who cares about the Jewish state."

Assuring his readers that this is not simply Republican "scaremongering," he provides evidence for each name he cites. For example, Freund reports that "Last week, Ali Larijani, the hard-line speaker of the Iranian parliament, told a press conference in Bahrain, that 'we re leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational.'" More flexible?
http://www.jpost.com:80/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199589258&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Lastly here I cite Daniel Pipes, who is director of the Middle East Forum — and very much an academic and a serious man. He has just done a piece in Front Page Magazine entitled, "Would Obama Pass a Standard Security Clearance?" After detailing Obama's connection with a host of unsavory individuals with a distinctly anti-American bias, Pipes concludes:

"...Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees.

"Islamic aggression represents America's strategic enemy; Obama's many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID= 01834F74-53EA-4A20-BA9B-F9F845F663D2


On now to politics here in Israel...

The date that seems to be coalescing as the one for our national elections is February 10, although this is not written in stone. Apparently, the Knesset is not going to be dissolved yet.

It has been reported that some members of Labor suggested that Labor and Kadima join forces before the election in the hopes of garnering jointly more seats than Likud. Makes sense that this would come from Labor, which is expected to take a major hit in the elections. Kadima has rejected the bid.


I'd like to share the highlights of opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu's speech in the Knesset yesterday. He says a government he headed would support:

— Defensible borders with the Jordan River as Israel's eastern border.
— A united Jerusalem and Israeli sovereignty over holy sites.
— Cooperation with Jordan and Egypt over final status questions.
— Complete dismantling of all terror infrastructure.
— Resolution of the refugee issue by dismantling the refugee camps and rehabilitating their inhabitants — and not bringing a single refugee to Israel.


These are major long-term positions with vast ramifications. For example, he's looking, I would say, at some autonomy for the Palestinians that falls short of a full state (that's what he once told me he favored when I questioned him on this) and some cooperation or federation of the Palestinian autonomous enclaves with Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in Judea and Samaria. The Jordan River as our eastern border rules out a Palestinian state.

Dear G-d, he should really mean it, stand by it, and win soundly so that he has the opportunity to show us what he can do. That's asking a lot, but it beats by many-fold what we've got now. There is solid reason to believe that the coalition negotiations between Kadima and Shas collapsed because Shas was demanding a promise that there will be no negotiations on Jerusalem, and Tzipi said she could not promise this. Her position is premised on moving in the direction of dividing Jerusalem, which is why chief PA negotiator Ahmed Qurei says he trusts her.


MK Yossi Beilin, former head of the left wing Meretz, has announced that he is retiring from politics and going into business.


A court decision today I thought I'd never see: right-wing activists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel have been granted permission to hold a protest march with Israeli flags (and nothing other than flags) in the Israeli Arab city of Umm El-Fahm, in the north, which is the stronghold of the more radical northern branch of the Islamic Movement of Israel.

Said Marzel: "We will teach democracy to the Arabs of Umm el-Fahm, and we will mainly teach them that in this country it is permissible to march with Israeli flags everywhere."

The march, which will take place after November 11 municipal elections; even though permission was given to march in the center of the city, it will be done in the suburbs.

Fully do I understand the motivation for this. The Islamic Movement of Israel is blatantly anti-Israel. One gets very weary of the attempts of these Israeli citizens to build their own enclaves from within which they seek to undermine the State of Israel. Just recently the Islamic Movement's office was shut down because of Hamas affiliations.

And yet I recognize that those marching in Umm el-Fahm will be taking their lives in their hands. Said the Islamic Movement attorney: "...the Arab sector will not bear responsibility for the consequences, whatever they may be."


Earlier this week, IDF personnel at the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza found military fatigues intended for a Hamas terror operation hidden among humanitarian supplies on a truck that Israel had given permission to pass. Unfortunately, such stunts are not unusual. While Palestinians rant at us for not allowing sufficient supplies into Gaza (a fallacious charge), they make use of our gestures for their purposes.

Similar to this is the issue of concrete, which UNRWA insisted it needed in Gaza some while ago, in order to do construction of schools or whatever. Some of it has found its way (what a surprise!) into Hamas hands and is being used now for building rocket bunkers, Hezbollah-style.


With all of the worrisome happenings we face these days, it was a pleasure this morning to actually hear some good news. This was from Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)and director of the Jewish Virtual Library, including on-line Myths and Facts. (It pays to see and utilize this at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org:80/.)

Dr. Bard, speaking at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, described successful efforts at combating ignorance about Israel and anti-Israel bias (often promoted by Saudi Arabia, which endows chairs in Middle Eastern studies). Some 27 chairs in major US universities are now endowed for Israeli studies, and in other universities visiting Israeli professors are teaching. All of this is making a difference in the university climate. Incredibly, on many campuses there are no classes on Israel offered at all. The attempt is to not only deal honestly with the political and defense issues, but to show Israel as a proud and well-rounded nation in which we foster literature and dance and much more.


Other good news: It's pouring as I write this. The second day of rain we've had. This is no small matter in this drought-ridden country, and it seems we're beginning the rainy season vigorously. This is a bracha, a blessing.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, October 29, 2008.

(IsraelNN.com) How did it happen that yeshiva students in the Givati Brigade took part in the military operation to destroy the Federman-Tor farm and homes three nights ago? Very simple: Senior security commanders lied to them and told them they were participating in a mission to help catch a terrorist.

Ro'i Sharon, reporter for the Maariv daily newspaper, revealed that it was feared that the young soldiers would refuse to take part in the mission if they knew it was not military but rather one of destroying Jewish homes.

A member of Hevron's emergency alert team, which generally works closely with the army, was quoted as saying: "This creates mistrust between echelons in the military framework, and is liable to cost human life. In the next security incident, the residents won't believe the security forces, and the soldiers won't believe their commanders."

"It is sad that for the purpose of destroying two Jewish homes, they cause such harm to the delicate security relations here," the man said.

Border Guard officials confirmed that the soldiers had been tricked. "The sensitivity of the incident required us to maintain high secrecy," a Border Guard source told Maariv.

The incident in question was the bulldozing of two Jewish homes in Kiryat Arba in the middle of the night, in which the occupants of the two buildings were given five and zero minutes, respectively, to get dressed and pack some belongings.

The forces arrived in three rings: Special black-uniformed Yassam policemen in the inner ring, doing the actual destruction, including breaking windows, hitting the occupants (at least one woman and some children), throwing and trampling books and clothing, and bulldozing the buildings; policemen to protect them and ensure that Jewish neighbors not come close; and soldiers at street intersections to prevent Jews from entering the area.

The soldiers were some 40 yeshiva hesder soldiers whose job it was to man the entrances to the area. They told residents who wished to enter the area to fight the destruction that a terrorist had been sighted in the area. In some cases, they had to fight with Jews who tried to enter despite the warnings.

Thanks to the soldiers' work, the Federman and Tor homes were practically empty of Jews, and their destruction proceeded without interruption.

One soldier told reporter Sharon afterwards, "I still cannot believe that I had a part in this eviction. I am a soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, not a policeman, and there is no reason that they should take me on missions that have nothing to do with protecting Jews. I almost cried when I found out." Though the Border Guard confirmed the deception, the IDF claimed that a terrorist had in fact been sighted near the Machpelah Cave, some three kilometers away. Hevron's Jews said they received no word of any such incident.

Brief Description of the Violent Eviction and Razing

The destruction, as described by Hevron spokesman David Wilder, happened like this:

"The troops broke the home's windows and climbed in through them. They quickly made their way to the children's bedrooms where they shook awake the kids, dragged them from their beds, beating some of them, and forcefully expelling them from their home, still in pajamas. Some of the kids went via the door; others via the window... Once everyone was out, the bulldozer started plowing down the houses and other structures on the property. It didn't take too much time, as the families were not allowed to remove any of their belongings. Down came the houses, on top of everything that was inside."

Noam Federman, owner of one of the two homes flattened by the police forces, told IsraelNationalNews on Wednesday morning, "The rebuilding is continuing. The army arrived with a small force last night and tried to close off the area with concrete blocks, but they did not succeed... Right now there are dozens of people continuing to work on clearing the spot and rebuilding — if only to have some shelter for the chickens, horses and other animals of our farm. Interesting, I didn't hear anyone from the Animal Rights Society protesting or offering to help..." "We, too, are fortunate that only 'bricks and stones' were damaged — and with G-d's help we will rebuild them!"

"We are now collecting money for several projects: To rebuild something in which a family can live, to replace the equipment that was wantonly destroyed, and to help us live day-to-day; even the money that we had in our home has not been found as of yet..."

Federman has successfully sued the police on several occasions for their harrassment of him. He said that in this case, there was a legal order for the home's destruction, "but not with all the property in it, and not to purposefully destroy our computer, refrigerator, washing machine, cameras, and the like. I plan to sue the police for that, when the time comes."

"But all in all, we are fortunate that none of us were hurt; we are all healthy and whole. I feel like King David, who was told that he could not construct the Holy Temple — but the reason was not, as many people think, because he had killed in war, but because he had been so successful in war that G-d said that a Holy Temple built by him would be invincible, and that if G-d had to punish Israel, He would have to harm the Jews themselves. Instead, the Holy Temple was built by someone else, and when it came time for punishment, the Temple itself was destroyed, while the Jewish People themselves were left relatively safe. We, too, are fortunate that only 'bricks and stones' were damaged — and with G-d's help we will rebuild them!"

See photos of the destruction at http://www.hebron.org.il/hebrew/gallery.php?id=319&thumbs=1 and a video at http://www.hebron.com/english/show.php?id=105 View an interview with 12-year-old Oved Federman and with his mother Elisheva, both in Hebrew, at

To help The Jewish Community of Hebron rebuild, you can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.
Hebron Web address: http://www.hebron.com
Ma'arat HaMachpela Web Address: http://www.machpela.com

Hillel Fendel is senior new editor at Arutz-7. This article appeared today in Arutz Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Dan Calic, October 29, 2008.

This was written by Nadav Shragai and it appeared today in Haaretz


Four Palestinians from the Hebron Hills contacted a group of rabbis on Tuesday and claimed to be the descendents of Jews who were forced to convert to Islam.

The Palestinians were accompanied by Zvi Mesini, a researcher who wrote a book on the subject and assisted them in learning more about Judaism. According to the Palestinians, their families had removed mezuzahs from their doors in order to avoid harassment by their neighbors.

One of the Palestinians said he kept a tefillin he received from his father's uncle and another told the rabbis that his family had once secretly lit candles on the Sabbath and for Hanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights.

Mesini told the rabbis, members of a group called the New Sanhedrin, that he believes hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are descended from Jews.

"Such evidence renders the conflict redundant," Mesini said. "It proves that Judea and Samaria belongs to both the recognized Jews and the unrecognized Jews."

Mesini accused authorities of being indifferent to his findings.

The New Sanhedrin is known as a right-wing organization that claims to be the rightful successors of the supreme Jewish court of antiquity. Its goal is to create a state based upon Jewish law that will replace the current State of Israel.

Contact Dan Calic at calic@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Don Watkins, October 29, 2008.

The fleeting expletive case before the Supreme Court is about more than broadcasters' ability to air dirty words — it's about whether "community standards" should be allowed to override free speech.


As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments Nov. 4 in the so-called fleeting expletive case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, it's clear that much more hinges on its outcome than broadcasters' ability to air dirty words.

The FCC has had the power to fine broadcasters for "indecent" speech for decades. But following Janet Jackson's infamous Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction in 2004, the government declared all-out war on indecency. Congress increased the maximum penalty per infraction tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000; the FCC started issuing fines left and right; and Congressman James Sensenbrenner went so far as to recommend jail time for broadcasters who violated "indecency" guidelines. At the same time, the FCC began issuing fines for fleeting expletives. Suddenly a star's offhand comment on live TV could cost broadcasters hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the midst of all this, one question never got answered: just what is "indecency"? The Supreme Court had defined it as speech that "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities and organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards." But which Americans count (and don't count) as part of the community? Why are they king? And how are broadcasters to divine their supposedly shared standards? In response to these unanswerable questions, the FCC issued a hodgepodge of rulings in specific cases and told broadcasters, in effect, "You figure it out."

Multiple uses of expletives in Martin Scorsese's PBS documentary The Blues? Indecent, said the FCC. Multiple uses of those same expletives in the movie Saving Private Ryan? Not indecent. Suggestion of teenage sexual activity on CBS's Without a Trace? Indecent. Graphic discussion of teen sexual practices on Oprah? Not indecent. Bono's use of the "F-word" during the 2003 Golden Globe awards? Even the FCC wasn't sure about that one. Initially it said the word was not indecent, but later changed its mind and started handing out the fleeting expletive fines at issue in FCC v. Fox Television.

So what is a broadcaster to do? Engage in self-censorship, cutting any material that regulators might declare indecent.

Defenders of the war on indecency admit that the FCC's regulations are murky. But without such restrictions, they say, Americans will be helpless against the stream of offensive programming pumped into their homes: either we allow the government to wield arbitrary power over broadcasters, or we give broadcasters arbitrary power to subject us to filth.

What this argument ignores is that broadcasters' power is not arbitrary. They must earn their market by offering programming Americans choose to consume. We choose to buy a TV (or not). We choose to pay for cable (or not). We choose which channels we and our children watch. Broadcasters can't force us to watch offensive programming any more than an author can force us to read an offensive book.

This is the meaning of free speech: people have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive — and we remain free to listen or not. We don't have to abide by the opinions, prejudices, and errors of our neighbors, but can judge for ourselves whether something is true or false, art or trash, insightful or indecent.

But once the government becomes the enforcer of "community standards," no speech is safe. How long until, say, the Bible Belt declares that the theory of evolution is offensive, corrupts young minds, undermines community values, and must be suppressed? This question is not academic. Bolstered by the indecency precedent, efforts are already underway to regulate "excessively violent" broadcasts.

And if the government can suppress speech "the community" allegedly deems offensive, then why can't it force broadcasters to engage in speech "the community" allegedly regards as good? In fact, it already does so: Univision was recently fined $24 million for failing to air a sufficient amount of educational children's programming. On the anti-indecency movement's premises, judging the value of programming is not the prerogative of broadcasters, who decide what to air, or viewers, who decide what to watch — it's the prerogative of "the community" (and its self-appointed spokesmen).

This is what is at stake in FCC v. Fox Television. The question is not whether fleeting expletives are indecent, an issue that individuals have a First Amendment right to decide for themselves. It's whether the Constitution grants government the power to trample on freedom of speech, using non-objective laws to dictate what we can say and hear on the airwaves. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to respond with an emphatic "No!" Anything less would be indecent.

Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand — best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, October 29, 2008.

Sadly, BHO has misguided, perfectly respectable (many Jewish) friends and advisors, But The Worst Friends Easily trump the pack: Brzezinski, Lake, Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, Auchi...

Brzezinski as been disseminating vitriol about Israel for three decades and recently publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer study which concluded that US policy towards Israel was the result of Jewish pressure and inconsistent with American interests. More recently Brzezinski called for the US to initiate dialogue with Hamas, described Israel's action in the Second Lebanon War as a killing campaign against civilian hostages [(the hostages being Lebanese caught in the battles).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbig-brzezinski-israel_b_25821.html] and earlier this month made a trip to confer with Syria's President Assad, ostensibly unbeknownst to the Obama campaign.

During the Carter years, "Just north of Pakistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski funded, armed and created the Taliban — headed by bin Laden — to offset expected aggression by Soviet forces into Afghanistan in 1979 while Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter — proving directly the U.S. link to bin Laden." "Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group — a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet."

Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also on Obama's foreign policy team. Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. Mark recently co-wrote an op-ed advocating that America forge ties with Iran.

Mika, his daughter is co-host of MSNBC's morning show, the most biased, pro-Obama, show on TV.

It's wise that Obama has kept Brzezinski out of the limelight before the election.

Anthony Lake is stupid, venal and/or self serving. He does not deserve a place in US Foreign policy. Please read the following:

Anthony Lake and China-Gate along with Enron were all facilitated by Obama's choice for planning foreign and military policy. None of these deals, Enron, Hughes, or Loral, could have happened without the approval and assistance of Anthony Lake.

Below is an article written by Charles R. Smith and entitled "Meet Anthony Lake, Obama'S Choice For Designing Us Foreign And Military Policies". It appeared yesterday as a Washington Post Blog


How about a poor choice for his top national security advisor? Ex-Clinton National Security chief Anthony Lake. Lake is currently charged with drawing up Obama's future foreign and military policies.

Yet, Lake has a long history of repeated errors, dangerous mistakes, and poor judgement. Lake was once nominated to head the CIA but withdrew only days before hearings were to start on Capitol Hill. Lake cited bitter-infighting over his record as National Security adviser as the sole reason for his withdrawal.

Lake is well documented in helping Enron win an exclusive energy deal with Mozambique. Allegedly, Lake strong-armed the Mozambique government into accepting Enron's bid for the vast Pande gas fields by shutting off humanitarian aid and threatening the president of Mozambique.

While ending food aid for starving African children in a vile effort for an Enron contract may not effect the African-American support for Lake's boss, it certainly should give cannon fire to his opponents who cite that Obama says one thing but does another behind closed doors.

The blood thirsty support for the now defunct Enron by Lake should at least give voters cause to wonder about Obama.

Still, national security folks can take great joy in the efforts put forth by Anthony Lake during the Clinton years. Lake oversaw the largest sell out of the century by working with Hughes.

In 1995, Tony Lake, received a letter from then-CEO of Hughes, C. Michael Armstrong. "The USG [U.S. government] does not require congressional approval to remove commercial satellites from the United States Munitions List (USML), which is under State Department jurisdiction, and placing them on the Commerce Control List (CCL), which is under Commerce Department jurisdiction," wrote Armstrong.

"It is my understanding that State has resisted vigorously Commerce attempts to do just that. For the national good, this situation must change. A commercial communications satellite is not a defense item. State Department control of satellites is not required for national security. Continued State Department control is damaging to the U.S. satellite industry and is not warranted."

The Hughes document concluded that control over the export of advanced U.S. satellite technology should be moved to the Commerce Department. Apparently Lake agreed and Clinton signed off on the transfer. The U.S. technology sent to China included the entire list of items sought by Hughes: anti-jam capability, advanced antennas, cross links, baseband processing, encryption devices, radiation hardening, and perigee kick motors.

Of course, all of these items were developed for military applications and China simply could not resist, sending all this technology into the development of nuclear warheads now aimed at America.

Moreover, Armstrong's contention that "a commercial communications satellite is not a defense item" is simply false. In fact, Hughes executives admitted that the satellites sold to China were military items. Ironically, the admission came when the company tried to sell Asiasat-3, a former Chinese satellite, to the U.S. military.

Asiasat-3 was placed into an incorrect orbit by a Russian Proton booster rocket launched from Baikonur in 1997. In 1998, space insurance companies paid off the satellite loss and transferred ownership to Hughes. AsiaSat-3, a "commercial" satellite sold to China, was more than just a $220 million piece of orbiting junk. Hughes recovered the satellite, using a special lunar orbit technique to bring it back into a useable position around the earth.

Hughes then offered the recovered ex-Chinese satellite to the U.S. Navy for military purposes. Mark J. Schwene, Hughes Global Services vice president, was quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology making the offer.

Another secret 1996 White House memo to Lake shows that Loral requested that President Clinton sign a waiver for a satellite export at the same time that Loral was under investigation by the FBI for sending advanced satellite technology to China without a waiver.

According to the July 1, 1996 action memo for Presidential National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, "In mid-June, Globalstar's parent company, Loral requested that we temporarily delay evaluation of their request for a national interest waiver for this project. The company has now asked us to resume processing of their application, and State has confirmed its support for approval of the license."

"The Dept. of State, with the concurrence of the Departments of Commerce and Defense and the Officer of Science and Technology Policy, recommends that the President report to Congress that it is in the national interest to waive the Tiananmen Square sanctions in order to allow the licensing of communications satellites and related equipment for export to China," states the memo.

In July 1996, President Clinton followed Lake's recommendation and signed the waiver for Loral. Clinton's waiver gave Loral enough cover to claim that any previous transfers of advanced missile technology were approved. The result was that the FBI had to close the investigation.

When the Chinagate scandal broke, Loral went down in flames, cited for a long list of illegal exports to the Chinese military. The result was that Loral went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and to this day it is struggling to survive. In addition, Hughes was charged with 123 counts of violating national security. Hughes pleaded no contest to the 123 charges filed by the U.S. State Department, paid a record fine and then was sold outright to Boeing.

None of these deals, Enron, Hughes, or Loral, could have happened without the approval of Anthony Lake. Lake was not only in the loop — he made the loop happen. Today, Lake is drawing up Senator Obama's national security policies. One can only wonder why Obama keeps Lake on as his national security adviser unless to cut him loose now would prove to be a major scandal.

Unmentioned during the last stage of the contest but surely relevant are Wright, Faharakan, Soros.

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 29, 2008.

This is from Little Green Footballs

Among the many promises and pledges in Barack Obama's multi-million dollar infomercial, one statement really stood out: he announced that he will "rebuild the military."

But somehow, at the same time, he's planning a "civilian national security force" that is as powerful and well-funded as the US military: Obama outlines plan for national service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

The Department of Defense's current base budget is close to $500 billion. So if he meant that promise, he plans on a total defense budget of about a trillion dollars.

What exactly is Obama planning to do with a "civilian force" with such an astronomical level of funding?e many promises and pledges in Barack Obama's multi-million dollar infomercial, one statement really stood out: he announced that he will "rebuild the military."

But somehow, at the same time, he's planning a "civilian national security force" that is as powerful and well-funded as the US military: Obama outlines plan for national service.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

The Department of Defense's current base budget is close to $500 billion. So if he meant that promise, he plans on a total defense budget of about a trillion dollars.

What exactly is Obama planning to do with a "civilian force" with such an astronomical level of funding?

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, October 29, 2008.

This was written by Ruth Eglash and it comes from the October 27, 2008 Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822669&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Tehillah Hessler can count on the fingers of one hand the disasters she experienced since moving here three months ago.

"It took us about two months to get our son, Yisrael, finally settled in a suitable school," she recounts. "And we've been traipsing across town to try to sort out our driving licenses, which was quite a challenge, but apart from that it's been pretty smooth."

Originally from Cleveland, Hessler, who now resides in Ma'aleh Adumim, has encountered only in small doses the classic Israeli bureaucracy that so infuriated previous immigrants.

"We have an aliya coordinator in Ma'aleh Adumim," says Hessler, who came with her husband Michael and Yisrael, but left five grown children behind. "Between her and Nefesh B'Nefesh [which facilitated the family's aliya] the bureaucracy has been cut to a minimum."

With the exception of the Education Ministry, which the aliya coordinator tackled on their behalf, the family's interaction with the other government offices has been fairly straightforward.

"We went to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry to fill out our paperwork so that we could receive our aliya benefits. The people there spoke to us in English, they were very helpful and we were out of there in 15 minutes," she recalls.

"I was very impressed with the Immigrant Absorption Ministry's service," says former Australian Paul Vesely, who is currently studying at Ulpan Etzion. "The first time I went there, I had to lie my way in, because apparently you need an appointment, but once I was inside the people were very helpful and explained everything I needed to do in English."

According to Vesely, who lives at the Young Judaea-run Mercaz Hamagshimim in Jerusalem, "I was given a contact in the ministry who said I could call her if I had any questions or problems during my aliya process. So far I have not needed to get in touch with her."

Both Hessler's and Vesely's hassle-free immigration procedures are a far cry from anyone who arrived in the country up until about five years ago. Of course, Nefesh B'Nefesh has certainly streamlined the process, and the dwindling numbers of olim from communities in distress, such as the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, has also served to ease the pressure on the Immigrant Absorption Ministry, the Jewish Agency for Israel and other immigrant services.

However, according to aliya experts and the official line from the ministry, this ease of starting up a new life here is part of a concerted effort by the government to iron out the kinks in the process and make those first few months memorable for reasons outside of the impossible bureaucracy.

"THERE has been a change in our office over the past two years," says ministry Director-General Erez Halfon, who took over in September 2006. "We obviously want to do our best for all new immigrants, but we also know that certain groups already receive a lot of support and enrichment programs from the government.

"English-speaking olim are a little bit different, in most cases they are not as needy, and we want to try to tailor our services to suit each group."

Among the changes that have benefited Anglo olim is the ministry's recent success in repealing a 2003 regulation that had forced new immigrants to declare all their earnings and assets abroad to the Income Tax Authority, a move that all aliya experts claim will entice more Western immigrants.

In addition, the ministry is in the process of increasing the number of native English-speakers in its offices, especially in cities where there are large numbers of Anglos, such as Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Modi'in and Ra'anana. There has also been an easing of the process for professional retraining or licensing.

The ministry has also been happy to outsource its work to organizations such as Nefesh B'Nefesh, which since last November has received one-third of its funding from it.

Halfon also talks about a push for community-based aliya. "Over the past few years more than 1,600 new English-speaking olim have arrived in Jerusalem and we see that as a core aliya," he says. "Because of that we have increased the services here for new olim, providing a special ulpan for both children and the adults and offering cultural programs and even a kindergarten in their native language."

These changes notwithstanding, Halfon talks about the ministry's outlook for the future. Refusing to go into too much detail, he hints at a new program currently being developed to encourage aliya from South Africa, where there are more than 60,000 people eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return, and a flexible aliya program in which young families and students can spend a year investigating their prospects here.

Halfon insists that all these plans and programs mark a sharp change in policy, which in the past urged all new immigrants to join the "melting pot" and just get on with life the Israeli way. "Today we see that every community has its own specific needs, and we want to be able to give them the tools to succeed here," he states.

ACCORDING to aliya experts, Halfon's assertions are not just the talk of a smooth politician. The changeover in the government's taxation policy for new immigrants was two years and much haranguing in the making, say various English-speaking aliya facilitators who helped the ministry to draft the change.

"It is a huge benefit for new immigrants," says one expert. "The whole process today is hugely different to how it was in the past. Even the basket of aliya benefits was just a dream when I made aliya in 1975. It only existed for those who came from countries of distress."

Part of the changes, he claims, come from improved technology enabling those about to make aliya to be processed in their native country and have much of the fine details of their immigration worked out beforehand.

"Anyone who arrives today can go straight to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry's office in the airport and receive their ID card and immigration ID before they even pick up their luggage," he says. "All that's left for the immigrant to do is to go to the ministry's offices to give them their new bank account details and to receive a voucher for ulpan."

BUT FOR Shira Friedman, who arrived from Melbourne in February, the sabras' initially prickly approach was not the problem.

"It was just disorganized," she complains, as she begins to describe how it took her several months and numerous visits to the Immigrant Absorption Ministry before she was even assigned to a suitable ulpan program. "I just would have appreciated some kind of aliya counselor to help me coordinate the visits to each office and to guide me on what to do next."

She finally managed to secure a place at a pre-university ulpan through the Student Authority. "I was living in Beit Canada, which was an excellent place to live and I was supposed to participate in the ulpan there," she recalls. "However, every time I went to ask the head of the ulpan if I could take the entrance test, she told me that it was not available yet. I believe they just did not have a suitable level for me."

Giving up on the classes at Beit Canada, Friedman tried to get some answers from the Immigrant Absorption Ministry about alternative Hebrew classes. She made the required appointment to meet with an aliya counselor, but when she arrived she was told that she only had 10 minutes.

"It was very frustrating and certainly not enough time to have all my questions answered," she says, adding that she pretty much had to navigate her own way through the Interior Ministry and track down details for driver's license registration. "I found out most of what I needed to know from other new immigrants. The ironic thing was that I was the most informed of all my friends because I my sister made aliya a few years ago."

For Max and Chantal Castiel, who arrived from Los Angeles with the help of Nefesh B'Nefesh a year ago, the bumpy transition to their new life was somewhat different, but no less unsettling.

"Nefesh representatives were certainly there to help us with certain information and advice," admits Max, whose four children range in age from two to 15. "However, they were not hands-on in a practical way." He says that "in terms of getting all our rights in order, that was fairly smooth"; however, both he and Chantal are still struggling to find employment.

"I'm not exactly sure what the role of the Immigrant Absorption Ministry is, but I think it needs to be much more active in the lives of new immigrants during their first year in Israel," he says, adding that he participated in a recent private seminar to aid job seekers which was extremely helpful.

"Among the thousands of new immigrants that we help every year, there are always going to be those who end up falling through the cracks," says Halfon, pointing out that aliya counselors are usually assigned to new olim.

He believes that in the future contact between the counselors, who are meant to be in touch with the immigrants for up to a year and a half, will be via e-mail and other programs on the Internet.

"We have to change our procedures to tailor them to preferences of the English-speaking community who like to use Facebook and other social networking tools."

WHILE day-to-day contact certainly seems to be on Halfon's agenda, Danny Oberman, executive vice president of Israel operations for Nefesh B'Nefesh, says the ministry's role in the lives of English-speaking immigrants is also significant on a macro level.

"We work very closely with the ministry advising it on issues concerning Anglo olim," he says. "I believe the fact that it decided to outsource work to us shows that it recognizes that Western olim need slightly different handling than other groups."

In addition, Oberman sees the ministry's role as one that will lobby for immigrant rights in government circles and points again to the changes in the taxation laws, which now allow new immigrants the right not to declare holdings or assets abroad for their first 10 years in the country.

"Halfon is in a tough position; he is constantly faced with changing ministers," Oberman says, referring to the recent changeover from Ya'acov Edri to Eli Aflafo.

Another authoritative source on aliya also points to recent changes in the procedure for returning minors and returning Israelis, both reforms that have happened in the last year or so.

"Returning minors account for roughly 25 percent of new immigrants from North America," he says. "These are usually children of former immigrants or Israelis, who did not grow up here but want to make aliya. In the past, the Jewish Agency for Israel could not guarantee these people their aliya basket benefits. That could only be done when they arrived here and presented themselves at the Immigrant Absorption Ministry. We managed to convince the government that these people also needed to feel a degree of certainty that they would get the help they needed and not leave it all to chance when they arrived."

The ministry agreed to make the change.

Over the past year, the ministry has decided to take on the task of helping former citizens who live abroad to return. It has managed to find a way around the huge health tax imposed on returning Israelis and offer a basket of benefits competitive to the basic aliya package.

Of course, the source adds, even with all the efforts made over the past few years to improve the aliya service, "there is still always room for improvement. There has to be much more follow-up with individual immigrants and the ministry's customer services needs somewhat of an overall to make staffers friendlier and more helpful."

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Sultan Knish, October 29, 2008.

When Rabbis for Obama was announced with great fanfare it was meant to reassure worried Jewish voters. The 300 Rabbis who signed on to the letter which stated that Barack Obama had "longstanding, stalwart support for Israel" and claimed that "Senator Obama is in the best position to restore faith in America as a leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel."

But when you mix Obama and clergy together, the one thing you can count on is that they'll be left wing radicals who are anti-American and anti-Israel... and the Rabbis for Obama signers don't disappoint.

In fact a better name for "Rabbis for Obama" would be "Rabbis for Hamas".

Does that sound like I'm exagerating, not at all.

Because there is a surprising amount of overlap between the Rabbis who joined up with Rabbis for Obama and the Rabbis who signed the infamous Brit Tzedek V'Shalom letter urging Bush to keep an open mind on Hamas for the purposes of "constructive engagement" with the new Hamas government.

How much overlap? Five of the Vice Chairs of Rabbis for Obama were among the Hamas Rabbis, as well as 133 of the signatories to the Rabbis for Obama letter. That's nearly half the membership of Rabbis for Obama who signed on to a letter calling for Bush to keep an open door for dealings with Hamas. (see below for a full list)

Since then Brit Tzedek V'Shalom has authored a second letter to whoever wins the Presidential election that repeatedly condemns Israel for fighting terrorism, e.g. ("In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon flatly rejected President Bush's demands that a massive Israeli military operation on the West Bank be suspended "as quickly as possible"), takes the Palestinian Arab side on the negotiations ("The Palestinians rejected Olmert's offer as soon as it was made public as it did not adequately address most of the issues that are most important to the Palestinians") and once again calls for recognizing and dealing with Hamas;

The fact that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip is undeniably problematic, however; any agreement Abbas achieves with Israel will only be successful if the majority of the Palestinian people stand behind it. If the nation is, in fact, split into two geographical and ideological camps, this won't be possible... However, some members of the Hamas leadership have indicated a certain openness to a peace deal with Israel; they would accept an agreement, if approved in a national referendum... Bottom line, for peace talks to succeed, the U.S. will also have to work to close the gap between Fatah, the movement headed by Abbas, and Hamas.

This time around three more of the Vice Chairs of Rabbis for Obama as well as many other Rabbis for Obama members signed on to the second Brit Tzedek V'Shalom pro-Hamas letter.

The original letter by the Hamas Rabbis was a project of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom aka Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, an extremist left wing group, which has condemned Israeli action against Hamas, defended the ISM terrorist solidarity group and coordinated pro-terrorist propaganda with figures involved in terrorism. And Brit Tzedek V'Shalom is funded by the same far left daddies too. Here's a sample.

The group gets financial support from other anti-American and anti-Zionist organizations, too, including Noam Chomsky's Resist, Inc. and the Ford Foundation. he board of Noam Chomsky's group is littered with admitted socialists, anti-Zionist activists, and even includes Yasir Arafat's former economic adviser Leila Farsakh.

The New York-based Ford Foundation supports far-ranging efforts in globalization, internationalism and other internationalist leftist programs. Founded by industrialist Henry Ford, an admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler, the Ford Foundation today continues to display anti-Jewish bias.

Ford funded anti-Jewish agitprop at the UN conference in Durban and supports Al Mezan, ISM, New Israel Fund, and other anti-Zionist groups.

Rabbi John Friedman who chairs the Rabbinic Cabinet of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and who was one of the Hamas Rabbis, is also one of the Obama Rabbis.

And when you begin to examine the signatories to Brit V'Tzedek's letters and the list of Rabbinic board members for Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and Rabbis for Obama you come away with the impression that Rabbis for Obama is nothing more than a front for Brit V'Tzedek.

And a left wing group that calls for dealing with Hamas and which is funded by extremist groups that include figures such as Noam Chomsky, is in the worst possible position to reassure Jews that Obama meets their standard for protecting Israel and America's security. Not when that group itself is far too friendly with terrorists and blatantly hostile to Israel and America.

Two of the Hamas Rabbis even appear front and center on the Rabbis for Obama testimonials section, a limited list of a handful of Rabbis influential in the group. Both of their endorsements for Obama carry coded statements calling for pressure on Israel and appeasement for terrorism.

Rabbi Richard Levy (Los Angeles, CA) "I believe this country needs to return to a policy of respect for other nations, to pursue energetically all opportunities for peace in the Middle East and around the world."

Rabbi Elliot Dorff (Los Angeles, CA) "He has pursued the wrong war that is responsible for thousands of American deaths and hundreds of thousands of Americans maimed physically or psychologically — and now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they never used to be... Obama, by contrast, offers us intelligence, caring, individual rights, well-thought-out programs for improvement in education and health care — and, yes, wise and firm support for Israel and for peace in the Middle East."

Besides being a terrorist dupe, Rabbi Elliot Dorff is additionally an idiot who's under the impression that the Taliban are now in Iraq. And over several months none of the wise men of Rabbis for Obama have noticed anything wrong either.

Additionally prominent names among Rabbis for Obama include Rabbi Rolando Matalon who is on the Rabbinic board of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom, is also on the board of the radical left wing New Israel Fund and Americans for Peace Now.

There is Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama and an Honorary Board member of Brit Tzedek V'Shalom, who is personally acquainted with Obama and wrote a widely reproduced article "My Neighbor, Barack".

Somewhat less famously Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf is a left wing Anti-Israel radical who during the 2006 Second Lebanon War who served as the "Rabbinic Ally" for a letter condemning Israel's self-defense

"We urge the Union to likewise condemn the Israeli Defense Force's killing of unarmed Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, as well as its premeditated targeting of civilian infrastructure, which has put additional lives at risk and hampered relief efforts."

There's Rabbi Elliot Dorff who is a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama, a signatory to both the Hamas letters and on the board of J Street, which successfully sabotaged the Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, and has made it its mission to insure that no military action will be taken against Iran.

There are hundreds of signatures of left wing Anti-Israel figures just like these there and they form the tapestry of both the Hamas letters and Rabbis for Obama.

Rabbis for Obama claims to reassure Jewish voters about Obama's commitment to Israel, but that reassurance is coming from extremists who champion legitimizing Hamas and condemn and abuse Israel at every turn. Their voices make it clear once again what Obama and his supporters really stand for when it comes to Israel.

(A final note, these people may call themselves Rabbis but they're liberal clergy who rarely hold any actual belief in G-d or the Bible. Some like Rabbi Rachel Cowan are not actually Jews. Many are simply left wing figures who find a Rabbinical title convenient.)

[Below is the list of names overlapping between the Hamas letter and Rabbis for Obama. Draw your own conclusions as to whether there's any real difference between Brit Tzedek V'Shalom and Rabbis for Obama.]

Vice Chairs

Rabbi Laura Geller, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Elliot Dorff, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Richard N. Levy, Encino, CA
Rabbi Burt Visotzky, New York, NY
Rabbi Dayle Friedman, Philadelphia, PA

133 Members

Rabbi Ron Segal (Atlanta, GA)
Rabbi Paula Marcus (Aptos, CA)
Rabbi Jonathan Omer-Man, Berkeley, CA
Rabbi Michael Lotker, Northridge, CA
Rabbi Pamela Frydman Baugh, San Francisco, CA
Rabbi Linda Bertenthal, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Dan Goldblatt, Danville, CA
Rabbi Stephen J. Einstein, Fountain Valley, CA
Rabbi Roberto Graetz, Walnut Creek, CA
Rabbi Lewis Barth, Encino, CA
Rabbi Leonard I. Beerman, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Susan Laemmle, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Jason van Leeuwen, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Allen Krause, Mission Viejo, CA
Rabbi Suzanne Singer, Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Berkeley, CA
Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater, Pasadena, CA
Rabbi David J. Cooper, Piedmont, CA
Rabbi Burt Jacobson, Piedmont, CA
Rabbi Judith Seid, Pleasanton, CA
Rabbi Mark Hurvitz, New York, NY
Rabbi Hillel Cohn, San Bernardino, CA
Rabbi Laurie Coskey, Poway, CA
Rabbi Julie Saxe-Taller, San Francisco, CA
Rabbi Lori Klein, CA
Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels, West Los Angeles, CA
Rabbi Beth Janus, Santa Cruz, CA
Rabbi Daniel Moskovitz (Tarzana, CA)
Rabbi Steven Jacobs (Woodland Hills, CA)
Rabbi Tirzah Firestone, Boulder, CA
Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, Boulder, CO
Rabbi Elliot Baskin, Greenwood Village, CO
Rabbi Stephen Booth-Nadav, Denver, CO
Rabbi Brian Field, Denver CO
Rabbi David Leipziger Teva, Middletown, CT
Rabbi Norman Koch, New Milford, CT
Rabbi Debra S. Cantor Newington, CT
Rabbi Binyamin Biber, Silver Spring MD
Rabbi Lynne Landsberg, Washington, DC
Rabbi Shaya Isenberg, Gainesville, FL
Rabbi Rebecca Lillian
Rabbi David Kay, Orlando, Florida
Rabbi Susan Marks, Sarasota, FL
Rabbi David Sandmel, Chicago, IL
Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, Chicago, IL
Rabbi Andrea London, IL
Rabbi Brant Rosen, Evanston, Il
Rabbi Herbert Bronstein, Glencoe, IL
Rabbi Bruce Elder, Highland Park, IL
Rabbi C. Michelle Greenberg (Northfield, IL)
Rabbi Mira Wasserman (Bloomington, IN)
Rabbi David Dunn Bauer, Amherst, MA
Rabbi Sheila Peltz Weinberg, Amherst, MA
Rabbi Norman Janis, Brookline, MA
Rabbi Devorah Jacobson, MA
Rabbi Gary Mazo, Marstons Mills, MA
Rabbi Jeffrey W. Goldwasser, MA
Rabbi David Greenspoon
Rabbi Stephen A. Arnold, MA
Rabbi Caryn Broitman, MA
Rabbi Barbara Penzner, West Roxbury, MA
Rabbi Brian Walt, West Tisbury, MA
Rabbi Gerold Serotta, Chevy Chase, MD
Rabbi Elliot Ginsburg, Ann Arbor, MI
Rabbi Chava Bahle, Suttons Bay, MI
Rabbi Norman Roman, West Bloomfield, MI
Rabbi Amy Eilberg, MN
Rabbi Renee Bauer
Rabbi Randy Fleisher, St. Louis, MO
Rabbi Susan Talve, St. Louis, MO
Rabbi Joshua Taub, St. Louis, MO
Rabbi John Friedman, Durham, NC
Rabbi Eric Solomon, Raleigh, NC
Rabbi Jennifer Solomon, Raleigh, NC
Rabbi Amy Small, NJ
Rabbi Barry Schwartz, Cherry Hill, NJ
Rabbi Donald Weber, Marlboro, NJ
Rabbi Bennett Miller, NJ
Rabbi William Plevan
Rabbi Neal Borovitz, River Edge, NJ
Rabbi Daniel Cohen, NJ
Rabbi Lawrence Troster, Teaneck, NJ
Rabbi Malka Drucker, Santa Fe, NM
Rabbi Jerry Seidler
Rabbi Shoshana Leis, Bronx, NY
Rabbi Barat Ellman, Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi Linda Henry Goodman
Rabbi Joshua Gutoff, Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi Jeffrey Marker, Brooklyn, NY
Rabbi Jennifer Jaech, NY
Rabbi Jan Uhrbach, NY
Rabbi Renni Altman, Great Neck, NY
Rabbi Ayelet Cohen, New York, NY
Rabbi J. Rolando Matalon, New York, NY
Rabbi David Rosenn, New York, NY
Rabbi Jennie Rosenn, New York, NY
Rabbi Felicia Sol, New York, NY
Rabbi Rebecca Gutterman, Rochester, NY
Rabbi Daniel Gropper, Rye, NY
Rabbi Lester Bronstein, White Plains, NY
Rabbi William Dreskin, NY
Rabbi Steve Segar, University Heights, OH
Rabbi Maurice Harris, Eugene, OR
Rabbi Yitzhak Husbands-Hankin, Eugene, OR
Rabbi Art Donsky, PA
Rabbi Myriam Klotz, Bala Cynwyd, PA
Rabbi Fredi Cooper, PA
Rabbi Meryl Crean, PA
Rabbi Simeon Maslin, PA
Rabbi Serena Fujita, PA
Rabbi Alan LaPayover, PA
Rabbi Marjorie Berman, Philadelphia PA
Rabbi Phyllis Berman Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Shai Gluskin, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Linda Holtzman, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Yael Levy, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Amber Powers, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Shawn Zevit, Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, PA
Rabbi Henry Cohen, Wynnewood, PA
Rabbi James Rosenberg, RI
Rabbi Alan Flam, RI
Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl, San Antonio, TX
Rabbi Rosalind Gold, Reston, VA
Rabbi Seth Goldstein, Olympia, WA
Rabbi Jill Borodin, Seattle, WA
Rabbi Hillel Gamoran, Seattle, WA
Rabbi Michael Latz, Seattle, WA
Rabbi Bruce Kadden, Tacoma, WA
Rabbi Jonathan Biatch, Madison, WI

Sultan Knish blogs at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by NCUL, October 29, 2008.

"Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama"
by Peter Wallsten,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 10, 2008 They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel

CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."

Aides say that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a "stalwart" supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.

Obama also calls for the U.S. to talk to such declared enemies as Iran, Syria and Cuba. But he argues that the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, is an exception, calling it a terrorist group that should renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before dialogue begins. That viewpoint, which also matches current U.S. policy, clashes with that of many Palestinian advocates who urge the United States and Israel to treat Hamas as a partner in negotiations.

"Barack's belief is that it's important to understand other points of view, even if you can't agree with them," said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Obama "can disagree without shunning or demonizing those with other views," he said. "That's far different than the suggestion that he somehow tailors his view."

Looking for clues

But because Obama is relatively new on the national political scene, and new to foreign policy questions such as the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have been looking closely for clues to what role he would play in that dispute.

And both sides, on certain issues, have interpreted Obama's remarks as supporting their point of view.

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that "nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering "from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel" and to renounce violence.

Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama's explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate's empathy for their plight.

Obama's willingness to befriend Palestinian Americans and to hear their views also impressed, and even excited, a community that says it does not often have the ear of the political establishment.

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

The use of such language to describe Israel's policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel's defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said's keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an "even-handed" approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama's specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

Obama, through his aide Axelrod, denied he ever said those words, and Abunimah's account could not be independently verified.

"In no way did he take a position privately that he hasn't taken publicly and consistently," Axelrod said of Obama. "He always had expressed solicitude for the Palestinian people, who have been ill-served and have suffered greatly from the refusal of their leaders to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."

In Chicago, one of Obama's friends was Khalidi, a highly visible figure in the Arab American community.

In the 1970s, when Khalidi taught at a university in Beirut, he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. In the early 1990s, he advised the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations. Khalidi now occupies a prestigious professorship of Arab studies at Columbia.

He is seen as a moderate in Palestinian circles, having decried suicide bombings against civilians as a "war crime" and criticized the conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian leaders. Still, many of Khalidi's opinions are troubling to pro-Israel activists, such as his defense of Palestinians' right to resist Israeli occupation and his critique of U.S. policy as biased toward Israel.

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.

"He has family literally all over the world," Khalidi said. "I feel a kindred spirit from that."

Ties with Israel

Even as he won support in Chicago's Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.

In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues."

In 2002, as a rash of suicide bombings struck Israel, Obama sought out a Jewish colleague in the state Senate and asked whether he could sign onto a measure calling on Palestinian leaders to denounce violence. "He came to me and said, 'I want to have my name next to yours,' " said his former state Senate colleague Ira Silverstein, an observant Jew.

As a presidential candidate, Obama has won support from such prominent Chicago Jewish leaders as Penny Pritzker, a member of the family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain, and who is now his campaign finance chair, and from Lee Rosenberg, a board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.

One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama's outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.

"In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that's what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.


To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 29, 2008.


Some Arabs attacked Jews near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron (IMRA, 9/27). Such attacks and attacks on the soldiers guarding the Cave occur almost daily (Arutz-7, 9/28). It was just for being non-Muslim.

The fact is that the Muslim Arabs are intolerant and violent. The fantasy is that Jews initiate attacks on Arabs. (Occasionally a paid, Israeli government provocateur attacks Arabs in the name of the Jews, so that the Jews seem worse than previous defamtion or the government gets a pretext for giving the Arabs another concession.) On the Internet, the constant and fabricated and distorted messages defaming Israel and the Jewish people encourage Muslim attacks. It doesn't help that despite so many such attacks, the media still depicts the Jews as the violent ones and the US government still paints Islam as a religion of peace. There isn't much evidence, in the face of all its war-mongering, or peaceful intent there.


Commenting on Israel-P.A. negotiations, the Quartet "noted the significance of this process and the importance of confidentiality in order to preserve its integrity." What it means is that Israeli democracy be damned, the government need not reveal its negotiating points to the people, that may be about to elect a new government to deal with Arab-Israel relations. Vote in the dark.

Again, "The Quartet underlined its commitment to the irreversibility of the negotiations." This means that a new government may not declare the previous [crooked and treasonous] regime to have offered too much (IMRA, 9/27).

Now what was that Pres. Bush said about the US spreading democracy? His State Dept. and the EU does what they can to squelch democracy in Israel and to maintain and expand the terrorist dictatorship over the P.A.. The EU does it largely by financing subversive organizations in Israel, pretending to favor human rights.


The US is installing advanced radar in Israel. It would enable Israel to fire ant-missile missiles a few minutes sooner at rockets coming from Iran (IMRA, 9/27).

That's nice. Unfortunately, Iran might find other ways to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Perhaps the enemy would fire tens of thousands of rockets at about the same time, overwhelming the anti-missile defense.


Israel's police chief has transferred some forces from anti-terrorism to crime-fighting. He seeks to destroy the crime organizations and to stop criminal enterprises and big businesses from controlling legitimate business and subverting government agencies to commit large-scale corruption. He considers that corruption a national threat.

He accused Cabinet Ministers who were investigated of using their positions to impugn the police outside of trial (IMRA, 9/28).


When Rabin was assassinated, the "...Left in Israel insisted then that anyone who had disagreed with Rabin's Oslo initiative was collectively guilty of his murder. The Leftist theory of jurisprudence insisted that every Israeli non-leftist was collectively guilty of murder unless he or she could be proven innocent... The episode demonstrated how shallow is the understanding of and commitment to democracy in large swaths of the Israeli political arena."

The attack on Prof Sternhell is being used to condemn without evidence the whole Right. Sternhell had other enemies besides the Right. [MK Netanyahu condemns both political violence and wholesale defamation (IMRA, 9/29)

The views of Sternhell, who sympathizes with Muslim terrorism, remain odious. The attempt to smear the whole Right does not excuse the Far Left's treason.

Suppose a follower of Meir Kahane did it. Consider decriminalizing the Kahane movement. "The Kahanists and ONLY the Kahanists have been criminalized in Israel, banned, denied freedom of speech, and declared racists and terrorists. Yet not a single far-Leftist "Post Zionist" nor a single Arab fascist or Stalinist group has been similarly criminalized and none were officially declared "racists," even when calling for mass murder of Jews or denying the Holocaust." Sometimes repressed people turn to violence." (Prof. Steven Plaut, 9/28.)


Israeli police trained Chinese police in how to handle terrorist attacks during the Olympics and also mass civil demonstrations (IMRA, 9/28).

China's police themselves are terrorist. Mass civil demonstrations there might be for good causes. I think Israel should not have helped China. Let Israel do better against terrorist attacks against civilians and its soldiers in Judea-Samaria. There are very few arrests of Muslim attackers there, little resort to guns.


Using free Internet telephone, they randomly call Americans to persuade them to vote for Obama. They believe he will not stand by Israel (Arutz-7, 10/28).

Do they know something that Democratic voters don't?

B'Tselem is no human rights organization but part of the inhumane war on Israel. Although the minor media have exposed it, the biased major media quote it.


None of the usual liberal critics had letters in Commentary disputing Joshua Muravchik's prior evidence of Obama being a radical and covering it up.

The current issue led off with John Steele Gordon's history of modern financial disasters. He shows that politicians of both parties deliberately eased protective regulations. Now the Party outside the Presidency tries to blame solely the President and in general terms. (If they understood the issue, or thought we would, they would cite specifics.) Perhaps he will offer Congress a solution.

Then Peter Webner analyzed the "surge" in Iraq. He shows that liberals were mistaken about it when it was proposed, as it was being tried and making progress, and even after the additional troops were withdrawn after having accomplished their purpose. Instead of celebrating our country's success and drawing a lesson about capabilities and remedies, Democrats continued to oppose the surge. They did not want to admit having been wrong; they were stuck in their rut of hating Pres. Bush.

Lest we become complacent, Amir Taheri has a memo to the incoming President about the Mideast. Originally, the West tried to keep foreign rivals out of the Mideast. Then trouble originated within the Mideast. The West then sought stability. By supporting existing governments, instability accelerated. Bush switched to supporting democracy. Democracy became the subject of great debate in the Mideast. Mr. Taheri cites a number of steps towards democracy. I think he has exaggerated the importance of some of them; they may be formalities meant to give the appearance of democracy; the Arabs are old hands at this. He failed to note that Bush withdrew that policy. He wrote only of elections, which should be the last step to democracy, preceded by a free press and other institutions.

Some of the countries having free elections are infiltrated by Iranian sleeper cells. The US has great challenges ahead, he writes. Why not also the EU?


Sen. Biden's campaigns get significant funds from lobbyists supporting the government of Iran. Biden encourages them and talks about harmonizing with Iran. He criticized Pres. Bush for calling Iran a part of the evil axis.

By contrast, Gov. Palin's speech, the one that Democrats successfully stifled, said that Iran must be stopped (Jewish Political Chronicle, Fall 2008). I prefer Palin to Biden on foreign policy. His loyalty may have been bought. She makes more sense than he does.


The Jewish Political Chronicle compared their statements on several aspects of the Arab-Israel conflict (Op. Cit.).

Obama was more theoretical, less supportive, suspiciously vague, and evasive, McCain more down to earth and forthright. [Conclusion: Obama has no credibility, but no politician can be trusted much.]

Both said that they would let the [appeasement-minded] government of Israel make its own decisions. McCain trusts that government to shepherd its own interests. [It hasn't done that in years, didn't he notice?] McCain had said that negotiations with the P.A. are important and he would monitor them. His advisor now says they aren't important like other issues. [Which is it?] Obama would have a special envoy, suggesting Tony Blair [known for his pro-Arab position].

Obama said that "Jordan has gone a long way" to find an "accommodation between Islam and a modern economy, globalization, diversity of cultures..." [Jordan's people largely support the Islamists and don't tolerate Israel.]

Obama said, "I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously." McCain asked how can he be an honest broker to the Arabs replied by affirming the special relationship with Israel but said he'd be happy to partner with Fatah if they were committed to peace (Ibid.)

What is the "spirit" of agreements? Why should Israel abide by agreements made by Quisling regimes under US pressure in behalf of Arabs who abide by none of them? Obama would be dangerous for Israel.

McCain was critical of the National Intelligence Estimate that undermined action against Iran. [Good for him!] He said EU banks are shoring up Iran.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 29, 2008.


As William R. Mann has written

"It is a very telling story about the charged atmosphere in which we live. It seems that some government genius in Toledo decided to check "Joe the Plumber" for license, wants, and warrants some short time after he had asked Barack Obama an embarrassing question. Is this the kind of "transformation" that Obama and his supporters represent? Is this the kind of America we want? Are these simply the actions of an overzealous bureaucrat trying to impress his/her Boss? Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, or Franco's Spain [if you prefer] were full of these kinds of "helpful" bureaucrats. Joe Wurzelburger was just a guy in a Toledo suburb asking a question. Obama answered it with revealing honesty in an unguarded moment. Is this what happens when you complain about Obama in Ohio these days? For the state and local government to check up on this Joe seems rather like Police State kind of behavior... in of all places, Toledo Ohio! This is where I grew up, for crying out loud!

By contrast, I wonder if local California and Hollywood Police and the US Secret Service are checking up on that fellow in West Hollywood [The Drudge Report, 10/27/08] who has a vile political display in his yard? This display of "opinion" or "humor" has a Palin mannequin hanging by the neck from a house rafter and a McCain mannequin emerging from flames. But then, I digress...

This comes from from World News Daily http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308


State agency director authorizes child-support check on senator's critic

Following the third presidential debate, a state agency director and maximum donor to the Barack Obama presidential campaign immediately authorized a government background check of Joe the Plumber's child-support records.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and a $2,300 contributor to the Obama campaign, permitted state employees to conduct a check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

Now Ohio Inspector General Thomas P. Charles is seeking to determine whether at least four probes on state computers were legal.

Jones-Kelley denies the Support Enforcement Tracking System search was politically motivated and claims the check was ordered to verify that Wurzelbacher was not behind on child-support payments.

While the state agency director would not share information about Joe the Plumber's record with the Dispatch, Wurzelbacher reportedly lives with his 13-year-old boy, and it is uncertain whether he has ever been ordered to pay child support.

Jones-Kelley said such background checks are not unusual.

"Our practice is when someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look," she said. "Our practice is to basically look at what is coming our way."

Ohio's Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland told the Dispatch his appointee, Jones-Kelly, did not authorize the check for political purposes.

"Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee," his press secretary told the paper.

Name searches on Joe the Plumber were also conducted at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, where his registration and driving records were pulled. The State Highway Patrol has seized a government computer at the Ohio Department of Insurance as evidence. A separate search was conducted in the Toledo Police Department's criminal database.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, October 28, 2008.

This was written by Daniel Pipes and is archived at
Hudson Institute
October 28, 2008


Yasir Arafat may have shaken Yitzhak Rabin's hand in 1993 and signed solemn declarations about ending the war to eliminate Israel, but late last month, in a New York City courtroom, the Palestine Liberation Organization formally confirmed that it still sees terrorism against Israelis as legitimate acts of war.

The lawsuit, Sokolow v The Palestine Liberation Organization, brought by the intrepid David Strachman, alleges that the PLO carried out two machine-gun and five bombing attacks in the Jerusalem area between January 2001 and February 2004. The plaintiffs allege, in the words of U.S. District Judge George Daniels, that the PLO did so "intending to terrorize, intimidate, and coerce the civilian population of Israel into acquiescing to defendants' political goals and demands, and to influence the policy of the United States and Israeli governments in favor of accepting defendants' political goals and demands." The attacks killed 33 and wounded many more, some of them U.S. citizens; the victims and their families are seeking up to US$3 billion in damages from the PLO.

To this, the PLO, represented in part by none other than the appalling Ramsey Clark (who in a distant age, 1967-69, was attorney general of the United States), replied that the attacks were acts of war rather than terrorism. As Daniels summarizes the PLO argument: "defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because this action is premised on acts of war, which is barred under the ATA [Antiterrorism Act of 1991], and further is based on conduct which does not meet the statutory definition of 'international terrorism'."

This response is noteworthy for two reasons: (1) Fifteen years after Oslo supposedly ended the state of war, four years after Mahmoud Abbas took over and supposedly improved on Arafat's abysmal record, the PLO publicly maintains it remains at war with Israel. (2) The PLO argues, even in the context of an American law court, that blatant, cruel, inhumane, and atrocious acts of murder constitute legitimate acts of warfare.

Judge Daniels rightly slammed the PLO's argument: "the Court finds that the attacks, as alleged to have occurred in the amended complaint, do not constitute acts of war nor do they, as a matter of law, fall outside the statutory definition of 'international terrorism'." He went on to point out that civilians, not soldiers were the intended victims of these assaults: There has been no showing that the situs of the attacks were in any combat or militarized zone, or were otherwise targeted at military or governmental personnel or interests. Rather, plaintiffs allege that the attacks were intentionally targeted at the civilian population. They were purportedly carried out at locations where non-combatants citizens would be known to congregate, such as in the cafeteria on the Hebrew University campus and on a commercial passenger bus.

Daniels went on, rising to an eloquence not frequently heard in district court decisions:

Additionally, the use of bombs, under such circumstances, is indicative of an intent to cause far-reaching devastation upon the masses. The "benefit" of such weaponry is its merciless capability of indiscriminately killing and maiming untold numbers in heavily populated civilian areas. Such claimed violent attacks upon non-combatant civilians, who were allegedly simply going about their everyday lives, do not constitute acts of war.

That the PLO justifies "merciless capability of indiscriminately killing and maiming untold numbers" suggests it remains the terrorist organization it has always been since its founding in 1964.

When will the diplomatic bright lights in Jerusalem and Washington figure this out?

Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 28, 2008.

This is from www.Israeljustice.com and was posted October 5, 2008


KFAR SABA — An Israeli court ordered a Jewish 'dissident', charged with assaulting a police officer, to be held under community arrest and post a bond of $1,145 until the start of her trial, as part of a government crackdown on Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

Kfar Saba Magistrate David Gadol rejected the demand by the police prosecution that Daniella Weiss, former mayor of the Jewish community of Kedumim, be remanded in custody until the end of judicial proceedings. [OUTRAGEOUS in this writer's opinion.EW]

"You have until Oct. 12 to investigate her," Gadol admonished police prosecutor Shir Laufer, who said she would appeal the decision. "After Oct. 12 [the start of the trial], she [Weiss] will be free on bail."

Weiss was arrested outside her home in Kedumim on Oct. 2, following the destruction of the nearby Jewish outpost of Shvut Ami. The police prosecutor's office rushed through an indictment on charges of assaulting a police officer and interfering with the police.

"In the passed few weeks I have noticed that the attitude of the police and the army towards the settlers became much tougher, even brutal," Weiss said. "As far as my arrest was concerned, I noticed a very aggressive approach [on the part of the police]. While I was being interrogated, Samaria Police Commander Albert Ohayun flung open the door and aggressively threatened me. 'Don't worry. It's not just you we are going to take care of. We are going to arrest your husband as well.'"

The arrests of Weiss, 62, her 57 year-old former aide Shoshana Shilo and six others, followed the evacuation and destruction by security forces of the two temporary structures at Shvut Ami outpost, established last year by the Land of Israel Faithful group. After the evacuation, police said settlers torched fields near the Palestinian village of Kadum. Police said they saw a car driving away from the blaze, which they then found parked near Weiss's home. According to police, when officers approached the home, Weiss and Shilo came out of the house and attempted to stop police from coming inside. Police then raided the Weiss home and arrested two suspects inside as well as Weiss's husband, Amnon, who was later released.

Shilo, who said she had worked with Weiss for 11 years when Weiss was mayor, said she heard about the destruction of Shvut Ami and came to help.

"They [police] were dragging her [Weiss] on the ground," Shilo said. "They pushed her and pulled off her head covering and pulled up her shirt. I asked for female police officers but they just mocked me."

Weiss said that at least 10 policemen raided her home on Oct. 2 without a search warrant and arrested two suspects.

"They burst into my home, flying passed my daughter who just gave birth two weeks ago and arrested my husband," Weiss said. "I understand that if they had pursued the suspects from the scene, then they could enter my home without a search warrant but this was not the case. They entered illegally."

Weiss said that Samaria Police Chief Detective Gil Desher, who was dressed in civilian clothes, flashed his identification tag in front of her face and asked for permission to search the house when he was interrogating her after her arrest but when she refused, he told her that they had arrested people in her home.

"It's so aggressive," Weiss said. "Last night police raided a Yeshiva high school [Yeshivat Dorshei Yechudecha] in the Jewish community of Yitzhar, known for its dissident community. They came in the middle of the night, turned everything upside down and made 15 year-olds stand with their faces towards the wall."

Over the passed few months, the Israel Army has launched an offensive against Jewish dissidents in the West Bank. Military sources said the army's Central Command has been ordered to dismantle unauthorized Jewish outposts and arrest organizers in the West Bank. The sources said the military has assessed that Jewish opponents of the government would try to accelerate construction and settlement amid the expected departure of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"They [the police] have a license to act above the law," Weiss said. "The general atmosphere from the government and the ministry of defense is to go ahead with putting an end to the settlers' activities, especially to crush their spirit, especially with the new outposts."

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A Winston, October 28, 2008.

If you had any doubt before about Israel's current, retired but still standing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Kadima gang adopting the methods of totalitarian government like the Soviet Union, put your doubts away. This horribly corrupt and unjust government is an incurable cancer that is metastasizing and spreading poison every day. Olmert, the Leftist tyrant gives the orders and his hand-picked thugs, seeded into the valiant, upstanding Israeli Police and IDF — as well as the Courts click their heels and say the equivalent of: "Yes, Sir!"


Let's start from some time back? A few years?

We all recall the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) Report published December 3, 2007, which created a false impression to the effect that Iran had ceased all efforts to produce nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons.

Later information leaked out that the State Department had transferred three of its employees into various U.S. Intelligence Services to manipulate actual intelligence to their point of view. Some would call this a "rolling coup d'etat" as the State Department and certain powerful individuals moved to take control of government policy as a "shadow government". This could turn the American people into a Third World population working for new masters. This is not the first time the American public has been manipulated and fleeced by a "shadow government" run by self-serving controllers. Recall the Savings and Loan Crash and Bailout of the mid and late 1980s under James Baker III as Secretary of Treasury? For the record, 1,169 savings and loans in the United States failed. Texas, the epi-center, had the most failures, 237. In 2000, the FDIC said that the S&L disaster cost taxpayers some $124 billion. But that sum does not reflect the entire bill. In order to pay for the S&L bailout, the federal government sold bonds. By the time those bonds are finally retired in 2020 or so, the total cost of the S&L mess will likely be some $300 billion. Secretary of Treasury James Baker, took no action on the emerging savings & loan crisis.

Today's current Crash may be the result of the oil manipulation between the multi-national oil companies and the Muslim and Arab oil nations — with 'we, the people' paying for this swindle. All of this is overseen by the U.S. State Department and Washington.

The eventual cost to American tax-payers will be astronomical and is, as yet, hidden.

THE MIS-INFORMATION BY THE 2007 NIE REPORT WAS EXPOSED by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. The manipulated NIE Report was designed to stop President Bush from ordering an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities which are now scattered throughout Iran's countryside.

Later the head of the CIA apologized for the Report and its erroneous information but, nevertheless, the well-planned insider propaganda halted any American plans to destroy Iran's burgeoning nuclear facilities.

The Leftist Media crawled all over the false NIE Report, practically cheering what turned out to be a phony Report. The State Department wasn't the only participant, as several top ranking officers of the American military were quietly relieved of duty for their participation in the false NIE Report. British and Israeli Intelligence were furious over this planted mis-information that Iran had ceased its operations when, in fact, they had actually accelerated production of their fissile nuclear material. One could consult with Senator Joe Biden as to why, over the years, he has always leaned toward Iran in his voting and deliberations among his colleagues.


They knew they could not appeal to or trust John McCain and Sarah Palin to go along with the plan to stop a preventative invasion against Iran's nuclear facilities. Compromising America's security or that of our ally, Israel, is a betrayal of a greater magnitude.

Barack Obama, given his history of "hanging around the neighborhood" with self-declared anarchists and generally considered far Left-of-Center, could be easily guided by the likes of Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski to not either pre-emptively attack Iran as necessary or mount a second strike even after Iran attacked any American city or interest. Obama has said he would rather talk than act.

But first, Obama needed to be made President and that would cost huge sums. That meant he could not opt to take limited official Government funding as did John McCain. Obama needed far larger funds and that could not come from primarily normal contributions. It needed to come from deep, deep pockets — like those in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, the Gulf Oil States.

But, those campaign contributions could not come to Obama in huge traceable gifts, thereby calling attention from government agencies for illegal funding. The money had to be split into very small sums — like $200 per gift through millions of new donors. Of course, Obama's fund raisers refused to release those names to check their origins as McCain chose to do. Other U.S. gifts to Obama in excess of legal limitations which were caught by outside observers, were generally returned — in part — but, even then — not all and not always. Who knew about this massive cash flow officially, unofficially or merely by well-founded rumors in the Intel community?

The State Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA and any number of our 16 Intelligence Agencies knew. But, just as no one stopped the false NIE Reports which caused the loss of American resolve to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons' capability, no one stopped the buying of America by the huge, global campaign contributions. The Scam was that high up.

Buying a Presidential Election would be a well kept secret not unlike "the magic bullet" and "the shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas". Was the fix in?

It was puzzling when $150 Million Dollars came into Obama's campaign in one month — not to mention the already accumulated "windfall" of close to $450 Million Dollars raised before. The $150 Million Dollars influx in September led to a grand total of $600 Million Dollars for Obama to spend, snowing the American public to cover his record and propagate his rhetoric.

Generally, that kind of money floats around drug cartels or oil deals between the Arab Muslim countries and the multinational oil companies. Clearly, if Iran (and Iran's oil) were to be protected — along with its future potential for oil contracts, Obama would be a better, even vital, choice as a malleable President than a stubborn, experienced military man like McCain.

IF THE PRESIDENCY WAS TO BE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE MULTI-NATIONALS AND OIL COUNTRIES, they needed a President like Obama — a stooge. The "controllers" also needed a replacement VP who was known to be more than accommodating to Iran and, thus: Joe Biden.

The Media never really questioned this extraordinary cash flow but, instead expressed happy astonishment that a Left Liberal was receiving such approval by way of donations. Of course, no one in government stepped in and said: "Wait a minute". No State Department, no FBI, no CIA, no Justice Department, no Intel Agencies, no watchdog Media....No Nothing!

IF Obama's money is coming primarily from the Middle East, then this is a matter of National Security at its highest level — because America is in hock, in thrall, in debt to the tune of Billions of Dollars of deficit — and rising.

Clearly, the elections should be put on an extraordinary hold until these unusual questions hanging over Obama's head are answered. A breach of security of this magnitude cannot be covered over or considered trivial just because the plotters need deniability.

WE ALL SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SOMETHING WAS SERIOUSLY WRONG WHEN Obama refused to produce an original birth certificate that could prove he was a natural-born American as required for a Presidential Candidate under Constitutional law.

A suit was filed in federal court Philadelphia, requiring Obama to produce his birth certificate but, the Courts dragged their feet, seeming not to want to force the production of such evidence of American birth. Obama is presently visiting Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother. Would you be surprised if he comes back with a Hawaiian birth certificate which, like counterfeit money, has been skillfully aged?

Both the Judge and Obama, could go to prison if they colluded to insure the matter would not be adjudicated before the elections on November 4th.

Because the suit was filed in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell, as well as the Attorney General of the Justice Department should have been all over this matter — as a matter of America's national security. If we have a President loyal to the Saudis and other foreign supporters for funding his election win and under the control of the State Department and those who fabricated the false NIE Report, then the matter of treason must be raised.

The elections must be delayed while the investigation of Obama's riches from foreign contributions is implemented.

This is vital to America's future as a free nation. We in these United States cannot exist as a Democratic country under a "Shadow Government" even if it is controlled by past and/or present State Department plotters. ###

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Jack L., October 28, 2008.

This was written by Moshe Arens and it appeared today in Haaretz


Is it out of habit or mental lassitude that we continue to build the fence, which was begun many years ago? It continues on its weary way, meter by meter, costing billions, causing anguish to many, damaging private property, keeping the High Court of Justice occupied with the complaints it arouses, stirring demonstrations against it, and keeping the Israel Defense Forces busy. Does anyone still remember what the original purpose was of this physical obstacle, hundreds of kilometers long, stringing across the country? Who is taking a second look to see whether it really serves its intended purpose?

Many of us prefer to forget those terrible days when Palestinian suicide bombers were roaming through our cities and murdering Israeli citizens daily. It was in those stressful days that the cry went out: "Keep them out! Build a fence, no matter what it costs! The fence around the Gaza Strip works, and we need a fence like it around Judea and Samaria!"

Then-Shin Bet head Avi Dichter said we needed such a fence, and Haim Ramon accused those who opposed it of being dinosaurs prepared to endanger human lives for the sake of their outworn ideologies. No politician could withstand this pressure. A human life is worth everything, and if it took hundreds of kilometers of fence to save one, so be it. Besides, this fence was supposed to separate Israelis from Palestinians once and for all. So this humongous, unprecedented project began, and it has continued on its not-so-merry way, winding over hill and dale, ever since. Palestinian terrorism from Judea and Samaria has in the meantime been defeated, our streets and buses have become safe again, but the fence project seems to have assumed a life of its own.

Billions are still being spent, our beautiful country is being defaced, great anguish is being caused to tens of thousands living in the vicinity of the fence, and it is high time that we ask ourselves whether this fence serves any useful purpose. Is it the fence, far from completed, that is keeping terrorism out of our cities, or is it the presence of the IDF in Judea and Samaria? There is good reason to believe that it was the IDF's entry into Judea and Samaria, after the Park Hotel massacre in Netanya on the night of the 2002 seder, that largely ended the terror, and that the IDF's continued presence in Judea and Samaria is still Israel's primary defense. Without that presence, surrendering to terrorism would be striking cities in central Israel. If that is the case, the fence is worse than useless. It is no more than the product of momentary hysteria and a Maginot-line mentality that seized some of our politicians, who deluded themselves into thinking that terrorism could be "fenced out."

But what happens when the IDF's presence in Judea and Samaria is no longer necessary? Will we need the fence then, and should we therefore continue building it for that eventuality? That hardly seems a reasonable course of action. The IDF will not withdraw from the area until the danger of Palestinian terror has passed, and then no fence will be necessary. Continuing to build the fence is a waste of time and money, and only breeds anger and hostility. In this case, the fence does not make for good neighbors.

But some will argue that the fence around the Gaza Strip works. Well, hardly. The terrorists have found ways of outwitting our politicians. Terror is coming over and under the fence. That fence did not stop the Qassam and Katyusha rockets from raining on Israel's citizens in the south. The fence did not keep the Olmert government from finally this terror and agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza. And the same thing will happen if the IDF withdraws from Judea and Samaria before the terrorists there finally have been uprooted. The fence will not keep terror away. If not controlled on the ground, it will return to Israel's cities — it will come over and under the fence.

Some of us want the fence not in order to keep terrorists out, but to keep Jews in.[emphasis added] Or, in other words, in order to keep Jews out of Judea and Samaria ("the occupied territories"). But that will not work. The British tried to keep Jews out when they blockaded Mandate Palestine's shores and pursued the MacDonald White Paper policy to prevent Jews from purchasing land here. It didn't work. Nor will the fence.

The time has come to take a good look at this outlandish project. Does it make any sense to continue building it? And maybe we should begin considering dismantling what has already been built. Do our politicians have the courage to admit they made a mistake?

Editor's Note: A reader wrote this comment on the original article:
"Unfortunately Israel continues to steal and expropiate land that is not theirs to take.This often without payment to the owners."

In response, another reader, Jeff Northridge, wrote

Well, nothing has been "stolen" (i.e., confiscated without compensation) by either side since shortly after the Israeli War of Independence in a private ownership sense. For your information about 60% of the former Mandate was public land and not privately owned by anybody. The Palestinian Arabs unwisely rejected statehood when they had the chance to do so between 11/29/47 and 5/15/48 and, therefore, do not have sovereignty over the land either. The Green Line was established on 4/3/49 "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." It is the right of the occupying power to exercise eminent domain and expropriate (with compensation) privately owned property out of military necessity or for the general public good and it isn`t considered to be stealing if compensation

Contact Jack L by email at yakovdov1@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2008.

One of the more amusing developments in pre-election Israel is the sudden adoption of the slogan "piggish capitalism." Most of Israel's chattering classes still dream of seeing a bolshevik system of state planning of the economy imposed upon what is already a Scandinavian style welfare state in Israel.

The dodo bird, the new Labor Party join-mascot, alongside the lemming.

Things escalated when airhead Shelly Yachimovitz, a backbencher from the Labor Party, started tossing out comments about how "piggish capitalism" was what had to be suppressed. Shelly, whose qualifications for sitting in the Knesset were that she had hosted a chat show on a state-owned radio station, claimed that the crashing stock markets prove that capitalism is dead and that the new enlightened era of bolshevik planning will rescue the planet. Never mind that capitalism is the only system capable of generating any wealth at all that ordinary people can have at risk in the stock market in the first place. It was a bit amusing, but the only paper that told off Silly Shelly was Haaretz, whose business section is the most free-market medium in Israel.

Now Ehud Barak, the fella who single-handedly rained 4000 Katyusha rockets down on northern Israel when he ordered the cowardly unilateral capitulation to the Hezbollah in 2000, has picked up the nonsense term from Little Shelly. Barak yesterday also spoke out against piggish capitalism, although in the news report in the English Haaretz they prettify what Barak said and call it "greedy capitalism" of the "Right"
(see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031944.html).

So now Barak, who is heading the Israeli Labor Party, is getting about 10% of the support of the public in pre-election polls. He is trying to save his McClellenist backside by pouting against "Piggish Capitalism." In other words, Barak is now the national champion of Dodo Bolshevism. You may recall that the Dodo bird became extinct because it was too stupid to respond or defend itself when it was being stalked by other animals seeking to devour it.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

This was published as a Arutz-Sheva blog item

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 28, 2008.


US policy is to contain Iran. Unfortunately, US forces in the region are tied down in combat, sometimes with proxies of Iran. US bases increasingly are subject to foreign control or confiscated. The states there are no match for Iran (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 9/25). Iran is containing the US.


At the UNO, Pres. Ahmadinejad vowed to destroy Israel, as a public service to Europe, which he claims Israel manipulates. [Did Israel manipulate them into favoring the Arabs?] The speech was applauded warmly. [Some organization, the UNO, that our liberals suggest the US get more in line with!]

The government of Israel didn't respond and won't. Its UNO ambassador doesn't take Iran seriously. She rationalizes that the UNO leaders merely were polite to Ahmadinejad. She says her job is to correct false impressions her people have about it and to defend Israel in the UNO. [The UNO always been anti-Israel. Even the partition resolution would have led to an untenable state.]

The ambassador's line follows Foreign Min. Livni's. Livni tells Israelis that the UNO, the EU, and the Palestinian Arabs are friends of Israel and that such foreign powers will protect Israel. Livni is trying to become Prime Minister without having to face a contested election [and who became party head by crooked means, and whose policy destabilizes the region]. She claims to be the right person for the job and who would provide continuity and therefore stability. She answers Iran only by urging diplomats not to let Iran onto the Security Council.

She doesn't think Iran is a big problem for Israel. She thinks the biggest problem is not handing Israeli territory to Palestinian Arabs and giving them a state they don't want. She doesn't know or admit that they want Israel. When she claimed to have made progress towards that urgent goal, the P.A. negotiator treated her contemptuously and threatened war. She didn't respond. Her sense of urgency gives the Arabs the impression that Israel is desperate or collapsing. They are right. Israel's ruling elite has collapsed morally (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/26).


Israel urges its media to show that Israel has girls in bikinis, is high tech, and is good for homosexuals. The Left defames Israel on policy matters, creating indignation, without government opposition. The Left accuses Israel of imposing "humiliating" security measures against P.A. Arabs, and makes unworkable [and unjust] demands that Israel "give peace a chance" and withdraw from all land acquired in 1948 and bring in the vengeful Arab families that fled (IMRA, 9/25).


Both repeatedly use the same film clip that denies there were ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem. Archeological and historical evidence and the findings of Muslim scholars affirm that there were. (So does the Christian Testament.)

The film also incites fear and hatred against Israel by claiming that it seeks to destroy the Muslim mosque on the Temple Mount. It calls for another Saladdin, who once conquered Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 9/26).

Slandering the Jews as seeking to destroy the mosque is an old, demagogic, Muslim tactic there. The Muslim people never have caught on to their constant manipulation by unscrupulous leaders. Nor have the Jewish people and their government versed their own people in this kind of Jewish history. Neither has the government of Israel worked to bring an understanding of this bigotry to the rest of the world. Instead, the government pretends that Fatah is moderate.


The local IDF commander stopped providing army escorts and permission for Jews to visit Joseph's tomb. His explanation — he was punishing them because the leaders of the town of Yitzhar did not reprimand the men there who raided the Arab village that harbors terrorists who burned Yitzhar's crops, burned a house down, and stabbed a boy. The Jewish pilgrims consider the commander's ban more than collective punishment but irrelevant and therefore nasty. The real question is, why didn't the Army protect Yitzhar, itself (Arutz-7, 9/26).


Extreme anti-Israeli Prof. Sternhall was injured by a pipe bomb. Nearby was found a leaflet offering a bounty for killing members of Peace Now. Police immediately suspected right-wingers. The Left again tarred the Right and melodramatically lamented this threat to democracy. Haaretz quoted only a right-wing extremist, who denied complicity but did not condemn the attack.

Dr. Aaron Lerner thinks that there may have been someone on the Right so stupid as to have set the bomb. The result offset complaints about real police oppression of Jews, in Hebron. The Right should have been more sophisticated about this and condemned the attack as unproductive, the way Abbas does about terrorism. They should point out that it hurts their reputation. Dr. Lerner does not think that this was a police dirty trick (IMRA, 9/26).

I do. The police uttered a conclusion too fast. The leaflet was too convenient. How can someone pay a million shekels for murder, without getting caught?


Both repeatedly use the same film clip that denies there were ancient Jewish temples in Jerusalem. Archeological and historical evidence and the findings of Muslim scholars affirm that there were. (So does the Christian Testament.)

The film also incites fear and hatred against Israel by claiming that it seeks to destroy the Muslim mosque on the Temple Mount. It calls for another Saladdin, who once conquered Jerusalem (Arutz-7, 9/26).

Slandering the Jews as seeking to destroy the mosque is an old, demagogic, Muslim tactic there. The Muslim people never have caught on to their constant manipulation by unscrupulous leaders. Nor have the Jewish people and their government versed their own people in this kind of Jewish history. Neither has the government of Israel worked to bring an understanding of this bigotry to the rest of the world. Instead, the government pretends that Fatah is moderate.


The local IDF commander stopped providing army escorts and permission for Jews to visit Joseph's tomb. His explanation — he was punishing them because the leaders of the town of Yitzhar did not reprimand the men there who raided the Arab village that harbors terrorists who burned Yitzhar's crops, burned a house down, and stabbed a boy. The Jewish pilgrims consider the commander's ban more than collective punishment but irrelevant and therefore nasty. The real question is, why didn't the Army protect Yitzhar, itself (Arutz-7, 9/26).


Extreme anti-Israeli Prof. Sternhall was injured by a pipe bomb. Nearby was found a leaflet offering a bounty for killing members of Peace Now. Police immediately suspected right-wingers. The Left again tarred the Right and melodramatically lamented this threat to democracy. Haaretz quoted only a right-wing extremist, who denied complicity but did not condemn the attack.

Dr. Aaron Lerner thinks that there may have been someone on the Right so stupid as to have set the bomb. The result offset complaints about real police oppression of Jews, in Hebron. The Right should have been more sophisticated about this and condemned the attack as unproductive, the way Abbas does about terrorism. They should point out that it hurts their reputation. Dr. Lerner does not think that this was a police dirty trick (IMRA, 9/26).

I do. The police uttered a conclusion too fast. The leaflet was too convenient. How can someone pay a million shekels for murder, without getting caught?


Democrats claim that de-regulation allowed the financial crisis to erupt, though they don't seem able to specify which de-regulation. McCain pointed out that some regulation remained. It was legislated by Congress. Supposedly humanitarian, it required mortgages to be given to people of inadequate means. That started the crisis.

Elimination of one significant piece of regulation may have facilitated the crisis. The separation of banking from other industries ended a certain prudence that one industry exerted towards the other. I opposed that de-regulation. It went through, because in America, legislation is put over by lobbies, not by thought.

As for other regulation, nothing stopped Congress from introducing a few, simple but critical rules, such as reasonable requirements that investors not buy on high margin. Congress didn't. Now it blames the Bush administration for the whole problem. Maybe just put a sign over lenders' offices, A fool and his money are soon parted."

The crisis came by surprise. It took a long time to be understood. The cry that de-regulation created the whole problem makes no sense. What regulations would the government foolish enough to have encouraged sub-prime lending in the first place, have imposed before new business structures were formed and before it knew there was a problem? By government, one must include the Senate Banking Committee, on which Democrats have a majority. It has taken months for partial solutions to be devised even after the crisis struck. Will new regulations be wise or will they reflect special interests? Government usually fouls up.

An argument by the NY Times sounds logical, but is specious. The Times pointed out that the regulation encouraging easy-to-get mortgages was enacted a few years before most of the sub-prime mortgages were distributed. There often is a lag in time and circumstances for a baleful law to take its toll. First, people need time to catch on. Second, the era of prosperity gave people the impression of being unending. Third, the real estate boom raised hope and roused customers. Already used to buying on credit, people felt they could take out equity loans buoyed by a rising market. They didn' t question their getting something for nothing. Fourth, the mortgage lenders devised the bundling method, whose lack of transparency and ease of corrupting rating services was not recognized, not by the Administration and not by its critics. After the crisis became apparent, the critics became very smart. They complain that Pres. Bush didn't stop the sub-priming. Where had they been? They were enjoying the apparent prosperity while, as part of their election campaign, they were dishonestly complaining that the economy was poor when unemployment and inflation were at record lows. Since the NY Times can be dishonest about that, be skeptical of whatever else they claim.

This was written before the current Commentary magazine explained the history of financial regulation, which confirms what I reckoned.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008.

This was written by David A. Patten and it appeared yesterday on Fox News
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obamas-education-groups-funded- controversial-organiations-s-tax-returns/


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S. Constitution as having "deep flaws" during a September 2001 Chicago public radio program, adding that the country's Founding Fathers had "an enormous blind spot" when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

Obama's statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago's WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled "Slavery and the Constitution."

The discussion that led to the statements took place on the now-defunct Odyssey program, which also aired statements by Obama bemoaning the fact that the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution of wealth in America.

Obama's remarks came toward the end of a somewhat professorial, academic discussion on the Constitution and the evolution of Civil Rights.

The panelists were discussing the compromise struck by the Founding Fathers to avoid a direct confrontation over slavery, as well as the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments after the Civil War. Those amendments outlawed slavery, required "equal protection" under the law, and stated that African-Americans must be provided the right to vote.

Prior to Obama's statement, Richard R. John, a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said that slavery had been a significant issue for the Founding Fathers. But it was not, John stated, a matter of central importance to them.

John said it was easy to second-guess America's Founding Fathers for establishing a government that allowed slavery to continue.

"I think it's easy to be very hard on the Founders, and to be very hard on our governing institutions," John said. "But I just wish we'd think about what the alternatives were, what the practical alternatives [were], and not some possible, counterfactual dreams we might have."

At that point, the moderator of the program, Gretchen Helfrich, turned to Obama.

"Barack Obama, what are your thoughts on the Declaration and Constitution?"

"I-I-I think it's a remarkable document — " he began haltingly.

"Which one?" Helfrich interjected.

"The original Constitution as well as the Civil War Amendments," he replied. "But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.

"African-Americans were not — first of all they weren't African-Americans — the Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the Framers. I think that as Richard said it was a 'nagging problem' in the same way that these days we might think of environmental issues, or some other problem where you have to balance cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth.

"And in that sense," Obama continued, "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."

Obama did not elaborate on the "fundamental flaw" that persists.

Conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh pounced on Obama's remarks during his Monday radio program.

"Good Lord, ladies and gentlemen! I don't see how he can take the oath of office, which is this: 'I do solemly swear, or affirm, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Said Limbaugh, "He has rejected the Constitution."

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008.

This was written Melanie Phillips, and it appeared October 26, 2008 in The Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/2550646/ the-sacrifice-of-truth-to-power.thtml The original article has live links to additional material.


What's happening in this terrifying, Orwellian US presidential race is the flip side of the madness that's been on display since 9/11 itself, when swathes of the UK population decided that 'America had it coming to it' because it supported Israel, and that George W Bush was the most dangerous man on the planet. After the Iraq war started this irrationality swelled into pathological proportions on both sides of the Atlantic, when the 'Bush lied, people died' narrative fuelled a hatred of Bush and 'the neocons' exceeded in its hallucinatory and murderous venom only by the truly deranged way in which the media and intelligentsia systematically either ignored evidence that did not fit this narrative or, even more astoundingly, reported it in such a way that it delivered the opposite of what was actually happening or being said.

In this way not only has history been rewritten, not only have Britain and America been to a greater or lesser extent turned against themselves and demoralised by the propaganda of their mortal enemies recycled as truth by our fifth-column Big Media, but they have been incited to an ugly and dangerous level of irrationality, hatred and hysteria which history tells us presages the twilight of freedom. It is that media class which, in refusing to tell the public what it needs to know about Barack Obama, may now finally install in the White House the man who personifies the repudiation of the American power and western values that the media and left-wing intelligentsia (of which the media is the mouthpiece) have themselves spared no effort to destroy these past seven years

Michael Malone protests:

What I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side — or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del. If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography....

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer — when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber. Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

So much indeed. That's why, as Mark Steyn observes, the media has had a feeding frenzy over Sarah Palin's clothes allowance while all but ignoring the evidence of criminal fundraising for the Obama campaign being facilitated by the Obama campaign :

The gentleman who started the ball rolling made four donations under the names 'John Galt', 'Saddam Hussein', 'Osama bin Laden', and 'William Ayers', all using the same credit card number. He wrote this morning to say that all four donations have been charged to his card and the money has now left his account. Again, it's worth pointing out: in order to enable the most basic card fraud of all — multiple names using a single credit card number — the Obama campaign had to manually disable all the default security checks provided by their merchant processor.

Now look at this. Back in April, the LA Times ran this story reporting on the going-away party for Rashid Khalidi, Obama's close friend, who justifies Palestinian violence against Israel and who was leaving for a job in New York. Khalidi is a deeply troubling individual, a former PLO operative and close friend of unreprentant former Weatherman terrorist William Ayers. As I have reported before, in 2000 Khalidi and his wife Mona held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, an Arab group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago when Obama was on the fund's board of directors. Obama has said that his many talks with the Khalidis had been

consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table, but around this entire world.'

The LA Times reported:

During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, 'then you will never see a day of peace.' One speaker likened 'Zionist settlers on the West Bank' to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been 'blinded by ideology.'

The paper reported that not only had Obama been present at the party but had praised Khalidi — and it actually had obtained a videotape of the whole event. Yet it has refused to make this video public — even though it would be of great interest, to put it mildly, to see who else was there. Indeed, as the now defunct New York Sun reported:

In Chicago, the Khalidis founded the Arab American Action Network, and Mona Khalidi served as its president. A big farewell dinner was held in their honor by AAAN with a commemorative book filled with testimonials from their friends and political allies. These included the left wing anti-war group Not In My Name, the Electronic Intifada, and the ex-Weatherman domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers (my emphasis).
As Gateway Pundit comments:
It's hard to imagine that the LA Times would hold onto a video of Sarah Palin praising an antisemitic radical and former PLO operative...But, that is today's mainstream media.

But now look at what happens when the media does begin to do its job properly. As the Orlando Sentinel reported:

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the 'spreading the wealth' comment. 'Are you joking?' said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. 'No,' West said. West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over. 'I don't know who's writing your questions,' Biden shot back. Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign cancelled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

In that interview, Biden also flatly denied that the Obama campaign was funding corrupt Acorn to deliver voter registration. But as the Investor's Business Daily has reported, it did — and then tried to hide it:

Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for 'advance work.')

At NRO Mark Levin identifies a terrifying historical echo when he shudders that, such is the tide of irrationality running in this campaign, the American public appears to be falling under the cult-like spell of an authoritarian demagogue. He is surely correct. For all Obama's laid-back, attractive appearance this election is being fought in an atmosphere of menace. Menace in the way ACORN is intimidating voters into multiple registrations. Menace in the way criminal donations to the Obama campaign have been institutionalised. Menace in the serial lies being told by Obama, Biden and the campaign rebuttal team. Menace in the way the few remaining proper journalists such as Stanley Kurtz are finding sources of information shut down and themselves shut out when they attempt to probe Obama's deeply dubious associations. Menace in the smears and hysterical abuse directed at anyone who questions The One. Menace in the threat of violence if Obama doesn't win. Menace in the pre-emptive smear that the only thing that could bring about an Obama defeat is the inherent racism of the American voters — a smear that potentially identifies all those who vote against him as public enemies.

Over the past seven years, the media has created the Big Lie that America is the biggest rogue state in the world, with Israel its proxy. Now it is ensuring that a man who will act on that very premise to crush America and destroy Israel will be placed in the White House to do so. It is not just that the west's Big Media can no longer be trusted. It has become the most important weapon in the arsenal of the enemies of the free world.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 28, 2008.

Barack Obama's boards gave tens of thousands to ACORN and more than $1 million to racially charged organizations, a study of tax returns shows.

This was written by Maxim Lott and it appeared yesterday on Fox News.


William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn walk with their son in New York, 1982. (File:AP Photo)

The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear — it is simply listed as "for special purposes" in the group's IRS tax form.

It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.

Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network — which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers' and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society — and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.

The Woods Fund did not respond to questions about the funding.

When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself "a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students," it gave to some of the same groups — partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.

It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg's archived Web site, are "to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing."

But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:

"Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us," one page of the application reads. Click here to see the application.

Stanley Kurtz, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found the collaborative's original application when going through Annenberg's archives.

Asked to comment, Yvonne Williams-Kinnison, executive director of the collaborative's parent group, the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore said, "I don't want to put more fuel on the fire. You can call us back after the election.... I don't want to compromise the position."

Late Afrocentrist scholars Jacob Carruthers and Asa Hilliard were both invited to give SSAVC teachers a training session, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge noted in a report, adding that the "consciousness raising session ... received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey session."

But Carruthers has been a controversial figure because of inflammatory statements he made in writing.

"The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy," Carruthers wrote in his 1999 book, "Intellectual Warfare." "Some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture."

In the book, he compared the process of blacks assimilating into American culture with rape.

"We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist," Carruthers said.

Hilliard has come under fire for advocating what many consider an extreme Afrocentric curriculum.

He selected the articles for the "African-American Baseline Essays" published in 1987 and first used in the Portland, Ore., school district. The essays have been criticized for claiming, among other things, that ancient Egyptians were the first to discover manned flight and the theory of evolution.

An Obama spokesman called investigation of these ties "pathetic."

"This is another pathetic attempt by FOX News to distract voters from the economic challenges facing this nation by patching together tenuous links to smear Barack Obama," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

"The Annenberg Challenge was a bipartisan organization dedicated to improving the performance of students and teachers in Chicago Public Schools that was funded by a Republican philanthropist who was friends with President Reagan and launched by Republican Gov. Jim Edgar."

But Kurtz says those founders of the Annenberg Challenge would not have known the details about to whom their Chicago office — one of 18 around the country — was giving money.

"If you read Ayers' proposal to Annenberg, it doesn't sound radical. But if you actually read Ayers' education writings, they are very radical indeed," Kurtz said. "Ayers, like so many other savvy professors, knows enough not to state his actual views frankly when applying for money. But you can find the truth in his writings."

The controversial donations make up only a small portion of the overall amount doled out by the Annenberg and Woods funds. The Woods Fund gave over $3.5 million to 115 different groups in 2001, and the Annenberg Chellenge dispensed nearly $11 million to 63 groups at its height in 1999.

Most of the groups are mainstream and well respected, ranging from the Jazz Institute of Chicago to the Successful Schools Project.

But Kurtz says that this should not obscure what he describes as controversial donations.

"If John McCain had given to white supremacist groups and people said, 'Hey, the majority of funding didn't go to supremacist groups' — that wouldn't even cut the ice," Kurtz said.

"I feel certain [Obama] knew about these radical groups," Kurtz said. "We know that he read the applications because he made statements about the quality of proposals."

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, October 28, 2008.

1. By now, everyone knows about the infamous "Mohammed a-Dura" incident. This was the event in which a French television crew staged a fake death of a Palestinian boy, pretending to be shot by Israeli gunfire in a firefight with terrorists, dying in his father's lap like a Palestinian Pieta figure taken down from the cross. He became the overnight symbol of Palestinian "martyrdom," a child gunned down by Israel. The Iranians made him a state icon and Arab students at Israeli universities display him in their pro-terrorism campus activities. Of course, in the sense that it was all fake, a-Dura really WAS indeed the appropriate symbol for Palestinian "martyrdom."

The entire a-Dura Gaza incident was staged and faked by the France 2 television crew, as the media later proved and as a French court officially declared. Among those helping to expose the lies was a young French Jew named Phillippe Karsenty. He was then sued by the French TV station for "libel' but eventually won in court.
For details, see this: http://www.debriefing.org/26546.html.

This did not stop the usual Jewish leftists from denouncing Karsenty. Leftist Larry Derfner from the Jerusalem Post said that Karsenty and people like him are mentally ill and are equivalent to the 911 "deniers," those who say the US government itself blew up the WTC buildings. Derfner did not issue an apology after the French court declared Karsenty was entirely correct.

By now, numerous excellent articles have exposed the whole story. In French, the best may be this:
http://www.lemeilleurdesmondes.org/A_chaud_Pierre-Andre-Taguieff- affaire-al-Dura-ou-le-renforcement-des-stereotypes-an.htm. In English, this may be the best: http://www.debriefing.org/16075.html

But there is one aspect of the case that has NOT been widely exposed. That is the collaboration by Prof. Raphael Walden with the French television station's fraud and cover-up. Walden is a far-leftist anti-Zionist medical doctor with specialty in surgery, at Tel Hashomer hospital. He is active in the pro-terror anti-Israel propaganda group "Doctors for Human Rights," a group once run by anti-Semite Neve Gordon and which does not believe that Jews should be entitled to any human rights. He is also the son-in-law of Shimon Peres and often described in the press as Shimon Peres' personal physician. He signs all the usual leftist proclamations
His email is Raphael.Walden@sheba.health.gov.il

Ben-Dror Yemini this week described the role of Walden in the French forgery in his weekly column (http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/801/996.html). Walden prepared a professional medical report that backed the lies and fabrications of the French TV station and the attempt to "prove" the Arab propaganda version of the a-Dura shooting, based on the injuries to a-Dura's father. Only problem is that the good doctor never examined the a-Dura father and based his expert conclusions on some paperwork he got from a Jordanian office. A different Israeli doctor who DID examine the poppa, Dr. Yehuda David, discovered that all the injuries the father was claiming to have suffered when his son was pretending to be shot were in fact injuries from at least 8 years earlier.

More about Walden's toadying for the French TV station and his attempt to defend the lies about the a-Dura "killing" can be read here, by an Arab propaganda news service:

2. One of the more amusing developments in pre-election Israel is the sudden adoption of the slogan "piggish capitalism." Most of Israel's chattering classes still dream of seeing a bolshevik system of state planning of the economy imposed upon what is already a Scandinavian style welfare state in Israel.

Things escalated when airhead Shelly Yachimovitz, a backbencher from the Labor Party, started tossing out comments about how "piggish capitalism" was what had to be suppressed. Shelly, whose qualifications for sitting in the Knesset were that she had hosted a chat show on a state-owned radio station, claimed that the crashing stock markets prove that capitalism is dead and that the new enlightened era of bolshevik planning will rescue the planet. Never mind that capitalism is the only system capable of generating any wealth at all that ordinary people can have at risk in the stock market in the first place. It was a bit amusing, but the only paper that told off Ssilly Shelly was Haaretz, whose business section is the most free-market medium in Israel.

Now Ehud Barak, the fella who single-handedly rained 4000 Katyusha rockets down on northern Israel when he ordered the cowardly unilateral capitulation to the Hezbollah in 2000, has picked up the nonsense term from Little Shelly. Barak yesterday also spoke out against piggish capitalism, although in the news report in the English Haaretz they prettify what Barak said and call it "greedy capitalism" of the "Right"
(see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031944.html).

So now Barak, who is heading the Israeli Labor Party, is getting about 10% of the support of the public in pre-election polls. He is trying to save his McClellenist backside by pouting against "Piggish Capitalism." In other words, Barak is now the national champion of Dodo Bolshevism. You may recall that the Dodo bird became extinct because it was too stupid to respond or defend itself when it was being stalked by other animals seeking to devour it. It joins the lemming as the new Labor Party co-mascot.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 28, 2008.

This was written by Mona Charen and it appeared today in Jewish World Review


Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, is seen next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008. A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent's home imploring them to vote Obama. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

From the Palestinian Authority Daily: "Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama..."

Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of "refugee camps"? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it?

I've heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday's fashions. That's quite a leap of faith.

Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama's case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. The Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama's remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University's shame is a subject for another column.) Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you'd expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a "racist" and "apartheid" state, and professes to believe in a "one-state" solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that "one" state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls. Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat. At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his "many talks" with the Khalidis. Perhaps that's where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots ... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table" but around "this entire world."

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to "avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change." And don't forget hope!

Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a "lifetime achievement" award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of "genocide" against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years.

Someone is making a big mistake — and it isn't Abu Jayyab.

Editor's Note: Of added interest — Jayab's home sure doesn't look like the tent with sand flooring that we've been taught is the sorry home of the Arab refugees.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 28, 2008.

This was written by John Laughland and it appeared in the Brussels Journal


A few days spent in Belgrade feels like an age. Although I have been here more times than I can remember (albeit not for five years or so) the country remains almost insuperably foreign. There is something radically different about the Balkans, with respect to the rest of Europe, and there are few more quintessentially Balkan states than Serbia.

Where else, for instance, would you meet a man with the wonderful name of Slobodan Despot who smiles and hands you a copy of "The Road to Revolution" by Thomas Kaczynski, a.k.a. the Unabomber? Mr. Despot is a publisher previously worked for a conservative pro-Serb publishing house in Paris and the other titles in his own list now include a consolidated calendar of Orthodox and Western saints, and the memoirs of a woman who opened a sex shop in Paris in the early 1970s.

And where else would you find yourself on a sofa sipping wine and talking to a civilised young professor of medicine who was himself ethnically cleansed from his home town of Urosevac in Kosovo in June 1999, as NATO guards transported Albanian guerrillas in their Hummers across the province to commit their vicious and systematic arson, murder and rape? Where else — especially in Europe — would you meet a monk whose 25 parishioners (in one of the main towns of Kosovo) have to run the gauntlet every Sunday in order to avoid getting killed on the way to Mass?

All these things happened to me — and much more — in the space of a very short stay last week. Ever since the United Nations took over Kosovo in 1999, indeed, the province's endemic corruption has exploded, as I was able to confirm by talking to two American policemen who work for the international administration there. "Every level of society is corrupt," one of them said. "Every single aspect of the society is criminal." This is largely because the Kosovo Liberation Army, the US-backed Contra-style guerrilla force which runs the province and which controls the government, the army and the police, is also notorious for its role as a powerful organisation running drugs, guns and sex slaves to Western Europe.

If organised crime is a way of life in Kosovo, so is the systematic destruction of churches: more than 150 churches and monasteries have been blown up on the UN's watch in the last nine years, as Albanians seek not only to expel all Serbs from the province but also to eradicate any physical record of their ever having been their in the first place. Kosovo, one should never forget, is the original heartland of medieval Serbia, the Serbs having migrated North to Belgrade and the Pannonian plane beyond as a result of the Turkish invasions. Images of an angry mob pulling down crosses and stamping on them, such as were filmed on 17 March 2004, have not been seen since the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; just under a century later they are now, once again, part of Europe's present.

In spite of these atrocities, which include the pogrom conducted against Serbs in March 2004 — a killing spree which went largely unreported in the West and which is now completely forgotten about — the European Union and the United States have pushed Kosovo to proclaim its own independence unilaterally, even though international law clearly forbids such a step. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Quebec's right unilaterally to secede from Canada, on the grounds that the inhabitants of Quebec had full civil and political rights within Canada. Since Kosovo has been governed by the UN since 1999, their proclamation of independence now can only mean that they did not have full political and civil rights under that administration — the very body thrust onto Serbia by the "international community" in the name of human rights and democracy.

In the remaining months of this year, the Western powers (the EU and the US) will try to finesse a way of transferring power from the UN administration to one run by the European Union. The main obstacle comes from Russia which has a veto in the UN Security Council, the only body which can relinquish authority over the province. For the time being, the Belgrade government says that it opposes EULEX because EULEX was created as a vehicle for the independence of Kosovo, and Russia has said it will support Serbia. In private, however, Serb ministers admit that they will do anything to get into the EU, including accepting the amputation of 15% of their state territory.

However the circle is squared, the likely fudge of authority between the EU and the UN will cause what little government there is in Kosovo to break down completely. As one of the American policemen said to me, "How can you arrest someone if the lines of authority are unclear?" This unclarity will of course again further benefit the gangsters, pimps and drug-runners who currently constitute the government of Kosovo, and who have been the West's allies since 1998.

Kosovo is therefore now decisively lost to the Serbs, and therefore to Christian civilisation. A war waged in the name of human rights in 1999 has led to nothing less than genocide — the wholesale eradication both of the Serb population of Kosovo since then (the few remaining Serbs live in ghettos) and of the historical memory of that population. In 1999, to justify the attack on Yugoslavia, the US State Department published a document called "Erasing History" which documented the alleged genocide against the Albanians. Now we know that the bulk of that document was war propaganda, its claims unproven despite years spent trying to prove them at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. Yet "erasing history" is precisely what the Albanians have done in Kosovo since NATO occupied the province, and on its watch. They have also erased democracy, human rights, and all the basic tenets of common human decency. The history of the last ten years in Kosovo is nothing but tragedy and hypocrisy blended into one — a true death of the West and all it stands for.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 27, 2008.

Sitting at Lehavim-Rahat train station at eight O'clock in the morning, in the middle of the desert, I was reminded of the story about a lawyer who died and was given a choice between Heaven and Hell. He asked for two days to observe before making up his mind. In Heaven he saw men in black, Rabbis and Clergymen, sitting and studying Holy Scriptures. In Hell he saw green pastures, grass and trees, and chose to go there. It did not quite reconcile with the image he had of Hell — fire and misery, torture and unpleasantness. This was indeed once the case, it was explained to him, until the Israelis moved in.

Lehavim, a town just outside Beer Sheva — the capital of the Negev, is a community of single family homes. The streets names of the first phase are flowers. This is the "old section." The second, newer phase has street names of birds, all alphabetized. City planning at its best: Lehavim is a mini "Beverly Hills" in the middle of the desert, only with home values about one tenth. It was originally built along with other satellite neighboring towns surrounding Beer Sheva to strengthen the city. At that time, people had to be incentivized to move here.

Lehavim is now a flourishing suburb where home values have skyrocketed. A main contributor to this development was the opening of a train station just outside the town. It is less than an hour's ride by train — with only two stops — to Tel Aviv, so many high-tech employees work at the center in Israel and live in a very upscale neighborhood where the kids roam safely and freely, the air quality is outstanding, a place to which so many of us would yearn to retire.

Much like in many other municipalities throughout Israel today, weeks before an upcoming local election, Lehavim is "under construction." Roads are being improved, trees planted, buildings painted. A city of 1,700 families in the midst of an election. The banners on people's yards are enormous, some calling for the reelection of the current mayor, other proposing change.

Here is a place that should receive delegations from Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and other cities to observe and later implement some of the most advanced systems of environmental sustainability.

Along the paths of the trees, shrubbery and grass there are miles of purple plastic hoses, long and thin, and signs warning: Reclaimed water. Be warned — do not drink! Lehavim is a city in the desert, where the shade offered by the trees creates microclimates which cause a breeze, making it nice and comfortable even when it is searing hot outside.

There is a center for recycling: paper, plastic bottles, hazardous materials, used clothing, etc. And people drive there, on the way to drop the kids for a swimming lesson, class or the local Scouts, with huge plastic bags of things that otherwise would be thrown to the trash: Live by example and educate the kids.

Everything else is sorted right at home (rather than rely on post-recycling). I am used to a single trash can, here I found a complex made of four parts, each for different type of "trash." What a wonderful experiment that teaches the meaning of environmental sustainability, right from the most harsh of conditions — the desert.

This "paradise" is not without its problems. The area is surrounded by Bedouin. Once a completely nomad society that wondered through the Arabian Peninsula, many have now chosen to live a stationary life (tent-structures with a new car nearby). A man can have many wives. Multiple kids with each wife guarantee a steady income from the State. The money often is not used for the kids, and Israel is now considering reallocation of funds: Once the monthly allotment grew exponentially from the third child onward. Now it is meant to be a straight multiplication (i.e. each child entitles the father to X NIS per month, so four children would generate four times X and not more).

There is extreme poverty and illiteracy among the Bedouin. They often marry within the extended families, so there are diseases more common than would be found elsewhere. Their main occupation: theft and offering "protection." They are expert liars where it is impossible to detect — even with a lie detector — if they are telling the truth or not anymore. Progress is fought against. An activist recently recognized by Israel for her work to advance the conditions of the Bedouin had her car or home set on fire.

The Bedouin were once loyal to Israel. Many served in special units of Israel Defense Forces for there are very few who can follow traces and track progress in the ever changing desert. It is said that even drug trade was allowed or tolerated by Israel, as it benefited Israel by providing much needed intelligence information. More recently, Al Quaeda and other forms of Muslim extremism found their way to within the Bedouin society. Many do not serve, and loyalties seem to shift. Some of the routes thru the Arabian Peninsula now serve for passage of ammunition, sophisticated weaponry and trained personnel coming from Iran and elsewhere. There is no need for "smuggling," it is more or less free passage to an area that is otherwise portrayed to be "under siege." The Bedouin have become a threat from within: On the one hand they feed from Israel, yet they start biting into the same hand, most viscously at times.

Let us remember the Bedouin population of the south, as we will return to it as I continue my journeys throughout Israel. Through the train windows the scenery outside is of the end of summer — everything is beige-brown, earth, almost dust. Then, all too often and in the least expected places, green areas — tree groves, vineyards, green fields, agriculture in the middle of the desert, even a beehive cluster.

Unbelievable miracles happen in Israel — now thirsty for rain in this coming Fall and Winter — where a desert is turned green and the unimaginable becomes reality.

Reporting from this unique land, I remain,

With deep friendship,

Ari Bussel
A Proud Jew
A Proud Israeli

Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 27, 2008.

Roll out the barrels
Fred Reifenberg was born in Germany, and grew up during the Hitler period. In 1940's he moved to NY. A veteran of the Korean War, he currently lives in Israel. He enjoys harmonizing with nature, and photographing nature in its many wonderful forms. Also creating a variety of abstracts, combining photography and graphics. Contact him at fred343@gmail.com. See more of his work at http://fred343-enjoy.blogspot.com/
To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 27, 2008.

This was written by Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondent. It appeared today at


Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu declared Monday, at the opening of the Knesset's winter session, that Israel must not negotiate over the division of Jerusalem or the absorption of Palestinian refugees.

Netanyahu, who in the last two years has been the clear front-runner in polls which asked prospective voters their choice for prime minister, spoke just after President Shimon Peres announced that Israel was headed for early election.

Netanyahu told Knesset that if he becomes prime minister, he will seek peace with the surrounding Arab countries, but said Israel must not give up Golan Heights, large parts of the West Bank or any of Jerusalem.

Peres, formally setting into motion procedures for a national ballot, told the Knesset after consultations with political parties that there was no chance of reaching a deal now to form a new coalition government.

"This is the time for Israel's Knesset and political system to do some deep soul-searching," he urged lawmakers. "It is never too late to fix mistakes."

Following Peres' announcement, Knesset has up to three weeks to dissolve itself and set an election date, widely expected to be scheduled for January or February.

"In the coming days, Israel will be entering into a decisive electoral period. This is the first and immediate test set before you — the choice of the people," he said.

As the polticial system enters these elections, said the president, lawmakers must remain focus on Israel's strength in the face of its enemies. "Israel must stand strong and if sentenced to fight, must be able to be victorious over every enemy that comes our way," he said.

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in his remarks to the Knesset, just after Peres' announcement, that he appreciated Livni's efforts to form a coalition and regretted the political circumstances that had made it impossible.

He added that he intended to remain committed as premier until the elections and to carry it out "with the same responsibility, care and professionalism with which I have acted until now."

Shas chief brands Livni allies 'racist, phony, condescending'

In an unprecedented attack on Kadima leader Tzipi Livni's team in coalition talks, Eli Yishai, chairman of the ultra-Orthodox Sephardi Shas party, Monday branded the members of the team "phony, racist and condescending."

Yishai was speaking to his party faction ahead of the Monday afternoon opening of the Knesset's winter session, likely to be cut short by the early elections.

The Shas leader's remarks came in response to Kadima official's characterization of the ultra-Orthodox party's demands as "extortion."

"It's interesting that they didn't call the Labor Party, which received NIS 1.5 billion under the coalition agreement,m extortionists," Yishai told the Shas MKs.

"We are speaking here of racism and condescension."

Yishai went on to voice thanks to Kadima, saying that its actions would only expand Shas' Knesset strength in the coming election.

"If he who helps ailing children is called an extortionist, then I am an extortionist," Yishai said, adding that the Kadima attacks would "boomerang on the attackers."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by American, October 27, 2008.

One of the propaganda tools the Arab "Palestinians" have been using to further its goals of eradicating the mostly non-Muslim / non-Arab entity Israel, was/is the use of international "human rights" organizations.

The demonization of Israel that dares to fight for its survival as a 'bad guy' has been since the 1970's well oil-ed by Saudi Arabia and other filthy rich Arab tycoons that never seem to have an iota of sympathy for the Arab 'Palestinian' brethren and their situation, instead they rather shed its billions to destructive anti Israel propaganda.

Using the image of a "weak" people vs a "mighty" Israel, they have psychologically gained the upper hand, as it looks pretty convincing and even more convenient for an Amnesty or HRW personnel to side with the supposed "victim".

Even though the real source of Arab 'Palestinian' misery, which was always largely due to its 1) mass corruption, 2) oppression, stepping all over human rights of its people & 3) culture of hatred of Israel substituting for all "love" for its own population. HRW does not disclose its private donors identity, one can only imagine the Arab oil lobby connection here.

Human Rights Watch (HRW)

Israel as a whole and Israelis are always edgy from Arab attackers, ever since 1920's massacres on the Jews in Israel/Palestine.

As Israel is and always was under threat upon its existence, it mobilizes force, understandably, to the gullible eye it might look like the goliath is Israel, when it's never the case in reality.

An inhumane Arab bomber hiding under its kids' shoulders presents a far greater danger than the restrained Israeli hesitating to fire if a non-combatant is able to get hurt, this explains why the casualties are not in the thousands each time humane Israel conducts an anti terror-war operation.

The famous fact of terrorizing journalists by Arab "Palestinians" have forced all that are in [or all those wishing to gain access to] their area to be biased.

And so, Arabs, as the real Goliath, masked as poor-poor people have been managing the HRW organizations to report in a total Arabist way, condemning Israel based on unreliable sources, hardly condemning the Arabs for their constant real human rights abuse upon it's kids and on Israeli victims of Arab terror.

The NGO Monitor article January 15, 2005 points out that"The Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch 2005 Annual Report Israeli-Palestinian Section" Lacks Credibility and Reflects Political Bias.

Google HRW and NGO Watch to read about the NGO Watch monitoring of HRW and reporting on their bias and double standards. The NGO Monitor's 2007 Report on HRW
(http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_s_report_on_hrw_bias_and_ double_standards_continue) April 29, 2008 says:

The following analysis demonstrates that HRW's own activities related to Israel continue to fall short of this basic standard of universality


* Analysis of Human Rights Watch's use of the rhetoric of international law and other terminology shows continued double standards and misleading or false claims.

* HRW accuses Israel of "collective punishment" of Palestinians in a way that is inconsistent with both international law and past and present usage of the term by HRW itself.

* HRW's focus on Israel in 2007 dropped to 2005 levels after 2006 marked a return to the extreme bias of the 2000-2004 period. The change in 2007 allowed more resources to be focused on countries committing major human rights violations.

* However, disproportionate emphasis on Israel continued, with major reports covering 400 pages in 2007, using the same methodologies as in 2006 that lack credibility.

* This contrasts with the limited attention on human rights violations in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the region.

* Israel was the focus of more multimedia items (audio, video, graphics) than any other country in the region.

* Reports on Israel continue to be based on unverifiable evidence provided by "eyewitnesses," selected journalists, and other inappropriate sources. In some cases hard evidence has shown this testimony to be blatantly untrue.

* HRW mentioned one or more of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers in a total of only 6 publications. Of these, only two refer to them by name; the other references are in passing.

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident:

HRW issued dramatic pictures purportedly of damage to a Red Cross ambulance by a Israeli missile. When it was shown that the dramatic picture of damaged Red Cross ambulance was a hoax
(http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/hrw/), instead of investigating who perpetrated the hoax, HRW sneered at the evidence and used ad hominen arguments against the NGO report.

Amnesty International (AI)

Angela Bertz in her article "Amnesty is a Travesty" in Arutz-7
(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/4025) writes

One would have thought that after so many heinous acts, Amnesty International, which claims to be "Protecting Human Rights Around the World", would have issued 16 reports condemning each and every one of these terrible acts of Palestinian terrorism. In fact, AI issued only one report and even though it pertained to the Park Hotel slaughter, the heading "Deliberate Killing of Civilians is Never Justified" was pretty benign and totally belied the atrocity of this appalling act. The three short paragraphs was almost non-committal. While apparently recognizing the massacre as "a grave breach of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law", Amnesty then refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization, but made a pathetic plea to "armed Palestinian groups" to cease killing civilians.

Volokh Conspiracy
(http://volokh.com/posts/1210943742.shtml) has an article on "Amnesty International's Reporting of Human Rights". There are many perspicacious readers' comments on how the non-massacre Jenin was reported as if it had actually happened.

The NGO report, February 23, 2003 called "An Analysis of Amnesty International's Reporting of Human Rights Issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict"
(http://www.jcpa.org/ngo/ngo-4-AI.html) says this about the AI Report.

The report does not make use of the latest research on what happened in Jenin (accepted by the UN, the vast majority of the international press and governments) and does not define its terms when talking about international law. Amnesty secretary-general Irene Khan has been quoted on numerous occasions talking of 'war crimes'... To sprinkle the vocabulary of 'war crimes' in reports is misleading and reveals an ideological bias...

Moreover, there is a disturbing amount of inaccurate and anecdotal evidence used in the report...

HRW's and AI's partisanship has become one-sided pro-Palestinian advocacy rather than a neutral monitoring of human rights abuse. It has not resulted in a better life for their Palestinian clients. This essay entitled "Gaza Anomalies Blow PCP's Circuits: Result — The Sounds of Silence" was posted August 4, 2008 on the Augean Stables website
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/08/04/ gaza-anomalies-blow-pcps-circuits-result-the-sounds-of-silence/. It points out that NGO's have accepted the official version of Palestinian Arab description of reality — that they are victims of Israel's abuse of human rights. But the truth does occasionally break through, as Melanie Phillips notes (also below).

A few friends of mine went to a party in Jerusalem that was primarily made up Anglophone reporters, people who work for NGOs and UN agencies. What amazed them was the pervasive sense of the people they met and spoke with that Israel was the greatest human rights violator in the world and that the dismantling of Israel would be a great step forward for global human rights.

Now the idiocy of this position, the suicidal nature of this strategy to advance human rights is nothing short of breathtaking. Take Israel out of the Middle East and the region becomes nothing but Hama rules ... especially when the nastiest people — those who want to destroy Israel — would feel empowered by such a victory. But try and tell that to people who are smart enough to believe they can't be wrong, and credulous enough to believe the demopaths who pull their chains on a daily basis. And as a result, they are prime targets for a hate campaign against Israel.

The latest news from Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank illustrates all the anomalies involved in this fundamental failure of the "human rights" community to understand what's going on: black hearts and red spades galore.

Melanie Phillips has a superb column which analyzes the current, mind-boggling situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the Fatah "refugees" from Gaza seeking asylum in Israel. [From the August 4, 2008 The Spectator. It's called "Refugees From Whom?". Phillips writes about how the Palestinian reality is not the way the Arabs and their friends say it is.]

Extraordinary developments in Gaza have given a new meaning to the term `Palestinian refugees'. As the Jerusalem Post reports, fierce fighting in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas over the weekend, in which 11 people died and dozens more were wounded, resulted in 180 Fatah refugees fleeing from what they called a `war of genocide' by Hamas against Fatah supporters. And where did they flee to? Why, to Israel, of course — which allowed them in and proceeded to treat 23 of them (some of whom were wounded by the Israeli army after they approached the crossing into Israel) in Israeli hospitals.

This is one of the most important anomalies for those who follow the current PCP narrative about the Middle East in which Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people explain the ferocious hatred of the Palestinians for the Israelis. According to that version of events — largely the one that liberals have taken over by adopting the Palestinian narrative of suffering — the last place these Palestinian "warriors" would go was Israel, their mortal enemy who is trying to commit genocide against their people. If the Israelis want to wipe out Palestinian civilians, how much the more would they want to kill Palestinian "militants"?

And yet, this is not a new story. When King Hussein, "the moderate," found himself dealing with a restive Palestinian population in 1970, he slaughtered some 10,000 of them — men, women and children — in "Black September." The Palestinians fled his tender mercies across the Jordan to Israel where the Israelis, obligingly, shipped them over to Lebanon, where, within five years, they plunged that unhappy land into a seven-year war that killed over 100,000 civilians. When Israel finally put an end to that civil war by invading in 1982, and the Phalanage took advantage of their upper hand to slaughter several hundred Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla in revenge for Damur, the terrified inhabitants of the camps ran immediately to the Israeli positions outside the camp for protection. Why? Because they knew, despite all the "narratives" that when the chips are down, you can expect more mercy from the Jews than your fellow Arabs.

These are revelatory moments, when you see not the "public transcript" but what people really think. In honor-shame cultures they can be deeply embarrassing, since the public transcript is the "honorable" one, and the revelations that reverse that — like in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes — are almost by definition shameful. Participants might prefer not to remember these, might even seek to reverse them by insisting still more shrilly on the original "narrative." But outsiders need to pay close attention, because these rare moments are infinitely more revealing than the "public transcript."

These refugees say they cannot return to Gaza because they will be killed. How fortunate, therefore, that their own Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, can give them sanctuary in the West Bank!

But hang on — Abbas won't let them in. Yup, with the exception of five individuals whom he did allow in, he's denied them all sanctuary. He says they should go back to Gaza.

Before we get into the explanations proferred, let me make a medievalist's remark. This is a staggering act of cowardice. Any warlord has to protect his men above all. If he fails to do so, he loses their loyalty. To refuse safety to men who have suffered from their adherence to your banner — unless it was their fault — shows your weakness.

And the invaluable Khaled abu Toameh tells us the reason why:

PA officials explained that the reason behind their refusal to absorb the new `refugees' was their desire not to encourage other residents of the Gaza Strip to leave. `Everyone knows that if we allow people to leave the Gaza Strip, almost all the residents living there would try to cross the border into Israel,' said a senior PA official.

Contact American by email at american1627@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, October 27, 2008.

In the world there exist two types of countries: those that have committed genocides and the ethnic-cleansing of minorities in the last 100 years and those that have not. The question is whether or not it has been better from a historical and modern perspective, and even a moral perspective, to commit genocide or not. Judging by the way in which the former genocidaires have been treated by the international community, by leftist activists and by the academy one can only judge that it has been better to commit genocide and those countries that have not done so have lost out in a variety of ways. Those people who have been the victims of genocide have lost out the most for they have not only been victims but they have also then become, according to the modern western narrative, the 'new Nazis'.

Let us consider just a few cases. The Jews suffered the Holocaust, but today's Jewish state is considered a Nazi country by those progressive voices in the West. Europeans and westerners volunteer throughout the Palestinian territories. Yet their ancestors never volunteered to help Jews. Their moral judgement is clear: the Jews are the Nazis. The actual Nazi country, Germany, todays sends millions of Euros in donations to various 'human rights' organizations that condemn Israel as 'fascist' and 'apartheid' and compare its policies to those of Nazi Germany. Germans volunteer in organizations that help build homes for Palestinians. Yet Germans did not rebuild the homes of the Jews who were destroyed in Europe. Today's Germany is a model European democracy, a wealthy country full of technology and industry. Yet its victims are today 'Nazis'. Other countries in Europe are no different. The children of French members of the Vichy regime are today able to pose as progressive leftistis and journey to help Palestinians or burn the Israeli flag at their campuses in France.

But the irony of Israel protrayed as a 'Nazi' country by good western wealthy leftist intellectuals and Germany portrayed as a model country is not the only example of where those who commit the genocide have been rewarded while the victims have been termed the 'new Nazis'. The Serbs were, after the Jews and Russians, the main victims of the Nazis. Ten percent of their people were murdered. And yet today Serbia is the pariah and Germany is at the heart of the EU. Serbia must beg to join even as Germans serve in Bosnia and Albania and help continue the ethnic-cleansing of Serbs that was begun by the German allied Ustace Croatian regime. Croatia, a Nazi ally who was the only country in Europe to run its own concentration camp and murder it own Jews without SS help, is a European tourist destination and a 'good' country. It is wealthy and clean and celebrated internationally. Yet the victims of its home grown Nazi Ustache regime, the Serbs, are not only considered 'the new Nazis', but it is Serbs who sit in the dock at the European run International Court of Justice. In the 1990s the Croats continued their cleansing and murder of Serbs throughout Croatia, reducing them to a mere 2% of the population from some 20%, while the West, including Germany and former collaborationist regimes, helped them. Thus the former Nazis helped continue their legacy of murder and all the while the press and academics and 'good leftists' termed the Serbs the 'new Nazis'. Had Serbis chosen differently in 1941 and sided with the Nazis they would have been better off today.

But its not the only example. Turkey committed the Armenian Genocide. Today Armenia is a small poor landlocked country whose women are sold as sex slaves in Turkey and across the Middle East and Europe. Turkey, the genocidal regime, is a modern western state who may be granted entrance to the EU. It is in Nato. It is wealthy and considered a 'good' country. To even mention the Armenian genocide in Turkey is illegal, let alone to question the fate of the Ponitc Greeks or the other Greek minorities destroyed in 1922 when Turkey expelled them in the 'population exchange'. Yet Turkey has not stopped there. After its invasion of Cyrpus in the 1970s it cleansed the Greek inhabitants of its part of that island and settled Turks in their place. And today the EU and leftist Cypriots back a plan to allow the Turks to return to Greek Cyprus but not trhe Greeks to return to their former homes. In Rhodes, Crete and other Greek islands the memory of the Turks is preserved in their minarets and mosques and small Muslim communities remain. Yet in places such as Smyrna (Izmir) the Greek churches are gone and their crosses destroyed. Yet in Rhodes a Swedish politician is present researching 'human rights' for the local Muslim community which has recently been allowed to raise a giant minaret above the old city's skyline, a minaret that not coincidentally towers over the local Greek-Orthodox church (just as in Ottoman times when it was illegal for a Christian structure to be taller than a Muslim minaret). Leftist researchers such as Ruth Mandel have been convinced by the Turkish lobby in the U.S which supports pro-Turkish scholarship in the U.S to term the Greeks an 'invented' people whose identity only exists 'against the Turkish Other.' The genocidal regime becomes the positive 'other' and those that were colonized, the Greeks, are said to have no culture. So those who cleansed the Greeks are wealthy and clean and the Greeks must build mosques for them, while in Turkey there is no reciprocal action of preserving the Christian heritage of Anatolia.

Everywhere in the world it has been the same. The Cambodian genocidaires were never prosecuted and they were in fact supported by western leftists who claimed the gneocide had been inflated by 'right wing anti-communists.' In Rwanda during the 1994 genocide the French and the world press was tricked the world for months into beleiving that it was the French allied Hutus who were the victims rather than the perpetrators. Westerners, unable to distinguish one black tribe from another, despite their obvious differences, simply believed the reports. Only later when the UN troops under French guidance were actually encouraged to intervene to prevent a 'Tutsi genocide of Hutus' did they realize it was 800,000 Tutsis who had been murdered, rather than the other way around. The Hutu genocidaires escaped to the Congo where the UN settled them in refugee camps. They were allowed to rearm and subsequently started another mini-genocide against Tutsi tribesmen in the Congo. When those Tutsis subsequently formed their own army under General Nkunda the International Court of Justice in Europe and the UN accused him of 'war crimes.' The big Hutu leaders were allowed to settle in the West, in Europe and in the USA. Meanwhile in Rwanda the UN and France has attempted to accuse the Tutusi leadership and its president Paul Kagame of 'war crimes' during the genocide. Not one Hutu has ever been put on trial by the West.

During the Indian partition of 1948 the Pakistani Muslims cleansed all the Hindus and Sikhs from what is now Pakistan. Yet India allowed millions of Muslims to remain so that they now form 20% of India. Today all the human rights organizations and other NGOs such as Minority Rights International only care about the Muslims in India. They are said to be poor and discriminated against. In Pakistan there are no Hindus to discriminate against because they are all gone. In Singapore one must also read about discrimination against the Malay Muslim minority, yet in neighbouring Malaysia the Chinese minority suffers official discrimination under the country's 'Malays First' law which gives the majority preference in jobs and education. No NGO or human rights organization has ever voiced any interest in this.

The world and its victims have learned the hard way, it is always better to genocide than to be genocided. It is better to cleanse than to be cleansed. The world community appears to voice its opposition to genocide and ethnic-cleansing and 'war crimes'. But history shows us something different. Every country that has successfully done away with its minorities has suceeded in the end in becoming wealthy and accepted. Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries that suppress non-Muslims and in one case won't even allow them to drive on certain roads or construct houses of worship, are darlings of the international community with sympathizers throughout the world, especially at the highest levels of western educational institutions. Their ideologies of Islamism are widely loved in the west with philosophers such as the late Michael Faucault embracing them and modern oped writers such as Bradley Burston declaring 'this year, this Jew is supporting Jihad'. Of course this Jihad is positive, it is an 'inner struggle' and one that does not permit the "murder of women, children or the elderly." Of course it does permit their enslavement and the murder of the men, but no matter.

It is better to Jihad than not to Jihad. It is better to be Islamist Iran than those who oppose Islamist Iran. It is better to be Saudi than to be those who are the victims of Saudi. It is better to be Turkey than Armenia and Croatia than Serbia, at least if one measures 'better' by wealth, tourism and international acceptance and historical narrative. The European, whose ancestors collaborated, tells the Serbs to forget the 14th century and join the 21st. But can they join the 21st before they receive an apology for what was done to them in the 20th. No. The message is always: forget the past. Europeans want us to forget the past, because it is one filled with their misdeeds. They want a present where the Jews and Serbs are the 'Nazis' and a German or Frenchmen or Englishwoman can be a Protest Tourist in Hebron helping with the Palestinian olive harvest.

Every nation and people should learn from history. Genocide is preferable. Jihad is preferable. Minorities are the shackles around a nation's neck. They are forever used to condemn the nation. Those countries that successfully did away with their minorities, as almost all Muslim countries have done, are more successful, wealthy, and loved in the international arena. For those that say 'never again' and 'now we have learned from our past' one must only look to Sudan for the evidence of this lie. Here is a nation where the genocide continues. And yet the world does nothing. Sudan is widely loved in its region. It is even invited to help with such conferences as the Durban conference against racism and invited to join the UN Human Rights Council. Is it better to be Sudan or Israel? Sudan receives the oil revenues and as the Economist informs us, the per capita income of Arab Khartoum is quite high. Europeans even go their to volunteer, not to help the black victims of the genocide, but to give the wealthy Arabs a free education. Has a European ever volunteered in Israel to help a victim of terror? Except for those few reviled European evangelicals, those 'kooks', No.

One can learn from this story that the pragmatic thing to do is to always be the first to genocide, the first to cleanse. One should have collaborated with the Nazis, those nations that did so are today ten times wealthier today than those that did not. Those that did are members of the EU, those that resisted are not. The western academy tells us today to join the Jihad. But morally we know that the blood of the Nazis and their European collaborators can never be removed. The blood of the Jihad never comes off. The soul of the nations that engage in such behavoir can never be cleansed: secularism soon follows and with it low birth rates and decline of civilization. The victory of Nazism is only temporary. It has resulted in the creation of 'New Jews' in Europe, the Muslim immigrants who raise minarets above European cities. The genocider wants us to forget history. Of course. Those descendants of SS officers would prefer we concentrate on destroyed Palestinian homes rather than the former Jewish homes that their families today reside in. Is it a coincidence that all the victims of Nazism have become the 'new Nazis'. Surely not. What is more perverse than for the Nazi to transfer the guilt to his victims, turning them into the perpetrators?

But the evidence that this model of liberalism and secularism, this model of genocide does not work, is the Muslim immigration to Europe. For in seeking to transform the victims into the Nazis and the Nazis into respectible members of modern society the Europeans have inadvertently made themselves wealthy and their victims poor, but now that promises to backfire as that wealth has attracted other genocidaires, the best experts at genocide: Islamism and Jihad. So the best thing for Armenia, Serbia and Israel and other victims, such as the Hindus, to do is to watch as the two genocidal peoples work things out among themselves. They say 'forget the past'. But they are deep in the past and it is catching up day by day. Those Europeans who see the actual history and see the Jews, Serbs and Armenians as victims, are the same ones who see the threat of Islamism and are the same ones who see the evils of Nazism and collaboration. But those Europeans are few, just as it was only a few who saw that the Tutsis were the victims and the Hutus the murders. To remove the scourge of collaboration with genocide, the first thing is to remove the UN and the ICJ, two organizations who collaborated with genocide and were built on its gas chambers. Removing these shackles, placed around humanity, may not be possible, for it goes hand in hand with removing the dictatotrship of moral relativism and 'human rights' (which always seems to support the murder of people or nationalism and terrorism) activists and 'anti-racism' (which, in the case of the Durban conference, is usually racist) activists that plague society.

Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This essay appeared on his website October 21, 2008.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eleazar ben Yair, October 27, 2008.

Caroline Glick writes on the centrality of Jerusalem.The article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822005&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Contact Caroline Glick by email at caroline@carolineglick.com


Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's failure to form a government proved that all roads do in fact lead to Jerusalem. It was the issue of Jerusalem that deadlocked and ultimately scuttled Livni's coalition negotiations with Shas, which demanded that she pledge not to negotiate the partition of the city with the Palestinians. Livni refused to make such a pledge. And so the negotiations failed and new elections will soon be called.

In refusing to agree to Shas's demand, Livni made clear that partitioning the city — that is, giving the Palestinians sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the Arab neighborhoods — is so central to her preferred foreign policy that she could not budge on the issue despite her obvious desire to take up residence in the Prime Minister's Office. Moreover, it showed that she believes that the bulk of her potential voters hail from the post-Zionist Left. To win their support, she had to make clear that she is one of them.

In making Jerusalem, rather than welfare payments the wedge issue in their negotiations with Livni, Shas's leaders demonstrated their recognition of the fact that defending Israeli sovereignty over the capital city is more important to their voters than increasing welfare. Had they entered a Livni government without securing a pledge to defend Jerusalem, Shas would have been hard pressed to compete with the Likud in the coming elections.

Due to the centrality of Jerusalem in Livni's failed negotiations with Shas, it is apparent that maintaining or ending sovereignty over united Jerusalem will be the central issue of the coming elections. If the Left can convince a sufficient number of voters that a united Jerusalem is a drain on the country's resources or that it is impossible to enforce Israeli law among an increasingly lawless and irredentist Arab population, then it will have a fighting chance of winning the elections.

If the Right is able to demonstrate that the problems that afflict Jerusalem are little different from those suffered by mixed Jewish-Arab cities throughout the country and are a consequence of government and municipal mismanagement and are therefore manageable, then it will win the elections.

TODAY THE problems that Jerusalem faces stem from its unique demographic character, municipal mismanagement and the clear if previously unstated intention of successive leftist governments to eventually withdraw from the Temple Mount and from the city's Arab neighborhoods.

Jerusalem's ranking today as the poorest city in the country redounds to the fact that that the majority of its residents are Arab and haredi. These two sectors by and large do not work and do not pay municipal taxes. As a consequence, the municipal tax burden falls on the plurality of Jerusalemites who work and pay taxes — mainly religious Zionists and non-observant Jews. Due to the unfair tax burden, recent years have seen a steady stream of the city's productive residents migrating to surrounding communities where the tax burden is more evenly distributed and municipal services are consequently better.

Beyond the chronic problem of under-collection of taxes, Jerusalem suffers from problems of lawlessness among its Arab residents not unlike the problems that affect all cities with mixed Jewish and Arab populations. This Arab lawlessness is facilitated on a national level by the government's refusal to order the police and the State Attorney's Office to enforce and apply the law equally to Arab citizens.

Jerusalem also suffers from unique problems with lawlessness and underdevelopment. These problems have been created by successive governments that have silently encouraged the partition of the city by both enabling the PA to field militiamen in the city's Arab neighborhoods and discouraging and indeed prohibiting Jewish building in areas the government foresees being transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. These manufactured problems have retarded development and expansion plans. They have also artificially raised housing prices for the city's Jewish residents.

One of the chief responsibilities of Palestinian militia that operate in the city has been to enforce the PA's anti-Semitic law which defines the sale of land to Jews as a capital offense. Since 1994, dozens of Arab Jerusalemites have been executed by these men and their Fatah masters in Ramallah and Jericho for the "crime" of selling land to Jews. The government has made little effort to prosecute the offenders. Since 2004, when prime minister Ariel Sharon forced internal security minister Uzi Landau to resign due to Landau's opposition to Sharon's sharp turn to the left, the police have not been ordered to rein in the activities of the militia.

Largely as a consequence of this state of affairs, Jews are prevented from living in half of the city. The scarcity of housing options for Jews is what has caused an artificial increase in housing prices that has compelled young families to migrate out of the city.

Another factor contributing to the scarcity of land for Jewish building is the government's refusal to permit the building of new neighborhoods in areas like E-1 near Mount Scopus. Commerce is stifled, among other reasons, because the government has refrained from ordering the IDF to reassert control over Atarot municipal airport and industrial zone after the Palestinians began murdering businessmen, shooting passing motorists and threatening air traffic in 2000. In essence, as the building of the separation fence within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries shows clearly, the government has been effectively enacting the partition of the city for the past several years without ever acknowledging this fact.

The government's effective support for partition is perhaps nowhere more obvious than on the Temple Mount. There, the Islamic Wakf not only incites for jihad with impunity, it is also systematically destroying the remains of the Second Temple with impunity. The abject abandonment of Judaism's holiest site by successive governments has facilitated not only the radicalization of Jerusalem Arabs from surrounding neighborhoods, like Silwan, it has also emboldened global jihadists to believe that Jerusalem — and Israel with it — will soon fall into their hands.

IN LIGHT of these difficult realities, it is a relief that Jerusalemites are likely to elect Nir Barkat as their new mayor on November 11. While the mayor of Jerusalem has only a limited capacity to solve the unique, politically-driven maladies endangering the city, he does have considerable power to solve the problems that are similar to those impacting other cities nationwide. He can compel residents to pay their municipal taxes. He can enforce building codes. And he can use his power and influence to facilitate new building while improving municipal infrastructure to encourage economic growth and population expansion.

Barkat is a 48-year-old Jerusalemite. He served as a company commander in the paratroopers, and then went on to make a fortune in the hi-tech sector. In 1999, he and his wife became active philanthropists supporting various Zionist educational causes related to the city. In 2003 he retired from his business ventures to run for mayor. His party, Yerushalayim Tatzliah (Jerusalem will succeed), won 43 percent of the vote. Barkat has served for five years as the head of the opposition in the city council. In 2005, he joined Kadima.

Last year, he broke with Kadima when he discovered that the government was conducting negotiations on the partition of Jerusalem with Fatah leaders. Emerging as a staunch defender of the city's unity, he was one of the prominent leaders of the national opposition movement which arose to demand that the government end its negotiations on the issue.

As a mayoral candidate, Barkat has assembled a candidates list for his party comprised of members of the Likud, the Gil Pensioners Party, the Green Party and Labor. They have committed themselves to a common platform pledged to defend and facilitate continued Israeli sovereignty over the entire city.

In a recent conversation, Barkat explained to me that enforcing law and order in the Arab neighborhoods while encouraging local, non-jihadist neighborhood councils to take a leadership role in their communities is one of his primary goals.

"Today we have a crazy situation in which the number of municipal inspectors assigned to a neighborhood is inversely proportional to the degree of building code violations. We have four times more municipal inspectors assigned to Jewish neighborhoods than to Arab neighborhoods which have four times more building violations.[emphasis added] I will reverse this situation as mayor."

Barkat also intends to push hard to build a new neighborhood for young people in E-1. To date, building in E-1 has been blocked by the government which as bowed to US pressure not to build in the strategically critical area that connects Jerusalem to Ma'aleh Adumim.

Barkat also intends to encourage economic growth in the city by developing its tourist sector. He correctly identifies projects like the City of David as sites with massive tourist potential. He believes that the proper way to achieve his goal of bringing 10 million tourists a year is to develop tourist attractions that link the Old City to surrounding areas like Gush Etzion.

Barkat has a vision of setting up a council of metropolitan Jerusalem that will involve the heads of the Jewish communities around the city in its overall development plans. This he believes will encourage business growth and lead to more rational long-term urban planning and infrastructure development.

Barkat's headquarters bustle with campaign workers. Most of them are in their early 20s. They hail from both non-observant and national religious backgrounds. Their enthusiasm for his candidacy is a product of his chairmanship of the non-profit Ruah Hadasha (new spirit) organization that helps students find post-university job opportunities in Jerusalem and encourages student involvement in the city. Yakir Segev, who founded and directs Ruah Hadasha, is one of the senior members of Barkat's party.

There is no guarantee, of course, that Barkat will be able to succeed in contending with the daunting challenges facing the city. But there is no doubt that if elected, he will bring a new integrity and commitment to the office and a welcome vision for Jerusalem that is both attractive and eminently achievable. Indeed, it is the success of Barkat's vision that will put paid the notion that united Jerusalem is ungovernable.

If as the polls indicate, Barkat wins the mayoral race in two weeks, the overwhelming majority of Israelis who are committed to safeguarding Israeli sovereignty over the eternal capital of the Jewish people will find a formidable ally in city hall.

Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), October 27, 2008.

Well, is it that hard to believe in this day and age that a major American newspaper offers up an op-ed filled with praise for Iran? This would be Friday's Boston Globe in an op-ed written by Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley, both of whom work for the liberal minded Center for American Progress.

By the way, the fact that Korb has been identified as a key foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama is completely unmentioned — a major journalistic lapse but not a surprising one by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe.

Korb and Conley look upon Iranian efforts to help topple the Taliban as proof of the potential for Iran to work with America in bringing about some sort of Pax Persia in the region. This is a fallacy. Iran opposed the Taliban because the Taliban — a Sunni extremist group — hated the Shiite Persians that were on its border and hated the Shiites within Afghanistan. The Taliban murdered Iranian regime officials. The downfall of the Taliban was in the interest of the regime and their help when America sought to oust the Taliban was based strictly on self-interest. In the diplomatic realm, nations don't have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. The interests of the Iranian regime is regional hegemony and the acquisition of nuclear bombs.

Korb and Conley blame Bush for failure to reach out to the Iranians. This argument falls flat. In fact, various Bush officials have sought to reach out to the regime (as even the op-ed mentions in passing) but have been rebuffed — as have a long line of other Presidents who have tried to establish relations with the Iranians. This is a fact that the op-ed ignores.

The op-ed also seems to blame Bush for the progress of the Iranian nuclear program. This is absurd. The program did not start under Bush (and was actually temporarily put on hold in the wake of our invasion of Iraq) but had its origins going back to the 1980s. The program has progressed apace — under Democrat and Republican Presidents. We have sought, along with the United Nations and our European allies, to work with the Iranians to curb their nuclear program in return for various "carrots" offered to them. The result? Rebuff after rebuff, as the centrifuges spin away.

What is especially striking in this op-ed is the complete silence regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. One would hope that a foreign policy expert close to Barack Obama would at least recognize how important it is to consider the nature of a regime when advocating diplomatic outreach. Where is the recognition that the regime is — and has long been — designated as the number one terror-sponsoring nation in the world (as Bill Clinton so designated Iran)? Where is the recognition that Iran has been helping kill Americans in Iraq and has done so in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, or the awareness that Iranian proxies have killed innocent Argentineans, Lebanese, Israelis and for that matter Iranians (a regime that hangs children and gays and brutalizes women wins praise from Korb and Conley?).

That little matter of denying the Holocaust while openly boasting of plans to bring about another one? The theological and apocalyptic musings of its leaders (not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), the talk of halos and apocalypse spoken by Ahmadinejad from the podium of the United Nations to bring about the return of the missing Imam? Sheer piffle, not worth mentioning.

We will see more of these efforts to burnish Iran in the days ahead. The Iran lobby is stepping up efforts in Washington. The Persian red carpet is being rolled out.

Welcome to the future of our foreign relations under Barack Obama. Much like his campaign, it involves dreams and fantasy. This was written by Ed Lasky news editor for American Thinker. It appeared today in Family Security Matters
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1585/pub_detail.asp The original article has live links to additional material.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dan Calic, October 27, 2008.

Many people are of the belief the best way to resolve the conflict should include negotiations with Hamas and land concessions by Israel.

This presumes Hamas is willing to [1] agree to negotiations, [2] accept territorial concessions by Israel and [3] recognize the right of Israel to exist.

Below are excerpts from the Hamas Charter.

I would invite anyone who believes negotiations designed to bring about a land for peace settlement pay particular attention to the sections of the Hamas charter that are enclosed in double stars and square brackets ([** ... **]).

If you've never actually read the Hamas charter, hopefully now you may realize the futility of a negotiated settlement with this terrorist organization, which is uncompromisingly committed to liquidate the Jewish people from every inch of the land of Israel.

The Hamas Charter, "The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)", 18 August 1988 is available as a MidEast Web Historical Document at


Article Eight:

[**Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes**]

Strategies of the Islamic Resistance Movement: Palestine Is Isalmic aqf:

Article Eleven:

[**The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.** Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

**This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.**]

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:

[**Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.** Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

**Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question.**]

Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. ** These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?**

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow — verse 120).

[**There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.**]

Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty:

Article Fifteen:

[**The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.**]

To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.

It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers. This, in its turn, paved the way for the imperialistic invasion that made Allenby declare on entering Jerusalem: "Only now have the Crusades ended." General Guru stood at Salah el-Din's grave and said: "We have returned, O Salah el-Din." Imperialism has helped towards the strengthening of ideological invasion, deepening, and still does, its roots. All this has paved the way towards the loss of Palestine.

[**It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.**]

Palestine contains Islamic holy sites. In it there is al- Aqsa Mosque which is bound to the great Mosque in Mecca in an inseparable bond as long as heaven and earth speak of Isra` (Mohammed's midnight journey to the seven heavens) and Mi'raj (Mohammed's ascension to the seven heavens from Jerusalem).

"The bond of one day for the sake of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it. The place of one's whip in Paradise is far better than the world and whatever there is on it. A worshipper's going and coming in the service of Allah is better than the world and whatever there is on it." (As related by al-Bukhari, Moslem, al-Tarmdhi and Ibn Maja).

[**"I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).**]

And now take a look at a quote from Barrack Obama in a NY Times interview:

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

"Legitimate claims??!!"

Would a true friend of Israel say such a thing ?

Contact Dan Calic at calic@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 27, 2008.

Well, President Peres has told the Knesset, which is beginning its winter session, that we will be going to elections. Part of the process down the road will involve dissolving the current Knesset. Several factions are urging that elections proceed as speedily as possible, for the nation's sake.

Analysts project a two-way contest between Livni and Netanyahu, with Barak of Labor falling so far behind as to be pretty much out of the picture — which is a good place for him. For the first time, polls have been released that show Livni ahead of Netanyahu by 2 or 3 seats. I figure that this is a result of her claiming the high ground in refusing to cave to Shas's demands. It is not necessarily a stable figure.; there's no such thing as a stable predictive figure three months before an election. But I guess it won't be a shoo-in for Netanyahu, which is how it seemed for some time.


Olmert made a statement to the Knesset in the course of this discussion: "The threats on the security of the people of Israel will not wait for political procedures. [Concern about] terror cannot be postponed because some of us are busy with the election process."

He's right. Responses to terror, actions to protect national security, may be necessary between now and the time his successor takes over.

But this doesn't provide him with the latitude to continue negotiations with the PA.


Actually, because of the political uncertainty Abbas has cancelled a meeting with Olmert that had been scheduled. Whether it will be rescheduled is not clear. It shouldn't be.

The PA is terribly unhappy about the current state of affairs and the likelihood that the Israeli elections will make progress in the "peace" process impossible. What a shame...

What they are most worried about is the possibility that Livni might lose the elections: "If Netanyahu becomes the next prime minister, we will have to declare the peace process dead."

Fact is, Abbas is about to face enormous political turmoil come January in terms of his fight with Hamas regarding when his term ends. He's in no shape to advance "peace" either.


Yesterday, Home Front Commander Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan, addressing a National Security Institute conference, said that Israel faces greater threat of missile attacks down the road. "In the next five years, our enemies may fire 200-300 tons of explosive's worth in rockets on Israel." During the Second Lebanon War the rockets fired at Israel amounted to 30 tons of explosives.

Golan was reassuring, however: "The numbers may seem high but this isn't a catastrophe in waiting. We are more than capable of handling it." Let's pray so, as it's not simply a matter of more explosives, but also more sophisticated and accurate equipment.

The conference was told that Home Front readiness is being revolutionized.

But I have another thought, another concern: Are we going to sit here and wait for those explosives to start flying — from Hezbollah or from Hamas? Will there be no pre-emptive actions, even though we know full well that arsenals are being strengthened??


Yesterday, Defense Minister Barak complained to the head of UNIFIL regarding the continuing smuggling of arms by Hezbollah over the Syrian border. A whole lot of good this will do. Declaring that the IDF has been watching the situation closely and has seen the strengthening of Hezbollah (a re-arming the UNIFIL says they see no evidence of), Barak protested that, "The repeated violation of 1701 could lead us to upset of the delicate balance that exists in Lebanon..." I confess: I have no idea what "delicate balance" Barak has in mind. Hezbollah already has the upper hand, as far as I can see.


A US Special Forces operation moved about 4 to 5 miles inside Syria yesterday, as part of an action to secure the Syrian border with Iraq, via which about 90% of foreign fighters — as well as cash for Al Qaida and weapons — enter Iraq. Eight people were killed in the helicopter raid, including, according to a US official cited by Fox News, the main target of the operation, the Al Qaida coordinator of foreign fighters stationed in Syria. Good move.

The Syrians, who have not been particularly cooperative with regard to sealing their border (any more than they seal their border with Lebanon), are decidedly not happy.


This past Shabbat, close to 600 PA special forces troops, US-trained, were deployed in Hevron. This is ostensibly to give the PA a stronger hand in combating Hamas, as Hevron is a Hamas stronghold. But this follows the deployment of PA troops some months earlier, first in Nablus (Shechem) and then in Jenin. And there is great unease in some quarters here in Israel that this is part of a process of turning Judea and Samaria over to PA security, one step at a time, as a prelude to pushing out Jewish settlement.

It remains to be seen how the forces in Hevron will conduct themselves. In Nablus and Jenin it was reported that they helped restore calm on the streets and did things such as arrest car thieves, but did not actively take on Hamas — this was left for the IDF to handle. A first operation of some sort, that rounded up "criminals and Hamas loyalists" is being reported in the media.


For a number of reasons, the beleaguered Jewish community of Hevron fiercely protested this move, which could have been stopped by the IDF. Terrorists have on numerous occasions been incorporated into the PA security forces, and thus there is no reason to trust them. The PA-controlled area around the Jewish area of Hevron includes high points from which it is possible for snipers to shoot at Jews. This is not idle speculation, as this is what happened in 2001 to 10-month old Shalhevet Pass, who was deliberately shot dead by a sniper standing on a hill near the Avraham Aveinu neighborhood and aiming directly at her head.


What is more, the speculation that the deployment of these forces is a prelude to pushing out Jewish settlement gained considerable traction in the small hours of Sunday morning as Israeli forces (police, army and more) demolished the home of Noam Federman and his family:

The Federman farm is located outside of Kiryat Arba, not far from Hevron. Noam, his wife Elisheva, and their nine children, had lived in a house there for two years. In the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, they were awaked without prior warning and removed forcibly from their house — which was totally demolished with contents inside. The reason given: It was "illegally constructed."

One is struck by the difference between this action and the deferential treatment afforded by the government to the families of terrorists who are resident in eastern Jerusalem — treatment that makes Israeli officials move only very reluctantly with regard to demolishing their homes. It is Jewish Israelis, the "settlers," the residents of Judea and Samaria, who have become the enemy, the roadblock to official intentions to accommodate the Palestinians.


At the farm, as the home was being demolished, some few of the Jews present (for the word went out and people gathered) made injudicious remarks regarding the IDF. Apologies have since been offered for what was said, but a great deal is being made of this. I would offer here the words of Hevron spokesman David Wilder:

"There is a saying in Hebrew that a person should not be held responsible for his words when his loved ones are still lying dead in front of him. That is how I relate to the...remarks [made]. The expulsion from Gush Katif and Northern Samaria are all still much too fresh and the fate of those expelled still hurting much too much. It is no secret that this administration has plans to implement further expulsions..."


Arutz Sheva reports that the municipality of Kiryat Arba has decided officially to rebuild the home that was demolished on the Federman farm, using city equipment and calling upon Jews across Israel to help. It is felt important that the site not be permitted to remain desolate of a Jewish presence.

The Jews of Judea and Samaria are tired of being the scapegoats and tired of the treatment accorded them, and they are angry. It is my own opinion that their resolve and their courage will be the salvation of our nation.


A stunning analysis of the Obama campaign — "The Obama Temptation" by Mark R. Levin — has come to my attention. Says Levin:

"...I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places...even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical...[people with] significant public policy and real world experiences...find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

"There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

"Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place...

"...my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The 'change' he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government...

"The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency?..."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q= ZTI1NmUxYjA4ODczZjgxOWJhMzQ3ODI0MDRkOWFlMDQ=

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Simon McIlwaine, October 27, 2008.

This is an excerpt from

Specialist advice is being given to Scotland Yard on how to reduce tensions between police and Muslims during the London Olympics because of growing concerns about the Games clashing with the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the day, The Times has learnt.

Experts will also warn the Metropolitan Police to ensure that the planned commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the massacre of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Games does not offend local and travelling Muslims.

The recommendations have been made by inter-faith advisers to Scotland Yard, where antiterrorism police are preparing to combat any possible Islamic terrorist threat to the Games.

Community tensions in the lead-up to the games have already been raised by a controversial Muslim movement, Tablighi Jamaat, which plans to build Britain's largest mosque and Islamic complex near the 2012 Olympic stadium site.

Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar, and one of four experts hired by Scotland Yard who began training the police this week on inter-faith issues, said that the commemoration of the 11 Israeli athletes, killed by Palestinian militants from the Black September Organisation at the 1972 Munich Games, could become a national security threat if it was not managed properly and was perceived by Muslims to be "hijacking" the Games.

Edward Kessler, executive director of the Woolfe Institute, which deals with inter-faith dialogue, teaching and research, said that police needed to have a "minimum level of faith literacy" to help them deal with religious issues during the London Games. Dr Kessler said: "During Ramadan you're going to have a lot of tired, hungry, less evenly tempered people because they haven't eaten for 18 hours."

Editor's Note:

One reader asked: "What on earth does Ramadan have to do with denouncing terrorism?"

Another wrote sarcastically: The British Government should ask permission from a Council of UK imams before passing any laws or making any decisions. In fact, why don't we just dissolve parliament and just let the mosques run our country? They do such a great job of it in their own countries, after all.

Simon McIlwaine is with Anglican Friends of Israel (www.anglicanfriendsofisrael.com). Contact him at Simon.McIlwaine@ormerods.co.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by NCUL, October 27, 2008.

In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income.

This is an article from www.FOXNews.com
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack- supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/


Sunday: Barack Obama talks to a voter at a campaign office in Brighton, Colo. (AP Photo)

Barack Obama's campaign is firing back against criticism over a seven-year-old radio interview in which Obama discussed wealth redistribution, specifically blaming FOX News for drawing attention to the issue.

In the interview, conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001 while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago, Obama discusses the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights decisions. The unearthed conversations gave fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

But Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Monday accused FOX News of pushing a "fake news controversy" to further an agenda. Though FOX News played the audio tape for its viewers and did not just recap Republican criticism, Burton suggested FOX News was conspiring with the McCain campaign and the Drudge Report, which posted the material on its Web site.

"This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of FOX News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months," Burton said in a written statement Monday. "In this seven-year-old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all."

In a heated interview later on FOX News, Burton accused the channel of giving McCain advertising "for free every single day," and trying to "continually trump up these fake controversies and have folks on to talk about things that don't have anything to do with the issues that are important to the American people."

"This was indeed an issue that has been driven by the FOX News Channel," Burton said. "And so this notion that somehow FOX News has been fair on these points, it just does not hold up to the reality of sort of the coverage that it's been getting. And I think ... it is rarely so crystal clear when FOX News in and of itself is driving its own specific agenda helping John McCain frankly more than John McCain sometimes helps himself."

However, the 2001 interview evoked recent questioning by Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut."

"Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said.

"And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.

VOICE: And you are joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but — But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

"Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed.

"It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said.

"You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time."

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

"Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said.

Obama Bombshell: 'Redistribution of Wealth' Audio Uncovered
To hear the Obama interview:
Click here.

To Go To Top

Posted by Tsvi November, October 27, 2008.

Rougier, Bernard
Everyday Jihad, The Rise of Militant Islam Among Palestinians in Lebanon
Translated by Pascale Ghazaleh (2007)
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004

Everyday Jihad focuses on the constantly growing power of various Islamic fundamentalist groups active in the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. The camps are officially run by UNRWA, the UN's single purpose agency charged with assisting Palestinian refugees. UNRWA, created in 1951, operates the camps and also provides educational and health care services to residents. The fact that UNRWA's budget is heavily dependent on US taxpayers is not mentioned by the author who estimates that there are over 300,000 Palestinians in Lebanon and their camps enjoy extraterritorial status. Lebanese authority is not exercised over the camps and the Lebanese army does not go in unless threatened by armed insurgents, significant numbers of whom live in the camps. Palestinians are legally barred from most occupations in Lebanon but can get work permits for menial jobs. In the 1950s the Palestinian Christians were granted citizenship and equal rights but the vast majority of Palestinians are Sunni Moslems who do not enjoy equal access to amenities and facilities in the country.

This text is a political anthropological survey/description of the interaction of the numerous forces competing with one another to lead the Palestinians. The activists involved are profoundly influenced by current turmoil throughout the Islamic world and also strive to play an important role in fundamentalist expansion in Lebanon, the Middle East, the Moslem world and beyond. Rougier conducted his research primarily in the two largest camps of Ain al-Helweh near Beirut and Nahr al-Barid north of Tripoli over a four year period through the auspices of CEMAM (Centre d'Etude sur le monde Arabe) in Geneva and CERMOC (Centre d'Etude et de Recherché sur le moyen-Orient Contemp) in Beirut.

What I found so fascinating about this survey is the large number of organizations at work and sometimes at war with one another. To call the Lebanese political configuration that Rougier describes in detail as complicated is a gross understatement. Therefore, I will try to simply list the actors and their orientation toward other militants, established governments, political parties, divergent ideologies and their perceived enemies (i.e. Israel, the US, Christianity and the West in general).

We can begin with the proto-state PLO which is a secular nationalist movement that consists of several fighting groups, the most influential being Fatah. Both the PLO (as a roof organization) and Fatah are split into two camps; those who support the Oslo process and negotiating with Israel and those who object to it. The latter see Arafat, his successor Abu Mazzen and the negotiators as traitors. Other groups such as the PFLP and the DFLP compete with Fatah in carrying out terror attacks euphemistically referred to as "resistance". However, the secular nationalists have, for the most part, been superseded by Hamas which is the Palestinian equivalent of the Moslem Brotherhood founded in Egypt in 1928. The Brotherhood, now active in many Arab countries, is essentially a political movement that wants to replace secular Arab governments that imitate the despised West with Islamic regimes (not unlike the one in Iran) that will rule according to the Koran and Shari'a law. Most observers think that Hamas has supplanted Fatah and the PLO. Hamas considers all of Palestine (i.e. Israel) holy Moslem land and, therefore, non-negotiable. Hamas is not a member of the PLO but did win the last (2006) PA (Palestinian Authority) elections and has taken over (2007) the Gaza strip by force.

Since the 1980s, as a consequence of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the success of the Islamic guerrillas who drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Islamic radicals are now well-entrenched in Pakistan and the Palestinian camps in Lebanon as well. Over the past two decades fundamentalists, some of whom fought and/or studied in Afghanistan or Peshawar, have taken over the camps. They have replaced the PLO and Hamas and now dominate Palestinian thinking and orientation. The fundamentalists have weakened nationalistic ambitions and encourage transnational jihad instead. These Salafists (all men because women are excluded from their masculine, religious milieu) want to re-create the original Moslem community Mohammad set up in 7th century Arabia. These radicals refuse to participate in modern political institutions or processes. Their only legitimate constitution is the Koran and the values that guided the Prophet and his followers. Western political thinking about freedom, democracy, man-made legislation and political institutions are rejected outright. Consequently, these Salafists also oppose Hamas and the Moslem Brotherhood because they (Hamas and the Brotherhood) willingly take part in elections and agree to work within the frame of secular governments. In addition, the Salafists follow the battles being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Algeria, Somalia and elsewhere. They even volunteer to go on jihad to fight infidels wherever they may be.

Some Palestinian Salafist groups are funded by Iran while others are supported by Saudi Arabia. Libya's Muammar also contributes to seminars that teach Salafi principles.

Money is also raised in Arab communities abroad.

Two Lebanese Salafist organizations, Jama'a Islamiyya and al-Ahbash (literally 'Ethiopians') are more "moderate" and work openly in Lebanese society. But Usbat al-Ansar (Partisans' League) and al-Haraka al-Islamiya al Mujahida (Combatant Islamic Movement) operate clandestently in the camps and are violent. They attack churches, night clubs, liquor stores and Lebanese government agencies including the police and army. They wage holy war against what they call 'the enemies of Islam' of which there are many. However, these Salafists do not attack Syrian representatives or installations. Bashar al-Asad's regime, even though it is a secular Ba'thist/socialist dictatorship and far from Islam, is not criticized openly. The Syrians maintain a pervading omnipresence in Lebanon. Their intelligence service (Mukhabara) has offices in strategic locations and seems to know everything. Even before the start of Lebanon's civil war in 1976 (which Rougier believes was incited by the PLO), the Syrians dominated Lebanese politics. In fact, Syria has until now considered Lebanon to be part of Syria. [In October 2008 I read that the Syrians and Lebanese have decided to establish diplomatic relations for the first time.]

The Syrians have their own Palestine liberation organization, al-Saika and over the decades have consistently opposed the PLO. Rougier does not, however, analyze the conflicts of interests between these two parties.

The Syrians are very good at manipulating the many antagonistic groups extant in Lebanon. During the civil war (1976-1990) they supported the Christian militias against the Palestinians. More recently, the Syrians have aligned themselves with Iran and provide extensive military support to Hizbullah which, in effect, has control over southern Lebanon. Like the Iranians, Hizbullah is Shi'ite. Indeed, the Shi'ites are the largest of Lebanon's forty officially recognized confessional groups. It is the Shi'ite Hizbullah that carries out attacks on Israel and does not allow Palestinian (Sunni) units to operate in its territory.

The Lebanese army is essentially impotent and, at any rate, is now largely Shi'ite because many Maronite Christians, especially from tension-filled Tripoli, have emigrated westward. [I read somewhere that more Lebanese live outside the country than in it.] Rougier notes that Bashar al-Asad and the ruling clique in Syria belong to the Alawite sect which is related to the Shi'ite branch of Islam. This helps explain Asad's friendship with Iran.

The Sunni-Shi'ite mutual disgust and distrust is played out in Lebanon whereas in Syria itself the Syrian Liberation Party (Hizb al-Tahrir), a Moslem Brotherhood group is outlawed; its revolt was brutally crushed in Hama in 1982. Membership in this organization carries the death penalty. But the Syrians have no problem backing Sunni groups in Lebanon if this serves their interests.

Other ethnic forces that have an impact on Lebanese life and politics include the Druze, moderate (i.e. modern, non-jihadi) Sunnis, the various Christian churches and foreign governments too. Both the US and France support secular moderates (Christian and Sunni Moslem alike) while the Druze led by Walid Jumblatt (a dedicated socialist) are currently sidelined. It is the Iranians working through Hizbullah who now seem to have gained the upper hand in Lebanese affairs.

The UN's UNIFIL peace keeping force in south Lebanon is ineffective because it patrols only in open areas and not in the towns and villages where Hizbullah has installed its rockets and weaponry. The UN soldiers are, naturally enough, interested in their monthly pay checks and returning safely home to their families in France and Italy. The Syrians, Salafists, Hizbullah, Palestinians and other 'activists' don't hesitate to assassinate competitors, all of whom are united only in their hatred of Jews and Israel.

To my surprise, Rougier's concluding remarks blame Israel for most, if not all, of Lebanon's problems. It is the Israelis, in the author's opinion, who refuse to make peace with the Palestinians. He claims that Israel can solve the Palestinian problem and thus alleviate Lebanon's torment. This unfounded conclusion contradicts everything the writer has carefully documented. Over some 260 pages, Rougier meticulously describes all the radical jihadi terror organizations and their uncompromising Moslem fanaticism, Syrian, Saudi and Iranian machinations and manipulations as well as the Sunni-Shi'ite mutual hatred. None of these murderous forces are found guilty of anything so the author plays it politically safe and puts the blame on Israel.

Contact Tsvi November at tsvinov@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 27, 2008.


The NY Times endorsed Mayor Bloomberg's bid for a third term. It contends that the people, who like him, should have another opportunity to vote for him. It admits that the people twice voted to limit him and others to their two terms in New York, and still prefer such limits. He pledged to accept their decision. Now he is reneging. Just another demagogue, undeserving of office?

The Times also admits that Bloomberg drafted recipients of his charity to endorse his bid (10/23). Would the charities risk his withholding future donations, if they didn't? He is corrupt. Should he be arrested and imprisoned for it?

He originally was a Democrat, bought the GOP nomination, spurned Republicans, and then called himself independent. He has a secret taxpayer slush fund, to buy support. He let contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars without public bidding. When public outcry forced public another bid, it was double what Bloomberg would have accepted. All his big projects failed. How competent was he, whose pretext for a third term is that we need him to shepherd our funds through this financial crisis that he left us in bad shape for?

Then there is his constant, false claim of educational achievement. He used statistical deceit. Also, he paid principals for favorable results; they ordered cheating. Some columnists exposed the misuse of statistics, but he continues to claim improvement that federal tests prove do not exist.

He mostly has been anti-environment. Like our other mayors, he has no long-range plan for sustainable trash and sewage disposal, from which we could recycle energy. He tried to set up a Madrassa! What upholds his reputation? Even if he were honest and competent, it would not justify overturning referenda.


Start taking anti-radiation pills. (While he talks with Iran.)


Israeli leaders are considering whether they can trust Assad to keep the peace if they sacrifice a part of their country and homeland that now affords Israel a secure border and a third of its water. Can they trust him to end his alliance with Iran? Probably he would demand US arms, the way Egypt did. Egypt now has a powerful air force and ground force and a navy stronger than Israel's. Imagine if Syria were armed likewise? Then together with Egypt, Syria could realize the Islamic dream of conquering Israel, that they tried before. Those Israeli leaders are the epitome of naivete. They may cause Israel's conquest.


The Democrats have been covering up (several) key questions about candidate Obama, including his connections to Islam and its radicals.

Former Sec. Colin Powell just lied about Obama always having been a Christian. There was enough evidence before to disprove that. It just came out that Obama was registered in his school in Indonesia as a Muslim.

How did Obama pay for Harvard Law School? Former Manhattan Borough Pres. Percy Sutton said that Khalid al-Mansour raised money for the it. Al-Mansour was an advisor to Saudi Prince al-Walid Bin Talal, the biggest donor to CAIR, listed by the US as an unindicted co-conspirator in Hamas fund-raising. Al-Mansour has Islamist views, such as denying Sudan sponsorship of slavery and claims that the Jews have no tie to Jerusalem. Al-Mansour and Obama deny Sutton's allegation.

Kenneth Gamble cut the ribbon in his building in Philadelphia, serving as an Obama headquarters. Gamble buys Philadelphia real estate to carve out a Muslims-only residential area in that city. (That not only means discrimination and segregation, it also allows Muslims to indoctrinate against American society.) Gamble has links to Islamist organizations, including the Muslim Alliance In N. America, one of whose leaders is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

Obama's first Muslim outreach coordinator had to resign when he was discovered (by the campaign or outsiders?) to have served on the board of the Saudi-sponsored N. American Islamic Trust with another unindicted co-conspirator and has ties to CAIR and to another unindicted co-conspirator, the United Islamic Society of N. America.

As soon as appointed, Obama's second Muslim outreach coordinator met with a group of Muslims that included some notorious proponents of terrorism.

Obama's Chicago associate, Rezko, was a partner for almost 30 years with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of the Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. Rezko says he gave that family millions of dollars.

Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright, had belonged to the Nation of Islam and mor than once praised the current leader, Louis Farrakhan as a giant and great among black religious figures.

How fit is Obama to serve as our commander-in-chief? He couldn't pass a security check (Daniel Pipes, #874, 10/23). The NY Times editorial of 10/24 endorsing Obama denounced claims that Obama is a Muslim as lies. But the editorial wasn't just opinion, it lied or exaggerated the facts. It ignored the above.


America's enemies are pleased with Obama's candidacy. Sen. Biden warned that if Obama is elected, our enemies will test him right away. They will generate a crisis. It won't be apparent initially that we are in the right.

Campaign sympathizers rationalized that all new presidents are tested. Not true. Eisenhower was not. Reagan was appeased by Iran. This means that the enemies will test Obama because they consider him naïve and weak. Biden doesn't have much faith in Obama, because he thinks Obama would let it become a crisis and won't know how to show we are right. The world will see him as a failure.

Obama is weak. He said he would meet with the head of Iran without pre-conditions [though, he modified his remark, after criticism, as he always does, leaving discerning observers wondering which is the real Obma].

Iran said it wouldn't meet with him, without pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions are to end support for Israel and remove US troops from the Mideast [so Iran can take over]. Obama said he would remove US troops from Iraq, before we can consolidate victory there. [His chief foreign policy advisor, Byrzezinsky, is anti-Israel.] Iran expects Obama to cave in, and offered Obama a rationale for doing so by asserting that Iran would attack Israel but not the US. [Would Obama believe Iran?] Iran favors Obama's election because it considers him more "flexible and rational." [That is, it considers him irrational and therefore flaccid.] So does Jesse Jackson, who expects Obama to end "Zionist control" of US foreign policy.

What does Obama do to disabuse Iran of their expectations? Nothing. He rejects the use of force, claiming that the US hasn't the means. [It can bomb the nuclear plants and other military facilities]. If the US lacks the means, would he boost US military power? No, he wants to reduce it. He'd cut anti-missile defense and nuclear weaponry (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 10/24) just when the enemy is building missiles and nuclear weapons.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jenny Grigg, October 27, 2008.

I don't know who Mark Gregg is but this is too well written not to pass along.


Dear Mr. Obama,

It is August 30, 2008. My name is Mark Gregg.

I am a 50 something conservative white male.

I have followed your campaign closely, including the speeches you and others made at the democratic national convention.

I am respectfully providing you with seven simple (probably shallow) reasons why I could never vote for you.

I believe my opinion is shared by many people.

While there may not be quite enough to prevent you from becoming president of this nation, I do think there is an awakening to the fact that you are not a (the) messiah that the media and liberal Hollywood entertainers are trying to portray you.

1. I hear your mantra of change, change, change. Yet, you picked a long term, liberal, Washington insider (Joe Biden) to be your running mate. This is NOT change. It is a move that hypocritically refutes the very thing you supposedly stand for. Your campaign then slammed McCain for picking Sarah Palin, apparently, because she is NOT a Washington insider. She is a maverick who cleaned-up Alaska's quagmire of political scandals.

Which way is it, Barack?

Is it okay for you to pick a Washington insider under the mantra of 'change', but not okay for John McCain to pick a smart, aggressive, reformer?

2. You have the single most liberal voting record in the senate.

This indicates to me and others like me that you may very well be an angry black man seeking to punish our country for sins of a different generation.

I am not racist. I have some biases just like you and every other human alive. Unlike the democratic party who claims to be for the minority (but their record heavily refutes this), I will give any person who truly needs help, help.

I married a 'minority' girl 35 years ago (she is Hispanic) and have seen the evils of prejudice first hand.

However, I have also seen my wife and my children and others in her family throw off the veil of self imposed prejudicial bondage and move ahead. They love our country and do not view themselves any different than I view myself as a citizen of this country.

Your lovely wife so disappointed people like me during this campaign when she stated it was the first time she had ever been proud of this country. She apparently never noticed the massive aid we give dozens of other countries. She apparently never noticed the sacrifice of literally millions of veterans who helped make this country a free nation and helped liberate other nations from brutal dictators such as Adolf Hitler. She apparently does not remember that she attended Ivy League universities with scholarship money that ultimately (at least some of it) was paid for by our taxes.

This troubles me more than you know.

She is an angry black woman who appears to not like her country very much. I don't want her representing me to the rest of the world.

3. You claim Christianity but apparently do not realize that the Bible teaches that he who does not work, does not eat. The Bible does not say or even suggest that he who CANNOT work, should not eat. Yet, your liberal policies reward people who are capable of working, but choose to not do so.

This bothers me.

I know that if you are elected our taxes will spiral upwards.

You should heed the words of Winston Churchill : 'We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.'

If I like anything about you, it is your campaign promise to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, we have heard this a huge number of times from a number of different politicians and we realize that when you energize the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc, and the many other democrats like them, a balanced budget will never, ever happen on your watch.

4. During your question and answer session with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church your answer concerning the question of where does life begin, stunned me: 'Above your pay grade?'

Does this mean when something bad happens as President of this nation that you are going to look at your salary to determine if you can respond?

I am sorry, but this was the most serious gaffe I have seen you make. Frankly, it shows me that you are pandering in the most obvious manner. You will choose your words not from your heart, but from an agenda that I believe is still hidden from the American people.

5. If anything stands out about you it is probably your appeasement mentality. In this era of rampant, radical Islamic extremism and with the latest stunt pulled by the re-energized Russian government, I am not sure appeasement is healthy.

I again revert to the words of Winston Churchill: 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'

6. You and your party tacitly believe that a 13 or 14 year old girl must have the parents approval to have the school nurse provide them with a Tylenol when they have a headache at school. Yet, this same girl can become pregnant and the school can skirt her off to a clinic and abort the child in her body without the parents knowing or being notified.

This scares the hell out of me.

You have two little girls. Would you be upset if this happened to them and you were not informed?

Then why do you stand for this? It makes no sense to me.

7. My seventh and final point (for now) is your supporters.

I have watched the Hollywood entertainers that support you, systematically embrace Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and others like him. I see the continuous smut and garbage produced by Hollywood, the very people who promote you the most vigorously. It is not a positive point to me and others like me to see these over-paid, bizarre, poor examples of human existence fawn over you and push you and your liberal agenda as hard as they do.

The way I see it:

When we see who your supporters and allies are/have been, we should seriously examine our own consciences and vote accordingly.

In closing, I just want you to know that you scare me.

I cannot vote for you.

It is not because of your skin color.
It is because these items I've listed and many, many others like them.
Do not claim that my dislike for you is race based.
It is because I do not feel you have the best interests of this nation at heart.

Mark A. Gregg

Contact Jenny Grigg at jennygrigg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 26, 2008.

Israel's current Prime Minister, (resigned but still present as PM), Ehud Olmert and his Kadima thugs ordered the pathologically twisted Yassam troops to violently attack a family with 9 children, including a months-old baby, break their windows, throw them outside in their pajamas and bulldoze their home — which has been standing for at least 10 years.

This violent attack by Jews against Jews prove that Olmert is merely a dictatorial tyrant who is dedicated to physically attacking Jews who live productively in the territories of Judea and Samaria. Olmert seems to have used the propaganda accusing the settlers of being the provocateurs.

The famous psychiatrist Carl Jung analyzed this phenomenon by pointing out that aggressors often justify their own aggression by claiming their intended victims were preparing to attack the aggressor.

The Olmert government had his Yassam troopers storm into the sleeping home of Elisheva and Noam Federman and their 9 children. Olmert and Yassam have been building up to a major attack against the pioneering settlers by brainwashing the people with false accusations (about once a week) so the government can mount a full scale war against the Jews in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.

No Jew will be safe once the Yassam thugs are fully unleashed to destroy, beat, trample and falsely arrest — as they did in Amona.

Adolph Hitler started his dehumanizing campaign with his brown shirts before he deployed his Gestapo. Josef Stalin used his KGB, along with ruthless Russian troops to evacuate villages of Jews, many of whom were deported to the Gulag.

Is that why Jews returned to their ancient homeland in Israel? So that dictatorial un-Jews could attack their fellow Jews to accommodate the Arabists of the Bush, Rice and Baker mind-set who are bribing America and Israeli hating Saudis, with the full cooperation of the thuggish regime of Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres regime.

The article below was written by Hillel Fendel, senior new editor at Arutz-7 and it appeared today
http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com. It is entitled, "Media, Politicians Join Attack On Kiryat Arba Residents"


Jews who saw the "wanton and cruel destruction" in Kiryat Arba this past midnight cursed perpetrators, while media and government attack the victims.

The events of the night in Kiryat Arba, in brief: Special Yassam anti-riot forces arrive at 1:30 AM to destroy family home in unauthorized Kiryat Arba outpost — breaking windows over sleeping children, punching mother and children, destroying property, throwing books, yelling, and separating baby from mother in the process.

Hysterical eyewitnesses are recorded cursing perpetrators of destruction. Radio and internet sites headline reports with news of the eyewitnesses' "incitement." Government convenes, condemns Kiryat Arba residents; Prime Minister Olmert says, "We are sick of this verbal incitement which leads to violence. I expect to hear from the Defense Minister and Justice Minister what is to be done against these people." Elisheva Federman, who experienced the brunt of the police violence in her home this past night, told Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen what happened:

"As on every Saturday night, we go to sleep late. At 1:25 AM, I received a call from friends who said that they heard that security forces are on their way over to us, and they fear that they intend to destroy our farm. It was strange; there had been no prior warning, so we hesitated to call friends for help. While we were deciding, we hear dogs outside. I look outside and I see a 'black river' [of Yassam forces] streaming towards our house."

"Noam [Elisheva's husband] went out to see what was happening, and within seconds he was arrested."

"I immediately locked the door. The children were sleeping in their beds. I thought that maybe they were just coming to destroy the caravan [mobile home without wheels] behind our house; I didn't think they were on their way to our house itself. A year ago, they also came to destroy and they told me that they had a warrant to destroy the caravan and not the house, so I thought it would be the same this time. But within seconds, or maybe a minute, they broke all the windows [on our house] — even in the children's rooms, with the children sleeping in bed.

"The house was filled with screaming and yelling. The children began to get hysterical, and ran to my room. I asked the Yassamnikim to let me talk to them and calm them down. They didn't let me, and just yelled, 'Get out, get out, get out!'"

At that point, Elisheva asked her 12-year-old son to take his two little brothers, aged 6 and 8, who were very scared, to the closest houses in nearby Kiryat Arba, and to ask the neighbors to have the children's grandmother come and help with the little children. Elisheva wished to leave, but the children insist on remaining, so she decides to remain with them and with her months-old baby.

Elisheva and the children stay in an inner room, leaving the door open just enough for them to watch their house being turned into a pile of ruins.

"I saw the Yassamnikim breaking cabinets, throwing stuff around, breaking beds, throwing books and clothing and everything else onto the floor. After they finished their destruction, the only thing left was the room we were in. They forcefully took us out, while hitting us and using extreme violence. I heard them giving each other coded instructions, and suddenly I found myself with my hands twisted behind me, and within seconds, my head was turned backward. They hit me and the children systematically. I am now totally bruised up, but nothing in my body was broken — and the same with the children. I am not sure if my daughter's hand was not broken."

"I asked them what they were doing. After a few minutes of not answering, they finally took out a piece of paper and waved it at me and said that it was an order saying they had to evict us. Then they said we are under arrest. They separated me from my baby, and put me and my older daughter into one of their vehicles, and the other children in two other cars. I was worried about my baby when they separated her, and said I wanted to see her, but no one cared."

The police car in which Elisheva was riding broke down, and after a 90-minute delay, they finally arrived at a nearby police station. "I had nothing with me — not baby formula, not diapers, not clothes." At 4 AM, she was released and taken back to what had been her home. "I looked through the ruins, and somehow found my car keys; they hadn't destroyed the car." She drove to her sister's home, and later in the morning returned to the ruins: "I tried to rummage through the destruction to find clothes and coats and other things for the children. 18 years of marriage are buried in the ruins..."

The general media reported on the "evacuation of an illegal outpost in Kiryat Arba," omitting the details described above — but highlighted the angry words of two of the Jews who saw the destruction. A man was heard saying that he hopes the perpetrators of the destruction fall or are captured in battle.


The speaker has not been identified, and many people close to the Yesha (Judea and Samaria) settlement enterprise surmised that he might be an agent-provocateur, sent to stir up public opinion against the Jewish pioneers. Alternatively, some have said that he was speaking out of frustration, and that these sentiments are not representative of the populace of Yesha.

Politicians were quick to respond to the media reports and issued sharp condemnations of the residents of Judea and Samaria. Cabinet ministers said that the "inciters" must be put behind bars. Prime Minister Olmert related to the incident at the beginning of the Sunday morning Cabinet meeting, discussing not the apparently illegal destruction, but the angry words expressed afterwards:

"This morning in Hevron, there were calls for security forces to be harmed. I have instructed the Ministers of Defense and Public Security to take action against this. We are sick of all this violence, verbal violence that brings to physical violence... I expect to hear from the Defense Minister and Justice Minister what is to be done against these people... Whoever expresses himself that way must be put in jail."

Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said,

"I am disgusted by the incitement expressed by extremist elements in the territories against IDF soldiers and security forces. We will act firmly to uproot this phenomenon. I call on the Attorney General and Israel Police to use all necessary means to deal with this."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said,

"I want to emphasize the gravity of the words and actions of the extreme right-wing in the territories. I am of the opinion that the punishments in this matter are too soft, and the law enforcement and legal bodies must [rectify this]."

Yesha Council head Danny Dayan and MK Aryeh Eldad also condemned the remarks. Dayan said,

"I have many complaints against the security forces and against the Government of Israel for their activity in Hevron over the weekend, but this does not in the least cancel out the gravity of the words that were said afterwards."

Media: Ignoring the Real News

One Kiryat Arba resident said,

"Instead of dealing with the destruction of a home, the media concentrates on a couple of crazies... Instead of interviewing Elisheva Federman about how her children were thrown out of their home in the middle of the night and their house destroyed, they look for an extremist speaking against the IDF."

Journalists and cameramen were not permitted to enter the site of the destruction until around 7 AM. MK Uri Ariel had sharp words against this decision: "It is not coincidental that when journalists are not allowed in, complaints of severe police violence, unauthorized evictions, and acts of cruelty by the forces start streaming in." Ariel said that Defense Minister Barak must find out who was responsible for this decision and to ensure that journalists are allowed everywhere unless there are clear security needs otherwise.

What now for the Federmans?

"We will return and build it again. This is our land, and we believe with our entire essence that G-d wants us to be there. We will return at any cost, even if we have to live in a tent."

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 26, 2008.
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7

Two to four United States helicopters attacked Syria, near the Iraqi border, Sunday evening, killing at least nine people. The site was near the target Israel bombed last year. Foreign media reported that residents in the village of Al-Sukkariya, approximately 300 miles northeast of Damascus and about 10 miles inside Syrian territory and near the main border crossing from Syria into Iraq. Syrian government news agencies confirmed the attack, and a private Syrian television channel reported that nine men died and 14 were wounded.

Two of the helicopters reportedly landed in the village, where eight American soldiers jumped out and carried out the operation. The soldiers quickly returned to the helicopters, and all of the craft left the scene.

It was the first time the U.S. has attacked on Syrian land.

American military spokesperson Sergeant Brooke Murphy said officials are investigating the report. The targets reportedly were construction workers and were civilians, including five people from one family, local residents reported to news agencies. Terrorists have used the nearby border crossing to transport weapons, money and guerillas to help Sunni opposition to the Iraqi government, backed by the U.S.

The Bush administration has charged Syria with not preventing Al Qaeda terrorists from infiltrating into Iraq.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 26, 2008.

Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima party, informed President Peres late this afternoon that she could not form a coalition. Theoretically, Peres has the latitude to pick another faction head to see if someone else can put together a government. But this won't happen...we're going to elections. The talk now is that they would be held in about three months.

This is not the absolute answer to all of our problems, but in my opinion it's a very necessary step in the right direction. It's a sort of cleaning house that would not have taken place if Kadima had continued in power — especially as there seems to have been some "funny business" with regard to how Livni won the recent Kadima primary.

As I indicated recently, unless there's some great change in the situation, Likud, headed by Binyamin Netanyahu, is likely to garner the most mandates (seats) next time, with Netanyahu putting together a coalition. We're going to have to watch this play out.


The down side of what's going to happen now is that Olmert (who's been extraordinarily quiet of late) gets to stay as head of the caretaker government until those elections take place. It must be hoped that he does a minimum of damage in that time.


Shin Bet and the IDF have released the information that they foiled a plan by Hamas to kidnap soldiers last month. When Jamal Abu Duabeh of Rafah infiltrated into Israel from the Sinai recently he was caught. Under interrogation he admitted he had been sent as part of a plan to anaesthetize Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. He had been trained and financed by Hamas.


The Israeli navy has announced deployment of a new sophisticated missile defense system that protects ships from missiles all 360 degrees around the ship.


Daniel R. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, and Charles S. Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, are co-chairmen of the Bipartisan Policy Center's national security task force on Iran. They recently wrote a piece on the need for a strong policy on Iran that is the most encouraging thing I've heard in a long time. Seems not everyone is asleep at the wheel.

They call for much stricter sanctions as the only way that a diplomatic solution might be possible. This requires building alliances for genuine international cooperation.

"The U.S. military," they say, "is capable of launching a devastating strike on Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure — probably with more decisive results than the Iranian leadership realizes."

This should be the solution of last resort. However..."both to increase our leverage over Iran and to prepare for a military strike, if one were required, the next president will need to begin building up military assets in the region from day one."

The encouraging news: "These principles are all supported unanimously by a politically diverse task force that was assembled by the Bipartisan Policy Center. The group, which includes former senior Democratic and Republican officials, retired four-star generals and admirals, and experts in nuclear proliferation and energy markets, offers a clear path for constructing an enduring, bipartisan consensus behind an effective U.S. policy on Iran."

Now if the people in power would just pay attention.


In less than three weeks, there will be mayoral elections in Jerusalem. Palestinian Authority's chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, has issued a fatwa (a religious injunction) forbidding Arabs in Jerusalem from voting in this election.


Late in June, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued his latest report on the implementation of Resolution 1701. It discussed Israeli claims that Hezbollah was rebuilding in the south of Lebanon, but said that while UNIFIL had investigated, they found "no evidence of new military infrastructure in the area of operations."

Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, has a pretty good idea as to how this could be so:

"UNIFIL does not conduct patrols, establish checkpoints or maintain a presence of any kind within the towns and villages south of the Litani [River]. Indeed, the UN forces have little unmediated security-related contact of any kind with the population of the area.

"Thus, while UNIFIL, according to its own figures, carries out around 400 foot, vehicle and air patrols in each 24-hour period, these take place exclusively along recognized patrol paths and in rural areas.

UN forces maintain no independent checkpoints and are involved in a minimum of joint checkpoints with the LAF [Lebanese army] ...

"...given the physical absence of UN forces from any of the areas where evidence of Hezbollah infrastructure-building has emerged [in built-up areas], it is not surprising that UNIFIL reports 'no evidence' that such activity is taking place.

"In general, the two sides appear to do their best to stay out of each other's way."

Charming state of affairs, is it not?

This alone is enough reason to not want Livni to head the government: the "diplomatic solution" to end the War in Lebanon, which she pushed as a great victory, is what led to these arrangements.


The fact that the stockpiling of arms is being done in populated, built-up areas should be noted. This will make going after them much harder, and if we accidentally hit civilians in the process, Hezbollah will garner a PR victory, something it knows very well.


Meanwhile, Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin reported today at a Cabinet meeting that Syria's relationship with Hezbollah is strengthening:

"Hezbollah operatives are working from within Syria. The Syrians are loosening all restraints, and [are irresponsibly giving] Hezbollah access to almost all of their strategic capabilities.

"Currently, Assad is continuing to open up its warehouses to Hezbollah."

Said Yadlin, Syria was "turning into the arms granary" for Hezbollah.

What was it Olmert said about negotiations with the Syrians turning them from terrorism?


I would like to end with an unusual article about Obama that appeared in this past Friday's Jerusalem Post, done by an Israeli journalist who came to Chicago to interview Jews who know/knew Obama.

This article must be read in its entirety, and it's long. It starts fairly positively. But as you read you see that the Jews who like Obama are extremely left wing. In fact, one rabbi who had a relationship with him expresses disappointment that Obama has not been true to his far left positions but has moved more centrist — but, said the rabbi, he understands that Obama has to do this to win. This echoes precisely what I have felt regarding Obama's tendency to say one thing and mean another.

There is one quote from a resident of Obama's neighborhood that says it all: "Now it's like he wants to hug and kiss Israel every five minutes. That's completely not the Barack I had as a neighbor. That started this year when he was trying to get elected."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017601983&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, October 26, 2008.

This was written by Abraham H. Miller, who is an emeritus professor of political science, and a former counter-terrorist consultant to the National Institute of Justice.


Prior to his conversion to Judaism, my friend went to see his rabbi, who explained to him the obligations and responsibilities of becoming Jewish. My friend said he could within reason to do what the rabbi asked of him, but then my friend looked very seriously at the rabbi and said, "Rabbi, there is one thing I will never be able to do." The rabbi looked at him with concern and asked, "What's that?" To which my friend responded, "I could never become a Democrat."

The affinity between being a Democrat and being Jewish is taken as axiomatic. In the ethnic classic, Beyond the Melting Pot, authors Nathan Glazer and Daniel Patrick Moynihan remind us that American Jews long ago acquired the social status of Episcopalians, but still manage to vote like Puerto Ricans.

But what most Jews don't know is it wasn't always that way. It was the ascendance of Franklin Roosevelt and the historic realigning election of 1932 that brought Jews, and Eastern European ethnics, into the Democratic fold.

The coalition Roosevelt built was reinforced in the Kennedy and Johnson years by a concern for civil rights and the attempts to eliminate poverty. Jews perceived the expansion of civil rights as the expansion of rights for all Americans. For Jews, the obligation to the poor was part of their religious heritage of tzedaka, the duty to give charity, which had been transformed into a cultural and political heritage among secular Jews.

But the homogeneity of Jewish partisanship began to seriously fracture during the Carter administration. Carter clearly had a Jewish problem, one underscored not simply by his zealous commitment to the Palestinian cause, but one unobtrusively and poignantly revealed by his statement that there were too many Jews on the proposed board of the Holocaust Museum.

The rise of Ronald Reagan brought a significant number of Jews and fellow Eastern European ethnics into the Republican camp. This phenomenon is remarkably described by historian Samuel G. Freedman's The Inheritance, a book that could easily have described my own family's generational journey from Roosevelt to Reagan.

The transformation of civil rights from equal opportunity to equal result also forced Jews to confront a new political reality. While the Protestant elite had enforced quotas so as to restrict Jewish enrollment in Ivy League Schools, the liberal elite now did the same thing through a newspeak of quotas masquerading as goals.

If some were underrepresented, then others were overrepresented. And everyone knew who the overrepresented were. The joke on campus quickly became how an affirmative-action officer would have dealt with the Manhattan project by firing the disproportionate representation of Jewish nuclear physicists, replacing them with unqualified minorities, and the consequent results for civilization.

As the far-left supported Middle East regimes that oppressed women, that had no idea of the meaning of civil liberties, and that encouraged the martyrdom of those who blew themselves up along with innocents; Jewish leftists, like so many lemmings, also embraced these sentiments. Their liberal co-religionists were incapable of going that far, but given the dissonance caused by the leftist model of the Middle East, liberal Jews often became super critical of Israel. Congregations refused to sponsor pro-Israel movies, arguing they were one-sided, while bending over backwards to invite speakers with ties to the far left who were little more than Palestinian propagandists.

Liberal Jewish congregations followed the far-left by developing a moral equivalence between those who fired rockets into civilian crowds and those who used military force to prevent that firing. "Violence is violence," became the mantra of liberal rabbis. "Oh, there has been violence and tragedy on both sides," a local rabbi dismissively said to a colleague of mine during an interview.

In Northern California where I now live, I am told that after 09/11 some of the rabbis gave sermons during the high holidays criticizing fundamentalists Christians, as if it were they, and not the followers of radical Islam, who boarded those ill-fated airplanes. Jews of my acquaintance speak mindlessly of their fear of "Christian Jihadists," an appellation that is not simply offensive, but one that betrays both a pathetic and palpable stupidity. Have you ever seen a Christian blow up himself and others in the name of Jesus and then be anointed as a martyr by prominent ministers, priests and theologians?

The left's embrace of mass murderers in the name of self-determination caused leftist Jews to also embrace these murderers, even though the people being killed were also Jews. And as Christian Zionists became strong supporters of Israel, leftist Jews found an even stronger reason to severe their ties with Israel. The term, "Christian Jihadists." evolved, courtesy of journalist Thomas Friedman, into an equally stupid term, "American Hizbullah." This was bandied about not only in leftist Jewish circles, but also among liberal Jews, as if it were a mark of erudition rather than one of ugly stupidity.

The left has now created a prismatic world where all politics is merely a variation of the same phenomenon, just at slightly different points along the same continuum. Moral equivalence is now the left's new objective reality. Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists are consequently morally equivalent, however nonsensical and illogical such juxtaposition turns out to be.

It is not surprising to see leftist Jews in the forefront of the radical Palestinian movement. These Jews need to demonstrate their leftist purity, because their psychological identities as well as their social networks are based on a rigid adherence to the leftist creed. This embrace of ideology in the absence of self interest is what Hannah Arendt so brilliantly described in The Origins of Totalitarianism as the mindset that is the vital foundation for totalitarian mass movements.

Leftist Jews have a new target for their outrage, Sarah Palin, another fundamentalist Christian who supports Israel. Among Sarah Palin's sins are that she shoots wolves and protects the unborn, to which Israeli literary figure Naomi Ragen has responded, would leftist Jews like her better if she shot children and nurtured wolf cubs?

It is also not surprising that in response to the pressure of leftist Jews, the pusillanimous leaders of Jewish organizations, whose sympathies incline toward the left, disinvited Palin from speaking at a Jewish organization rally, held outside the United Nations (September 23, 2008), protesting Iran's quixotic, genocidal President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

As Caroline Glick notes in the Jerusalem Post of September 23, 2008, these leaders decided that it is more important to put Barack Obama in the White House than to stand up to the man who promises the world a Second Holocaust.

And if one looks at the backgrounds of some of these leaders, they reveal a menage of self-loathing Jews who have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Arabs and against Israel at critical moments that threatened Israel's very survival.

While the Palin controversy rages in the Jewish community, I have received numerous anti-Palin emails from liberal Jewish women: several even asked me to contribute money to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name, as a slap in the face to Palin's pro-life politics.

As Iran pursues its nuclear program touted as the new Final Solution, the most critical issue on the minds of these liberal Jewish women is one that puts the deaths of the unborn ahead of the lives of six million Israeli Jews already delivered from the womb.

With attitudes like these, Jews need not fear the Islamic Jihadists and the Ahmadinejads of the world; Jews only need to fear the real enemy of the Jewish people — their co-religionists who are incapable of seeing the world from any vantage point other than one that is permanently and mindlessly anchored at the left end of the political spectrum.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, October 26, 2008.

Dear Mr. Diament,

It is now more than eight months since the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA — www.jewishpublicaffairs.org), passed a resolution calling for the American Jewish community to "affirm its support for two independent, democratic and economically viable states — the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine — living side-by-side in peace and security [the so-called 'two-state' solution]."

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union — the OU) is one of the member agencies within the JCPA. As you of course know, the OU abstained in the voting for the resolution and later filed a formal, written dissent from those portions of the JCPA resolution with which it disagreed. Although the OU is strongly opposed to a "two-state" solution and the re-division of Jerusalem, it decided to remain a part of the JCPA, believing it could do more good from within, than from outside the JCPA. In your statement that appeared in the Jewish Press on March 12, 2008
A_Why_The_OU_Voted_As_It_Did_At_JCPA&recnum=1), in your capacity as director of the OU's Institute for Public Affairs, you asked: "If the OU delegation is not at fora such as JCPA, who will speak out against the re-division of Jerusalem? Who will speak out against the perils of the 'two-state' solution?"

In early September, Sarah Palin was disinvited from the "Stop Iran Now" rally that had been co-sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

Caroline Glick described the shameful episode in her September 22, 2008 piece
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid= 1222017359617&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Following is an excerpt from her Jerusalem Post article:

THE JEWISH DEMOCRATS on the Rally's organizing committee got the message loud and clear. Two of the rally's co-sponsors — the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the UJA Federation of New York demanded that the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations disinvite Palin.

The JCPA is led by Steven Gutow. Before joining the JCPA, he served as the founding executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which is the Jewish support arm of the Democratic Party. The UJA Federation of New York is led by John Ruskay, who began his Jewish communal career as an anti-Israel "peace" activist in the radical CONAME and Breira organizations. Among their other endeavors, CONAME and Breira opposed US military assistance to Israel during the Yom Kippur War and called for US recognition of the PLO after the group massacred 26 children in Ma'alot in 1974.

Gutow and Ruskay were supported in their demand to disinvite Palin by the National Jewish Democratic Council and by the new Jewish pro-Palestinian lobbying group J-Street.

Mr. Diament, I ask you: As a leading representative of a member agency of the JCPA (and therefore, from within), did you have any say whatsoever in the JCPA's decision to demand that Gov. Palin be disinvited from the rally? Are you proud to be associated with a group that knowingly and willfully helped sabotage efforts to bring national and world attention to the threat to Israel of a nuclear Iran? What egregious act would the JCPA have to commit for the OU to walk out on the 'distinguished body'?

It is more than time for the OU to re-evaluate its membership in an organization which is harmful to American Jewry and destructive for Israel. I look forward to receiving a prompt response from you with regard to this critical issue.

Most sincerely,
Buddy Macy

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, October 26, 2008.

Last night at just after one o'clock my cell phone rang. When the phone rings at 1:00 in the morning, at least in my house, something is wrong. Orit Struck was on the other end, apologizing for waking me up and then informing me that hundreds, if not more troops, — police, soldiers, the riot squad, etc. were on their way to the Federman farm, located just off the road between Kiryat Arba proper and the Givat Harsina (Ramat Mamre) neighborhood, just about five minutes outside of Hebron. Their goal: to destroy the farm.

The homes on the Federman property have been there for over ten years. Noam and Elisheva have lived there for the past two years. Every once in a while the war drums start sounding, with rumors of an impending expulsion from the land, which the government says is 'illegally settled.' Most times, it's just noise. Tonight it looked like the real thing.

I was out of the house within about ten minutes. But when I arrived at Ma'arat HaMachpela, on the only road to Kiryat Arba, I found it blocked by Border police and metal gates in the middle of the street. They motioned to me that the road was closed and that I should leave. I pulled out my press card, which in Israel is the closest thing to a magic wand, and presented it to the officer in charge. He took it and made a call on his walkie-talkie. A minute later he came back and returned the card. And told me to leave. "But I'm a journalist," I claimed. He looked at me, said "I know, but you can't go," and walked away. I requested numerous times, as did others, a warrant declaring the area to be a 'closed military zone.' Sometimes they responded, 'there's a warrant, it will eventually get here,' and other times, 'there is no warrant.' Others were told, 'there's a military operation going on — you have to stay here for your own good, so you won't be in danger.' Some were told, 'there's an armed terrorist in the Kasbah — we have soldiers looking for him. It's dangerous for you to be here. Go home!'

The truth was that all roads leading to the Federman farm had been sealed off. The troops didn't want the enemy to have any reserves assisting them.

At about 1:30 the two homes on the Federman farm were forcibly invaded. Sinai Tur and his wife Rivka were told that they had seven minutes to get out. The Federman family didn't have such luxury. The troops broke the home's windows and climbed in through them. They quickly made their way to the children's bedrooms where they shook awake the kids, dragged them from their beds, beating some of them, and forcefully expelling them from their home, still in pajamas. Some of the kids went via the door; others via through the window. Noam was immediately arrested, being suspected of planning to 'blow the forces up with gas balloons.' His daughter Isca, 16 1/2 years old, was also arrested for some unknown reason.

Once everyone was out, the bulldozer started plowing down the houses and other structures on the property. It didn't take too much time, as the families were not allowed to remove any of their belongings. Down came the houses, on top of everything that was inside. By 3:30 or so, it was over.

The families were left homeless and propertyless. As Elisheva Federman put it: "they wouldn't let me take my children's books or belongings or mementos. Eighteen years of marriage, nine children — everything we had, gone."

For no apparent reason, except pure hate. Hate for Jews living in Judea and Samaria; hate for Jews living in the Hebron — Kiryat Arba region; and an extra special hate for Noam and Elisheva Federman, who epitomize love for Eretz Yisrael.

The Israeli government, in particular Defense Minister Ehud Barak, (who is searching for political brownie points to assist him in the now upcoming election) and Generals Gaddi Shamni and Noam Tibon (who is an expert in destroying houses — he commanded the forces that destroyed the home of Livnat Uzeri, whose husband Nati had been, only months earlier, killed by terrorists in their home,) is intent on making life as difficult as possible for Jews in Yesha and in the Hebron region in particular.

Late this afternoon a large group of people began work to rebuild the Federman farm. A short time ago an appropriate response was issued by the ruling junta: A warrant was received informing that at ten o'clock tonight the entire area would be declared a 'closed military zone,' that cement blocks would be placed there surrounding the property, and security forces would remain there to insure that the area remained sterile (i.e. Judenrein).

Earlier today journalists interviewing me did not seem so interested in the destruction of the property or the expulsion of the families. Rather they seemed intent on asking/attacking me as a result of remarks made by people at the site of the devastation. Those comments ostensibly called for the death of IDF soldiers, and the 'wiping out of their names,' and that they should all 'be like Gilad Shalit.'

There is a saying in Hebrew that a person should not be held responsible for his words when his loved ones are still lying dead in front of him. That is how I relate to the above-quoted remarks. The expulsion from Gush Katif and Northern Samaria are all still much to fresh and the fate of those expelled still hurting much too much. It is no secret that this administration has plans to implement further expulsions, be they in the Hebron area, or Binyamin and the Shomron. There is a feeling in the air — a sensation reminiscent of the Rabin-Peres days following signing of the cursed Oslo Accords, when 'settlers' were unofficially declared 'enemies of the state' and were so appropriately treated.

The IDF and other security forces are an integral element necessary for Israel's survival. But they cannot and must not be taken advantage of to batter the very people they are supposed to protect and defend. I don't believe that anyone has any plans to begin a civil war, but the comments, as extreme as they are, seem to represent the growing frustration level amongst many Israelis. I see them, not as an active threat, rather as the mercury on a thermometer climbing higher and higher, much too fast.

Perhaps those making decisions in the current government should realize that what they refuse to do to Arab terrorists and their families they are all too willing to do to their own Jewish citizens, who have not murdered anyone. And it seems, with an appetite. An appetite to destroy.


More photos of the destruction
Video of the destruction
See an interview with 12 year old Oved Federman (in Hebrew)
Hear Elisheva Federman (in Hebrew)

The Hebron Fund Dinner — November 17, in NYC — Details at hebronfund.com or 718-677-6886

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.
Hebron Web address: http://www.hebron.com
Ma'arat HaMachpela Web Address: http://www.machpela.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, October 26, 2008.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. — Friedrich Nietzsche

According to CNN this week, "Britain's highest court on Wednesday dashed the hopes of Chagos Islanders seeking to return to the Indian Ocean homeland they lost when Diego Garcia was leased to the U.S. for an air base ... The islanders were evacuated, mainly to Mauritius, between 1967 and 1973 ... Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was "appropriate on this day that I should repeat the government's regret at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s and at the hardship that followed for some of them. "We do not seek to justify those actions and do not seek to excuse the conduct of an earlier generation," Miliband added."

Well, the British did it, and the Americans benefited. Of course, the Chagossians are not Palestinians, and no UN body is pushing for their return. They were expelled from their homes just after the "Palestinian nation" was invented. On the one hand, the weak gets no right of return. On the other hand, the strong must surrender their rights and homes, forced by the strongest. Who stays, who goes, who returns, it is all a matter of muscles, combined with the right psychology of guilt applied on the weakest among the strong.

If George Bush indeed offered the Golan to Syria, then in all likelihood we have a November/08 — January/09 surprise in the cards. This implies full cooperation from the lame duck Prime Minister of Israel, who, along with others, seems prepared to give the Jewish people a parting gift they will not soon forget. After all, how come Ahmadinejad of Iran gets an ovation at the UN when he calls for Israel' s destruction, but the same thing happens when foreign leaders come to the Knesset and call for the division of Jerusalem?

If America is the Soviet Union of the Western Hemisphere, at least most of the hemisphere has learned how to deal with the problem, and so have the Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, and others. Apparently the "Great Satan" only has the "Little Satan" left to rape, and the latter is more than willing, so technically it is not even rape.

What must the Cubans be thinking as they look at how America treats one of their closest allies? Cuba is still boycotted by the US, because it did not say "uncle" like so many others. It dared resist, while being only a few miles away. It is not a democracy, but it has caused far less harm than the old Soviet Union did, and China, Russia, and the Muslim world still do. But it must be taught a lesson, now or later. America likes to make the rules.

The Cubans must be scared, wondering if they're next. All that is needed is for a US Secretary of State to go to the UN's Security Council with secret photos "proving" Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons are hidden in the island. Either that or they can say they've found a few leftover nukes from the Khrushchev era. America's 50-year boycott of Cuba is even more shameful than promising to move its embassy to Jerusalem.

The late Jeane Kirkpatrick, former US ambassador to the UN, was known as pro-Israel, and was liked and respected by Israeli and American Jews for that reason. However, she was also the same person who defended US policy in direct support of, in her own words, "authoritarian" military dictatorships in Latin America and elsewhere, as preferable to "totalitarianism" (meaning the Soviet Union and its Communist allies"). One wonders if being tortured and killed in an authoritarian jail is really better than suffering the same fate in a totalitarian one. Did she ask the victims' families? Is it also a surprise that so many Jews and gentiles in those former authoritarian countries don't like American policies and totally mistrust its designs on Israel? Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama or McCain, in the end is always more of the same. The nooze is tightening around Israel's neck.

Those calling Israel a "banana republic" should be aware that banana republics don't surrender any land, let alone their capital. One could, by analogy, call Israel these days a "sabra republic". Does it sound pejorative and unfair to this tough fruit and to this tough people? Then it is time those residing there stand up and join forces with the minority living east and west of the "Green Line" who actually understand what is about to happen if America has its way.

As the country's borders move towards the sea from the river, the definition of who is a settler also changes. The pressure to surrender to Israeli Arabs' demands, the pressure of millions of "Palestinians" "returning" to be stuck near Jordan the river instead of in Jordan the country will strangle Israel. "Just Do It" will mean more to them than just a slogan by a more famous Jordan.

Let's call a spade a spade. If Israel is going to become a virtual US colony, and many Jews in the world were never interested in living in America, why should they move to this colony, unless forced by external circumstances? They don't wear Israeli or American hats. If Gaza, the Golan, Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem go, then only Arabs in those places will be able to say: "We can see America from our homes".

And if the nukes ever came, the territories surrendered might actually escape the devastation, but no Jews would be there or be allowed in. Furthermore, the real America is not the one that would have been hit. Uncle Sam x Allah would be sorted out ... eventually.

If there was an evil empire, then there is also an evil umpire. Jewish Americans in the Holy Land who believe in the land of Israel had better realize what millions elsewhere have experienced with the US. It is their turn now. They can resist it by giving their powerful fellow Jewish Americans also living in Israel, but supporting the anti-Israel and pro-Arab policies of the US State Dept., an unequivocal message: "Yankee go home!"

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, October 25, 2008.

A picture is worth a thousand words! Above is a map of the Middle East bearing a Kafkaesque epithet, compliments of your web site Think Israel. Jewish Israel, indeed, is but two tenths of one percent the size of her surrounding Muslim neighbors. Could anyone in his right mind view this map objectively and still believe the miniscule state of Israel is an occupier of Arab land? In fact, considering the fact that neighboring Jordan, that less than imposing state to the right of Israel, yet about four times as large as Israel, should be part of the Jewish homeland per the Balfour Declaration scribed in the 1920s promising Jews all of Palestine, an agreement fecklessly dishonored by Brits in charge of land distribution giving 80% of that land away to greedy Muslim Arabs as if they needed more land, one might reasonably wonder if Arabs in fact occupy Jewish land contrary to the current skewed mind-sets of most folks.

How for example could former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, erstwhile leader of Israel's most formidable ally, a highly intelligent individual, have the chutzpah to presume Israel occupies Arab land and further assert that Israel is an apartheid state, when Jews are obviously squeezed into an almost invisible portion of the Middle East per any viewpoint, when Jews merely attempt to dwell on additional land rightly secured in 1967 as a consequence of vanquishing hostile Arabs attempting to destroy their incredibly small state, when Jews allow Arabs to remain on such land culturally intact knowing Arabs would not be so kind if the situation were reversed? Doesn't Carter as well as his supporters acknowledge their own nation conquered its Southwest, including California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, indeed virtually took that land from Mexico in the 1800s as part of America's 'manifest destiny', would never consider giving that land back to Mexico, yet never would be designated an occupier let alone an apartheid state if native Americans on reservations were also factored into that equation? Hmmm!

More ominously but not unexpectedly Nicholas Kristof's op ed piece, published in the 10/22/2008 edition of the New York Times, describing how Senator Barack Obama's presidential candidacy improves America's tarnished world image, suggests much of that world, especially Muslim world, knows "a cabal of white bankers and Jews who use police with fire hoses to repress blacks" control his heretofore despised nation. Kristof asserts an Obama candidacy however "triggers severe cognitive dissonance" thus, according to one expert "makes them (presumably Muslims) receptive to a new paradigm for the U.S.", yet we may infer not Jews. I suppose those 'repressive' Jews, at least previously in charge of America, were unable to stifle the opinion of a renown Israel bashing ex-president; an overlooked fact by those anti-American anti-Semitic morons.

Then again, what can one expect from a world, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that can't or refuses to recognize the implications of a map. Jews and the Jewish homeland always seem to be in the cross hairs of worldwide indignation despite, according to census figures at the turn of century 21, contributing merely 13.3 million folks worldwide, of which about 5 million live in Israel, to a planetary population of over 6 billion, or about .22 % of the total. Consider that Muslims contribute over 1 billion adherents, about 20% of the world's total population, almost 100 times more folks than Jews, is it logical to presume that Jews wield so much power, control the world's most influential nation, occupy and in effect abuse so many Muslims in the Middle East within an area the size of a thimble? Amazing!

Yet, even the Wall Street Journal, now owned by the Murdoch family, a conservative newspaper one might assume would consistently portray a pro-Israel perspective, on 09/19/2008 publishes an essay by the Holocaust revisionist Mahmoud Abbas, spewing slimy 'make nice' rhetoric, promoting his anti-Israeli mantra alluding to "continued settlement expansion and land confiscation in the West Bank", fodder for normally you would think pro-Israel readers to ponder. Say it isn't so Rupert! Are you or perhaps your family members also seduced by the Arab smoothie; are you or perhaps your family members also in bed with Arafat's long time understudy like so many other pro-Palestinian puppets? Might we send you a map of the Middle East to refresh your memory and jolt your senses? Might we suggest Jews in that hostile region of the world have only one place to freely 'hang their hats', wield any influence, a sliver of an oasis less than the size of your own vast empire!?!

Few if any sovereign nations in the history of the world voluntarily ceded land to another nation in exchange for any promise of peace; in effect the analogue of paying protection money? Few if any sovereign nations in the history of the world have been told by the rest of the world to so cede land secured as a result of winning a defensive war of survival? Yet the Jewish homeland, already contracted by 80% in violation of a binding declaration, is expected by much of the rest of the world to comply with that request. Furthermore, such complicity to extortion by Israeli leaders, no doubt a feckless act of betrayal to future generations, if consummated would leave Israel vulnerable to terrorist attacks, would liken Israel to a weakened wounded animal in the eyes of drooling jihadist buzzards yearning to finish the job, yearning to annihilate a naïve nation knowing the complicit West would scratch its collective head, not unlike the way those nations behave even when genocidal acts are committed in places like Darfur.

Unless and until Israel is treated with true respect by global leaders there is absolutely no reason for the Jewish homeland to negotiate with Arab representatives like Abbas or anyone else bearing a worldwide stamp of approval! Unless and until a monstrous map of the Middle East drapes the wall of any conference room, clearly visible to all those present, substantially influencing any rational agenda for those participating in any serious discussion pertaining to peace in the Middle East, clearly outlining a Palestinian state within the boundaries of what should be Israel but alas remains the kingdom of Jordan, Israeli negotiators need not attend!

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, October 25, 2008.

Obama's economic plan is a recipe for long-lasting disaster. Keep in mind that wrecking anything, as opposed to building things, requires very little time and effort. Obama's plan is deceptively attractive, while in reality it is a huge wrecking ball that will capsize the already listing ship of our economy. Here is a partial list of reasons why. Judge for yourself.

Obama is proposing a trillion dollars in new spending. Where is he going to get the money, given the government's present huge budget deficit? From the filthy rich and blood-sucking corporations, that's where, he says. A terrific vote-getting scheme. But will it work?

Obama doesn't tell you that in the present world money is like water. It flows to the lowest ground. And the lowest ground for money is found in places where it can make more money — not locations where it is seriously tapped by government. For example, Ireland where the corporate income tax rate is 12.5% and not the United States, which has the second highest rate in the world. As it is, one of the biggest reasons that many corporations set up their businesses abroad is the high cost of doing business here at home. Hence, a great many jobs are lost to overseas enterprises.

Obama doesn't tell you that rich people didn't get to be rich by being stupid. The minute they hear him talk about "spreading the wealth around", they shift their money to safe havens where Obama can't get to it. Like those hedge funds run by George Soros and other big Democrat donors.

Obama doesn't tell you that much of the money invested in this country is from non-Americans, who do so not because they are philanthropists but because they believe in the American genius and our creative hard-working people who know how to produce wealth. Once they see Obama the taxman, they sell their holdings and move their money to safer havens. The result is that American company shares drop in value, companies won't be able to raise cash to do product development, so they will shut down their research departments and layoff workers. Or, they simply move their entire operation, or parts of it, abroad.

The American economic genius is based on the principle of empowering people at all levels to succeed financially through their own efforts. The government must empower all individuals to succeed and not to take money from the successful and spread it around.

Keep in mind that the really rich, both Americans and foreigners, have the smarts and resources to escape Obama's net. The ones that get caught in Obama's net are tens of millions of small shareholders such as retirees who depend on annuities to live. These folks suddenly find themselves strapped.

With Obamanomics, pension funds of states, universities, other institutions, and individuals will suffer a major blow. During the present economic crises, retirement funds upon which the livelihood of millions depends have taken a two trillion dollar hit.

Obama's plan undermines the most powerful motive for wealth production: incentives. It is the incentive that makes a person work hard to provide for his own and his family's living, and secure his financial future.

Society after society has tried and failed the economic solution of "spreading the wealth around." It doesn't work. All it does is discourage hard work and reward sloth. It is suicidal to buy into that failed policy, and that's exactly where Obama aims to take us. And in this dangerous scheme, he will have the House and Senate on his side.

The Democratic Party has drifted so far to the left that it can hardly heed economic reason. Just this past Monday, Barney Frank, the head of the Banking Committee, the same person who brought us the sub-prime rate and the housing fiasco, seeing Obama at the helm, crooned, "there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road."

It is shortsighted and even dangerous to lose our cool in the face of present problems by placing our full trust in a charismatic inexperienced man who promises a great deal that he will certainly fail to deliver.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America, speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com and visit his website: http://www.amilimani.com/ this was published on American Thinker

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, October 25, 2008.

Israel's National News on the hour, Friday, 3PM: "Occupied territories. Palestinians in Na-a-lin demonstrating against the Wall. Members of Im Tirzu movement were present to support the IDF troops." 3:30PM, Bus number 5 in Tel Aviv passing through Dizingoff Street. High end fashion boutiques and jewelry stores, mostly closed for the day. Cafés and restaurants still bustling with life, a few blocks' walking distance from the Mediterranean. I get off the bus and wonder through these streets of Old Tel Aviv, where apartment prices are so high that either businesses turn the old apartments into offices or young people share these apartments, a cash-cow for the owners who inherited them. A feeling of an approaching Shabbat: The sun started its descend, people resting at home. A strange, wonderful feeling engulfing me.

I am now walking from the old Central Bus Station toward the new. As I approach, there is a park of sorts, a multitude of Ethiopians sitting on the grass. Just across the street foreign workers are at an internet store, talking with their relatives in China, Philippines and elsewhere. I see poverty, a feeling of slums, a disconnect between communities sharing the same city.

The last train left before 3PM, the last buses shortly thereafter. The only available public transportation option: a service-taxi of ten people, going to a particular destination. A driver stands outside and asks each of the passerby: Rehovot? Rishon? (two cities to the South of Tel Aviv) It did not take more than a few minutes for the taxi to fill up. It is also the last ride for the driver. He too wants to go home for Shabbat.

It seems to me those enjoying the approaching Saturday are completely disconnected from what is happening on the ground. They know, but they do not want to know. They do not justify their Government's action, do not show any support for the IDF; they are passionate objectors, concentrating on the pleasantness of the moment. Many believe Israel should continue its path of concessions to an enemy which wants its destruction. Those approaching 18 are often busy finding ways to avoid service.

The IDF is not a foreign entity in the body of Israel. It is the sum total of all its citizens, who serve every year in reserve duty, who send their children at 18 to pay their debt to the country. The army's obligation is to protect the way of life of its citizens. The soldiers of the IDF are the security blanket for those in Tel Aviv — enabling the residents to return from the sea, sit at a café, wonder between stores-for-those-who-have without a second thought of the war raging on near by.

A bird's flight above, one passes the "green line." The "Occupied Territories" were not annexed to Israel, technically they are under military rule. Not too many years ago, an accord was reached which divided the area to "A," B' and "C." Next to Upper Modein, a large Israeli city of some forty thousand, there is an Arab village, Na-a-lin. Each is in a separate enclave of its own, separated by hills with olive trees. It is said the palestinians took the symbolism of the trees for their war propaganda, ate the olives as a side dish and barbequed the white dove.

A security post in the middle of the road forces cars to a complete stop. Two beautiful young women soldiers, smiling with blue eyes, wearing a vest reading "Military Police," greet the drivers. Behind them are other fellow soldiers. They are there to try to prevent terrorists en route to carry homicide bombing assignments or driving cars full of explosives intended to inflict death, maim people, disrupt the false sense of security there in Tel Aviv, a short car drive away.

Just hours ago, a group of some 50 students showed up to support these soldiers. They brought Israeli flags, candies for the soldiers and large placards "The People are with the IDF." One student, Eyal, who usually works with youth, brought a guitar with him and is playing and singing. Once every other week they come to show support. Each takes time off work and pays $8 for the organized bus ride. They spend half a day, at times risking their lives, to support those soldiers who are expected to do their job and yet get no support whatsoever from those "back at home," just miles away. They are a group of young idealists, full of energy and love of country. They are a rare exception among the general secular population.

Not moments later, the hills are swarming with "anarchists," predominantly foreign visitors who cling to the far left and instigate trouble. They encourage the Arabs to engage in a violent struggle, to oppose the "occupation." They run to the hills like a gang, many covering their faces, using slings to throw stones at the opposite hill- directing best they can against the students of Im Tirzu. Make no mistake, the stones' velocity is sufficient to severely maim or even kill a person — a weapon like any other. The "anarchists" presence there is trouble, orchestrated for live broadcast.

As the situation escalates, members of the Border Police start firing tear gas. The wind blows uphill, back toward our direction, and there is a strange sense hitting me. Eyal shouts "DO NOT TOUCH YOUR EYES." He did so just in time. I take deep breaths. The gas penetrates inside with a strange taste. My eyes start watering. The AP reporter next to me — apparently experienced in these demonstrations — says the tear gas is very light. It is my first experience.

I see the slings movement from the other side, thinking for a second "we are safe, it would not hit." Milliseconds later three stones hit within a few feet away. I look around me-women and Ethiopians are an integral part of the force. I think of all the attacks against Israel the Apartheid state and a I laugh to myself, tears still running from my eyes: Right here on the front line one finds women and men, black and white, all equally at risk.

A huge palestinian flag is raised. The gangsters from the other side of the hills shout insults, in Hebrew. I turn around — construction workers are just behind the police, continuing their work. Three men stand and comment about the events. I eye them with interest and ask: Are you Jewish or Muslim? They hesitate for a second and answer: Muslim. I am surprised. They are on the Jewish / Israeli side, so I ask — where does your loyalty lie? Where would you rather be? They, like most of the villagers on the other side, prefer to be under the Israeli "occupation," earn a decent living, work and raise their families, receive medical treatment in Israel. The "anarchists" are the ones who do not let the locals — Israelis and Arabs alike — live in peace. There is no Wall here, not even "The Fence." The anarchists are here to stir trouble. The event unfolding in front of my eyes is made for the media. A palestinian ambulance is called to the scene to complete the décor. The blinking lights serve well against the backdrop of the huge flag and the olive trees. The IDF major is prohibited to talk with the media, but a spokesperson is not present. The soldiers, in the meantime, finished answering every question asked of them. Absurdity rules: Israel is helping its enemies and adding fuel to the fire by allowing the filming of scenes against it, made-for-international-audience, to take place from within the soldiers and police force. How can the message resonate if the reporters are those who decide on the message rather than factually report the events? Not an hour passes and Israel's national radio reports about the events: The pictures of the mighty Israeli war machine applied against the peace-loving, struggling palestinians exercising their right to protest against the "Wall," all shot from within the mighty Occupier Forces.

There is no one to blame but ourselves. This is not a game, nor does one wanting to protest have the right to use weapons. The media should not be allowed to the area, if for no other reason than their own safety and security. Briefings should be done by the relevant spokespersons, and the message should be unified, clear: For what is Israel fighting? What are the facts on the ground? What are the reasons? What is the planned course of action?

Israel is at the forefront of a struggle for its continued existence. If it does not wake up and do so quickly, there will be little for which to fight, little to save and protect. Acco, a city north of Haifa, would not be considered by anyone other than Hamas and Hizbollah as "Occupied Territories," and even from there the Israeli and international media report from the same very one-sided position. This is the subject of my next report about the start of the Third Intifada in Acco, Israel.

As you journey with me through these Postcards from Israel, let us remember what is special about this Jewish Homeland, a country from which life, sciences, technology, literature and advances that benefit society the world over emanate. Let us pray for Israel's strength from within and courage to continue its fight for existence.

With deep friendship, I remain,

Ari Bussel
A Proud Jew
A Proud Israeli

Contact Ari Bussel at aribussel@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 25, 2008.

[Editor's note: Several versions of this are circulating widely on the internet. Author unknown. One thing seems true: people who vote for Obama won't be able to claim they didn't know what he planned to do.]


Notice to All Employees......just in case.

As of November 5, 2008, IF President Obama is officially elected to office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:

1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a "fair shake."

2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are "too busy for overtime" to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.

3. All top management will now be referred to as "the government." We will not participate in this "pooling" experience because the law doesn't apply to us.

4. The "government" will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard "for the good of all."

5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's "good to spread the wealth." Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more "patriotic."

6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because President Obama will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free foodstamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?) !!!

7. Good news you will get a $1000 rebate that will help cover the cost of all your new freebees; oh but before you spend it, remember you have now just had your 2001 tax cut eliminated so if you make $30,000 per year you now have to pay $1650 more in taxes so you owe the government $650 — sorry ....did you misunderstand what Obama said before the election?

8. You will be happy to know that you now get new and improved health medical care coverage from your employer unfortunately since your employer has to pay for this somehow under the new government mandate we will have to eliminate 10% of all jobs and freeze wages for the next year...and you thought a minimal tax of Medicare and health care benefits proposed by that McCain character was for real... well your taxes will go up only 2% to pay for the government sponsored programs for those people that are not as fortunate as you and don't go to work... remember "REDISTRIBUTION" is the new word for CHANGE !!!!

9. If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, you may want to rethink why in the hell you voted the way you did on November 4th. Tough luck I guess — go live in Australia.

The Management (e.g. The Government)

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 25, 2008.

This was written by Michael Sontheimer and it published in Der Spiegel
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan


Hundreds of thousands of book stolen by the Nazis are still in German libraries. A few librarians are acting like detectives, searching for the books and hoping to return them to the former owners or their families. However, many libraries have shown little interest in the troubling legacy tucked away on their shelves.

Book, books, nothing but books. Detlef Bockenkamm is walking along a long shelf in the storage room at Berlin's Central and Regional Library. Suddenly he stops and says: "This is where we have the Accession J collection." The letter J refers to Jews.

The curator has collected more than 1,000 books here, enough to stretch almost 40 meters (130 feet) if they were lined up next to each other. Bockenkamm and a colleague combed through old documents, checked files and studied records documenting the receipt of books. They eventually discovered that these volumes were stored at the City Pawn Office in Berlin in the spring of 1943.

The records indicate that the city library purchased "more than 40,000 volumes from the private libraries of evacuated Jews" through this office. And, this being Germany, the librarians maintained meticulous record books to keep track of their purchases — even though parts of the German capital were already in ruins. As always, preserving order was paramount. The librarians signed each volume and gave it an accession number, beginning with the letter J.

Bockenkamm even found children's books marked with the letter J. One was titled "For Our Youth: A Book of Entertainment for Israelite Boys and Girls." The book contained the handwritten dedication: "For my dear Wolfgang Lachmann, in friendship, Chanuka 5698, December 1937." Bockenkamm has been unable to find out what happened to the boy.

But he did manage to trace the former owner of a book titled "The Rose of Sharon — Stories and Poems for Older Jewish Youth." A rabbi gave the book, bound in green linen, to a young girl from Berlin, in recognition of her "diligence and good conduct" in religious school. The girl's name was Adele Hoffnung, and she was deported to Minsk on Nov. 14, 1941. Adele did not survive the Holocaust. For Bockenkamm, the bureaucratic, administratively correct implementation of the great Nazi book theft was "disgustingly sleazy." But he also derives satisfaction from the fact that he is now able to prepare an exhibition on the Nazi looted books for the Berlin Central and Regional Library.

Every larger German library still has hundreds of these books in its inventory, books snatched up by the men of the SS and SA, as well as ordinary soldiers, both in Germany and in other European countries occupied by the German armed forces, the Wehrmacht, during World War II. No one knows how many stolen books are still on the shelves in German libraries today, although experts, like historian Görz Aly, estimate that there are at least one million.

These silent witnesses of Nazi crimes are not as spectacular as the stolen paintings that have become the subject of bitter restitution battles waged in full view of the public. The books, after all, are not Picassos worth millions in the art market.

Nevertheless, Germany's Federal Commissioner for Culture Bernd Neumann believes that museum employees and librarians have an obligation "to devote particular attention to the search for those cultural goods that were stolen or extorted from the victims of Nazi barbarism." Neumann points out that, more than just "material value," what is at issue here is "the invaluable emotional importance that these objects have when it comes to remembering the fates of individuals and families."

For decades, libraries asked no questions about the origins of the books that were added to their inventories during the Nazi era. Many librarians approached the issue "sluggishly and reluctantly," says Salomon Korn, the vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. To this day, many libraries have not systematically searched for stolen books in their inventories.

'A Fundamental Task for Libraries'

The Lower Saxony State and University Library, in the city of Göttingen, is proud of its state-of-the-art robotic scanner. It is a pioneer nationwide when it comes to digitization. But despite its seeming progressiveness, the library seems to have less of an interest in the past.

It was an intern who at the end of last year first peered into the dusty accession books from the World War II years. What Arno Barnert found were deliveries from the Wehrmacht's "loot warehouses" in Göttingen. He found accessions from the Polish cities of Krakow and Poznan, the Polish consulate in Leipzig and a high school in the Dutch town of Enschede. Books once owned by the Viennese Goethe expert Friedrich Fischl, who was deported in 1941 and murdered in the ghetto of Lodz, Poland, were recorded as a "purchase."

Barnert notified the library management. A few days later, the intern received a visit from the library director, who advised the young man not to make the Nazi loot the subject of his thesis. Barnert was told that if he did decide to do so, he would not be making any friends and would not exactly be improving his prospects of getting a job. He might even be seen as a whistleblower, the director said.

But Barnert continued his search. "Documenting the paths and histories of books that were acquired in the Nazi period is a fundamental task for libraries, a question of ethics," he says. In February, Barnert began collaborating with Frank Möbus, a Göttingen specialist in German studies who was in the process of preparing an exhibit about book burning.

Möbus found documents in the city archives proving that in March 1933, members of the SA, together with police officers, confiscated 890 books from a communist bookseller in Göttingen. Some of the books went to the National Library in Berlin and some to the University Library in Göttingen.

Möbus notified the administration of the University of Göttingen, which decided to conduct a search for Nazi loot in the library as part of a research project. Ironically, intern Barnert was forced to listen to his supervisor loudly accuse him of having ignored the proper channels.

The proper channels have always been dear to German bureaucrats, and they were observed by German librarians, who documented the stolen books even amidst the chaos of World War II. The records show, for instance, that the Prussian State Library passed on stolen books to 31 university libraries.

The book thieves' initial goal was to develop and expand libraries and, as the war raged on, to replace inventories that had been destroyed.

A number of organizations took part in the hunt for books. They included the intelligence service of the SS, the Gestapo and the staff of Alfred Rosenberg, the "Führer's Commissioner for the Supervision of the Entire Intellectual and Ideological Training and Education of the Nazi Party."

Jews were not the only ones to fall victim to the Nazi book thieves. Berlin curator Bockenkamm found three books stamped "Karl Marx House, Trier." A call to the western German city of Trier revealed that the books had been sent to Berlin for an exhibition in the early 1930s and were never returned.  

Part 2: Libraries Avoid Association With Nazi Looting

Employees at the Duchess Anna Amalia Library in the eastern city of Weimar identified 440 books that were once in workers' libraries founded by Social Democrats and labor unions. There were about 2,500 of these libraries, with more than one million books altogether. Most of them went missing and were probably destroyed.

The book thieves were able to expand their range of operations considerably after the war began. German occupiers in Eastern Europe raided 375 archives, 957 libraries, 402 museums and 531 research and educational institutions. They were also active in France, as the odyssey of sheet music once owned by the pianist Arthur Rubinstein shows. The history of the copies and prints of these works of various composers, some with personal dedications, mirrors the catastrophes of the 20th century.

Rubinstein, who was born in the Polish city of Lodz and immigrated to Paris, fled to the United States in the fall of 1939. When the Wehrmacht occupied the French capital in June 1940, members of the "Reich Director Rosenberg Task Force" confiscated his sheet music and had it sent to the German Reich's intelligence headquarters in Berlin.

In 1945, members of the Red Army confiscated the music and took it to the Soviet Union. When the music was sent to East Germany in the 1950s as part of a program to return German cultural assets, it ended up in the music department of the National Library in East Berlin, where no one recognized its value and it eventually gathered dust. It was only in 2003, 21 years after Rubinstein's death, that librarians conducting research in Moscow's Glinka Museum discovered who the former owner of the music was. Two-and-a-half years ago, representatives of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation handed over the music to Rubinstein's children in New York.

Such finds and returns are the exception. Indeed, most stolen books are still undiscovered. Because libraries are constantly passing on duplicate copies to other libraries and exchanging books, the books stolen by the Nazis are now spread throughout Germany. "This explains why even the new technical colleges in eastern Germany may have such books," says Annette Gerlach of the Central and State Library in Berlin.

In 1991, Klaus von Münchhausen, a political scientist in the city state of Bremen, was one of the first to suggest searching for stolen books. He criticized the city's state library for having many books on its shelves that had once been stolen from Jews. The Bremen Senate hired a retired senior official from the state Education Ministry to conduct the search, and she found 1,555 books recorded in the accession book for 1942. Some entries included the notation "Gift from the Nazi Party," while others were marked "J.A." — Jew Auction. Most of the books had been confiscated from Jewish emigrants who were boarding ships to go abroad. It was possible to identify the former owners of about 300 of the books.

In early December 1998, a representative of the German government, together with representatives of 43 other nations, signed a document outlining 11 basic principles. The signatories to the "Washington Conference," vowed to search for works of art "that were seized by the Nazis and never returned," as well as the heirs of such stolen goods.

But little has happened in libraries since then. When stolen goods experts at the Lower Saxony State Library in Hannover sent a questionnaire to roughly 600 libraries via the German Library Association, only about 10 percent replied.

To date, only 14 libraries have officially registered their stolen goods. Even large university libraries, such as those in Frankfurt, Kassel and Heidelberg, have not yet begun to systematically search for stolen goods in their inventories.

In most cases, the institutions blame a lack sufficient funding and personnel to conduct the costly and time-consuming searches. Accession books must be examined, and then all books taken in after 1933 must be searched for information identifying libraries, names, ownership stamps and other clues.

In large libraries, the number of "suspicious books" ranges into the hundreds of thousands. Even the Berlin State Library, Germany's biggest library, took its time before beginning a serious search effort three years ago. "They had to be dragged to the search," says Werner Schroeder, an expert on Nazi loot in the northwestern city of Oldenburg. "They apparently wanted to avoid being associated with the Nazi foray throughout all of Europe."

'Sitting in the Stacks Like Corpses in the Cellar'

Only seven years after the signing of the Washington Conference, a student discovered, while conducting research for his master's thesis, that the Berlin State Library owns more than 10,000 stolen books as well as another 9,000 volumes that were more than likely confiscated by the Nazis. There are probably even more, because the current library succeeded the Prussian State Library, which played a central role in the Nazis' book confiscation program. All books that were seized anywhere in the country had to be offered to the library first. The "Reich Exchange Office," which worked closely with the library, also became a transfer station for stolen books during the war.

Because of bombing raids on Berlin, the accession department at the national library was evacuated to Hirschberg — now the Polish city of Jelenia Góra — in the foothills of the Giant Mountains in the spring of 1944. Many of the intake documents are still in Jelenia Góra today, where a historian has been reviewing them since the end of last year.

"We spent too much time complaining about our own losses and looking to Russia," Annette Gerlach of the Central and State Library in Berlin says, not without self-criticism. But, she adds, it is now time for her and her colleagues to finally do their homework.

"These books are sitting in the stacks like corpses in a cellar," says Salomon Korn of the Central Council of Jews. Of course, he adds, more has to be done, especially in a matter that involves clearing up the "Nazi's confiscation crimes."

The University of Marburg Library is the only large German library that has now carefully examined almost all of its books from the period in question. As a result, the library has been able to return many books to the heirs of their former owners.

In many cases, heirs can no longer be found. Then the books remain in the libraries, and their histories are documented in the card catalogue. And then there are cases like that of Isac Seligmann. A user at the Berlin State Library found a volume of an encyclopedia titled "Religion in History and the Present Day," which had a bookplate indicating that it had belonged to the Jewish theologian. Library staff managed to find his widow in Israel.

"I appreciate your offer to return this book to me," Marion Seligmann wrote from Jerusalem, "but I have no use for it now."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 25, 2008.

World Net Daily (WND)'s MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance.


Ayers' influence off-limits at news briefing

'No comment' to question about Obama's terrorism links

The influence that unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers has over Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, a potential future president, is off-limits at White House news briefings.

"That's it. I'm not going to answer it," Dana Perino, the president's spokeswoman, told Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, just as he had begun asking a question.

Kinsolving had opened with a question about U.S. Secret Service bans on security clearances for individuals with known associations with terrorists.

"This morning a spokesman for the Secret Service told me that to be an agent you have to have a Bachelor's degree, three years in law enforcement, and undergo a complete background check. When I asked if the applicant had any record of association with terrorists, I was told that would not be tolerated. And my first question is, is that the White House office's understanding of the qualifications to be a Secret Service agent?" he asked.

"I have never spent time to go through the qualifications for Secret Service agents. I just trust that they know what they're doing," Perino said.

"And then considering the Obama-Ayers association," Kinsolving started.

"Okay, that's it. I'm not going to answer it," Perino said.

" ... Senator Obama would not be qualified to be his own bodyguard?" Kinsolving finished.

"I'm not going to answer it," Perino said, moving immediately to another reporter's question.

WND HAS REPORTED MANY DEFENDERS OF AYERS, THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND CO-FOUNDER and longtime Obama acquaintance, have sought to minimize his bomb attacks on the U.S. Capitol and other landmarks because they purportedly did not target people.

But a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claimed he witnessed a meeting in which members discussed a future communist takeover of America in which some 25 million "diehard capitalists" would need to be killed.

Larry Grathwohl recalled his experience in the 1982 documentary "No Place to Hide," noted the weblog Confederate Yankee.

In a session with members of the radical group, founded in 1969, Grathwohl said discussion centered on a future in which the communist nations of Cuba, North Korea, China and the Soviet Union would occupy various parts of the U.S., with "re-education centers" established in the Southwest to prevent counterrevolution.

"I asked, 'Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?' And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated."

Republican John McCain's presidential campaign has made Ayers an issue, charging Obama has had ties to an unrepentant domestic terrorist, including service together on two nonprofit boards. Critics also maintain Obama's political career was launched at the home of Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, also a former Weather Underground leader. Ayers, now a college professor, has said in interviews over the past decade he has no remorse for his 1970s terrorist activities, declaring he only wished he could have done more.

Grathwohl, who worked as an operative for law enforcement agencies in Cincinnati, said when he pursued the genocide issue further, the Weather Underground members "estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers."

"And when I say 'eliminate,' I mean 'kill,'" he continued. "Twenty-five million people."


"Specifically, he has longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the U.S. government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its 'consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism," he wrote.

Pipes pointed to Obama links to Luqman Abdul-Haqq, "an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia;" Mazen Asbahi, the Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator who quit when it was revealed he had worked with the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust; the campaign's new Muslim outreach coordinator, Minha Husaini, who met with CAIR representatives; and others.

Do you have a tough question you'd like to ask the White House? WND's MR. PRESIDENT! forum is your big chance.

Previous stories:

Ayers' group foresaw genocide of capitalists
See it with your own eyes: Obama's book blurb for Ayers
Did Ayers' wife kill policeman?
Michelle Obama organized event with Ayers, husband
'Bill Ayers forced me to have sex with roommate'
Educators line up to defend domestic terrorist Ayers
N.Y. Times whitewashes Obama-Ayers connection
4 Weathermen terrorists declare support for Obama
Another Weatherman terrorist a player in Obama campaign
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
Obama worked closely with terrorist Bill Ayers
Obama cited Ayers job as qualification to run
Meet Obama's new Bill Ayers associate
Obama minimizes relationship with Ayers
Obama accuses McCain of linking him to 'radical'
Obama disguising ties to radical leftist group?

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 25, 2008.

Barack Hussein Obama would have us believe that Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood" and that Rev Wright "preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life ... the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn." Would, that it was true.

[Great VIDEO on the United Socialist States of America. A vote for Obama will bring this about.

The truth of the matter is that both Ayers and Wright blame white supremacy for the troubles of the world and that Obama was and is in agreement with them.

Ayers and Dohrn just published a new book 'White supremacy' responsible for America's troubles." Amazon summarizes the core of the book as

"Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days — and that it is still very much with us — the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education,"

WorldnetDaily reviews this book and adds,

"a former FBI informant who penetrated the group claims he participated in a discussion in which members of the group Ayers and Dohrn co-founded, the Weather Underground, discussed a future communist takeover of the United States in which 25 million "diehard capitalists" would need to be killed to prevent counterrevolution."

It reports on one commenter

"Bill Ayers 'gets it.' Here's what he understands: One strategy to undermine culture is to discredit its values and history. Of course, reducing American history to a simplistic notion of 'white supremacy' is absurd, but that's the point. The point is to slowly undermine the confidence of people about the values and history of their own culture so they'll be less willing to defend and protect it. Along the way, you've also created a structure of 'them' (so-called 'white' people, meaning, in this context, people from western and northern Europe) and 'us' (everyone else). This creates internal conflict based on simple, easy to understand qualities like skin color.

Now Rev Wright's church, the one Obama attended for twenty years, is wedded to "Black Liberation Theology" which found its radical, revolutionary roots in the sixties as did Ayers.

Kyle-Anne Shiver's "Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx" makes the connection

"Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam." They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims." "Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)
So where does Obama fit into all this? In Obama's book, Dreams Of My Father.. he writes

* "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"

* "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

* (Obama) vowed that he would "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

* "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

It is immediately apparent that Obama, at a gut level, is rooted in Black Liberation Theology and Farrakhan's the Nation of Islam. William Ayers and all radical leftists/socialists/Communists find common cause with them.

Moving right along. All these revolutionaries follow the Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.

In Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism, IDB advises,

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

Ryan Lizza, in March '07, filled in more of the reality in The Agitator

[Obama's] teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicago trained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation" — making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent."

This is how Obama trained ACORN and why he supports them. He needs them to bring on the revolution.

Far from being a mainstream Democrat, as Obama presently positions himself, he is a dedicated revolutionary.


Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 24, 2008.
This is entitled "An Instructive Candidacy" and it was written by Victor Davis Hanson. It appeared in the National Review
article.nationalreview.com/print/?q= MDk0MTlkNDVlYmIyNTlmNTQwZDAxNzk4MTZmOWQwY2M=

Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.

Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin's career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama's own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama's current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.

Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin's falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama's own falling in with those who ran Chicago.

While Gov. Palin's frequent college transfers and Idaho degree are an item of snickering among pundits, none of them can claim to care much about Barack Obama's own undergraduate career. To suggest that he release his undergraduate transcript is near blasphemy; to scribble that Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child was not her own is journalism as we now know it. To care that Joe Biden is vain, with bleached teeth, the apparent recipient of some sort of strange facial tightening tonic, and hair plugs is deservedly mean and petty; to sneer that the Alaskan mom of five bought a new wardrobe to run for Vice President is, of course, vital proof for the American voter of her vanity and shallowness.

Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin's critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.

We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin's Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour — or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.

Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.

Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol' Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.

Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden's gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush.

Sobriety? Biden now admits that dangerous powers abroad will immediately test a President Obama. He warns that the results of such a crisis will be very disappointing to the American electorate, and thus Team Obama/Biden will need loyal supporters to rally as their polls sink. Yet remember that Biden himself has been a fierce and opportunistic critic of Bush, who despite a frenzy of congressional demagoguery, initiated the successful surge and ignored the very polls that the for-the-war/against-the-war Biden so carefully tracked. More importantly, if an Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Putin ever had any doubts about carving out new spheres of uncontested influence, they may entertain very few now.

Veracity? If one were to think that Biden's past brushes with plagiarism, inflated bios, and falsehood were exceptional rather than characteristic, the last two months confirmed otherwise. For all the false recall, it is hard to remember anything he said in his Palin debate that was true, whether describing the status of Hezbollah in Lebanon or his own past remarks about the wisdom of burning coal.

Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — "John McAmerica," "a Palin-McCain administration," "Senator George Obama," "Congressman Joe Biden," who is both "good looking," and "drop-dead gorgeous." Or "I guarantee you, John McCain ain't taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I'm not bad with it. So give me a break."

Or "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Or "Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me."

The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.

I don't know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry's pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 24, 2008.

This was written by Yishai Fleisher and it appeared as an Opinion piece in Arutz-Sheva

Yishai Fleisher is the Director of Programming and show host at Israel National Radio. He is also the co-founder of Kumah, a pro-Aliyah grass-roots movement.


Division between "Israeli" and "Jew" is artificial

This article may seem at first to be dealing with nothing more than semantics. But in this case, we are dealing with words pertaining to our very identity. Our identity is the way we perceive ourselves and broadcast that perception to others. The name we are given and words we use to describe ourselves are fundamental to our identity.

In an interview with Haaretz journalist Daniel Ben Simon the day following Shimon Peres' defeat to Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1996 election, the following exchange took place:

Interviewer: "What happened in these elections?"
Peres: "We lost."
Interviewer: "Who is we?"
Peres: "We, that is, the Israelis."
Interviewer: "And who won?"
Peres: "All those who do not have an Israeli mentality."
Interviewer: "And who are they?"
Peres: "Call them the Jews."

According to the Peres model, there are two publics in Israel: the 'Israeli' and the 'Jew'. 'Israeli' represents the New Jew, free from the constraints of religion and free of the "Galut mentality." This individual has thrown off the baggage of two thousand years of exile and has now taken his rightful place amongst the nations as an equal. He has developed a new culture, a mix of East and West; and while he speaks Hebrew, he is a citizen of the world and feels that Israel's greatest mission is to achieve normalcy and equality amongst the nations.

Peres' 'Jew', on the other hand, stubbornly retains his religious observance. The 'Jew' tends toward political isolationism and in his ignorance he is willing to disregard world opinion. The troublesome 'Jew' supports the continued "occupation" or "settlement" of Judea and Samaria, thereby retarding all progress towards peace. The 'Jew' is some kind of relic that needs to be cleared away so that a "New Middle East" can be born. The 'Jew' even has the audacity to fight for his land, not to mention for his life.

Recently, Yair Lapid, the son and heir of the anti-religious Shinui party founder Tommy Lapid, with no trace of brotherly love, eulogized the "Jews" of Judea and Samaria by saying the following: "These people create a situation whereby, when the day comes, and the agreements are signed on the lawn in Washington, it will be easier to give up this land, which isn't really ours; this land where not only the laws and landscape are different, but also the people."

This is yet another example of the linguistic and anthropological paradigm which we have been taught: the progressive and the regressive are two very different people living in the same parcel of land. One is 'Israeli' while the other is an outsider; he is the 'Jew'.

The division between the Israeli and the Jew is artificial, counter-productive, and anti-Jewish. Our leaders should always be striving to strengthen the bonds that unite every Jew in the world — especially in this time of renewed anti-Semitism and the world jihad. So why do people like Peres and Lapid utilize the 'Jew' versus 'Israeli' paradigm? Because the distinction between 'Jew' and 'Israeli' was created by them and their post-Zionist cohorts. By blaming the 'Jew', they seek to create a scapegoat for their failed attempts to make peace by manipulating the public and giving away our country. By diverting the spotlight away from their own ineptitude and corruption, they stay in power.

Furthermore, cowardly people who are prepared to give away the heart of Israel to our sworn enemies feel threatened by fellow countrymen who represent bravery and a will to survive. For post-Zionists like Peres and Lapid, the woman who happily raises her kids in Judea and Samaria is a constant reminder of their own gutlessness, leading them to develop a burning hate for the pioneering and strong 'Jew'.

The irony of it all is that in today's Israel, the 'Jew' is the new 'Israeli'. Israel was supposed to be the breeding ground for a strong new Hebrew who does not cower. Yet in today's Israel, it is the secular-post-Zionist-left which is the cowering Jew being led to the slaughter. The religious settler is now the emancipated Israeli, bedecked with side locks and tzitzit, and armed with the classic fundamentals of Zionist ideology; that is, to ingather, to build, and to settle the land of Israel.

In a cynical and cunning fashion, the post-Zionists are attempting to take away 'Israeli' identity from those parts of society which still retain the true 'Israeli' and Zionist spirit. By branding strong Israelis as 'the Jews', post-Zionists are trying to marginalize and denigrate that segment of society. The division between Jew and Israeli works to their advantage.

Sadly, after the Disengagement, many of the 'Jews' have also embraced the very same 'Jew' versus 'Israeli' lingo. While it is not commonplace, some religious Zionists proclaim: "I am not a Tzioni, leave that for the Israelis, those who kick Jews out of homes and bash our children's heads in Amona like Cossacks."

Without realizing it, the religious Zionist who embraces the 'Jew' vs. 'Israeli' lexicon is a victim of a propaganda aimed at destroying him by cutting him off from the state he helped build and defend. Instead of relinquishing his Israeli identity, he would be better off saying the truth: it is the post-Zionists who have lost their Israeli self. The strong Jews of Israel are the real Israelis.

The word 'Israel' has been hijacked and has been made merely to reflect an identity of citizenship. However, while Israel is indeed the name of our country, it is much more than that. It is the name of our people.

Our familial and tribal name is Israel. Our Book of Collective Memory tells us that we are all sons and daughters of

While Israel is indeed the name of our country, it is much more than that. one man named Jacob, who was renamed Israel: "Then G-d said to him, 'Your name is Jacob, your name shall not be called Jacob any longer, but Israel shall be your name.' Thus he called his name Israel." (Genesis 35:10)

(Israeli Arabs are not Israeli, and how could they be? Israel is a name set aside for the people of Israel. Arabs who live here can be called "Arabs with citizenship of the State of Israel", but they are certainly not 'Israelis'. Ask them and they will tell you the same thing.)

Israel is the country that we have built. We, the Children of Israel, have returned to our land and have built a prosperous and healthy country in which Torah flourishes alongside advanced farming, life-saving medicine and computers. Are these things in contradiction? Of course not. We are one nation, reuniting on one land, speaking one language. We are Israel.

I am Israeli, because for two-thousand years of exile I was the Jew, a lone speck traveling through time just to arrive at this point of redemption. I am no doubt Jewish, and I love Judaism. But I am even prouder that I have been given the great opportunity, the Jewish dream of two thousand years, to live in Israel and to help build it into the wonderful and holy country that it will one day be.

Nobody is going to take away my hard-earned right to be an equal member of Israeli society. Nobody is going to take from me my country and my identity. And certainly I am not going to relinquish my name Israel and give it to those who have forgotten what Israel is really all about.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Samberg, October 24, 2008.

Can Obama and his supporters reach even new lows? I think so. This was written Omri Ceren and published in Mere Rhetoric
http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11274950.html The original has live links to additional material.

Omri Ceren is a PhD student studying Rhetoric at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. He lives in downtown Los Angeles. Email him at omri@mererhetoric.com


Obama shill Mel Levine has never been shy about throwing around his AIPAC credentials. That's a good strategy given how his pro-Obama arguments are mindbogglingly stupid, but it does beg a question: given how the Obama campaign is on the attack against AIPAC, aren't Levine's credentials kind of a bad thing? Maybe someone should ask him about that. Not a Republican though, because they're not allowed:

Barack Obama's campaign has decided advisers and representatives of the Democratic nominee for president will no longer debate officials from the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). This prohibition led Wednesday to the canceling of a debate scheduled for Sunday at Valley Cities Jewish Community Center in Van Nuys organized by the Council of Israeli Community in Los Angeles [CIC]. Larry Greenfield, California director of the RJC, said he still plans to show up. His counterpart, former Rep. Mel Levine, who is a Middle East adviser for Obama, will not participate in what would have been his fourth debate with Greenfield.

That's the nice way to describe it. What actually happened is that the Obama campaign demanded that the CIC ban Greenfield from the debate as a condition for their participation. They're doing the same thing all over the country: no preconditions for meeting Iran but thuggish demands before they'll sit down with American Jews. And they're getting really good at this game: have someone spend months organizing a non-partisan event, pull their people out right at the end, and then shriek about partisanship. The only thing left is for them to threaten legal action. Then it would be a perfect replay of how they detonated the anti-Ahmadinejad rally. The CIC, for its part, is pissed:

"It will be perceived as they are chickening out from a debate and they are ignoring the Israeli community and don't want to face the truth that the McCain campaign is putting out," Linder said. "You are leaving Larry on a stage to put out the information he wants without being rebutted. The Israeli community needs to hear, face to face, both sides, so that people can decide who they want to vote for."

The Obama campaign is saying that they won't debate because of the RJC's "continual dishonesty." Which would already be incoherent if the RJC was actually being dishonest — in democracies, debates are exactly how we settle these things. But it's an especially disingenuous move given how the RJC's accusations are demonstrably true:

"My appearing with him gives him a prominence that he doesn't deserve," Levine said when asked about the cancellation Wednesday afternoon by the Journal. "The RJC's tactics have been continually dishonest, and the campaign has made a decision to not keep getting on the same stage with them." Levine pointed specifically to the RJC's constant attacks on Israel-critic Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is an Obama foreign policy adviser but not concerning Obama's Israel policy, and its claims that Obama would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Indeed, Obama has said he would meet with leaders of rogue nations, but Ahmadinejad, a rabid anti-Semite, isn't the head of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei is.

Two things going on here. One, the Obama campaign is embarrassingly pathetic when it comes to addressing the valid concerns of American Jews. Two, they seem hell-bent on using their political power to prevent anyone from pointing that out.

Nice to see Obama finally claiming Brzezinski. Last time the campaign got pushed on it, they trotted out Wexler to say that Brzezinski was "not an adviser to the campaign and has done no work for the campaign." So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then — and they knew just who to go to). But being almost honest doesn't make this argument any less asinine. Brzezinski believes that US tensions with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are caused by US support of Israel. So when Obama asks him how the US can repair relations with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia — what exactly do you think he's going to tell him?

I'm also glad that Obama is finally admitting that he'd meet Iran without preconditions. For a while the campaign was claiming the opposite. So either they're lying now or they were lying then (hint: they were lying then). But that doesn't make this version of the argument any more true. For the record: Levine is stealing this argument from Joe Klein, although Klein may have gotten a little help from elsewhere. It was a dumb argument then — but now? Come on. I know that the Obama campaign is using the Big Lie strategy to deal with Biden's anti-Israel record. But there's actual video and photographic proof that Obama promised to meet with Ahmadinejad. That's why Richardson — among others — explicitly criticized him for... wait for it... wanting to meet with Ahmadinejad.

And if he did mean that he'd meet Khamenei without preconditions? That's somehow better? Khamenei has repeatedly declared that Iran is trying to wipe out Israel. He openly supports Ahmadinejad as the President of Iran. He's trying to make sure that Ahmadinejad stays the President of Iran. This is the "dishonesty" that justifies banning conservative Jewish Americans from democratic forums?

It'd be nice if the Obama campaign's attempted thuggish ban was just because they were afraid to defend their awful arguments. But this is more basic: the Obama campaign is silencing opponents because it can. They've been using legal threats to shut down events and kill political messages that they don't like. They're not even in power yet and they're already threatening political opponents with jail time. They brag about the organized mobs that they activate to "fight the good fight" and prevent critics from speaking out. In the meantime they are quite literally blackmailing political opponents into silence. Across the country, Obama's more enthusiastic partisans have taken to violently intimidating conservatives and destroying their property. Just yesterday they demanded an FBI investigation into the FBI investigation of their ACORN allies. This is not a campaign that takes criticism well.

So who knows — maybe Greenfield is lucky. The last citizen who had the temerity to publicly question the purity of The One was savagely destroyed by the press after Obama and Biden repeatedly stocked the fire by mocking him on globally-broadcast news stations. Little 12 year old girls are being viciously smeared for daring to look up to America's most successful female politician.

From textbooks instructing students about Obama's "life of service" to illustrated children's books about "the name the whole world knows" to Obama Youth chanting and marching in lockstep to beatific children singing hymns about their Leader — let's just build a giant statue of him on a horse and get it over with. This election isn't about winning. As Obama's more honest supporters boast, they're in it to "crush the spirits" of social conservatives and foreign policy "neo-conservatives." Luckily "neo-conservative" is in no way a leftist code word for "pro-Israel Jew." So no cause for alarm.

Memo to ostensibly pro-Israel Obama supporters: circa 2010 there are going to be headlines about the "severe crisis in US-Israel relations." You're not going to be able to say that you didn't know.

References: ( Click here for links to articles)

* Mel Levine's Defense Of Obama: He'll Make Obsessed Anti-Israel Lunatics Love The US. Presumably By Magic. [MR]
* Biden Now Actively Channeling Rabid Anti-Israel Partisans, Adopting Their Barely-Veiled Anti-Israel Euphemisms [MR]
* Obama campaign halts debates with RJC [Jewish Journal]
* Obama Won't Meet with Jews *even with preconditons [Atlas]
* Palin Speech Now Online, Liberal Jewish Groups Reach New Heights Of Pro-Obama Denials, Fabrications, And Smears [MR]
* Obama Defenders: What Brzezinski Guy? (Plus: That's Not Even Their Worst Argument) [MR]
* New Leftist Meme: Palin "Solved Jewish Problem" That Obama Never Really Had (Plus: Anti-Palin "Buchanan Endorsement" Meme Also A Lie) [MR]
* History re-written: Obama never said he would meet personally with Iran without precondition, says advisor; Update: Website excerpt added [Hot Air]
* I wonder where he got that idea? Oh, yeah! [Hot Air]
* Weak: Obama ducks question on whether he'll meet with Ahmadinejad [Hot Air]
* Inevitable — Little Girl Sells Cookies To Buy Anti-McCain Attack Ad [MR]
* Did Obama Say He Would Meet with Ahmedinejad? Absolutely [Verum Serum]
* Richardson: "You don't talk to Ahmadinejad" [Hot Air]
* Iranian Regime Unleashes Cacophony Of Genocidal Threats Against Israel [MR]
* Diplomatic Sophistication Heartbreak: Tension Between Iranian Political Factions A Little Exaggerated [MR]
* Iran's New Moderate Cleric Not A Moderate, Will Lose Anyway (Plus: Even The French Are Laughing At Obama's Idiotic Iran Policy) [MR]
* Obama Campaign Cripples Anti-Ahmadinejad Rally, Neatly Crystallizes Thuggish Liberal Fascism [MR]
* Ho hum: Obama's lawyer threatens TV stations that run NRA ad [Hot Air]
* Obama threatens TV stations airing Ayers ad [Michelle Malkin]
* Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign's Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement [Matt Blunt]
* EDITORIAL: The new 'digital brownshirts' [Wash Times]
* Obama's character assassins target another National Review journalist [Hot Air]
* Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee [Rich Lowry]
* The Loneliness of the Blue-State Conservative [American Thinker]
* Obama Lawyer Asks for Probe Into Vote-Fraud Claims (Update1) [Bloomberg]
* The Left Declares War on Joe the Plumber [Malkin]
* Nice. Obama & Biden Mock "Joe the Plumber" (Video) [Gateway Pundit]
* Biden: I don't know Joe the Plumber [Hot Air]
* Video: Obama hits McCain over Joe the Plumber [Hot Air]
* Video: 12-year-old called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt [Hot Air]
* Textbooks About Obama's "Life Of Service" To The People Already Being Used To Indoctrinate Youth [MR]
* Obama Children's Book Instructs Youth About The "Name The Whole World Knows" [MR]
* Video: Obama Youth March In Lockstep, Chant About Inspirational Leader Who Will Guide Them Into Glorious Future [MR]
* Smith College Student: Obama Is My "Personal Jesus" (Plus: Children Now Singing Choral Hymns To Obama) [MR]
* Kos: We Must Crush Their Spirits [Ace]
* Joe Klein Enters the Fever Swamp [TNR]

Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 24, 2008.


President George W. Bush is often criticized and accused of lying about Saddam Hussein's WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) including NBC (Nuclear, Chemical and Biological) weapons. Saddam's development, possession of and use of WMD have been proven. Saddam used Chemical and Poison Gas on his own Kurdish people, murdering thousands.

The following stories finally prove that he had nuclear weapons capability and we know he had the will to use it based on his own statements. America attacked and destroyed Saddam's evil empire based on these known WMD. Now we can see the proof.


When the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) of December 3, 2007 was issued, Media headlines claimed that Iran had "ceased" its nuclear development, a smell wafted up that government insiders working against the Administration as Leftist moles.

When you read the following, the lights should turn on as to the workings of a "Shadow Government" epi-centered in the U.S. State Department among the pacifists.

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled:


The opening paragraph is as follows:

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellow-cake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy.

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003 after invading Iraq . They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide.

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all along. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,

"The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy".

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife.

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger . The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that purpose but needed proof.

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki. Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in 'expanding commercial relations' for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake.

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger .

However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003.

Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush.

Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger . The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements.

It was a simple tactic really. If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.

Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was 'unequivocally wrong.' Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim. This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004. Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage — no friend of the Bush administration — who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years.

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no long er a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it. The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get.

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, 'Bush lied,' we should tell them to, 'Have the yellowcake and eat it too.' This story was verified, if you want to check it for yourself, goto


The following stories finally prove

Summary of the eRumor: Various commentaries and news agency reports about radio active concentrates of uranium known as "yellow-cake" being secretly transported from Iraq to a base in Canada.

The Truth: This eRumor started circulating in August, 2008.

"Yellow-cake" (or "yellow-cakes") is a concentrate of uranium that results from the refinement of uranium ore. It is used for making fuel for nuclear power plants and for use in nuclear weapons.

According to published reports including CBS news, the United States secretly moved a huge stockpile of yellow-cake in early August, 2008, from Iraq to Canada, partly to keep it from falling into the hands of either terrorists or foreign governments such as Iran.

The operation was reportedly more than a year in the making and took three months to execute. It included carrying 3,500 barrels of yellow-cake by road from Baghdad, then flying them on 37 military flights to an atoll in the Indian Ocean, then carrying them aboard a U.S. ship bound for Montreal. In all, it added up to more than 500 metric tons of material from Saddam Hussein's nuclear program.

The Iraqi government sold the yellow-cake to a Canadian uranium company and it will be used in Ontario, Canada, for use in nuclear reactors.

A CBS report said, "And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion. Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellow-cake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration. "

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq

Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
updated 5:57 p.m. CT, Sat., July. 5, 2008

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellow-cake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

While yellow-cake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellow-cake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellow-cake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars." A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellow-cake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.

"We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellow-cake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity," he said.

Secret mission

The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellow-cake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.

Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellow-cake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellow-cake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellow-cake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.

Yellow-cake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like color and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.

"The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellow-cake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

Hurdles ahead of hauling yellow-cake

Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellow-cake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.

Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.

An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellow-cake on cargo planes.

But the yellow-cake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.

At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellow-cake from the Saddam-era containers — some leaking or weakened by corrosion — and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.

In April, truck convoys started moving the yellow-cake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.

On June 3, an American ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.

The yellow-cake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.

Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.


The yellow-cake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.

The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.

Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.

But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive "hot zones" entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take "many years."

The yellow-cake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellow-cake from Niger.

A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 24, 2008.


Nobody else seems to have noticed a subtle piece of nasty campaigning by Obama. In the debates, he stressed addressing the needs of the 21st century. But this is the end of the 8th year of the 21st century, so references to that century as a new one are old hat. Nor is there anything particularly different about the years after 2000 from the years before 2001. The proper way to campaign would be to refer to specific, recent or changing conditions. I take Obama's reference to the current century as an indirect dig at his older rival.


I heard no further reference to Sen. Biden's smear of Gov. Palin as disparaging the patriotism of certain areas. His audience believed him and his emotional rebuttal of her. Her actual statement was about the same that he, himself, made as an answer to her. I'm still wondering whether his staff misunderstood what she said and didn't check or whether he deliberately smeared her.

Didn't anybody inform her of what he did? If yes, one would think she would call him up and inform him of the error. She should ask him to correct his error and exonerate her publicly, preferably with her standing by. If he refused, then she should make a big thing of his smear, for by keeping his gain from what may originally been an error, he'd be very unethical. She would conclude, no more Mr. Nice Guy Biden. She might add, isn't he the pit bull!


I come across liberals who are supposed to be sophisticated and intellectual. At least they look down upon ordinary people. But they believe what they read that jibes with what they have read in the same sources, before. Like inbreeding.

I learned as a boy that there may be more than one or two sides to a story and not to put my trust in the written word.


As U.S. presidents wear out their welcome, they seek a dramatic breakthrough in foreign policy, to leave a favorable legacy. Often that breakthrough would be at the expense of Israel, an ally of the US, and to the profit of the Islamists, enemies of the US. That is not a breakthrough but a break down! It is poor thinking. It supposes that if the historians judge him negatively for it, at least his contemporary media will persuade the public that he accomplished something. But it would bring war fast. Must we be harmed by this inability to talk straight and think straight? Are we so easily gulled?


"Shalem Center Fellow Michael Oren, writing in Forbes Magazine," ... " pointed out that Sen. McCain favors moving the American embassy to Jerusalem while Sen. Obama has left his position unclear." "Obama, on the other hand, has expressed reservations about Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank, while McCain has overlooked the matter."

"McCain has called on the Palestinian Authority to live up to its obligations to clamp down on terror, but Obama has stopped short of making such a demand. Obama has supported Israel's ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza and its peace talks with Syria; McCain opposes both," Oren added.

At first, Obama said he favors an undivided Jerusalem. Within a day, after having received criticism from American Arabs [who had planned to vote for him], he admitted that he favors dividing Jerusalem. [His excuse was a transparent dissimulation, based on his wording and weasel-worded logic.] McCain cites the terrorists' approval of Obama(Arutz-7, 10/16). That does not mean they know something we don't.

McCain's views are specific and pro-Zionist. Obama's are vague and anti-Zionist. However, If McCain really understood Israel and the menace of Islamism, he would demand that the US terminate subsidies to the P.A. and stop supporting statehood for it.


Women In Green planned a gala at a former Army base that the government wants to turn over to the Arabs in Judea-Samaria. Women In Green want the Jewish people to keep it. As the Arabs describe this, they want to plant a colony. [How does one plant a colony in one's homeland?] The Arabs accuse settlers of attacking them, under protection of the Army. The reverse often is true. They attack settlers under protection of the Army. [The Muslim Arabs usually say the opposite of the truth, as did their allies, the Nazis and Soviets.]

About 20 Arabs and Israeli anarchists raided Jews' houses at the outpost, Chursha. They succeeded by means of a ruse. " ... they told police that they had come to harvest olives. The police then notified Chursha's residents that officers and soldiers were escorting the Arabs to pick olives. Residents left to guard a nearby olive grove they had planted a few years ago, which Arabs claim is on their land.

The assailants burned the living quarters and killed a puppy. A community security man held four fleeing perpetrators at bay until police arrived (Arutz-7, 10/17). Land claims should be resolved, but can't trust Israel to be fair to Jews.


Complaining that the Palin campaign aroused voters to hatred, Gail Collins wrote that Palin praised the pro-America areas of the country (NY Times, 10/23).

Collins implies that Palin finds other areas anti-American. I didn't follow the campaign in detail. If I saw Palin encourage hatred, I would object. What I saw on TV was Biden, himself, accuse her of calling areas of the country bad Americans, and the same station contrast that with her actual words, praising all areas as replete with good Americans. She was unifying, he was divisive.

Campaigns and journalists have a duty to quote accurately. Apparently its op-ed writers aren't up to the task.

Actually, many Americans are not good Americans. They don't just disapprove of current policies. They hate their country. They deny their country the credit it does deserve. They are too sensitive to the criticisms of foreign leaders, who have their own axes to grind.


In endorsing Obama, former Sec. of State Powell was quoted by a letter to the NY Times as having argued that a Muslim child, as Obama was, is entitled to dream of becoming President. Powell indicated that nothing would be wrong if he did (10/23). I couldn't find that quote on the web, just that if Obama had been a Muslim, so what. I'll take up the issue on its merits.

If Obama is, as the letter writer put it, a former Muslim, then he has been lying to the public in denying it. Why? What else is he covering up? Do we want to start out with dishonesty in a presidency?

The evidence is clear that Obama once was a Muslim. Islam considers apostasy from Islam a capital crime that any Muslim may enforce by assassination. Thus, at first, as Powell supposes, the Muslim world may very well welcome an Obama administration. Then what, when they realize he is an apostate?

As for an American Muslim child dreaming of becoming a President, should our country have as a President someone who believes in murder for different beliefs? Powell praises Muslim contributions to our society. He overlooks the increasing radicalism of Muslims here, their general approval of 9/11, and the global and historical effort by Muslims, citizens and from abroad to overthrow non-Muslim regimes, including ours. They want either to kill us or to repress our freedom. We would have to mistreat women the way they do. We would have to worship the way they do. Barbarism would replace the Bill of Rights.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, October 24, 2008.

This was written by Victor Davis Hanson and it appeared yesterday in Jewish World Review


Lame-duck Republican President Bush's dismal poll ratings have descended to those of Harry Truman's when he left office. The Democratic majority in Congress will probably widen after the election. Republican nominee John McCain has not run a dynamic campaign. Gen. Colin Powell, George Bush's former secretary of state, has now enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama. The country is in two unpopular wars — amid the worst financial panic of the last 80 years. Not since prophet of change and newcomer Jimmy Carter ran against Gerald Ford (post Watergate and the lost Vietnam war) have voters been so eager for a shake-up.

Why then is the charismatic Barack Obama not quite yet a shoo-in?

Easy. Voters apparently still don't know who Obama is, or what he wants to do — and so are still not altogether sure that Obama is the proper antidote to George Bush. After more than a year of campaigning, he still remains an enigma.

Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together. But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service."

The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as "certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for." And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as "a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely."

Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn't e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005, suggesting more than three years of communications — in a post-9/11 climate — after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing?

Obama's campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN — an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised.

Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions.

Many of Obama's surrogates, from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Joe Biden, have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama's 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger?

It's also unclear exactly what Obama's message of "hope" and "change" means. The hope part turned a little weird when Obama, in prophetic fashion, proclaimed, "We are the ones we've been waiting for," and later put up Greek-temple backdrops for his speech at the Democratic convention.

If we didn't get that supernatural message, Obama also promised of his election that it would be the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

And change? Obama himself has changed positions on FISA, NAFTA, campaign public financing, town-hall meetings with McCain, offshore drilling, nuclear and coal power, capital punishment and gun control, his characterization of Iran, the surge in Iraq, and the future of Jerusalem. So change from what to what?

Under Sen. Obama's tax plan, nearly half of all income earners wouldn't pay federal income taxes. He also offers billions in cash payments to millions of those people. And he promises to pay for that loss in revenue by upping taxes on those in the highest income brackets, who already pay the majority of existing income taxes — and who could also be subject to proposed higher payroll, estate and capital gains taxes.

Is that a tax-cut policy or more a redistribution of wealth in search of forced equality — what Obama himself apparently calls to "spread the wealth around" or what Biden once suggested was "patriotic"?

A Martian who reviewed Obama's past elections in Illinois, the various associations he once cultivated, his brief voting record in the Senate, and the positions he originally outlined when he announced his presidential campaign might objectively conclude that America could elect either the most far left or the most unknown presidential candidate in its history.

I just hope that it is still not racist or McCarthy-like — or blasphemous — simply to suggest that.

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, October 24, 2008.

What Israelis and Americans should know about the cravens and cretins who rule their countries:

1) Your enormous military power is zero since your enemy does not believe you will use it.

2) Your power is nothing if you do not strike fear in your enemy. It has rightly been said that ferocity is the ultimate guarantor of peace.

3) Since this is beyond your leaders, Osama bin Laden and the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thumb their noses on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.

4) How they will dance in joy when a fellow-Muslim enters the White House and converts it into a giant mosque!

5) Imagine his first "state of the union message," when he tells his "fellow Americans" the Sharia "supplement" the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

6) How the liberal media will rush to report this "breaking news." The leaders of the ACLU will be silent, having been beheaded.

7) Hatred and uniformity will replace tolerance and pluralism in America.

8) Why can't Americans hate their enemies? Why can't Jews hate their enemies? How is it that Muslims hate not only all non-Muslims but even other Muslims?

9) Jacques-Benigne Boussuet, perhaps the greatest orator of the seventeenth century, said in his masterpiece Politics drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture: "Those who love war, and make it to satisfy their ambition, are declared to be enemies of God."

10) Why can't Americans, why can't Jews understand this?

Professor Paul Eidelberg an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy. He can be reached by email at list@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, October 24, 2008.
tThis is an Editorial from The Washington TImes.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is under investigation by state and federal authorities for its voter registration drives.

Allegations are that ACORN's get-out-the-vote efforts have produced thousands of fraudulent registrations. The probes are encouraging; America wouldn't be in position to criticize other nations of ballot-stuffing if it permits the same at home. What's most encouraging, though, is that House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is calling for ACORN to be defunded. "The latest allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN are further evidence that this group cannot be trusted with another dollar of the taxpayers' money," he said.

ACORN helped make the term "affordable housing" a Washington staple. So as the roots of the financial crisis are laid bare, take a hard look at ACORN.

ACORN has its roots in the community-organization teachings of Saul Alinsky, who mobilized Chicago's stockyard workers in the 1930s. The organization was founded as the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now by Wade Rathke, a protege of George Wiley, the civil-rights activist who later engineered the Poor People's Campaign with his founding of the National Welfare Reform Organization. After fighting for "motor-voter" registration in the 1990s, which allowed people to register to vote at departments of motor vehicles, ACORN began expanding its voter registration activities. Since 2004 it has come under scrutiny for producing thousands of fraudulent registrations, and 15 employees intent on exploiting their pay-per-registration policy to make money have been indicted or convicted of voter registration fraud. But it didn't start out that way.

If the political left is an abstract concept for social justice and socialist sentiments, then ACORN is its avatar. ACORN's work has been primarily focused on affordable housing for low-income families first through community activism to force improvements to public housing. The group initially wanted to also increase welfare, which it succeeded in doing in cities across the country during the 1970s and 1980s, but the effort ultimately proved to be a failure. The concentrated pockets of poverty that resulted led to overwhelming crime that knew no borders; the residents themselves became easy prey for the criminal drug culture.

In 1984, ACORN expanded widely, establishing chapters in a dozen cities and winning over poor and working-class members who took up the mantle for living wages and single-payer health care. ACORN also protested against insurance redlining issues. It also founded a political action committee and started radio stations and produced television programming. In 1991, ACORN began using its community organizing and protest activities to encourage homeownership, lobbying for banks to offer low-interest loans to people of limited financial means with little to no collateral. ACORN's work to defeat the weakening of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1991 found members protesting in the halls of Congress. Those efforts spurred anew their activity in voter registration and grass-roots political work.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 24, 2008.

The Shas party has announced that it will not be joining a coalition headed by Tzipi Livni. This decision was made by its Council of Sages; the announcement declared that it had demanded real aid for the poor and sought to protect Jerusalem: "We suggested solutions for the poverty issues and Jerusalem, but our opinion was not accepted..." I cannot but wonder what role Bibi Netanyahu played in all of this.

Livni has announced that she will make her decision on Sunday as to whether to try to hobble together a narrow government, that is, one with a bare minimum of seats required, or to go to elections. Various advisors are telling her to go for elections and to hold tight. I'm betting she goes for elections. I certainly hope so. She is likely to opt for this because a narrow government is particularly prone to falling apart quickly. Labor had insisted that it wanted a stable government that would last two years.

If she decides to go for elections, it will be two months until they take place, and — unless something totally unexpected happens — Bibi Netanyahu will be our next prime minister.


I am including here a link to a speech given in New York on September 25, by Geert Wilders, who is another reason to have a modicum of hope.

The situation he describes in his speech is grim — and should be noted seriously. The tendency in many quarters to make light of the realities he describes is cause for great concern. These facts need to be received by all with utmost seriousness, indeed alarm.

But good things are also happening. In his speech, which was sponsored by the Hudson Institute, Wilders — chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands — introduced an Alliance of Patriots and announced the Facing Jihad Conference to be held in Jerusalem in December, promoted in part by MK Aryeh Eldad (NU/NRP). At long last a response to the Jihadist threat is coalescing with seriousness.


This is what Wilders — bless him! — says about Israel. Would that every American understood this:

"The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

"Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: 'Islam has bloody borders.' Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad...Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.


I am hard at work on major material — on UNRWA — at this juncture, and so I ask your forbearance if my postings are somewhat less frequent or somewhere shorter than is my norm. I am finding I need at least six more hours in each day, but will do my best to post as I can.


I am by nature an optimistic person. I certainly never give up the fight and never abandon hope — that is forbidden. But I confess a great heaviness of heart these days because I am witnessing the implosion of the US, both politically and economically. This is something I never imagined I would see. Perhaps, with the help of Heaven, the situation can be turned around. But please, please, do not write to me to tell me Obama brings great promise for good change, because I do not, cannot, accept this. Not remotely.

Blessings of peace to all.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Eleazar ben-Yair, October 24, 2008.

This comes from the Samson Blinder website and is archived at


Jews were given a considerable state by the Mandate. It was thought too much, and Britain took 3/4 of our country for some Bedouins in Jordan. The rest was also too much for Jews, and the UN halved our country for some Syrian Arabs who call themselves "Falestinian." Fine, we developed our patch of land from desert and marshes — and it, too, is thought too much for Jews. Now we must take in 1.5 million Arabs. What size of land larger than a cemetery is suitable for Jews? Americans have an entire country for themselves. Americans are not an ethnicity? Neither are Jews. Americans are not a religious group? What makes citizenship, an entirely artificial concept, better than religion in terms of legitimizing a group? If a group of (say, American) citizens can take a huge country all for themselves — and bar anyone else from freely moving in, even though most territory is not settled — why cannot another group, a religious one, take a minuscule country size of an American county — all for itself?

I'm often asked if we're prepared to kill in order to achieve our ends. The assumption, invariably, is that killing is unimaginably abhorrent. This is nonsense. Every person save hardcore Quakers and cowardly peaceniks is prepared to kill for the sake of his nation, country, religion. European settlers in America — what, were they making health massage to the native Indians or slaughtering them? Russians in Chechnya, French in Algeria, British in Palestine, Germans in the World War I — were they not killing? Nations go out to kill over amazingly trivial issues: from the dynastic wars to Indochina to Falklands to Iraq.

Should Jews perhaps be more moral than others? Define the morality for me. In my view, moral is what God said is moral. If we're told to expel the inhabitants of the land He gave us, that's the ultimate morality. Or, let's try a secular definition from natural law: morality is what was thought moral throughout generations. Hardly any activity was praised more than a war which one side considered righteous. No, that's not a good morality, either? Then understand that you're trying to impose on Jews some fictional morality with no basis in Judaism or secular tradition. The very nuts who oppose medical experiments on animals want to experiment on the entire Jewish people in Israel. "Try this morality, if it fails — try another one." No Jews left for experiments? No problem, they would upgrade to experimenting on rats.

Yes, of course we're prepared to kill for national and religious ideas, and it's only incidental that our ideas do not require killing. Once a Jewish state stops subsidizing local Arabs with money, municipal infrastructure, municipal services for which Arabs refuse to pay, free education and health care, and forces them like all other citizens into the army — they would go. We have tanks, and Israeli Arabs don't, so they will certainly go. In 1948, thousand times as many Arabs fled Israel as the number killed — today proportion would be even better, making our enterprise relatively humane compared to any other countries' wars.

God told us to exterminate Amalek only. The seven Canaanite nations should be evicted, not killed. The difference is this: Amalek attacked us for no good reason, but Canaanites justly defend their land. God even promised that he would implant terror in the hearts of Canaanites so that they will run from us. In 1948, Palestinian Arabs miraculously became terrified and massively fled the country. God did his part, and it's our turn to finish the job.

Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it

To Go To Top

Posted by Eleazar ben Yair, October 24, 2008.

The folks writing the World Bank report could give a damn, of course, about security issues. If polls showed the overwhelming majority of Palestinians opposed terror attacks then it could be argued that they are hostages of the Palestinian gunmen whose activities over the Oslo years led to the situation today. But what is one to think about "innocence" when the overwhelming majority of Palestinians polled over the years actually supported terror?] This is a news item from Ynet news


Economy in territories shrunk rapidly since 2000 intifada, foreign aid unable to arrest decline, report says, adding 'situation has become untenable'

While the developed world frets over a credit crisis and looming recession, a World Bank report published on Thursday describes a slow-burning economic disaster in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

It may not revolve around sub-prime mortgages, but land, or the lack of it, lies at the heart of many of the Palestinians' problems, the Bank says.

Since the start of a Palestinian uprising in 2000, when jobs were already scarce in a broken landscape of refugee camps and overcrowding, the West Bank's economy has shrunk rapidly, with ever larger volumes of foreign aid unable to arrest the decline.

"The situation has become untenable," says the report, which catalogues economic damage inflicted by decades of restricted access to land, whether for farming, industry or housing.

An area comprising nearly 60 percent of the West Bank, called Area C in provisional peace accords with Israel, is under the full control of the Israeli military, and most of it is sparsely populated and underutilized.

Palestinian access to nearly 38 percent of the West Bank is limited, notably by Jewish settlements and Israeli security.

The allocation of land in the 1995 Oslo Accords, which laid the path for a peace accord that was to lead to an eventual Palestinian state, was meant to be transitory, the report says.

"However, little territory has been transferred to Palestinian Authority control since the signing ... and this process has been completely frozen since 2000," it added.

But the Palestinian population has not stopped growing, and its ability to meet its own development needs through economic activity is now severely constrained by the land pinch.

'Since 2000, economy in decline'

In the increasingly cramped and fragmented space beyond Area C, land use decisions have become irrational and environmental management unsound, says the World Bank.

"Today, only a fraction of the Palestinian population resides in Area C," it notes, because there is very little incentive to stay there.

"While this may have been acceptable under an interim scenario ... after 13 years with minimal Israeli redeployments from Area C, the situation has now become untenable," it says.

"This territorial division distorts land markets by creating land shortages," which in turn create housing shortages and put industrial development at a disadvantage.

"In the aftermath of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian economy was expected to enter a period of sustained and rapid growth," the report said.

Instead, growth lasted only a few years, and since 2000 the economy has been in decline, with GDP down 14 percent from its peak in 1999. When the rapidly rising population is factored in, the figure is even worse: per capita GDP is down 40 percent.

International peacemakers have recently focused on trying to bolster the Palestinian economy alongside US-sponsored talks aimed at reaching a deal on establishing a state, but progress has been limited on both fronts.

The World Bank forecast that "the investment climate will remain unfavorable and business opportunities much below potential" as long as most of the West Bank remains inaccessible for Palestinian economic investments.

Contact Eleazar ben Yair by email at Eleazar_benyair@yahoo.it

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 23, 2008.

Let's start from some time back? A few years?

We all recall the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) Report published December 3, 2007, which created a false impression to the effect that Iran had ceased all efforts to produce nuclear fuel to make nuclear weapons.

Later information leaked out that the State Department had transferred three of its employees into various U.S. Intelligence Services to manipulate actual intelligence to their point of view. Some would call this a "rolling coup d'etat" as the State Department and certain powerful individuals moved to take control of government policy as a "shadow government". This could turn the American people into a Third World population working for new masters.

This is not the first time the American public has been manipulated and fleeced by a "shadow government" run by self-serving controllers. Recall the Savings and Loan Crash and Bailout of the mid and late 1980s under James Baker III as Secretary of Treasury? For the record, 1,169 savings and loans in the United States failed. Texas, the epi-center, had the most failures, 237. In 2000, the FDIC said that the S&L disaster cost taxpayers some $124 billion. But that sum does not reflect the entire bill. In order to pay for the S&L bailout, the federal government sold bonds. By the time those bonds are finally retired in 2020 or so, the total cost of the S&L mess will likely be some $300 billion. Secretary of Treasury James Baker, took no action on the emerging savings & loan crisis.

Today's current Crash may be the result of the oil manipulation between the multi-national oil companies and the Muslim and Arab oil nations — with 'we, the people' paying for this swindle. All of this is overseen by the U.S. State Department and Washington. The eventual cost to American tax-payers will be astronomical and is, as yet, hidden.

The mis-information by the 2007 NIE Report was exposed by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton. The manipulated NIE Report was designed to stop President Bush from ordering an American attack on Iran's nuclear facilities which are now scattered throughout Iran's countryside.

Later the head of the CIA apologized for the Report and its erroneous information but, nevertheless, the well-planned insider propaganda halted any American plans to destroy Iran's burgeoning nuclear facilities.

The Leftist Media crawled all over the false NIE Report, practically cheering what turned out to be a phony Report. The State Department wasn't the only participant, as several top ranking officers of the American military were quietly relieved of duty for their participation in the false NIE Report.

British and Israeli Intelligence were furious over this planted mis-information that Iran had ceased its operations when, in fact, they had actually accelerated production of their fissile nuclear material. One could consult with Senator Joe Biden as to why, over the years, he has always leaned toward Iran in his voting and deliberations among his colleagues.

Why does this collaboration by State and other Intel/Military Agencies want a pacifist like Barack Obama for President? They knew they could not appeal to or trust John McCain and Sarah Palin to go along with the plan to stop a preventative invasion against Iran's nuclear facilities. Compromising America's security or that of our ally, Israel, is a betrayal of a greater magnitude.

Barack Obama, given his history of "hanging around the neighborhood" with self-declared anarchists and generally considered far Left-of-Center, could be easily guided by the likes of Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski to not either pre-emptively attack Iran as necessary or mount a second strike even after Iran attacked any American city or interest. Obama has said he would rather talk than act.

But first, Obama needed to be made President and that would cost huge sums. That meant he could not opt to take limited official Government funding as did John McCain. Obama needed far larger funds and that could not come from primarily normal contributions. It needed to come from deep, deep pockets — like those in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, the Gulf Oil States.

But, those campaign contributions could not come to Obama in huge traceable gifts, thereby calling attention from government agencies for illegal funding. The money had to be split into very small sums — like $200 per gift through millions of new donors. Of course, Obama's fund raisers refused to release those names to check their origins as McCain chose to do. Other U.S. gifts to Obama in excess of legal limitations which were caught by outside observers, were generally returned — in part — but, even then — not all and not always. Who knew about this massive cash flow officially, unofficially or merely by well-founded rumors in the Intel community?

The State Department, the FBI, CIA, NSA and any number of our 16 Intelligence Agencies knew. But, just as no one stopped the false NIE Reports which caused the loss of American resolve to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons' capability, no one stopped the buying of America by the huge, global campaign contributions. The Scam was that high up.

Buying a Presidential Election would be a well kept secret not unlike "the magic bullet" and "the shooter on the grassy knoll in Dallas". Was the fix in?

It was puzzling when $150 Million Dollars came into Obama's campaign in one month — not to mention the already accumulated "windfall" of close to $450 Million Dollars raised before. The $150 Million Dollars influx in September led to a grand total of $600 Million Dollars for Obama to spend, snowing the American public to cover his record and propagate his rhetoric.

Generally, that kind of money floats around drug cartels or oil deals between the Arab Muslim countries and the multinational oil companies. Clearly, if Iran (and Iran's oil) were to be protected — along with its future potential for oil contracts, Obama would be a better, even vital, choice as a malleable President than a stubborn, experienced military man like McCain. If the Presidency was to be owned and controlled by the multi-nationals and oil countries, they needed a President like Obama — a stooge. The "controllers" also needed a replacement VP who was known to be more than accommodating to Iran and, thus: Joe Biden.

The Media never really questioned this extraordinary cash flow but, instead expressed happy astonishment that a Left Liberal was receiving such approval by way of donations. Of course, no one in government stepped in and said: "Wait a minute". No State Department, no FBI, no CIA, no Justice Department, no Intel Agencies, no watchdog Media....No Nothing!

IF Obama's money is coming primarily from the Middle East, then this is a matter of National Security at its highest level — because America is in hock, in thrall, in debt to the tune of Billions of Dollars of deficit — and rising.

Clearly, the elections should be put on an extraordinary hold until these unusual questions hanging over Obama's head are answered. A breach of security of this magnitude cannot be covered over or considered trivial just because the plotters need deniability.

We all should have known something was seriously wrong when Obama refused to produce an original birth certificate that could prove he was a natural-born American as required for a Presidential Candidate under Constitutional law. A suit was filed in federal court Philadelphia, requiring Obama to produce his birth certificate but, the Courts dragged their feet, seeming not to want to force the production of such evidence of American birth. Obama is presently visiting Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother. Would you be surprised if he comes back with a Hawaiian birth certificate which, like counterfeit money, has been skillfully aged?

Both the Judge and Obama, could go to prison if they colluded to insure the matter would not be adjudicated before the elections on November 4th.

Because the suit was filed in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell, as well as the Attorney General of the Justice Department should have been all over this matter — as a matter of America's national security. If we have a President loyal to the Saudis and other foreign supporters for funding his election win and under the control of the State Department and those who fabricated the false NIE Report, then the matter of treason must be raised.

The elections must be delayed while the investigation of Obama's riches from foreign contributions is implemented.

This is vital to America's future as a free nation. We in these United States cannot exist as a Democratic country under a "Shadow Government" even if it is controlled by past and/or present State Department plotters.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 23, 2008.


What was stated: the IDF is coordinating with the P.A. for Arabs to harvest their olives this season, that Jews will be barred from certain areas to "avoid friction," and that some non-profit aid groups will be present (IMRA, 10/5).

Unmentioned: The typical response by Israel to Muslims seeking to attack Jews, is to bar the Jews to "avoid friction." Is that fair? Or is it, itself, antisemitic?

The attacks often are instigated by radical Jews, sometimes belonging to non-profit groups. Are those incendiary groups going to be present? If so, why?

When there is "friction," the Israeli government usually lets the Arabs and their leftist accomplices burn Jews' crops. If Jews resist, it takes the Arab "witnesses' self-contradictory word for it and arrests the Jews, actually victims. Fair?

Sometimes, government forces actively collude with the Arab rioters, not just ignore Arab crime and pretend that Jewish self-defense is a crime. Thus what the press release did not mention is more important than what it did state.

Those professedly pro-Israel politicians and supposedly pro-Zionist, American Jewish organizations know nothing of this. Hint: don't expect the NY Times or Washington Post or even Fox News to keep yourselves informed.


A program on Channel 13, on 10/16, indicated that it had. Pres. Bush and Cabinet Members ordered it. Their lawyers rationalized it. We saw some film of it, were read internal reports on it, and heard testimony [some from interested parties as if reliable]. We also saw Pres. Bush deny knowledge of these malpractices that he admitted were un-American. His regime covered up.

The program claimed that the US violated the Geneva Convention. The US Supreme Court agreed. I don't, but we did violate the Constitution by those interrogations, which I think were torture. Since the terrorists did not sign the Convention and fight by means of war crimes, they are not entitled to POW protection under the Convention. The program said, release them, but If they were POWs, they could be held until war's end. Many were captured outside of combat, based on "informants." There must be some way for such prisoners to challenge in military court their detention as one of mistaken identity as terrorists.

The program omitted a key question. The alleged torture was committed, and is defended, under the notion of emergency need for intelligence. So, did the US gain much intelligence from it? If yes, it's still wrong. If no, it's surely criminal.


The TV was on. Candidate Biden was making an emotional speech against his opponent's speech. He claimed she expressed joy about coming to where good Americans are. Biden condemned her for alleging that Americans in other states are not patriotic. Apparently she really was the "attack dog" they say she is.

Then the camera quoted what Gov. Palen actually said. She said that good Americans aren't only in Washington, DC., but also in towns across the country. That is different. She did not impugn the patriotism of blue states. Biden had distorted her decent sentiment into one easy to denounce.

Was Biden's staff careless about that, or is he demagogic? He owes her and us a profound apology.


Somali pirates have captured about 20 ships this year and collected about $20 million in ransom. They have given about $1 million to the Islamists in that country, still struggling to take over (IMRA, 9/5).

PEOPLE DON'T THINK? I find that people don't think about the issues. They toe their line, asserting it as if factual. Today a couple of people told me that the current administration is a poor one, as if the predecessors were better or as if the Administration's critics are much better. They said the war in Iraq had no justification, having forgotten about Saddam's violations of ceasefire agreements [to commit genocide], etc.

They cite the casualty figures, such as 4,000 killed, as if that were high. Our other major wars cost 50,000 or more. They should be thankful that we have learned how to reduce military and civilian casualties. They say, like Obama, we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. We did. A few Al-Qaida men got away, but by leaving the country. The problems are that they fled to Pakistan, which our ruling class foolishly mistook for an ally, and Afghanistan is not a nation but multi-cultural, and split apart. They repeated Obama's statement that Iraq, having a surplus, should not need US subsidy. I said it is one of his throwaway lines for which no basis was stated. It should be explored, so see whether that surplus depended on oil prices since then fallen and whether they might rebuild the country faster with the money and ours. They said that the Iraqis want us out. Exactly, because we won and Iraq seems to be almost ready to defend itself; the US agreed. It didn't occur to people that Pres. Clinton drew down the Army, so Bush didn't have enough troops. Cant be a major power on the cheap. They don't understand the need to fight on multiple fronts.


She referred to Iran's alliance with Hizbullah and Hamas. She said that statehood alone, for the P.A., would not bring peace. The new country must want peace. The rest of the Arab world would have to help it make peace (IMRA, 10/6). Does she think Iran would help it make peace?

She failed to refer to Iran's growing aid to, and control of, Fatah. One would expect Israel's Foreign Minister to understand that.

The rest of the Arab world does not want to settle the Arab-Israel conflict, it wants to settle Israel's hash. One would expect an aspirant to Israel's premiership to know that.

Obviously, the P.A. also does not want peace. To grant statehood before the P.A. has come to terms with Israel is not risky, it guarantees, without risk of contradiction by events, war. How much intelligence and sincerity would it take for Livni to suggest that first the P.A. make peace with Israel, and then there could be talk of statehood? Reward reform, not recalcitrance. Israel likes to give concessions and then hope it induces good will. Doesn't work that way with Islamists. They are too fanatical to respond to decency.


The Jewish Council on Education and Research interviewed Israeli generals for a video. The organization then issued a press release, including: "In the film released this weekend by the Jewish Council on Education and Research, retired members of Israel's security establishment express support for Senator Barack Obama or his policies and provide relevant analysis. The purpose of the film is to educate Jewish voters about support within Israel's security establishment for policies Obama has advanced regarding Israel." The film's Israeli producers claim that they briefed the interviewees about the purpose of the video.

Two or three of the prominent Israelis issued their own statements, asserting that they were duped by the Obama supporters and do not endorse Obama (IMRA, 10/5).

Another dirty Democratic trick? This is shaping up to be a dirty campaign.

I'd say that McCain's condemnation of Obama over the vote fraud by ACORN in registering Democrats is dirty, but he didn't claim the fraud was an Obama trick, he said that it might be and that Obama should explain more about it but doesn't. In the third debate, Obama tried to give an explanation. I thought it sounded like a poor excuse. On the other hand, perhaps the GOP is making much of little.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 12, 2008.

This is from the Gateway Pundit website:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/ media-refuses-to-release-video-of-obama.html It includes a video on Rhasid Khaladi. You can also see Obama minimizing his association with Khaladi. Click here. This is a MUST SEE!


The LA Times refuses to release video of Obama toasting close friend & Jew-hater Rashid Khalidi — Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often spent time at each other's homes. Khalidi was also best friends with Bill Ayers.

Not only does Barack Obama's church of 20 years support Hamas and Hezbollah but Barack Obama also has a longtime close friendship and financial association with suspected former PLO operative and Israel hater Rashid Khalidi.

Earlier this month Sean Hannity dared to report Barack and Michelle Obama's radical associate and friend:

Barack Obama funnelled thousands of dollars of cash to Rashidi's anti-Israel Foundation through his work on the Woods Fund.

In 2000, Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative who justified Palestinian terrorism as contributing to "political enlightenment," threw a fundraiser for his friend Barack Obama.

Although he is described as a former PLO operative, via Free Republic, this is what Rashid Khalidi has to say about Palestinian terrorism against Jews — he said anti-Israel violence contributed to "political enlightenment":

On Palestinian violence. Khalidi glorifies anti-Israel violence as contributing to "political enlightenment"[vii] and unsurprisingly admires those who carry it out. His loyalty to Palestinian terrorist groups run so deep that he actually dedicated his 1986 valentine to the PLO, Under Siege, to "those who gave their lives . . . in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon."[viii] The book whitewashes PLO violence against Israelis and Lebanese, as well as the Syrian occupation.
The LA Times wrote an article about Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi in April:
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young State Senator, Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors...

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

The LA Times acknowledged it has a video of this tribute Barack Obama gave to the Khalidis at their going away party.

But, the LA Times won't release this video before the election.

Is it because of the other guests who were at the party?... Perhaps Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Khalidi and Ayers were practically best friends.

And, both Ayers and Obama signed the commemorative book given to Khalidi at his going away party.

It's hard to imagine that the LA Times would hold onto a video of Sarah Palin praising an anti-Israeli radical and former PLO operative...

But, that is today's mainstream media.

Tom Maguire has more on this radical friend of Barack and Michelle Obama.


** Obama's Fancied the Chicago Terror Gang — Partied With Bombers & Former PLO Operative
** Jewish Voters Confront Barack Obama On His Close Association with Former PLO Operative Rashid Khalidi
** LA Times Won't Release Video of Obama Publicly Praising Former PLO Operative & Jew Hater

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 23, 2008.

This was on the Gateway Pundit website


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went off on the American media's biased and dishonest coverage of popular Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tonight. Newt compared the outrageous Palin coverage to the reports written about freedom fighter Lech Walesa by the Polish communists. Newt condemned the media's intellectually dishonest ambush on Governor Sarah Palin and compared today's mainstream media reporting to propaganda pushed by Pravda. Woah.

The video showing Newt Gingrich discussing the media with Greta Van Susterenos is on the same page click here.

Here is Newt Gingrich:

The elite media's attack on Governor Palin again and again has been factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, totally biased, worthy of the Polish State news media attacking Lech Walesa back in the 1980's. I mean this is the type of deliberate, vicious, dishonest, total distortion of who Governor Palin is including by the way, the Saturday Night Live Skit some of which by the way, I think were slander and were worthy of a lawsuit.

And, I think the American people should realize that the elite media on the Left is so desperate to elect Barack Obama that the view they are giving you of Governor Palin is fundamentally a falsehood. And, the one you saw from CNN is so outrageous that they owe her an absolute apology. But frankly, Katie Couric misquoted Henry Kissinger, earlier than that, ABC News misquoted the Bush Doctrine. Again and again you've seen elite reporters do things that were false in order to try to make Governor Palin look bad...

If you would look at the coverage Michelle Obama has gotten and the coverage that Cindy McCain has gotten you have to believe that the fix is in. When you look at the magazine covers, the pictures that were taken, again and again, over and over for the last year we have been brainwashed, propagandized, insultingly lectured by the news media. If you look what happened to Joe the Plumber... Now, I haven't seen anyone from the elite media do a live broadcast from the non-existent Katie's Restaurant to point out that Joe Biden is just out of touch with reality. He's either dishonest or has a total memory lapse about his hometown. Yet, nobody notices it. Again and again there were 14 factual mistakes by Biden in the vice-presidential debate. Nobody said that disqualified him. This has been a totally one-sided campaign where the news media has been the best ally that Barack Obama has gotten. And we ought to be honest about it. There's no pretense, not a shred of neutrality on the part of the major networks or The New York Times...

I've been thinking about having one of my researchers look at every single elite media interview of Governor Palin to see if any of them asked her how she gave $1300 a person back to Alaskans as a tax break, how she negotiated and got so much money out of Big Oil, how she worked out the deal for the natural gas pipeline, or anything of substance about how she shaped an $11 billion budget involving 29,000 employees of the state government.

I don't believe by the best of my knowledge that there has been a single question by an elite television journalist about her actual career in Alaska.

And, I think it is the most insulting. I can't say this too strongly. This is like watching Pravda.

This is a one-sided vicious unending dishonest campaign.

Great points!

Especially... On what the media has not asked the America's most popular governor. Pravda ought to feel insulted.

UPDATE: The Pravda-media continued to hammer away at America's most popular governor today for the clothes she is wearing(?)

UPDATE: Michael Graham has more on the angry Palin mob, via Instapundit.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 22, 2008.

This is a report by Zombie entitled, "Zombie: Billy Ayers' Forgotten Communist Manifesto, Prairie Fire It was posted on Little Green Footballs
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31651_Zombie-_Billy_ Ayers_Forgotten_Communist_Manifesto_Prairie_Fire The original has live links to additional material.

Zombie includes copyright-free scans of the document and its cover.


In an exclusive report linked here for the first time, Zombie has acquired a copy of a long-forgotten book by Barack Obama associate Bill Ayers, wife Bernardine Dohrn, and two other Weather Underground members, dedicated to RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan, written while they were in hiding from the authorities: William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire.

The key points that this document brings out:

Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war. This is spelled out in great detail in Prairie Fire. Secondly, and more significantly, the Vietnam War was only one of many issues cited by the Weather Undergound as the justifications for their violent acts. As you will see below, in various quotes from Prairie Fire and in their own list of their violent actions (and in additional impartial documentary links), Ayers and the Weather Underground enumerated dozens of different grievances as the rationales for their bombings — their overarching goal being to inspire a violent mass uprising against the United States government in order to establish a communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," in Ayers' own words.

Ayers and his co-authors freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts, and even provide a detailed list, most likely typed up by Ayers himself, of the crimes they had committed up to that point. Ayers' list, scanned directly from Prairie Fire, is shown below. He may have escaped conviction due to a legal technicality (the prosecutors failed to get a warrant during some of their surveillance of the Weather Underground), but this in no way means that Ayers was factually inncoent of the crimes. As has been widely reported, after the case against him was dropped, Ayers decribed himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird."

Just because Ayers tries to appear respectable now doesn't mean that he wasn't a violent revolutionary in the past. In fact, as the text of Prairie Fire shows, Ayers was one of the most extreme extremists in American political history. And as the links given as the end of this essay prove, Ayers is just as politically radical now as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers' contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth R. Timmerman, October 22, 2008.

What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?

All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.

The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous "gift" cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax.

An ongoing Newsmax investigation into the Obama campaign's finance reports has exposed multiple instances of campaign finance violations and has been cited in a formal complaint to the Federal Election Commission filed by the Republican National Committee on Oct. 6.

Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.

Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama's campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from "small" donors Obama won't disclose.

The Obama campaign has turned a blind eye to the possibility of donor fraud. Reportedly, during the heated primary battle with Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign "turned off" many of the security features on its online donor page, allowing any person with a valid credit card number to donate using any name or address.

Typically, card merchants require a cardholder's name to match critical personal details, such as an address or, at the least, a ZIP code.

Though in recent months the Obama campaign has tightened up security and restored some of the security features used by merchants to weed out fraud, it still has left open easy ways for potential credit card fraud, including techniques similar to those employed by terrorists and drug traffickers to launder illicit funds.

For example, on Oct. 14, an individual using the name "O.J. Simpson" participated in Obama's latest small-donor fundraising drive, making a $5 donation through the campaign's Web site.

Giving a Los Angeles address, he listed his employer as the "State of Nevada" and his occupation as "convict." The donor used a disposable "gift" credit card to make the donation.

The Obama campaign sent O.J. a thank-you note confirming his contribution, and gave him the name of another donor who had agreed to "match" his contribution.

Four minutes earlier, an individual using the name "Raela Odinga" also made a $5 contribution, using the same credit card.

The real Raela Odinga became prime minister of Kenya in April and has claimed to be a cousin of Obama's through a maternal uncle.

Obama donor "Raela Odinga" listed his address as "2007 Stolen Election Passage" in "Nairobi, KY." This credit card donation raised no alarm bells in the Obama campaign.

A few minutes earlier, "Daffy Duck" gave $5 to the Obama matching campaign, listing his address as "124 Wacky Way, Beverly Hills, Calif."

But just as with Odinga's address, the "Wacky Way" address failed to raise any alarm bells or security traps on the Obama Web site. Daffy Duck also used the same credit card.

Within the hour, three other new donors gave $5 to the Obama campaign. They were:

# Bart Simpson, of 333 Heavens Gate, Beverly Hills, Calif.
# Family Guy, of 128 KilltheJews Alley, Gaza, GA.
# King Kong, of 549 Quinn Street, Capitol Heights, Md.

Newsmax learned of these contributions, which were all made on a single $25 Visa gift card (oddly, the total was $30), from a source that requested anonymity.

Calling himself "Bart Simpson," the tipster said he had been following the Newsmax investigation of Obama's campaign finance irregularities "with great interest," and believed that some of the small donations were coming from gift cards — "you know, the type of disposable debit card you can pick up at Rite-Aid or just about any supermarket."

[Editor's Note: See "Obama Campaign Runs Afoul of Finance Rules."]

"I tried it myself a few days ago," he said. "I'm attaching for you proof of the contributions I made in the names of Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson, Raela Odinga, and Family Guy.

"What this means is that the Obama campaign does no verification of the name of the contributor. With a normal credit card, this wouldn't wor[k], but with these disposable debit cards, no problem!

"This needs to be exposed," he said.

The tipster attached the confirmation pages from the Obama Web site showing the names of the donors, and in some cases, the names of other Obama donors who had agreed to "match" their contributions.

None of the matching donors' names appears in the Obama campaign's public disclosures to the FEC.

Other donors with clearly fictitious names revealed previously by Newsmax, The Los Angeles Times, and blogger Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) include "Dertey Poiiuy," "Mong Kong," "Fornari USA," and "jkbkj Hbkjb."

Five major companies process the bulk of all credit card transactions made in the United States, industry insiders tell Newsmax. The Obama campaign paid one of them, Chase Paymentech, just over $2 million to process its online transactions.

"We never discuss our relationships with any of our merchants, or customers we work with," James Wester, a spokesman for Chase Paymentech, told Newsmax.

Newsmax asked whether Chase Paymentech had any security feature that would allow it to identify individuals making contributions using gift cards, but Wester declined to comment.

But other industry analysts, who asked not to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Newsmax that processors could track gift cards and debit cards "only by the numbers on the cards."

"There are no names associated with these cards, so as a processor, you have no way of knowing who made the transaction," one industry analyst said.

Anyone can go into a supermarket or a Rite-Aid and buy a batch of these cards with cash, so there is no trace of the transaction, he added.

"It's like walk-around money. They could be handing these things out as perks" to newly registered voters or others, "and there's no way of tracing who is using them."

Ken Boehm, a lawyer with 30 years of experience in campaign finance law, said that such contributions were clearly illegal.

"Making a contribution in the name of another person is the only part of federal election law that actually carries a criminal penalty," he told Newsmax. Boehm is the CEO of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.

The Obama campaign has paid Synetech Group Inc. of Charlottesville, Va., close to $2 million to compile all of the campaign contribution data from online contributors, bundlers, telemarketers, campaign events, and direct-mail campaigns, and process it for submission to the FEC.

The sheer scope of the Obama fundraising juggernaut was "never contemplated by the FEC," a company official told Newsmax, asking not to be quoted by name.

"It's a lot of data. You're talking 7 million contributions," he said.

The campaign itself is responsible for screening out fraudulent donors, not Synetech, he said. "I've been doing this for 30 years, and this is as well-managed as any [campaign]. It's just huge. When it's this big, any little thing becomes something more than it is."

One of the biggest problems the campaign faces is fraud, he said. "It's a colossal problem. They're paying the campaign with other people's money."

Individuals such as "Doodad Pro" and "Good Will" who made hundreds of contributions to the campaign in excess of the legal limits were not working for the campaign, but for themselves, he insisted.

"It's all fraud. They do it for kicks. Or they're testing the cards. The campaign doesn't want this. Why on earth do they want to have all these messy little transactions? It's a colossal pain."

However, the campaign itself has solicited these "messy little transactions" in numerous e-mails to supporters.

For instance, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, campaign manager David Plouffe sent an e-mail to supporters, asking them to "make a donation of $5 or more before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, and you could go backstage with Barack."

Since them, the campaign has run several small donation drives, claiming to "match" donations of $5, $10, or $25 with an equal amount for a previous donor.

Newsmax put a series of questions to the Obama campaign more than a week ago in preparation for this article, such as whether its Internet contribution system automatically matches donors' names and addresses to their credit card numbers, as is common industry practice with online stores.

Newsmax also asked if the campaign uses a similar security screen to match a donor's name and address to the card number when the donor uses a debit card or a gift card.

Despite multiple requests from Newsmax, the Obama campaign declined to comment for this story.

Ken Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc., and author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and go to his website: www.KenTimmerman.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 22, 2008.

This was written by Paul R. Holrah and it appeared today in the New Media Journal
(http://www.newmediajournal.us/). Paul R. Hollrah is a freelance writer. He is a member of the Civil

Engineering Academy of Distinguished Alumni at the University of Missouri — Columbia and a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute. He currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


In a July 25 column titled "Who Owns Barack Obama?" we discussed Obama's phenomenal fundraising juggernaut.

In July, Obama boasted that, as of May 31, his contributor base numbered some 1.5 million people, with one-fourth, or $66.25 million of his $265 million, coming from those contributing $2,000, or more... some 33,200 people. Thus, the remainder, or $198.75 million, came from some 1.47 million people, each contributing $5, $10, $20... or, as Obama assured us, "whatever they could afford."

While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton's golf scorecard and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that $198.75 million dollars cannot be contributed by 1.47 million people in "$5, $10, or $20" amounts. Each of those 1.47 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $135 to create a pool of $198.75 million... and that simply does not happen. It has never happened before in American politics and it is not happening now.

But now, just days before the election, the Obama campaign has compounded their sins.

They are now reporting that their contributor base has increased from 1.5 million to 2.5 million and that the total amount raised now approaches $600 million. If we can assume that 25% of their contributions still come from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that base has now grown from 33,200 individuals to 65,000 in a time span of just three months, and the number of individuals contributing modest amounts... "$5, $10, $20, or whatever they could afford"... is now up from 1.47 million to 2.43 million, each contributing, on average, $185.

Anyone who believes that is actually happening will believe almost anything. So how are they doing it?

In our July 25 column we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf... along with George Soros, one of Obama's top two money men... had been accused of highly unethical and illegal banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of Zurich, Switzerland, has advised wealthy Americans, including many of our worst villains, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, disgruntled business associates, family members, and each other.

In a Statement of Facts in the recent criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities.

For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank.

According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, falsify visas, encrypt communications, and secretly move money in and out of the country... "

It is the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician.

Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, or cartel, wishing to influence the election of the President of the United States, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device.

A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could receive hundreds of thousands of individual contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with fictitious payees being entered by teams of paid staffers working in a "boiler room" setting.

The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, "international financier."

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow. So who would ever know the source of such contributions? No one.

Now, in an October 20 article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provides details from Federal Election Commission records that give substantial weight to my theory. In studying Obama's FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election).

The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days of the donor going over his/her limit.

However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not been contacted by the Obama campaign and that they had not received refunds.

But these are relatively minor infractions compared to 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, whose contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts.

For example, Timmerman tells us that John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Illinois, gave a total of $8,724.26. He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.

Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver of Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12. Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded.

However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election.

One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, Ronald J. Sharpe, Jr., a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Florida, is reported to have given $13,800... $9,200 over his limit. However, Mr. Sharpe does not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.

Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000.

Lest anyone suggest that these 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a tiny bit more Macheavellian. Those 66,383 contributions are the proceeds of conversions of foreign currency, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.

According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance reports contain some 370,500 unique names... a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign. Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from Third World African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.

How massive is this crime? Since the Obama campaign has refused to disclose their complete contributor list (they continue to hide the identities of some 2 million donors), as the McCain campaign has done, Newsmax estimates that "Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases."

Given the massive voter registration fraud committed by Obama's supporters, the fraudulent votes already cast in early voting by itinerant out-of-state voters, and the massive crime involved in accepting tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions, John McCain and Sarah Palin simply must close the gap in the closing days of the campaign.

If not, we will inaugurate a man on January 20 who will have to be impeached before his wife has a chance to measure the White House for new draperies.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, October 22, 2008.

This was posted by HB — happyharry613@yahoo.com


1) She is a Woman.

2) She does not believe in killing babies, born or unborn. *

3) She is NOT endorsed by Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferrara, Barbara Walters, Helen Thomas, Ellen DeGeneris, Ted Kennedy, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Barbra Streisand, David Letterman, or others who Fervently believe in a Woman's Right to Choose (to kill babies).

4) She is married to a Foreigner — a species called 'Native American' — meaning her five children are half-breeds. *

5) She has on more than one occasion expressed PRIDE in the United States of America .

6) Unlike decent, self-respecting Democrats everywhere, she has a 17-year-old daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock. * 7) She is a member of the National Riflemen's Association. Actually owns firearms and knows how to use them. *

8) She has killed a moose, among other animals — and spreads the Propaganda that it is hunters, through their license fees, that keep American wildlife from becoming extinct. *

9) She often does her own grocery and other household shopping.

10) She drives a car, and flies a plane.

11) She chose to give birth to a defective child, rather than allow a skilled Abortion Doctor to kill it for her. *

12) She refuses to apologize for seeking the termination of an Alaskan State Trooper just because he applied a gentle taser to his 12-year-old stepson (who, of course, happened to be Gov. Palin's nephew).

13) She is inexperienced. And she refuses to admit that her duties as the chief executive in the State of Alaska are nowhere near equal to those of a public servant who was once a Community Organizer, or that of a United States Senator who has carried the awesome burden of overseeing a staff of political appointees. *

14) She has a son who is in the U.S. Military, soon to be (or already) deployed to the Persian Gulf — probably making her prejudiced against all the peaceful Muslims in that part of the world. *

15) She is on Oprah Winfrey's 'Do Not Invite' list.

16) She professes to be a Christian, but has no 'Spiritual Adviser' — even though Jeremiah Wright, who served Sen. Obama in that capacity for 20 years, is now available.

17) She isn't really a 'beauty queen,' as advertised. She was; Only the runner-up in the Miss Alaska Contest; and Alaska is not a very populous state, anyway.

18) The Obama-Biden ticket is favored over McCain-Palin, 80% to 20%, by our friendly allies in France. *

19) Her children are not properly trained in hygiene. (Did you see her 7-year-old daughter shamelessly lick the entire palm of her hand at the Convention, then use it to slick down the hair of her little Brother?)

20) She is of mixed English, German, and Irish ancestry — and you KNOW you can't trust the Limey's, Krauts, or Micks. *

21) Back to No. 1: This is the one that really galls modern, Liberal 'feminists.' Gov. Palin is a Woman, a female-type wife and Mother, who shaves her legs, wears makeup, dresses smartly, often cooks meals for her family, doesn't give a hoot about the National Organization for Women or the all-powerful Teachers Unions — and obviously will never, ever fit in as a member of the Washington Elite.*

Add #22: She's a decent person: a species seldom seen in Washington.*

Kidding aside, this is a YouTube video that shows Sarah Palin's virtues and vision on Judaism and Israel worldwide. It is called "Sarah Palin for Jewish Survival: A Pro-Israel Eishes Chayil"

*****NOBAMA* ****

Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, October 22, 2008.

This is a news item from Wall Steet Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB122463140573756495.html?mod=djemEditorialPage


Barack Obama's declaration that, if elected, he would be willing to sit down and talk to Iran "without preconditions" has been widely discussed in this country. It's a key policy difference between him and John McCain, who rejects unconditional talks with Tehran.

So what does the Islamic Republic think? The enterprising reporters at the state news agency recently asked a high-ranking official for his opinion on talks with the U.S. As it turns out, Iran has its own "preconditions" and they don't suggest a diplomatic breakthrough, or even a summit, anytime soon.

Mehdi Kalhor, Vice President for Media Affairs, said the U.S. must do two things before summit talks can take place. First, American military forces must leave the Middle East — presumably including such countries as Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and anywhere else American soldiers are deployed in the region. Second, the U.S. must cease its support of Israel. Until Washington does both, talks are "off the agenda," the Islamic Republic News Agency reports. It quotes Mr. Kalhor as saying, "If they [the U.S.] take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared.

Iran is one of the toughest and most urgent foreign policy problems the new U.S. Administration will face. If Mr. Obama ends up in the Oval Office on January 20, he may find that solving it will take more than walking into a room and talking to Iranians "without preconditions."

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, October 22, 2008.

This article was written by David J. Rusin a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. It appeared on the Pajamas Media website and is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-office-operates-in- phillys-islamist-corridor/. The footnote numbers in the article below refer to live links in the original article.

Research for this article was conducted under the auspices of [50] Islamist Watch, a project of the [51] Middle East Forum.


When Barack Obama's campaign needed a base for harvesting votes from the southern precincts of Philadelphia, it set up shop in a building owned and managed by controversial real estate baron [1] Kenny Gamble. Also known as Luqman Abdul Haqq, Gamble holds a senior position with the Muslim Alliance in North America ([2] MANA), whose founding is [3] traced to a convicted cop-killer and whose [4] leadership is stacked with radicals. He likewise serves as a community organizer of sorts — one who has been accused of slowly transforming his neighborhood into a "[5] black Muslim enclave."

The office [6] opened on August 21 at 1501 Christian Street, with Gamble himself [7] cutting the ceremonial ribbon. Makeshift [8] banners proclaim it the "South Philly Obama Headquarters," the address of which is listed on the Obama-Biden website as a [9] field office for the Pennsylvania Campaign for Change. Philadelphia tax records identify Gamble as the owner of the property, while signage indicates that the building is home to [10] Universal Educational Management, part of his [11] Universal Companies conglomerate.

Gamble's associates and agendas expose him as a dubious figure that politicians seeking to present an image of inclusion would be wise to avoid. This is doubly true for a campaign like Obama's that already has suffered serious missteps in its interaction with the Muslim community.

Best known for his work in the [12] music business, Gamble has held high-ranking posts with the [13] Muslim Alliance in North America, which focuses on African-American converts to Islam. That description fits Gamble and most of the group's senior members, some of whom also have roots in the Nation of Islam and Black Panther movement. Indeed, the formation of MANA was [14] inspired by [15] Jamil Al-Amin, the onetime Panther "justice minister" H. Rap Brown. MANA's enthusiasm for Al-Amin remains untainted in the wake of his [16] conviction for the 2000 murder of a sheriff's deputy. He has even [17] addressed, by telephone, MANA meetings at Gamble's [18] United Muslim Masjid.

MANA's [19] governing bodies teem with Islamists: [20] Siraj Wahhaj, the organization's amir, was named as a potential [21] unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, supports [22] Sharia-prescribed punishments, and predicts America's demise unless it "[23] accepts the Islamic agenda." [24] Johari Abdul-Malik directs outreach activities for a Virginia [25] mosque repeatedly [26] tied to terrorism cases. [27] Abdul Alim Musa promotes anti-Semitic and anti-American [28] conspiracy theories and has [29] expressed admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Osama bin Laden.

Musa's radical [30] As-Sabiqun group advises Muslims to assemble [31] self-contained strongholds, a strategy similar to what Gamble is pursuing in Philadelphia. As he explained in an [32] interview with Saudi TV, "One of the intentions that we had from the beginning was to create a model, so that, in the coming years, Muslims would be able to live close to each other, that they would live closer to the masjid [mosque], that they would eventually be able to open up businesses so that they would be able to employ each other and develop community life." More darkly, Philadelphia magazine has [33] reported that some South Philly denizens "fear that Gamble, a convert to Islam, is inclined toward racial and religious segregation" and aims to carve out a "[34] black Muslim enclave."

The Obama office resides at the center of this storm. Gamble's [35] mosque is just a few doors to the north. On the same block stands the headquarters of his [36] Universal Companies, a local giant that specializes in urban renewal projects and runs a vast array of housing, businesses, and other facilities — even a charter school. Records of 1501 Christian also highlight Gamble's [37] modus operandi for growing his empire: get land and buildings dirt cheap from the city, which often seizes them through eminent domain for the express purpose of having Universal renovate them. According to the Board of Revision of Taxes website, Gamble bought the [38] property now hosting Team Obama for one dollar in 1991. (The database labels the plot as 822 South 15th, but the available information makes it the only possible match for 1501 Christian.)

It is not just the heavily Islamic atmosphere of the surrounding neighborhood — complete with men in traditional dress [39] praying on the sidewalks — that feeds speculation about a veiled agenda. Gamble's bizarre [40] statements to Philadelphia magazine last year added more fuel to the fire: "You don't see the lion with the tiger. You don't see the tiger with the panther," he said. "You don't have people selling goods and services in the Irish community from some other community. In the Russian community, you don't have people from other communities. In the Puerto Rican community, the Puerto Ricans have their own economy, they have their own stores." The article notes that Gamble's musings sound like an endorsement of segregation and a desire to engineer a zone exclusively for black Muslims.

The placement of an Obama field office in Philly's Islamist corridor is not the first link between [41] questionable representatives of Muslim America and the senator's presidential campaign. [42] Mazen Asbahi, Obama's initial Muslim-outreach coordinator, stepped down in August for connections to a controversial Islamic investment fund and Illinois imam. His successor, [43] Minha Husaini, then "accidentally" attended a meeting with the [44] Council on American-Islamic Relations and [45] Muslim American Society, two groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, [46] Muslim-Americans for Obama has peddled a policy [47] wish list colored with Islamism and run partisan voter registration drives from [48] swing state mosques, which would appear to violate their tax-exempt status.

Obama's staff could be forgiven for accepting [49] contributions from Gamble, but renting office space from him at the heart of his troubling socioreligious enterprise falls well beyond the boundaries of good judgment. Simply put, the campaign is doing business with someone who may embody the type of change that Islamists and racial separatists can believe in.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 22, 2008.

Never, in the time I have been doing these postings, have I received such a barrage of messages — the vast majority anguished and supportive of my position — as was stimulated by my piece on Obama yesterday. Volatile is hardly the word for the situation.

Before I move on to other issues — and I will — there is a follow-up on this subject:


Jonathan Tobin, editor of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia has written a piece called "Who's Obsessed About 'Obsession'?" that echoes one of my themes from yesterday.

Tobin describes the distribution inside Sunday newspapers last month of a DVD of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West. [ See below.]

"The documentary's thesis is simple: Radical Islam is at war with the West, and its hatred of Jews and Western democracy isn't based on misunderstandings but on a faith-based fanaticism that will brook no opposition. Its prime tactic is to educate Muslim youth into believing that such hatred is a divine imperative, so as to create new generations of jihadist suicide bombers.

"One might think that seven years after September 11 this insight would be self-evident, rather than controversial...

But though it does no more than state the obvious about the rise of Islamism, its tactics and its purpose, Obsession appears to have a message that many Americans neither wish to hear nor believe. Indeed, the free distribution of the film...has set off a firestorm of critics from both Islamist groups and liberal media figures.


...The Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina refused the DVD insert because, as a statement from its publisher asserted, "it was divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose." The Detroit Free Press and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also declined the DVD...

"These papers did not refute a single point in the film. But the raising of the issue of Islamist terror has, in their view, become not merely politically incorrect but inadmissible and, therefore, something that must be suppressed. That these publishers, who should be facilitating such a debate rather than squelching it, have acted in this manner is an ominous sign of the times.


"Were that not enough, the film also has run afoul of some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. [The distribution of the DVDs in swing states] has led some paranoids to argue that the documentary's message is a subliminal argument against their candidate...

"Others talk about the use of right-wing foundation money to distribute the DVD...

"The problem with this whole argument is that the film contains absolutely nothing about American politics or the election.

"While some on the left may consider raising awareness about the dangers of Islamism to be something only Republicans do, that is not a point Democrats ought to concede if they are as tough on terror as they claim to be....some Democrats are now so spooked by the topic of the Islamist threat, they think even mentioning the topic in a nonpolitical context is somehow part of a conspiracy against their hero.


"...how does it possibly help the candidacy of Obama, a man who has missed no opportunity all year to assert his support for Israel and his disdain for Islamist terrorists, to claim that giving a documentary about Islamism a wide audience is hurtful to his cause? Can it be that some of his supporters believe that, contrary to his campaign statements, their candidate doesn't really share the concerns that the film raises? (Emphasis added)

"Seven years after 9/11, many Americans seem to have forgotten that indifference to the threat of radical Islamists led directly to that tragedy. Apparently, some prefer to ignore the grim truth and cling to the illusion that right-wingers are making up all the fuss about Islamism to scare everyone unnecessarily. (Emphasis added)

"As Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the greatest historians of our generation...points out in Obsession, 70 years ago, many in the West were similarly unwilling to face up to the danger of Nazism. Just as today many laugh at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they dismissed the murderous threats of Adolf Hitler as clownish bombast, and considered the brainwashing of a generation of German children by the Nazis unimportant. They denounced those who refused to be silent as prejudiced warmongers. Those truth-tellers were proved right, but too late to avert a world war, as well as genocide.

"Just like then, those who ignore similar evidence about radical Islam today 'don't connect the dots,' Gilbert asserts.

"That is a mistake the next president, who will confront an Islamist threat that may well be augmented by a nuclear Iran sometime in the next four years, cannot afford to make."
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017586476&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


What does it take to wake American up?


On other subjects:

Tzipi Livni has requested, and received, of President Peres an additional two weeks to put together a coalition. She's still on shaky ground, in spite of the fact that Labor has now come along — that's still only 48 seats out of 61 required.

The Pensioners party was on board but is now upping the ante.

Shas is still holding out and declaring itself not pleased. I know that Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu visited Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and appealed to him to stay out of this coalition. And, in fact, a former Shas spokesman Itzik Sudri has joined Netanyahu's team of advisors and will presumably be assisting in the attempt to keep Shas from joining Livni.

So maybe on this score there's hope.


President Peres is scheduled to go to Cairo to meet with Mubarak tomorrow, at the Egyptian president's invitation. The key issue, it is said, will be the Saudi Peace plan, which is really bad news. It calls for our complete withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, including from all of eastern Jerusalem.


Reports now are that there are at least 600 active tunnels between the Sinai and Gaza operating under the watchful eye of Hamas. Everyone is making money on this.

The Guardian describes one instance in which a tunnel, just 200 meters from an Egyptian watchtower, operates 24 hours a day.

Some of these tunnels are big enough to transport a cow.


And now for the first time there has been a tunnel discovered in Judea, not far outside of Hevron. About 150 meters long, and not completed, it was large enough to accommodate a person standing erect. There is speculation regarding the purpose of this tunnel — to permit the movement of weapons for purposes of terror attacks, or to permit movement of terrorists without being exposed.

The report on this, in the Post, was baffling and disturbing. The tunnel was discovered by PA security forces, which immediately reported it to the IDF. An Israeli Engineering Corps was then sent to destroy it

The tunnel, as approached by the Israelis, was empty. But it has been revealed that arms and hundreds of kilograms of explosives had been in the tunnel, but were confiscated by the PA before they notified the IDF.


The Jewish community of Hevron is deeply anxious about the anticipated deployment in Hevron of 700 PA troops, presumably trained to take on Hamas.

Plans are afoot as well for the PA to assume control of several cities in Judea and Samaria over the coming months. Defense Minister Barak is coordinating this with the Americans. All of this is designed, in theory, to "bolster the moderates" and provide momentum on the ground in lieu of a peace agreement. Great, huh?

It must be noted that, according to Herb Keinon and Yaakov Katz in the Post, "officers in the [IDF] Central Command stress that while Palestinian security forces are effectively restoring law and order in Jenin, they have yet to noticeably crack down on local terror elements." Then, by all means, let's give them control.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, October 22, 2008.


This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

Fall is upon us in the northern hemisphere and there is no better time of year to enjoy the splendor of nature. I am fortunate to have lived in New England for many years, and I can say with full confidence that Israel's fall foliage display — though on a smaller scale — is equally impressive and it lasts much longer here because winter is more temperate and slower to arrive. For the next several weeks, I'd like to feature photographs that show off the brilliant colors that shape Israel's magical fall landscape.

In the last 10 years, vineyards have been widely planted throughout the country, including the Negev Desert, to support Israel's burgeoning wine industry. Many valleys and hillsides are covered with several varieties of vine, each of which produces a different leaf color, creating some dazzling patterns of color. This shot is exactly what I had been searching for when I found this section of terrace in a valley in Gush Etzion, south of Jerusalem. As with every landscape, timing is critical, so I planned a series of late-afternoon exercise walks through the hills with my camera slung over my shoulder, knowing if something interesting crossed my path, I'd be there to capture it. Walking down from the road where I had parked, I immediately noticed the strip of yellow and green vine that loops across the foreground, a perfect visual gateway to the contrasting orange and dark green leaves in the photo's center. I used a mid-range telephoto lens (135mm) to compress the depth, thereby bringing the two main subjects closer together. The long lens also narrowed the angle of view so it included just the top of the orange vine on the right while allowing a peek at the valley below in full glory.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 22, 2008.


Calling Egypt and Jordan moderate, Israeli Gen. Giora Eiland suggests giving them Yesha. His presentation ignored the reasons for not doing so. He rationalizes that since they [falsely] are called moderate, give it to them and then, he dreams, nobody can be angry with Israel.

Islam always will be angry with Israel. That is built into its basic doctrine. Antisemitism is not based on anything Jews do; it is based on antisemitic psychosis.

Calling Egypt and Jordan moderate doesn't make them such? What is "moderate?" The Israeli and US ruling elite, which toss around such terms, do not define them. A proper definition, if compared with the facts, would show the term defective if not totally false.

A state falsely called "moderate" is one whose leader restrains the masses from major attacks on Israel until he either thinks he can win or he can get appeasers such as Eiland to give up defensive borders and then the "moderate" knows he can win. Both those allegedly moderate Arab states attacked Israel repeatedly before the Islamist philosophy had spread. They declared their intent to be genocide. Were they moderate then? Now that their people have become more radical and the government of Egypt still ostracizes Israel, they haven't become moderate? How moderate is Egypt, which lets Hamas get arms from stores in Egypt? A more elaborate case can be made that Egypt is a major enemy of Israel and Jordan a minor one. If Jordan took over Judea-Samaria, Arafat's Arabs are liable to overthrow it and turn its army actively against Israel.


Positive campaigning is proposing what really won't solve existing problems and will make new problems.

Negative campaigning is exposing the opponent's problematic proposals.

That's a joke, but actually, most people don't understand the difference between rebuttal and scuttlebuttal.


Insurance benefits and municipal bonds are supposed to be tax exempt. Social Security is an insurance fund for which we pay via taxes. Nevertheless, my insurance benefits now get taxed and municipal bond income helps determine by how much. The government cheats us and over-taxes.


The third presidential debate demonstrated the candidates' misunderstanding of the function of a campaign. Aside from organizing, an early phase should be to identify the issues, study them, and solve them. The next phase should be to explain them to the public. That would give the public sufficient grounding, so that in a debate, the candidate need not try to explain the issue from the ground up — not that he gets the time to do so — and the opponent cannot get away with most false assertions. Both candidates did not do that and neither explained some of his positions clearly. McCain, who admires Ronald Reagan, known as the "great communicator," overlooks that major aspect of Reagan's political success. Reagan made all his proposals clear. McCain did do a much better job at this than in the other two debates.

The Democrats didn't lay down a factual groundwork but a prejudicial one. They made their assertions enter the popular mind, without providing facts.

McCain proposed a tax cut for corporations without much rationale. It was easy for Obama to call this class warfare and unfair to poorer people, while proposing a class warfare tax increase on upper income people. McCain almost explained the need for his cut and the problem with Obama's increase.

Thus McCain referred to US taxes as higher than the rest of the world's. He should have driven the point home by adding, "Lower taxes would make our corporations more competitive. Being more competitive, they'd gain sales. As their business grows, they higher more people. More jobs for the sake of the workers is one goal. More business and more jobs mean more taxes and lower deficits. Sen. Obama's tax increases on the upper class would have the opposite effect — fewer jobs and lower tax revenues."

Americans are hurting financially, McCain stated. Therefore, this is not the time to raise taxes. He should have pointed out that raising taxes during a recession traditionally deepens a recession. He also should have stated that the upper class has lost so much, that Obama ought to recalculate how much revenue he thinks a tax increase can raise. It will be less, now.

The debaters did not agree on the average cost of medical insurance. One said, $12,000, the other said, $5,800. The efficacy of their medical insurance plans depends on which it is. They probably are comparing apples & oranges. This difference should have been resolved.

Neither candidate suggested halting the runaway malpractice suits that raise medical costs. Wouldn't do to antagonize the trial lawyers' lobby?

How their respective plans would function was not clear. They talked in generalities. Their campaigns should have drummed the plans in. I have read analyses that indicated that Obama would remove freedom of choice. He says he wouldn't ban certain private plans, but by offering plans at government expense, those who pay for private plans surely would switch. Then the cost for taxpayers would rise.

McCain would relieve companies of the cost of medical insurance. That would go a long way to keep US companies competitive. It finally would make insurance available such that people wouldn't have to fear that losing their jobs forfeits their insurance. That's important!

McCain still criticized Obama over Ayers in such a poor way that the point was missed. By contrast, Commentary had explained that the two men's contact was frequent and enduring in a few organizations, and therefore close, but Obama's campaign tried to hide their connection, Obama earlier had refused to repudiate Ayers, and still dissembles about it. Stealth and dissembling is the problem. How can Americans trust such a candidate?

I would have acknowledged that Palin erred in using the plural, that Obama met with "terrorists."

Obama has made blundering statements about foreign policy, especially in how he would operate. One or two examples came out in each debate. McCain should have accumulated them to show that Obama would embarrass the US and harm our foreign policy.

This debate was an opportunity for McCain to expose the dirty trick that Democrats played on the protestors against Iran, and how this was both anti-American and anti-Israel. He could have mentioned how pro-Israel and pro-US her speech was. He didn't. He would have had to be careful to refer to "leading Democrats" and not implicate Obama except to ask him why he didn't object to the sabotage, if he's pro-Israel and patriotic, and to ask him to criticize Hillary Clinton for helping to censor Palin. Conclusion: leading Democrats would rather harm the interests of the US and Israel, than let Gov. Palin show what she is capable of. And the Democrats talk about Bush repressing us!

Both candidates missed a major problem in education. The curriculum doesn't offer much, the textbooks are dumbed down, and liberals use the schools to indoctrinate in their ideology. So do Muslims.

Another problem is that not all the states use the same, standardized tests. New York has its own tests, whose questions and grading is rigged to make the State and City seem to be improving in education, when they are not.

Yes, the US spends more on education than elsewhere, with poorer results. Yes, throwing more money at schools is not the answer. Learning how to educate is. I think that McCain should have emphasized that. Answer: he wasn't clear and emotional enough about it. I would have pounded Obama into the ground.

Neither man seemed to understand that the problem is not just al-Qaida, but societies that embrace the ideology of jihad and the Saudi schools and mosques abroad that foment it.

They talked about not buying oil from the Arabs or Venezuela. What? Don't they know that oil is in a pooled market? If we buy from elsewhere, then other countries that buy oil will buy it from the Arabs and Venezuela.

Obama referred again to the US having 3% of the world's reserves but consuming 25% of annual production. He'd have to show that reserves are low, for that 3% to be a meaningful restriction, as he implied it is. He did not ask why we use 25% of the world's annual production.

At least the candidates were realistic that it would take 10 years to become energy independent. At last, Obama suggested that cars in the US be required to get high gasoline mileage. Why didn't McCain? Why didn't they suggest other efficiencies and, heaven forbid, restraint? They don't really want to ask Americans to give up any of its over-consumption.

The format didn't get much into foreign policy. It would have been interesting if a candidate mentioned that Iran now is assembling nuclear weapons.

I had read about the free trade agreement with Columbia in a conservative newspaper. The newspaper did not state drawbacks. Obama criticizes the pact for not protecting foreign workers. The whole issue was not made clear. The question should have been asked how much boycotting of other countries the US can do in behalf of foreigners, without harming our economy too much. Is that a luxury we have to ration?

I don't believe that Obama voted "present" so much because of principle. I think he did so in order not to antagonize anyone. Obama is too slick.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, October 22, 2008.

This was written by Jonathan Tobin. Contact him at jtobin@jewishexponent.com It appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017586476&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


OBSESSION: Radical Islam's War Against the West. This is a 10-part series. Part 1 is at

Links to the next ones in the series are on the same You Tube page.

Last month, millions of Americans opened their Sunday newspapers and found amid the usual pile of coupons and advertising flyers something unusual: a free DVD of a documentary called Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West.

The film, a well-researched foray into the world of Islamo-fascism, features an array of scholars, such as Sir Martin Gilbert, Robert Wistrich and Daniel Pipes, and investigative journalist Steven Emerson, as well as extensive footage of the anti-Semitic and anti-American fare that is par for the course on Arab and Islamic television.

The documentary's thesis is simple: Radical Islam is at war with the West, and its hatred of Jews and Western democracy isn't based on misunderstandings but on a faith-based fanaticism that will brook no opposition. Its prime tactic is to educate Muslim youth into believing that such hatred is a divine imperative, so as to create new generations of jihadist suicide bombers.

One might think that seven years after September 11 this insight would be self-evident, rather than controversial. Especially, that is, since the film goes to great lengths to assert that most Muslims do not subscribe to these beliefs and are peace-loving citizens whose faith is being hijacked by a radical minority.

BUT THOUGH it does no more than state the obvious about the rise of Islamism, its tactics and its purpose, Obsession appears to have a message that many Americans neither wish to hear nor believe. Indeed, the free distribution of the film, which was produced in 2005 and first released on DVD in 2007, has set off a firestorm of critics from both Islamist groups and liberal media figures.

The Council on American Islamic Relations has organized protests against the film's distribution, asserting that the movie seeks to "incite hate and bigotry."

But CAIR's leading the opposition to Obsession ought to lend the movie more credibility, not less. American supporters of the Hamas terrorist group founded CAIR; FBI witnesses revealed CAIR's role as a Hamas front-group during the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for illegally supporting terror abroad.

Yet, some in the media are marching to CAIR's drumbeat. The Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina refused the DVD insert because, as a statement from its publisher asserted, "it was divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose." The Detroit Free Press and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also declined the DVD. The latter explained its decision by saying the film "troubled American Muslims."

These papers did not refute a single point in the film. But the raising of the issue of Islamist terror has, in their view, become not merely politically incorrect but inadmissible and, therefore, something that must be suppressed. That these publishers, who should be facilitating such a debate rather than squelching it, have acted in this manner is an ominous sign of the times.

WERE THAT not enough, the film also has run afoul of some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. It is true that most of the DVDs were inserted into newspapers in swing states. That has led some paranoids to argue that the documentary's message is a subliminal argument against their candidate, and that it has been placed into newspapers to mislead voters into thinking that Obama is a Muslim.

Others talk about the use of right-wing foundation money to distribute the DVD. Yet, the most-incriminating connection about the film is that Rabbi Raphael Shore, the producer and co-writer, as well as the founder of the nonprofit organization that distributed it, has worked for Aish HaTorah, the Orthodox Jewish religious outreach group.

The problem with this whole argument is that the film contains absolutely nothing about American politics or the election.

While some on the left may consider raising awareness about the dangers of Islamism to be something only Republicans do, that is not a point Democrats ought to concede if they are as tough on terror as they claim to be. Indeed, one of the prominent voices heard in the film is attorney and author Alan Dershowitz, a well-known Democrat and supporter of Obama. But some Democrats are now so spooked by the topic of the Islamist threat, they think even mentioning the topic in a nonpolitical context is somehow part of a conspiracy against their hero.

Indeed, Keith Olbermann, a host on the MSNBC cable news network and a prominent liberal fan of Obama in the media, denounced Obsession as "neocon porn," as if his banal grudges against the neoconservative movement trump the facts about radical Islam.

Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, Virginia, a leading figure in the Rabbis for Obama group, called a press conference last week to blast the movie. In a scary echo of language used by CAIR, he said Obsession is a "thinly veiled call for disparagement and distrust of all Muslims," which seeks to "limit the rights of Muslims to enjoy the free exercise of their faith."

But does Moline really believe that speaking openly about the way Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas seek to teach children to hate Jews restricts the rights of peace-loving American Muslims to practice their faith? Does he not know that, as the film rightly asserts, the primary targets of the Islamists are moderate Muslims who have been slaughtered and silenced by the radicals.

FINALLY, HOW does it possibly help the candidacy of Obama, a man who has missed no opportunity all year to assert his support for Israel and his disdain for Islamist terrorists, to claim that giving a documentary about Islamism a wide audience is hurtful to his cause? Can it be that some of his supporters believe that, contrary to his campaign statements, their candidate doesn't really share the concerns that the film raises?

Seven years after 9/11, many Americans seem to have forgotten that indifference to the threat of radical Islamists led directly to that tragedy. Apparently, some prefer to ignore the grim truth and cling to the illusion that right-wingers are making up all the fuss about Islamism to scare everyone unnecessarily.

As Sir Martin Gilbert, one of the greatest historians of our generation and the leading biographer of Winston Churchill, points out in Obsession, 70 years ago, many in the West were similarly unwilling to face up to the danger of Nazism. Just as today many laugh at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they dismissed the murderous threats of Adolf Hitler as clownish bombast, and considered the brainwashing of a generation of German children by the Nazis unimportant. They denounced those who refused to be silent as prejudiced warmongers. Those truth-tellers were proved right, but too late to avert a world war, as well as genocide.

Just like then, those who ignore similar evidence about radical Islam today "don't connect the dots," Gilbert asserts.

That is a mistake the next president, who will confront an Islamist threat that may well be augmented by a nuclear Iran sometime in the next four years, cannot afford to make.

The message of Obsession could not be timelier.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 22, 2008.

This comes from Gateway Pundit
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/amazing-new-ayers-audio-surfaces-he.html It has a link to a video


Barack Obama Lied About His Relationship With Bill Ayers.

Barack Obama said during his ABC primary debate with Hillary Clinton that Bill Ayers was "just some guy in his neighborhood."

However, this weekend it was discovered that Barack Obama, terrorist Bill Ayers and Maoist hardliner Mike Klonsky worked together in the same office building on the same floor for several years.

And, it wasn't that big of a building:

Photo of building at 115 South Sangamon in Chicago, Illinois. where Obama and Ayers worked together on the third floor for several years.

Not only did Obama lie about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he also was not honest about what he knew about Bill Ayers. In this amazing new video, Bill Ayers says in 2002 that everyone he worked with knew he was a radical Marxist — that he didn't hide anything. Also, from the video you can tell that the former underground terrorist is still a raging anti-Semitic radical and completely nuts.

The phony Obama "Fight the Smears" website says that they "have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood."

Wrong. The two men shared an office and Obama knew very well who he was associating with:

** he knew who he was directing thousands of dollars of donations to,
** he knew whose living room he was in when he kicked off his political career,
** he knew who was sitting with him on panels,
** he knew who was on his floor at the University of Chicago,
** he knew whose book he was writing a blurb on, etc.

This is just more evidence that Marxisant radical Barack Obama is not telling the truth about his mysterious and extremist past.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, October 22, 2008.

Pro-Israel campus activists in the US will soon face a tough new front on the battlefield of ideas. A controversial left-wing think tank is now planning a far reaching effort to equate campus activism against jihadism to anti-Semitism and to blame Israel for Jew-hatred. As if life for Zionist student activists in America weren't challenging enough already....

The Boston, Massachusetts, based Political Research Associates (PRA) advertised nationally last month for a "Campus Antisemitism & Islamophobia Project Lead Investigator". The so-called "Investigator" will author a report that will in part be about "opportunities for counteracting campus Islamophobia...." Perhaps the most telling aspect of the help wanted ad is that it did not list any specific required academic credentials — just a vague and open-ended line stating, "Advanced degree or substantial experience in relevant field."

It is clear from the outset that the conclusions of the study are already decided; that is to say, the conclusions the "Investigator" is to draw from their research has been preordained and is a position paper. The first line of the job post asks: "What's fueling Islamophobia and antisemitism on U.S. college campuses?" For the PRA, it is understood as axiomatic that "Islamophobia" exists on campus and that if anti-Semitism exists, then it is necessarily due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The post-modern world would have it no other way.

Further proof of the PRA's effort to create a case for causal relationship between Israel and anti-Semitism on campus — and for that matter underpinning the fact that the PRA is incapable of an honest attempt at unbiased research — is found within the text of their nearly 600-word ad: "The Lead Investigator will conduct research into the interrelated phenomena of Islamophobia and antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses and produce a report of her or his findings for publication." The PRA makes the unsubstantiated statement that in "the present period it is difficult to extricate the issues of antisemitism and Islamophobia from one another; they are part of an inter-related dynamic...."

What if the researcher finds there is no "inter-related dynamic"? The PRA's objectivity is out the window. The PRA is not adhering to accepted research methods because research is not the game here. The "Investigator" will have as a duty "public speaking and media interviews" and will also have to "travel". This "Investigator" will be utilized as a major asset over the next few years by anti-Israel activists on campuses across the nation. The PRA's operative will be touted as an expert because of this report and be a star player in the large-scale, coordinated propaganda campaign that is now being prepared.

This effort by PRA is tragic in part because there is a vital need for legitimate research into anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on US campuses by unbiased, professional researchers. Pro-jihad students on US campuses are becoming increasingly more prone to violence against Jews.

Of additional concern is PRA's linkage of US foreign policy to Israel. One portion of the ad speaks of "the issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, of United States policy in relation to that conflict, and of U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast and surrounding regions." Thus, PRA seems to spread the leftist myth that every US move in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq, is something that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

PRA's experts know their business. Their ad explains: "demonization and scapegoating often render productive discussion and debate impossible. Students are quickly polarized, and there is little room for genuine questions to be answered, or different solutions weighed for merit." Their plan is simple. PRA will demonize and scapegoat Israel and Israel's defenders in the US with this report, and it will help make campus-based critics of Israel more "productive" in fomenting anti-Israel and anti-American extremism. The jihadist point of view will be portrayed by the PRA in a positive light and Zionism will be painted as illegitimate, politically incorrect and worse.

It should come as no surprise that the PRA has found its demons and its scapegoats even before their research has begun. The PRA labels itself as "progressive" and says it was formed in "1981 in response to the emergence of the New Right." Its demons are always on the Right.

From a survey of PRA's website there can be little doubt that such effective defenders of Israel and America as David Horowitz, Michael Medved and Daniel Pipes, as well as the organizations with whom they are connected, will be among the targets of PRA. They will be targeted because of their outspoken opposition to jihadist activity in the US, particularly at colleges and universities. Horowitz, Medved and Pipes are all the subject of multiple articles on the PRA website already. Christian Evangelicals — a favorite target of PRA's since its inception — will no doubt also be charged with Islamophobia.

The slogan on PRA's website proclaims: "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers." Radicals have used PRA for over 25 years as a source of information and direction. That is what makes this new PRA initiative so dangerous to Israel's cause and to the fight against anti-Semitism on campus.

The PRA report will be used as a source of information to bash Israel with for years to come. Also it will be used to attack attempts to expose the very real flesh and blood threat that Islamic extremist violence and terrorism pose to American cities and towns. One may have thought that opposition to jihadism could be something on which the Progressives could find common cause with the Right. After all, Progressives have not exactly faired well in Islamic countries where jihadists have come to power.

Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For a Safe Israel — AFSI. The chapter's new website is at: www.phillyafsi.com.

This appeared October 20, 2008 in Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, October 22, 2008.

This presentation comes from Pamela Geller's website and is archived at
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/islamists-day-p.html Videos of the parade can be seen on the site. The Muslim Day Parade was on October 12, 2008.


Praying on Madison Avenue

UPDATE: 10/14/08: In a conversation yesterday with Lars Hedegaard of the Free Press Society in Denmark, he made a very sagacious point. When Muslims lie down on Madison Avenue, it is not an act of prayer, it is an act of territorial control.

Notice how they line up — a line of soldiers, like a file. Rank and file. It's like an Army lined up for battle. That's what it is.

When they "paraded" down Madison Avenue, they are alternate yelling Allahu Akbar (Allah is great!) and Takbir! (expansion!)

UPDATE 4:01 am: An important middle of night observation, the rules are changing.

First, the difference between the fighters for free world over in Europe who get attacked, harassed, berated and in some cases physically beaten Islamist_day_parade_101208_106and us (in America) is law enforcement. The police in the US do their job. Magnificently. What was striking today was, for the first time since I began covering these demonstrations (three years and counting), an agitator was allowed behind our barrier and permitted to harass the patriots (as seen in the video). Later on, when a Muslim was filming on our side of the barrier in our designated area, screaming allahu akbar, I asked the cop why he was permitted to agitate where we had secured the space with a permit, she replied, "he's allowed on the sidewalk".

Also, it's noteworthy the policemen in uniform dropped to their knees and prayed on Madison Avenue while on duty (see pics). They removed their hats and shoes to pray. Now look, on their own time they can do what they want. But that is unacceptable. I am sure that shiz would not fly if it were a Christian, Jew, Jehovah, wiccan, pagan ...... bottom line seperation of church and state.

It is disturbing to think that the thin blue line is being erased and we only need to look across the pond to see the dark future. [...]

Lars Hedegaard, President of the Free Press Society in Denmark, said in my interview with him last month:

"You can talk and you can talk and you can preach but people, in the final analysis, people have to feel it on their bodies and in their daily lives

I doubt that America will wake up for what they are in for in until they're in for it.

Girl with Vote Obama sign

When I walk around in New York and I was recently in Washington, I see the signs. The best indication of the level of Islamisation in the country will always be the number of veiled women in the streets. Once you see veiled women in the streets, you know what's going to happen".

Bosnian Muslims

Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, October 22, 2008.

Seth J. Frantzman
October 13, 2008

When I was a young man I saw a bumper sticker that said "I love my country but hate my government." That was in the 1980s. Today it seems the main message of democracy is 'I hate my country and I hate my government.' This dangerous hatred is not only reminiscent of what put the nails in the coffin of Liberal Democracy in the 1920s and 1930s but is also surprising because today it is the wealthy elites, those who benefit the most from the country, who hate it the most and it is the poor who receive so little from democracy that support their country.

I was at a recent theatre production in Israel and I saw a wealthy leftist young man with a Pro-Palestinian khaffiya around his neck. He was attending a theatre production in one of the wealthiest parts of Israel and was approvingly surrounded by wealthy people. He had numerous friends and they all seemed to enjoy his company. Juxtaposed to him was a middle aged man who was working as a guard at the production, someone who was obviously poor and forced to work on a Friday night. Here was the wealthy leftist supporting terrorism being protected by the poor member of society who might have to give his life to defend against that very terrorism.

In another incident in Israel we see that there is Prof. Sternhell who preaches that Israeli democracy is 'threatened' by the 'fascist right.' During the second Intifada he even gave instructions on who Palestinian terrorists should murder, calling on them to target male settlers. Those same male settlers are drafted into the Israeli army and are called upon to man the checkpoints and do the operations directed at stopping the terrorists who might target Israeli civilians, including Prof. Sternhell. Here is another example of a wealthy intellectual, paid by the state, who advocates the murder of other members of the state, especially those who are asked to risk their lives to protect him.

Then there is William Ayers, the American terrorist, now a college professor. He was from a wealthy background and he dedicated his young years to murdering his fellow Americans. He was never apologetic but because of his wealth and connections he was never sent to prison for his terrorism and now he is rewarded by society by becoming a wealthy professor at an American University. Those wounded by his terror groups activities, by contrast, receive nothing and come primarily from the lower classes.

The trouble with democracy is that today it produces a society where those who benefit from the most from freedom use that freedom to advocate the murder of those who have the least. In a democracy with free speech the wealthy members use that free speech to advocate not only the destruction of the very system from which they feed but also advocate the murder of other members of society.

What if democracy produced people who refused to protect these individuals? What if, when the student with the pro-terrorist khaffiya showed up the guard on duty simply left his post. Abraham, in his dispute with God regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah pleaded with God not to destroy the cities if 10 innocent individuals could be found. But in our society we see that since society does not reject the wealthy terror supporters that there is no reason that society deserves to be protected. If the wealthy want to enjoy their theatre productions and their wine bars and their universities they should protect themselves. The poor should not be called upon to protect those who advocate their death. Intellectuals like to support terrorism. There is no reason that the armed forces should waste time protecting such a society where the tax dollars of the soldiers are used to pay the salaries of professors who instruct and encourage the terrorists on how to murder those soldiers. The trouble with democracy is that in the name of 'free speech' it allows people in society to advocate the murder other members of that society, and it allows those who benefit the most to advocate those who have the least, it allows those who never work to advocate the murder of those forced to work in them most dangerous occupations. A soldier or a security guard should never again be forced to lay down his life so that a wealthy person can enjoy his 'free speech'. A Khaffiya wearing college student who has never worked a day in his life should not be allowed to joke and relax in a safe atmosphere while some poor old man must guard the door. Democracy is not a system that guarantees the freedom of anyone so long that those that are free refuse to reject those that advocate the death of the simple members of society. So long as democracy allows its elites to encourage the death of the poor then there can be no sympathy for democracy, it is a failed system for it produces elites who hate the very society whose blood they suck. Those that opposed democracy in the 1930s were correct for they saw that democracy allowed for the existence of Communist parties, governed primarily by wealthy intellectuals, who advocated on behalf of terrorism and the murder of other members of society. The trouble with democracy is that it is naturally suicidal and is unable to protect itself from pernicious ideologies, terrorism, and communal hatreds. Those that support democracy say that it is far from perfect but that it is better than other forms of government. But when democracy reaches the point where the state is forced to support those who support the murder of other members of society can we truly say it is the best? When a state pays one man who calls on a second man to murder another is it truly better? When the wealthy members of the democracy justify the murder of the poor based on some ideology, is it truly better?

Seth J. Frantzman
October 14th, 2008

A new study of American elementary school text books by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research has found that the history of ancient and modern Israel has been politicized by modern interpretations of the 'conflict' in the Middle East (Haviv Rettig 'U.S Textbooks misrepresent Jews, Israel' Sept. 25, 2008). Thus in numerous text books Jesus has become an indigenous 'young Palestinian.' In addition modern textbooks present the story of Islam as if it were a true story, discussing the 'Prophet Mohammed' and his life story. Whereas the story of the Jews is always prefaced with 'Jews believe', the story of Mohammed is presented as if were lifted from a classic Saudi Arabian religious textbook, which it probably was. This new revelation that Jesus has become an indigenous Palestinian reminds us of Jane Kramer's April 2008 article entitled 'The Petition' in the New Yorker in which she claimed that the history of Israel is really one of "1400 years of indigenous Islam."

But if Jesus is a Palestinian and Islam is indigenous to the land of Israel then who are the Jews? The problem with raising up Jesus as a 'Palestinian' and creating an indigenous notion of Islam and the Arab connection to the land of Israel is that it ignores the very reason that Islam and Christianity have a connection to the land in the first place. If Jesus was really an indigenous Palestinian Arab then shouldn't he have been born in Arabia, since there were no Palestinian Arabs in Palestine in 30 A.D? But Jesus wasn't born in Arabia. He was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish family from Nazareth. If Jesus was a Palestinian Arab then what was he doing in Jerusalem 'cleansing the Temple'? He was in Jerusalem because he was a Jew and there was a Jewish temple there. But the Palestinian Jesus wouldn't have needed to go to Jerusalem, for as an indigenous Palestinian living in a land that has no Jewish history there would have been no Jewish Temple. School children who are taught to believe that Jesus was a 'young Palestinian' are thus subconsciously forced to believe that he was 'killed by the Jews' just as the modern young Palestinians are being 'killed by the Jews.' But any Christian whose children are taught this anti-Semitic nonsense must find the rest of the Christian bible hard to fathom, with all its Jewish references, quotes from the prophets and attempts to reform the Jewish tradition.

But the claim that Islam is indigenous to Israel is as perplexing as the notion of a Palestinian Jesus. No Muslim confuses himself by believing Mohammed was a 'Palestinian' because the center of Islam is Mecca, not Jerusalem. But every Muslim knows that Mohammed chose Mecca after first considering Jerusalem, and turning away from Jerusalem because the Jews rejected Mohammed, something they are forever cursed for time and again in the Koran. But the notion of the indigenous Palestinian Islam stems from the Temple Mount' Dome of the Rock where anti-Israel Muslim rhetoric now claims no Temple ever existed. But if there was no Temple and no Jews then why did Mohammed make a 'night journey' to the 'far mosque' of Jerusalem. As with the Palestinian Jesus, without the Jews there would be no reason for Mohammed to be in Jerusalem, for it would not have been a holy city. Muslims that confuse this history and claim that Mohammed journeyed to Jerusalem because it was already holy to Christianity then forget that it was only holy to Christianity because Jesus the Jew had gone their to cleanse the Temple. Elementary students who are today being brainwashed to believe in an indigenous Islam in Palestine and a Palestinian Jesus are being done a great disservice by those who predicate the teaching of history on the present. People reject the existence of Israel and thus want to reject the history of Jews in the Holy Land. But by deracinating the Jews they forget that Christianity and Islam have no connection to Jerusalem or the land. There can be no Palestinian Jesus without first having a Jewish Jesus and there can be no Dome of the Rock without first having a Jewish Temple Mount or 'far mosque' to build it upon.

Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays appeared on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 22, 2008.


One means countering terrorism Is to demolish terrorists' houses. Israel has been criticized for using that means. Critics call it collective punishment.

Defense Min. Barak suggests strengthening the legal underpinnings for the measure. A former secret service official, Min. Gideon Ezra, denounced the justice system for delaying implementation of demolition orders issued months ago, after a Jerusalem Arab rammed a vehicle into Jews. Some of the delay is because in Israel [thanks to the routine and unjustified interference by the judiciary and the Attorney-General, absent a constitution and separation of powers], before every move, the government first seeks an opinion on its legality [including ordinary military retaliation and even self-defense].

Min. Ezra spoke out after the fourth such known incident. He praised the lieutenant (a yeshiva graduate: IMRA, 9/25) who shot the assailant dead. Ezra describes the value of demolition not as a punishment but as a deterrent. "Every terrorist and his family should know that their house will be demolished and that they will no longer be residents receiving all the benefits the State of Israel offers." (Arutz-7, 9/24.)

Slow implementation loses its effect, something like spanking a child long after he has forgotten his transgression. The deterrent effect is based on Arab family loyalty. Usually a terrorist does not want to be responsible for impoverishing his family. For full effectiveness, the deterrent requires that the government forbid donations from foreign Arabs for rebuilding such houses.

By way of explanation, Jerusalem Arabs have most of the privileges of citizenship without the franchise. Israel does not have to grant this. Israel certainly can remove it from proven enemies. Israel is foolish for doing that and other expensive favors for its enemies.

Again, the police failed to shoot the assailant. This is an ominous or a symbolically ominous failure of the regime, based on appeasement.


It denounced terrorism "in all its forms," exempting resistance to "occupation." Kuwait wants an international definition of terrorism like that, differentiating charity from financial support for terrorism. It called for a ban on defaming religions (IMRA, 10/11). In other words, Muslims may criticize other faiths but other faiths may not criticize Islam; killing innocent Israelis is okay; charity for terrorism is okay, not UJA donations to Israel.


US policy is to contain Iran. Unfortunately, US forces in the region are tied down in combat, sometimes with proxies of Iran. US bases increasingly are subject to foreign control or confiscated. The states there are no match for Iran (Michael Rubin, MEFNews, 9/25). Iran is containing the US.


At the UNO, Pres. Ahmadinejad vowed to destroy Israel, as a public service to Europe, which he claims Israel manipulates. [Did Israel manipulate them into favoring the Arabs?] The speech was applauded warmly. [Some organization, the UNO, that our liberals suggest the US get more in line with!]

The government of Israel didn't respond and won't. Its UNO ambassador doesn't take Iran seriously. She rationalizes that the UNO leaders merely were polite to Ahmadinejad. She says her job is to correct false impressions her people have about it and to defend Israel in the UNO. [The UNO always been anti-Israel. Even the partition resolution would have led to an untenable state.]

The ambassador's line follows Foreign Min. Livni's. Livni tells Israelis that the UNO, the EU, and the Palestinian Arabs are friends of Israel and that such foreign powers will protect Israel. Livni is trying to become Prime Minister without having to face a contested election [and who became party head by crooked means, and whose policy destabilizes the region]. She claims to be the right person for the job and who would provide continuity and therefore stability. She answers Iran only by urging diplomats not to let Iran onto the Security Council.

She doesn't think Iran is a big problem for Israel. She thinks the biggest problem is not handing Israeli territory to Palestinian Arabs and giving them a state they don't want. She doesn't know or admit that they want Israel. When she claimed to have made progress towards that urgent goal, the P.A. negotiator treated her contemptuously and threatened war. She didn't respond. Her sense of urgency gives the Arabs the impression that Israel is desperate or collapsing. They are right. Israel's ruling elite has collapsed morally (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/26).


Israel urges its media to show that Israel has girls in bikinis, is high tech, and is good for homosexuals. The Left defames Israel on policy matters, creating indignation, without government opposition. The Left accuses Israel of imposing "humiliating" security measures against P.A. Arabs, and makes unworkable [and unjust] demands that Israel "give peace a chance" and withdraw from all land acquired in 1948 and bring in the vengeful Arab families that fled (IMRA, 9/25).


The Institute for Jewish and Community Research studied the 28 most popular US history textbooks. They found 500 errors, many similar to the propaganda in textbooks of Iran! These errors include:

1. Jesus was a Palestinian. Christian doctrine depicts him as an Orthodox Jew. There weren't Arabs there; Rome had not yet coined the term, "Palestine."

2. A glossary describes the Ten Commandments as "Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God Yahweh on Mount Sinai." The same glossary describes the Koran as a 'Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God' — without a conditional qualifier."

3. Terrorism is discussed mostly about pre-state Israel, almost not at all in the State of Israel. The PLO is not described as terrorist. US support for Israel is called a cause of terrorism.

4. The Arabs did not start wars on Israel, they want peace.

5. Israel put Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps in Arab states. [Weird.]

6. The 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab states were not mentioned

7. The Jews killed Jesus. [This now is more a Muslim than a Christian idea.]

8. Jews care only about the letter of the law, Judaism is stern and warlike and not compassionate like other religions. [What compassion have they for Jews?]

9. Some of the books call the Jewish Bible "Old Testament," which Jews find disparaging, as if its religion was displaced. [Should be "Hebrew Testament." The disparagement passes over the heads of most Jews.]

10. The books disrespect Judaism, are critical of Christianity, and glorify Islam.

11. They call Muhammad a prophet of God, don't qualifying this as Muslim belief.

12. There is an attempt to break the connection between ancient Israel and modern Israel as being of the same religious group.

Problem is, the authors are not experts, and dumb down books . They kowtow to Muslim "sensibilities." Muslim groups influenced the text (IMRA, 9/25).

When are we going to get our country back from the Muslims, in regard to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, immigration, and security?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, October 22, 2008.

For us here in Israel, the Sukkot-Simchat Torah holiday season has ended; in the Diaspora, it will be another day. This holiday is the season of our joy, and, indeed, it is celebrated with gladness and song.

But now it is time to come down to earth and focus on matters both mundane and serious. There are a dozen issues on my lists — topics to be explored. Yet I've decided to devote today's posting to one issue alone: The election in the US. The ramifications of what is taking place are extraordinarily serious.


Just days ago, someone in the States with whom I am very close told me that he could understand how I might favor McCain because he is stronger on terrorism, but...and but... there are many other reasons to vote Obama. I would suggest that there is no "but." That the heart of the matter lies with this issue.


I wish to make it clear that I am not writing this as an Israeli, who wants to see an American president who will be good for Israel (although, clearly, I do). I am writing as a voting American citizen who has lived most of her life in the US. My overriding concern here is for what is happening to America, and by extension the Western world.


What my being in Israel has done is to broaden my perspective. And I seek here to bring that perspective to Americans. John McCain's tougher stance on terrorism is important not just for Israel, but also for America. The failure of many Americans to perceive this is both shocking and frightening. It's as if nothing has been learned.

What should have been learned — back in the 1930s, when Hitler was not stopped — is that appeasement does not work.

Yet now we are facing a world threat as serious as the Nazi threat and — may Heaven help us all — the US electorate seems prepared to put into office the candidate who espouses a philosophy of appeasement. The candidate who simply doesn't get it: who is ready to sit down and talk with Iran without preconditions, who is vigorously promoting a state for the Palestinians without demanding that they first relinquish terrorism.


It could be that the US electorate is prepared to vote Obama because it not only he who doesn't get it. What I fear is that a large percentage of Americans don't get it either.

From where I sit it is very clear. There is evil afoot in the world, an evil that it behooves us to stop before it is too late. Islamic Jihadists — with an Iran that intends to go nuclear seeking to lead the way — are deadly serious about establishing a new Caliphate and destroying the Western way of life. Wake up, my friends! The Twin Towers wasn't taken down by downtrodden, poor, hopeless Arabs, but by educated Arabs living a materially comfortable life, and motivated by an ideology of hate.

Here in Israel, we pulled — so foolishly, so wrongly — out of Gaza, leaving behind infrastructure and greenhouses. The Arabs there had an opportunity to make something of themselves, to build their agriculture. But their hate took precedence. They destroyed the greenhouses and built rockets to launch at Israel instead.


The radical Muslims are watching. They will take the measure of the man who sits in the White House and they will know what their advantage is. Hitler took the pulse of the world back at the time of Munich, and saw that he wouldn't be stopped by the world. So it would be now...

I will suggest to you that putting Obama in the White House brings World War III closer.


Thus am I not swayed by arguments about health care or tax cuts. For those who don't have a broader perspective regarding the precarious state of the world, these things loom as over-riding issues. I do not make light of them — if you have no health care or cannot manage on what you're earning, it is hardly a small matter.

But in the face of WWIII? In the face of forces that would destroy the way of life you know and the traditional values you once held dear? It's time to put first things first.


Time was that America was the leader of the free world. But now America seems to be imploding fast. I am terrified. So are many of my associates. How about you?


If you are an American citizen, I suggest that before voting for Obama you search your heart with regard to which candidate you truly believe is better equipped to keep America and the Western world strong and to defend America against her enemies. Unless you are convinced that Obama is better able to do the job, think and think again before pulling that lever next to his name.

Here in Israel the voting public is caught in a parliamentary electoral system that relies too much on party lists, and back room wheeling and dealing, and doesn't permit the voice of the people to be clearly heard.

But in America, the people vote for the president. It is likely that the vote has never been more critical to the future of the US.


I ask everyone who is an American citizen to give deep and serious thought to the issues I raise here. And then I ask that each of you forward this to others who are voting American citizens.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, October 22, 2008.

This was written by Dr. Lynette Long, a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter who is voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.


I am a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.

I want to start by saying something about the Democratic Primary. First let me say that I have a Master's Degree in mathematics and I am the author of 14 math books. I'm a numbers girl and I naturally calculate and extrapolate numbers in my head, so my analysis of the Democratic primary process spills out of that natural gift.

The primary process consisted of fourteen caucuses and thirty-nine primaries. Obama lost only one out of fourteen caucuses yet he lost twenty-one out of thirty-nine primaries. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize something smells fishy. I first noticed something was wrong when I watched the returns from Texas come in. Texas is unique in the Primary world because it has both a primary and a caucus — affectionately called the Texas Two-Step. Hillary Clinton won the primary by four points, yet she lost the caucus which was held on the same day by twelve points. That's a sixteen point swing with the same pool of voters on the same day.

Almost four million people participated in both the primary and the caucuses. In a poll with only 700 participants, the margin of error is usually 3 or 4, then in a primary and a caucus, with millions of participants, a sixteen point swing would be highly unlikely, very highly unlikely. What's even more astounding is that Obama came out five pledged delegates ahead in a state she won. After questioning the likelihood of the Texas two step results, I decided to analyze the rest of the caucus results.

Washington State, Nebraska, and Idaho also held a primary and a caucus and the results were even more divergent than Texas results. In Washington State, Clinton did thirty-two points better in the primary than the caucus, but all delegates were based on the caucus only. In Nebraska, Clinton did thirty-four points better in the primary than the caucus, but the delegates again were based only on the caucus results. And finally in Idaho, Clinton lost the caucus by 62 points but lost the primary by 19 points. And again delegates were awarded based only on the caucus results. The divergent results in all four of these contests were partially the result of the disenfranchisement that is inherent in the caucus process since the elderly, mothers of school aged children and shift workers are less likely to attend caucuses. But they are also the result of voter fraud intentionally perpetrated by the Obama campaign and voter intimidation by Obama supporters.

The result is that the primary was stolen from Senator Clinton. Even without factoring in the caucus results, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were only 4 pledged delegates apart at the end of the primary process. Obama, Pelosi, and other senior Democrats paid superdelegates to cast their votes for Obama. Clearly the will of the people was ignored. The Selection of Obama over Hillary Clinton by the Democratic hierarchy was a miscarriage of justice and my reason for my original contact with the McCain Campaign.

After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, I and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain. I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet you will not see a single picture of a woman on paper currency. Women are underrepresented in every branch of government and there has never been a female president or vice president. I personally asked Senator McCain to choose a woman for the Vice Presidential slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Little did I know then that he heard me and the millions of women of this country who have gone unrepresented in the Executive branch of government for far too long.

When I made similar requests of the Obama campaign, I was laughed at by the canvassers outside my home, told there weren't enough qualified women by a member of his Finance Committee, and asked by a member of a policy committee why I was making such a stupid request. Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, "It's a girl" or "It's a boy." From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. You can't learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can't have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what's best for women. You can't legislate for women, without women.

But by choosing Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain acknowledged that men never can fully know what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister — things Governor Palin knows all too well. Senator McCain chose the second only bi-gender ticket in American history reinforcing his image as a maverick. Choosing a Vice-President was the first significant decision Senator McCain and Senator Obama had to make. Senator Obama talks about change but picked a running mate who is part of the Washington establishment. Senator McCain's choice speaks for itself.

Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every election. Obama the brand is for women's rights while Obama the man pays the women in his office 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. And Joe Biden pays women 73 cents on the dollar. Obama the brand is pro-Israel, Obama the man is not. Obama the brand touts leadership while Obama the man voted present 130 times in the US Senate. Obama the Brand claims change, while Obama the man picks a Washington Insider as his running mate. Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listens for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. Obama the man and Obama the brand are not one in the same.

I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party was disrespectful to all women when they refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other Democratic or Republican candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the sexist attacks of the mainstream media. My party's candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party's candidate was silent when the rapper Ludacris released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. My party's candidate chose Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard, who said women can't do science and math. Well here I am Mr. Summers, let's talk. Neither my party nor its candidate has demonstrated in this election that they hold women in high esteem.

When it comes to women, sixteen is a special number. Did you ever hear the song 16 candles? Or the phrase "Sweet sixteen and never been kissed"? Eight plus Eight is sixteen, four times four is sixteen, and 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. But sixteen is special for other reasons.

* Guess what percentage of the members of the House of Representatives are women?
* Guess what percentage of the members of the Senate are women?
* Guess what percentage of the governors are women?
* Guess what percentage of equity partners in Law Firms are women?
* Guess what percentage of Science Professors at MIT are women?
* And guess what percentage of US Presidents or Vice-presidents were women? * Not 16.

How can having a country composed of 52% women with only 16% representation be fair? How can it accurately represent the will of the people? In fact, the United States ranks 69th in the world with regard to women in government.

Sarah Palin is good for women. She has kept the debate about women in government and feminism alive. She is helping us define a new brand of feminism that unites both Republican and Democratic women. She has a chance to put a sledge hammer to the ceiling that Hillary Clinton put eighteen million cracks in. I happened to be on an Alaskan Cruise when Governor Palin was nominated for Vice-President. When we docked in Ketchikan my Blackberry was buzzing away with emails shouting, "It's a girl." I thought, "Who is a girl?" My friends are too old to be pregnant and I didn't think my daughter would hold out on me. As soon as I stepped on-shore, my tour guide told me their governor, Sarah Palin was the VP pick. I can testify here today, that every person I met in Alaska loved her. Alaskans are proud of their Governor.

I heard many people say they don't think Sarah Palin is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency since Alaska has only 750,000 people. Let's get this straight. Sarah Palin is only one of only fifty governors in the entire country. If Alaska were a country, it would be the twentieth largest country in the world. The unique topography, economy, population, and climate of Alaska all make Alaska a challenging state to govern. Home of the Alaska pipeline, Alaska hosts the majority of our oil resources and some of the largest fiscal projects in the country. Alaska is home to indigenous peoples and remote towns that are not on the electrical grid. Alaska is the only state in the Arctic climate zone and is profoundly impacted by global warming. Alaska is home to diverse wildlife and, consequently, management issues. International relations are a major issue in Alaska and I'm not talking about cab drivers. Alaska shares a border with Canada and ten miles across the Bearing Strait is Russia. Consequently it has a standing National Guard. I don't want to hear Sarah Palin is only the Governor of Alaska. There is nothing "only" about Alaska.

I do not agree with Senator McCain and Governor Palin on all the issues, but I don't agree with any candidate on all the issues. I am emphatically pro-choice. Being pro-choice doesn't mean I am pro-abortion. I would not want to trade places with any woman trying to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy or any mother trying to advise her teenage daughter on the same issue. It is not a choice most women make lightly. But even though I will defend a woman's right to choose, I will not surrender by vote to the Democratic Party out of fear of losing that choice. I will not vote for a Democratic candidate I feel is unfit to lead, just to protect Roe V. Wade. The Democratic Party has blackmailed and bludgeoned women with Roe v. Wade for decades nullifying their power. Women's votes cannot belong to a single party, because if they do we are hostage to that party. Women make up 52% of the population and 56% of the electorate. If Democratic and Republican women ban together we can elect any candidate or pass any bill. We can change the world.

No one knows what is going to happen during the next four years. In the recent past, the challenges to each President have been enormous.

When he took office, Harry Truman did not know that he would have to decide whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Lyndon Baines Johnson didn't know that on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King would be assassinated, propelling the country into racial unrest.

George Walker Bush didn't know that on September 11, 2001, terrorists would wage the greatest attack on US soil.

We need a President who is prepared to lead on day one — ready to handle any attack, any crisis, any financial emergency.

I cannot vote based on POLITICAL PROMISES and POLITICAL PANDERING. But I can vote based on PRICIPLES and PATRIOTISM. In Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I find two people with personal integrity and a love of their county — individuals who not only talk the talk but walk the walk. I can work with that. I will vote for McCain-Palin. In fact, I've decided to try to win one vote a day for the McCain-Palin ticket. My new personal mantra is, "A vote a day keeps Obama away."

Make no mistake about it, we are in a war. I am not talking about the Korean conflict where our soldiers literally stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops from South Korea starring at the demilitarized zone — the most heavily armed strip of land in the world. I am not talking about Afghanistan where our troops search for Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorists who perpetrated nine-eleven. I am not talking about Iraq, where over 100,000 of our young men and women are embroiled in a war.

I am talking about a war on our own soil, a fight for our way of life. This war pits socialism against capitalism. Barack Obama may call it "income redistribution" but socialism by any other name does not smell sweet. If we lose this war, what we know as our way of life will disappear. This is a war between Barack Obama and John McCain. You are the foot soldiers in this war. Are you willing to fight for economic freedom or do you want to live in a socialist country?

Our country needs you. Join me on Election Day and save our country.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 20, 2008.

This was written by Ralph Peters and it appeared in the NY Post


IF Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, our public will survive, but our international strategy and some of our allies may not. His first year in office would conjure globe-spanning challenges as our enemies piled on to exploit his weakness. Add in Sen. Joe Biden — with his track record of calling every major foreign-policy crisis wrong for 35 years — as vice president and de facto secretary of State, and we'd face a formula for strategic disaster. Where would the avalanche of confrontations come from?

* Al Qaeda. Pandering to his extreme base, Obama has projected an image of being soft on terror. Toss in his promise to abandon Iraq, and you can be sure that al Qaeda will pull out all the stops to kill as many Americans as possible — in Iraq, Afghanistan and, if they can, here at home — hoping that America will throw away the victories our troops bought with their blood.

* Pakistan. As this nuclear-armed country of 170 million anti-American Muslims grows more fragile by the day, the save-the-Taliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence services and body politic will avoid taking serious action against "their" terrorists (while theatrically annoying Taliban elements they can't control). The Pakistanis think Obama would lose Afghanistan — and they believe they can reap the subsequent whirlwind.

* Iran. Got nukes? If the Iranians are as far along with their nuclear program as some reports insist, expect a mushroom cloud above an Iranian test range next year. Even without nukes, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would try the new administration's temper in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

* Israel. In the Middle East, Obama's election would be read as the end of staunch US support for Israel. Backed by Syria and Iran, Hezbollah would provoke another, far-bloodier war with Israel. Lebanon would disintegrate.

* Saudi Arabia. Post-9/11 attention to poisonous Saudi proselytizing forced the kingdom to be more discreet in fomenting terrorism and religious hatred abroad. Convinced that Obama will be more "tolerant" toward militant Islam, the Saudis would redouble their funding of bigotry and butchery-for-Allah — in the US, too.

* Russia. Got Ukraine? Not for long, slabiye Amerikantsi. Russia's new czar, Vladimir Putin, intends to gobble Ukraine next year, assured that NATO will be divided and the US can be derided. Aided by the treasonous Kiev politico Yulia Timoshenko — a patriot when it suited her ambition, but now a Russian collaborator — the Kremlin is set to reclaim the most important state it still regards as its property. Overall, 2009 may see the starkest repression of freedom since Stalin seized Eastern Europe.

* Georgia. Our Georgian allies should dust off their Russian dictionaries.

* Venezuela. Hugo Chavez will intensify the rape of his country's hemorrhaging democracy and, despite any drop in oil revenue, he'll do all he can to export his megalomaniacal version of gun-barrel socialism. He'll seek a hug-for-the-cameras meet with President Obama as early as possible.

* Bolivia. Chavez client President Evo Morales could order his military to seize control of his country's dissident eastern provinces, whose citizens resist his repression, extortion and semi-literate Leninism. President Obama would do nothing as yet another democracy toppled and bled.

* North Korea. North Korea will expect a much more generous deal from the West for annulling its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it will regard an Obama administration as a green light to cheat.

* NATO. The brave young democracies of Central and Eastern Europe will be gravely discouraged, while the appeasers in Western Europe will again have the upper hand. Putin will be allowed to do what he wants.

* The Kurds. An Obama administration will abandon our only true allies between Tel Aviv and Tokyo.

* Democracy activists. Around the world, regressive regimes will intensify their suppression — and outright murder — of dissidents who risk their lives for freedom and justice. An Obama administration will say all the right things, but do nothing.

* Women's rights. If you can't vote in US elections, sister, you're screwed. Being stoned to death or buried alive is just a cultural thing.

* Journalists. American journalists who've done everything they can to elect Barack Obama can watch as regimes around the world imprison, torture and murder their foreign colleagues, confident that the US has entered an era of impotence. The crocodile tears in newsrooms will provide drought relief to the entire southeastern US. Sen. John McCain's campaign has allowed a great man to be maligned as a mere successor to George W. Bush.

The truth is that an Obama administration would be a second Carter presidency — only far worse. Think Bush weakened America? Just wait.

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 20, 2008.

This was written by Stephen Kruger.


The 1967 war was the third major, post-independence military attack of Israel by Arabs. In baseball, the rule is, three strikes, you're out. This practical should have been applied in 1967.

Instead, Israel continued its touchy-feely policy toward Arabs, put in place by left-wing Jews in Palestine at the end of World War I. The self-defeatism inherent in that policy caused Israel to lose the peace in 1948, to lose the peace again in 1956, and to cement its loss of the peace in 1967 by abandoning Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The denial of Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza created the condition precedent for some other sovereignty there. To bring into ex-nihilo existence a populace for some other sovereignty, Israel connived with Jordanians who lived in Judea and Samaria, and connived with Egyptians who lived in Gaza, to view themselves as "Palestinians,v a term which theretofore never connoted a national identity. With further Israeli connivance, "Palestinians" created the potential sovereignty of "Palestine." Moreover, during the intifadas, Israel took quarter-measures. Israel did not attack Arabs in response to Arab murders of Jews. No rockets were fired into Gaza in response to rockets fired from Gaza into Israel.

Instead of using crushing military force in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Israel chose to negotiate its national interests in one and another international meeting. Compare China in relation to Taiwan, to Tibet, to the Spratly Islands, or to the Paracel Islands, none of which is permitted by China to be negotiated in an international meeting. The two-state solution is not applied by China to Tibet or to Taiwan.

The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of China, which annexed Tibet in 1950. In the decades since, there were sinofication of Tibet and strong measures against the Tibetan population. Tibet remains Chinese, under Chinese sovereignty, and the world accepts that circumstance.

Compare Russia in relation to Finnish territory taken by Russia during World War II, Japanese islands taken by Russia at the end of World War II, and Chechnia, none of which is permitted by Russia to be negotiated in an international meeting. The two-state solution is not applied by Russia to Chechnia. The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of Russia, which fought two wars against Chechnia (1994-1996; 1999-2000). The wars were real wars, not Israeli-style quarter-measures. Thousands of Chechnians were killed by the Russians. Half of Grozny was leveled by the Russians. There was neither creation of a potentially-creation of a potentially- creation of a potentially-potentially-sovereign Chechnia. Finnish territory, Japanese islands an Russian, under Russian sovereignty, and the world accepts that circumstance. Compare India and Pakistan in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. Neither India nor Pakistan permits negotiation of the dispute in an international meeting. The two-state solution is not applied by India or by Pakistan to Jammu and Kashmir.

The losing posture of Israel is not the posture of India or of Pakistan, which fought three wars (1947; 1965; 1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style quarter-measures. There is no potentially-1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style quarter-measures. There is no poten1999). Real wars, not Israeli-style quarter-measures. There sovereignty of its respective part of Jammu and Kashmir, and the world accepts that circumstance. In light of history, it is strange for the United States to encourage Israel to negotiate its interests in an international meeting, and it is strange for the United States to support the two-state "solution" vis-à-vis Israel. When, in 1861, southern states of the United States seceded from the Union, the United States did not negotiate its national interest at an international conference. The United States did not entertain a two-state solution in relation to the Confederate States.

Rather, the United States denied entirely the right of the southern states to secede and to form the Confederate States. The United States fought to a complete victory over the Confederate States and it population. "International law" has a private aspect (e.g., treaties concerning commercial relations) and a public aspect (e.g., treaties between countries). There is no "public international law" any more than there is an "international community." The sole use which the "international community" has for "public international law" is as a club with which to clobber Israel (mutatis mutandis, the United States). For example, around September 20, 2007, there was a declaration by Israel that Gaza is a "hostile territory." Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated that the declaration violates "public international law." The statement was made within a day of the Israeli declaration. Mr. Ban spent no time researching "public international law," and he did not offer a citation supportive of his statement. He manufactured that notion of "public international law" for the purpose of condemning a defense by Israel of itself. It is asserted that "public international law" requires a two-state solution detrimental to Israel. There is no assertion by the "international community" that "public international law" requires a two-state solution detrimental to Spain or to France, concerning the Basque country, or requires a two-state solution detrimental to the Philippines, concerning Mindanao. Ditto for a two-state solution on Cyprus (Greeks and Turks), to the detriment of Cyprus; in Georgia (each of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), to the detriment of Georgia; and on Sri Lanka (Sinhalese and Tamils), to the detriment of Sri Lanka.

Jordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza, yet the "international community" perceives the rightful Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria as an "occupation,Jordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza, yet the "international community" perceives theJordanian Arabs occupy Judea and Samaria, and Egyptian Arabs occupy Gaza, yet the "international community" perceives the rightfu by occupying Northern Ireland; or about Spain contravening "public international law" by occupying the Canary Islands, Melilla, and Ceuta; or about India contravening "public international law" by occupying Goa, Daman and Diu.

The two-state "solution" is a bill of goods, bought by Israel at a heavy price: thousands of post-1948, pre-1967 murders of Jews at the hands of Arabs, the throwing away of the post-1967 peace, and thousands of post-1967 murders of Jews at the hands of Arabs. The bill of goods is not yet paid in full by Israel. Despite the refusal by Israel to win the win two intifadas, and despite the disowning by Israel of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, Israel will be expected, at a forthcoming international meeting, to make the "painful concessions" that the Golan Heights is Arab, that the Sheba'a Farms is Arab, that the essential part of Jerusalem is Arab, and that the Temple Mount is Arab.

The two-state "solution," if implemented, would find a vulnerable Israel, hemmed in by an non-rational border, and surrounded by a Hamas-controlled Gaza, a radicalized post-Abbas "Palestine," an Assad-controlled Syria, and a Hezbollah-controllea Lebanon. A coordinated ground attack from those four Arab quarters, coupled with a rain of rockets from Iran, would give rise to the Final Pogrom, the inevitable endgame of the two-state "solution

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by C.A. Fulghum, October 20, 2008.

To: The Republican Jewish Coalition

It isn't naive. It is intentional.

If you go back and review what Hussein Obama says, it isn't difficult to trace the emerging use of deceptive language. He is quite good at it but you have to read what he says and compare it to emergent deeds. He is dangerous to the world in general and, to the United States and Israel in particular — to say the very least. As the "leader" of the so-called free world, he will be the Commander 'n Chief of the most powerful military in the world. And, I might add, he has the full support of Muslims in their "57 states" and more!

In "his" book, Dreams From My Father, there is a core revelation that I believe is overlooked by those of us who have read it. It is the statement that basically says that if "ugly winds" move against Islam, he will side with Muslims. This is the foundation from which he uses extremely deceptive language to get to where he wants to be and where the Muslim world — by their enormous contributions — want him to be.

When he says, "I will never compromise Israel's security" you have to glean what he means by that with past statements he has made about other issues. He is a master of double meaning. And, if you don't get it, let me be completely blunt — the terrorists won't compromise Israel's security either. Get it???!!! This is one of the key characteristics of Muslims and it comes straight out of their Koran. Lying is considered sacred to Muslims because the savage Mohammad "consecrated" it. Hussein Obama's whole presentation is completely and utterly fraudulent.

Allow me to give you another example if you will. On the issue of abortion. When he was asked by Rick Warren, "When does human life begin?" what was his answer? He said, "That answer is above my pay grade." That seems innocent enough were it not for a few veiled declarations. Here is one for your consideration and requires some explanation:

By answering that "the beginning of life is above my pay grade" he mockingly points to God which veils his venal support for that which he has no problem — taking from those whom he will deny is their life. The reality of who they are is "above his pay grade." He has no problem taking from them what he himself will not define — those who are "born alive." More importantly, that statement ignores the vile fight Hussein Obama wages against those little lives in the way that their little lives are destroyed — lethal injections. See below for the dissertation I wrote as it relates only to abortion and the twisted mind-set of Hussein Obama on this one issue.[1]

There is so much more — it is frustrating. Hussein Obama is a liar, deceiver and, a manipulator as it relates to our common welfare. He has already demonstrated his position on life (something he can't seem to define the beginning of), liberty and, the pursuit of happiness. The God of the Torah and Biblical Christians says, "I knew you before you were born." It is this communicator's view that God Almighty is going to have a real problem with those who support the murder of and those who murder someone He knew before that which Hussein Obama can't define!

If Hussein Obama is elected, he will be elected by fools who "can be fooled all of the time" and those "who can be fooled some of the time." That just may be the swing votes that pollsters are overlooking!!!

As a Biblical Christian, I love and support God's Chosen people in general and Israel in particular and it is with this in mind that I respectfully submit these observations and more for your consideration.

Jews and Biblical Christians must pray for the peace of Jerusalem — and, I might add these United States of America.

Shalom Alechem!!!
Allen Fulghum


Hussein Obama — by all accounts — seems very calm on the outside. From all that I have read and correlated it is this communicator's opinion that this is indeed a façade accommodating an angry menace to freedom and the inalienable rights to life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness. These are rights realized, promulgated, and fused into the fabric of our culture by our founding fathers who knew precisely from whence they came, even God Himself.

What is one essential of these matters as they relate to Hussein Obama? It is his answer that yields no answer to the question, "When does life begin?" He has never answered that question. He does answer the question as it relates to the death of a baby — immediately after the baby has survived attempts on his/her little life. That doesn't seem to be above his pay grade or his conscience (which this citizen doesn't believe he possesses).

Hussein Obama completely ignores expressing the realization that life does in truth begin at some point. "Above my pay grade" as it relates to when life begins should be a disturbing affirmation to anyone who discerns what he purposefully eludes. "Above my pay grade" intentionally conceals the notion that he has no problem with the execution of an innocent baby.

Hussein Obama vehemently fights for the execution of a live birth — a baby, a child, a person, a human being. He knows what that means. By never answering the question as to when life begins, he is free to fight for the most heinous executions of children since Herod. "The beginning of life is above my grade" is a perfect answer for one who mockingly points to God whilst cold bloodedly cloaking his venal deception.

Hussein Obama's Venal Deception

Those within the iron walls of the abortion mill, including the mother — where a baby is born — seek the child's death! The baby survives (live birth) the attempt on his/her little life and is born into the world. It is what is waiting on this side of the womb that Hussein Obama fights for — a lethal injection that renders the child dead. It is indeed engaging that the fight for this cruel act is not "above his pay grade." It is the execution of a child that Hussein Obama deliberately ignores when he says that the beginning of life is "above my pay grade." It is the veiled lure of his communion with the destruction of life that should give rise to the question,

"At what point is the execution of an innocent human being not above his pay grade?" The hideous commission of live birth executions — and his passionate support for it — should give any thinking person some evidence of what life is not to Hussein Obama. It is his calm detachment as it relates to life and the expiration of that life's liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is so disturbing. And what of the demented collection of minds that support "live birth" abortions? I suppose they could entertain themselves with the prerequisite that a lethal injection proves that a baby is not viable.

Herod (in an attempt to deceive the wise men) said, "Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also." Now that we know the deception, we know that what he in truth was saying was, "Go and find the child that I may go and kill him." Since Herod couldn't kill the One he was seeking, he murdered all children 2 years old and under. They too, were on this side of the womb. Herod — by employing deceptive language — was masking the grotesque intent to kill children. The lives of children were "above his pay grade."

As is true of Hussein Obama, the killing of innocent children was not above Herod's pay grade. Whether Jew or Gentile, this is an historical account — verified by secular historians — of the brutality of one who was not encumbered by the reality of life, no matter when the killing is executed.

Hussein Obama has floated to where he is from the bottom of an emerging culture of death. He now is presented with the opportunity to be the leader of those who believe as he does while he continues to mask what he is with very deceptive language until he gets to where he wants to be. Judging by the massive amounts of money pouring in from his Muslim miscreant pals, they want Hussein Obama where he wants to be too.

His so-called 'pastor' seeks the destruction of America when he says, "God damn America." His pal, Bill Ayers, seeks destruction when he blows up buildings and laments that he wishes he could have caused more death and destruction. Hussein Obama's Marxist pals — like Saul Alinsky — seek the destruction of our free enterprise society. Hussein Obama seeks the destruction of human life even after the child is born alive.

Along with his alliances in his community of evil, Hussein Obama moves among our citizenry with the utmost calm. Put his alliances together with a common binding energy of hate and what have you got? Those who have all of the baggage that goes with the affection of Marxist-socialist miscreants, judgments they represent and, coercion features (Civilian Security Force?) that are set firmly in this obliging mind-set.

Hussein Obama has wittingly answered what life does indeed mean to him by having never answered the question, "When does life begin?" It is his actions and deeds that provide answers to what he thinks of life by intensely fighting for the execution of babies. In doing so he does indeed answer the question, "When should death be implemented to take that from which I will not confirm is life?" And so — immediately after a baby survives attempts on his/her little life, what Hussein Obama intensely fights for is implemented...the execution of him/her which he will not define as a living, breathing human being.

Herod extended the death penalty for children two years and under. Herod's cause was to rid the trouble he was having in his dark heart as it related to the perceived threat of a coming "king." Innocent children paid the ultimate price for Herod's "cause." His choice was the option to kill.

Hitler extended the death penalty many years later from the womb for anyone who was a Jew — from babies to the elderly. His cause was to implement his "final solution to the Jew problem." His choice was the option to kill. Hussein Obama's cause by favoring the death penalty of a child is that the "right to kill" should be protected by way of the utterly debased reason of "choice." His "final solution" is to rid us of the "punishment" of a baby whose criminal penalty is execution for the revelation that she/he is indeed a living human being. Hussein Obama's choice is the option to kill.

If this imposter — who continues to veil what he is — is elected President of these United States then we will surely get what we deserve.

Allen Fulghum
FulghumInk October 9, 2008

Contact C.A. Fulghum at chasful@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kyle-Anne Shiver, October 20, 2008.

When a man of so little verifiable background and experience presents himself as a candidate for what is unarguably the most powerful political position in the entire world, every scrap of detail regarding his life, beliefs, associations, and accomplishments is of extreme importance. They are all we have, especially in light of Barack Obama's refusal to release and make public the following:

* A certified, authenticated birth certificate
* College transcripts from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard
* Senior thesis written at Columbia
* Writings from Harvard
* Full medical records

In light of these gaping holes in his resume — holes that could be easily filled in by Barack Obama, but have not been — it becomes the duty of every voter to examine the peripheral areas of Obama's life with utmost care, giving special attention to patterns of association that point to matters of judgment, character, and true intent.

Obama's associations

"When you know who his friend is, you know who he is."
— African proverb

The most problematic quality of Barack Obama's run for the presidency at this time is that we do not really know him. Obama has repeatedly deflected curiosity about his associations with glib responses from "This is not the man I knew," to "Can I just eat my waffle?" When Obama was still on the campaign trail without his teleprompter, he regularly created relatives and events out of whole cloth, only to later issue campaign statements declaring he "misspoke," "spoke inartfully," or was "mistaken."

From these actions, what are voters to conclude? One might conclude that this not-even-through-his-first-term senator does not want Americans to know who he really is. He has not been forthcoming. We have been forced to dig for information and draw our own conclusions as the African proverb above suggests. If we see who Obama's friends are, we will see who he is.

Friend #1: Jeremiah Wright

Obama clearly lied about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright at his last April press conference. When Obama declared that this Jeremiah Wright, revealed by widely circulated videos, was not the man he knew and declared that they had never been close, he was not telling the truth.

David Mendell wrote a favorable-to-Obama book, From Promise to Power, for which he had wide access to Obama, his family members, Jeremiah Wright, and a number of other close associates of the candidate. Throughout this book, Jeremiah Wright plays a prominent role as mentor and counselor. At every decisive juncture of Obama's rise from Trinity congregation member to the United States Senate, Jeremiah Wright provides counsel and mentorship to the rising Barack.

In a recent Newsweek article, "Finding His Faith," Obama answers questions regarding his attendance at Trinity. He now says he and Michelle really didn't attend Trinity very often at all. "At the beginning, we went fairly frequently . . . probably went two or three times a month. When we had Malia, our first child, we went less frequently, and that probably continued for a couple of years, just because — I don't know if you've had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it's not easy . . . As they got older, we would go back a little more frequently, probably twice a month."

Unfortunately, Senator Obama gave a vastly different answer to the same question when he was running for his U.S. Senate seat. Here's what he told Cathleen Falsani, in a face-to-face interview for the Chicago Sun-Times. In March 2004, Obama said this about his church attendance:

FALSANI: Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA: Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service. Ever been there? Good service. I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father; it's kind of a meditation on race. There's a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.

Friend #2: Tony Rezko

Consider this telling fragment from the Obama timeline, offered by David Freddoso in his new book, The Case Against Barack Obama:

July 31, 1995 — Tony Rezko makes his first political donation to Obama.

January 14, 1997 — Tony Rezko, while claiming he cannot afford to turn on the heat in one of his slums, writes a $1,000 check to Barack Obama's campaign.

February 1997 — Obama co-sponsors a bill that creates affordable local housing funds in order to subsidize private developers.

August 23, 2001 — A bill is co-sponsored by Obama, giving special tax credits to donors to private developers of "affordable housing."

May 21, 2003 — Obama votes for the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeal Act, creating demand for at least 7,000 new "affordable housing" units and letting private developers circumvent local ordinances.

August 14, 2003 — Stuart Levine and Tony Rezko steer $50 million in teachers' retirement money to an investment firm and receive a $250,000 kickback from the "finder."

March 4, 2004 — Obama co-sponsors a bill to move forward deadlines of a developer-friendly housing bill.

June 15, 2005 — Obama and Tony Rezko close on adjacent properties in Hyde Park.

May 26, 2005 — The Chicago Tribune profiles Tony Rezko, noting that he has been subpoenaed in a criminal investigation.

January 2006 — Obama purchases part of neighbor Tony Rezko's lot.

Those quality, affordable housing units for the poor residents of Chicago? They are now mostly condemned as uninhabitable by human beings. A really super terrific use of taxpayer money.

Syrian-born Tony Rezko is now in prison, after having been convicted by a federal jury on 16 of 24 counts of corruption charges. Last week, Rezko reportedly made a deal with prosecutors to talk about others steeped in Chicago and greater Illinois political corruption. His "talking" may or may not lead to an indictment against Barack Obama.

As for me, what I already know is enough. This one association alone tells us voters that Barack Obama has neither the character nor judgment to be president.

Friend #3: Bill Ayers

Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers was first raised in the presidential primary debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama employed his habitual deflection technique, saying only that "Bill Ayers is a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and everything he did against America was when "I was eight years old."

Since then, Obama has been forced to admit a little more here and a little more there about the real relationship he has had with him over at least 15 years. Thanks to the steadfast, persistent efforts of Stanley Kurtz at National Review, we now have more of the Annenberg Challenge records that show clearly Ayers is not just some unknown guy who lives down the street from Obama, but is in fact someone much, much closer.

As Kurtz detailed for the Wall Street Journal in September, Obama's only executive experience — period — has been working with Bill Ayers on the Annenberg Challenge and its radical education/indoctrination programs:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers' home.

Of course, to those on the far political left, from the 1960s onward, Bill Ayers and his radical wife, Bernardine Dohrn, have been heroes, not despicable domestic terrorists. It isn't hard for me to understand why Obama's alliance with this pair isn't problematic for any of the blame-America-first crowd. But for those of us who still love America and believe in our Constitution, a working relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is enough to disqualify Obama from our votes.

Since Barack Obama has played a game of dodge-ball rhetoric concerning these associations of his — and since they are really all we know about him, his judgment, his character, and his patriotism — he has left us little choice but to vote against him in November.

Early in the year, I wrote that this election would break on the lines of those who still love America and those who clearly don't. I still believe I'm right and that McCain will win — by a sizable percentage.

This article was published on the Pajamas Media

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 20, 2008.


The US has a moratorium on new nuclear weapons. The US does not modernize its stockpile. It could fall behind its enemies. If other countries perceive this, they will stop following US leadership and act on their own (IMRA, 8/22). This probably means that they would develop their own weapons.

The moratorium is a poor way of avoiding global nuclear buildup. A better way would have allowed building better weapons and de-commissioning older ones.


About the year 2000, most Israelis stopped voting for the Left. The place of the leftist parties was taken by, or reinforced by, the media. The media used its position to advance the leftist agenda. Reporters learned that if they didn't take a leftist line, regardless of their own views, their careers would suffer. The media there does not cover events, it covers up events.

The media's ideology is "disparagement of patriotism and of the military, the dislike of the government [though the government is leftist], the self-praise as a 'peace' camp, the revulsion from Middle Eastern Judaism combined with an idolization of the Arabs, and the deep-seated grudge against the Right, against Netanyahu and capitalism." As talented people shun the scorned government, "a vacuum is formed, into which this party media enters with great force."

The media boosted Livni "with false polls, and cheered when she appeared to win." The media hardly focused on the extensive scandals in the primaries she barely won. " ... the media is manipulating politicians instead of [the old problem of] being manipulated by them." (IMRA, 9/22.) Voters get deceived by parties or party leaders only pretending to be right-wing or centrist.


Convicted Arab terrorists get holidays from prison and expect early release. Convicted Jewish "security" prisoners usually are get neither, perhaps a few hours in chains to see newborns. The secret service claims they know of other Jewish conspiracies and that while out of prison, they endanger public safety.

One placed a defective bomb at a Jewish school. He claims he knew it would not go off, just wanted to scare the Arabs away from terrorism. The judges (no juries in "democratic" Israel and no "reasonable doubt"] decided he didn't know it was a dud. Israeli judges can read minds, didn't you know? (Arutz-7, 9/23.) I find that most of the Jews are framed. Their excessive and cruel punishment, like Pollard's in the US, is political, in this case, anti-Zionist.


An Israeli analyst attributes some of the bombings there to the futile attempt at making a country out of several tribes, as does Sudan and Afghanistan. The UAE solved the problem by making a separate country for each tribe, then confederating (Arutz-7, 9/21).


Ahmed Qureia, chief P.A. negotiator (and former head of the P.A., called a moderate by the US and Israel) was asked what would happen if negotiations fail. He said that if the P.A. doesn't attain independence [and whatever else it wants], the Muslims would resume violence against civilians [not that their terrorism ever ceased]. He was asked whether that would include suicide bombings. He said that all means are permissible to them.

Dr. Aaron Lerner asks whether any Israeli "peace maker" will denounce Qureia's threat (IMRA, 9/23).

I think they won't. They are too anti-Zionist. Their notion of making peace is to give the Muslims most of what they demand and accept humiliation from them.


Kadima head Livni was not elected to be Prime Minister. Neither did she honestly win the primary to head Kadima. She lacks legitimacy. She insists that the Knesset pick her to be Prime Minister without general elections, to maintain stability. Her rival, MK Netanyahu, says that for the crucial issues coming up, legitimacy, via general elections, is more important (IMRA, 9/24).

Since her foreign policy is disastrous, and she is stubborn about it, hers would be the stability of simpletons. It should not be left up to a non-elected appeaser to give away defensive borders and not even get peace. Legitimacy brings stability.


Pres. Admadinejad is trying to gather all power in his hands, as he seeks re-election. His extreme view about conjuring up the "hidden imam" to start Armageddon has brought him in opposition to the traditional clergy. He takes seriously his mission to destroy Israel and the US and make Iran supreme in behalf of Shiism (MEFNews, 9/24).

If he loses the election, his successors will pursue nuclear weaponry and terrorism, too. They are more diplomatic but just as extremist in policy.


According to the President of Iran, Zionist manipulation of financial markets caused the financial crisis (Arutz-7, 9/24).

I didn't know that. How did Israel manage to manipulate banks that have much more money than it does? How did Israel get Congress to start the financial meltdown by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and pressuring other lenders to give mortgages to people unlikely to repay? How did Israel get rating services to evaluate as sound the bundles of sub-prime mortgages? Israel doesn't have much capital and doesn't own those companies. Does Admadinejad mean that the fees paid by the mortgage companies to the rating services did not unduly influence the ratings, but Israel did?

Rescinding the requirement separating banking from mortgage lending was desired by the financial industry. Israel didn't demand it nor has it any way of ordering it.

People could invest in hedge funds with only a fraction of the assets. When values fall, and the bills come due, the funds can't repay. What has the lack of stricter margin requirements to do with Israel?

Might the financial weakness of the West have something to do with the hundreds of billions a year of money paid to the oil exporting countries? Reducing our oil consumption should be required.

Why would Israel bring chaos to the US, a country of which Israelis are fond and which sells it half its weapons [and which it needs for bombing Iran's nuclear]?

It's all Israel's fault, somehow, he says. Guess we don't need to stop the affirmative action in lending mortgages to the poor, separate banking from mortgage lending, and require less investing on high margin.


Would someone please track down the status of the Bekaa Valley site where two Syria tank battalions were guarding the buried contents of a convoy that fled from Iraq when the US invaded? Presumably it held Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


On Columbus Day, Muslims paraded on 5th Ave. with false propaganda, such as, "Islam is a religion of peace," and "Islam seeks justice." Youths chanted, "NY City down, mighty, mighty Muslims." No other ethnic group would have celebrated their city's misfortune or bragged of their power. Enemies

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, October 20, 2008.

ACORN Whistleblowers

This was written by Kenneth Timmerman, and it appeared today in www.Newsmax.com.


New testimony obtained by a consumer advocate group from former employees of ACORN paints a startling picture of the apparent misuse of taxpayer dollars to further the group's left-wing political agenda. Four former employees of ACORN and of ACORN Housing Corp. have supplied sworn affidavits to the Consumer Rights League that provide eyewitness accounts of how the two organizations have commingled funds and resources, in apparent violation of federal law.

ACORN has devoted $50 million to Project Vote activities in the current election cycle, primarily to register minority and low-income voters. Barack Obama ran the Chicago branch of Project Vote in 1992, and soon afterwards began teaching classes for "Future Leaders Identified by ACORN."

In 1995, Obama represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois for its supposed failure to implement the new "motor voter" law, the first piece of legislation signed by Bill Clinton after he became president in 1993.

In a statement now immortalized in a YouTube video, Obama promised ACORN and other community organizations in an Iowa presidential campaign forum for Democrats in December 2007 that if elected president, he would bring them into the White House to help shape the agenda of an Obama administration.

"Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America," Obama pledged.

ACORN endorsed Obama on Feb. 21, 2008, at the most critical point of the tough primary battle that pitted him against Hillary Clinton. Welcoming that endorsement, Obama said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career."

But now that ACORN's alleged voter fraud activities have become public, the Illinois senator has sought to distance himself from ACORN, just as he has from other former allies, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or former wanted terrorist William Ayers.

His "fight the smears" Web site now has a statement claiming that "ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee," but acknowledged that he was hired by the organization in the 1995 lawsuit. [Turns out he trained them for free. — BSL]

"Obama's failure to disclose the true nature of his relationship with ACORN is very surprising and deeply troubling," the John McCain campaign said in a press release last week.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as a non-partisan group, supported by tax-exempt contributions from individuals and corporations.

The ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), an ACORN affiliate, receives more than 40 percent of its funding from government sources, ostensibly to promote affordable housing to low- and middle-income families.

But according to CRL, internal documents obtained from whistleblowers suggest that ACORN has failed to maintain the proper distinction between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive political activities. "ACORN and its offshoots take in millions of dollars in government grants under the guise of ‘consumer advocacy' to line their own pockets," said Jim Terry, CRL's chief public advocate.

The new testimony, from four former ACORN and AHC employees, provides "hard confirmation" that ACORN and its affiliate are in fact one in the same, Terry told Newsmax. "Here are people who have been in the room, testifying to the criminal intent of the people involved" in shuffling ACORN resources from tax-exempt purposes to political activities, he said.

"Everything they do and say, with the exception of filing their government reports, treats this family of organizations as one cohesive unit. They operated as one organization, controlled from the top down," Terry said.

One former employee, who was with ACORN for six years, including in a management position, testified that she has "knowledge that AHC has subsidized and believe that AHC continues to subsidize ACORN activities," in apparent violation of the law. "AHC subsidies to ACORN include office telephone service, fax, supplies and rental space paid for by AHC funds," she added.

In addition, AHC management routinely treated federal grants as money that could be shared with ACORN, Terry told Newsmax. "Between 2004 through 2006, AHC transferred $4.6 million to ACORN in grants and fees, according to their tax returns. This is inherently wrong." Since 40 percent of AHC funds came from government grants, that means that U.S. taxpayers were in effect paying for ACORN's partisan political activities, he added.

AHC required employees to "solicit funds and cash from clients and real estate professionals to pay for AHC operations," one of the whistleblowers said, detailing what amounted to a "shakedown" operation. Another former AHC employee said he would testify in court to the fact that "AHC and ACORN have operated as one entity," and quoted internal e-mails detailing how federal grants were shared between the organizations.

The whistleblowers also stated that: AHC employees were instructed to hide documents from federal auditors with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. AHC employees were instructed on "steering" loans to partner banks, including Chase (for loans in the New Orleans area) and Bank of America for other areas around the country.

AHC National Field Director Lee Trujillo stated in the presence of several of these witnesses that "AHC and ACORN would be funded out of the same account." AHC and ACORN have also shared "voter initiative money." Internal AHC e-mails and other documents "clearly show that AHC is paying for lease space occupied by ACORN."

All of these are potential violations of the laws governing non-profit organizations. ACORN is currently under investigation for fraudulent voter registration and related activities in at least 11 key battleground states. Election officials in several states have said that 50 percent of ACORN voter registrations are fictitious.

Just last week, for example, ACORN's offices in Nevada were raided by state law enforcement officials after reports that ACORN had registered the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas. In Connecticut, a 7-year-old girl was found to have been registered to vote by ACORN, which changed her age to 27.

ACORN announced last week that it had just completed "the largest, most successful nonpartisan voter registration drive in U.S. history," by helping "1.3 million low-income, minority and young voters across the country register to vote." The group insisted that the allegations of voter fraud are "bogus," and "aim to camouflage voter suppression," a term used by many groups on the left to describe alleged police roadblocks in black neighborhoods in Florida during the 2000 campaign.

Despite a two-year investigation by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under the direction of Jesse Jackson protegé Mary Frances Berry, not a single eyewitness stepped forward who could corroborate the allegations of voter suppression or police roadblocks in Florida during that election. ACORN has paid more than 13,000 workers to sign up new voters this election season, and admits that "there are always some people who want to get paid without really doing the job." In any large voter registration operation, ACORN said last week, there will always be "a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms." But discrepancies in voter registration documents "has nothing to do with ‘voter fraud,'" the group insisted.

AHC gets U.S. government grants to provide free advice and counseling services to low and mid-income consumers on how to qualify for a mortgage. In the advice it offers consumers, AHC warns about "predatory" lending. And yet, CRL alleges in a report issued earlier this year that AHC engages in many of the same practices it condemns.

"ACORN's 'financial justice' operations attack lenders for ‘exotic' loans, but AHC has recommended ten-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and reverse mortgages (which can be detrimental to senior citizens)," the report states. AHC also has worked to obtain mortgages for undocumented workers, and has advised intake officers to counsel consumers how to use "under the table" income not reported to the Internal Revenue Service in order to increase their borrowing ability.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, October 19, 2008.

This was written by Mark Steyn It has got to be read with an "open mind", don't you agree? Sad, Bad, Mad mad world...!!


Give a man enough rope line and he'll hang himself. There was His Serene Majesty, President-designate Barack the Healer, working the crowd at some or other hick burg, and halfway down the rope up pops a plumber to express misgivings about the incoming regime's tax plans.

Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut. You'd think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than six-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you're wondering why Obama didn't simply announce that under his plan 112 per cent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they'd really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 per cent it is.

By the way, like the nightly news shows, this column now has an exclusive lavishly funded Fact Check Unit set up at great expense (a colorful graphic with the words "FACT CHECK ALERT!") in a lame attempt to pass off our transparent political bias as some sort of scientific exercise.

Anyway, our Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: "95." It's the words "per cent" immediately following that are wrong: that's a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut.

Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting's tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: "It's not that I want to punish your success," he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there's another typing error: that "you" should read "I, Barack." "You" will have no say in it. Joe the Plumber might think he himself can spread it around just fine, but everyone knows "trickle-down economics" don't work. So President-presumptive Obama kindly explained the new exquisitely condescending "talking-down economics:" Put that in your pipe and solder it.

Evidently the O-mighty One was not happy after his encounter with Joe. He's still willing to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But never again will he talk to Joe the Plumber without preconditions. Outraged at the way the right-wing whackos were talking up Joe the Plumber as if he were an authentic regular Joe like Joe Biden, the O-Bots of the media swung into action. Vast regiments of investigate reporters were redeployed from the Wasilla Holiday Inn back to the Lower 48.

"We need you down here checking out this Joe the Plumber," editors barked to journalists.

"But I'm this close to wrapping up the Wasilla Town Library banned-book investigation!"

"Forget it! The Atlantic Monthly is claiming Joe the Plumber is Trig's real father. We can't get behind on this. Get to Minneapolis Airport. Joe the Plumber was seen in the bathroom with Senator Larry Craig."

"Yes, but he was installing a stopcock ... "

"Look, you went to Columbia School of Journalism. This is what we bold courageous journalists do. We're the conscience of the nation. We speak truth to plumber."

"Er, shouldn't that be 'Speak truth to power'?"

"That's the old edition of the handbook. Now we speak truth to power-tool operators. Joe the Carpenter, Joe the Plasterer, Joe the Electrician ... When you're building utopia, you don't want any actual builders getting in the way."

Alas, as a result of this massive investment of journalistic resouces, no investigative reporter will be free to investigate ACORN voter-registration fraud or Obama's ties to terrorist educator William Ayers until, oh, midway through his second term at least.

Under the headline "Is 'Joe The Plumber' A Plumber? That's Debatable", John Seewer of the Associated Press triumphantly revealed that Joe is not a "licensed" plumber. In fact, he doesn't need to be licensed for the residential plumbing he does, but isn't that just typical of Bush-McCain insane out-of-control deregulation? It wouldn't surprise me to discover that most of these subprime homeowners got Joe in to plumb their subprime bathrooms. Next thing you know, the entire global economy goes down the toilet. Coincidence?

Joe is now the most notorious plumber in American politics since the Watergate plumbers. And they weren't licensed, either. It turns out Joe doesn't even make 250 grand, and it's only the 250-thousand-a-year types who'll be paying more (please, no tittering) under Good King Barack. Joe Biden — that's Joe the Bluecollar Senator — said that he didn't know any 250,000-dollars plumbers in his neighborhood, or even in the first-class club car on Amtrak he rides every night to demonstrate his bluecollar bonafides. On Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer emphasized this point, anxious to give the apostate plumber one last chance to go with the flow:

"Well, I just want to ask you now about the issue that was raised, because it's been a little confusing to me as I try to sort it out here. To get straight here, you're not taking home $250,000 now, am I right?"

"No. No. Not even close," confessed Joe.

So what's he got to be worried about?

The heart of the American Dream is aspiration. That's why people came here from all over the world. Back in eastern Europe, the Joe Bidens and Diane Sawyers of the day were telling Joe the Peasant: "Hey, look, man. You're a peasant in the 19th century, just like your forebears were peasants in the 12th century and your descendants will be peasants in the 26th century. So you're never gonna be earning 250 groats a year. Don't worry about it. Leave it to us. We know better." And Joe the Peasant eventually figured that one day he'd like to be able to afford the Premium Gruel with just a hint of arugula and got on the boat to Ellis Island. Because America is the land where a guy who doesn't have a 250-grand business today might just have one in five or ten years' time.

I'm with Joe the Plumber, not Joe the Hair-Plugger. He's articulated the animating principles of America better than anyone on either side in this campaign. Which is why the O-Bots need to destroy him. As Obama's catchphrase goes:

"Joe the Plumber!
Can we fix him?
Joe the Plumber!
Yes, we can!"

For the record, I am not a government-licensed pundit. But I expect they'll fix that, too.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and see examples of his graphic art at

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, October 19, 2008.

This was written by Raymond Ibrahim, the editor of "The Al Qaeda Reader," first-time translations of Muslim religious texts and propaganda. This article appeared October 19, 2008 in Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023167.php


All humans generally live according to some set of priorities. A person may make a priority of health, of pleasure, of study — of absolutely anything, really. But it is practically a law of nature that a person must make a priority of something. Even those who lead unstructured existences unconsciously live according to some set of unarticulated priorities, if only according to something so basic as the primal need for food, drink, and shelter.

For many people, religious practice — striving to obey God's commandments — is a high priority, the highest, even. Yet this priority can come into conflict with the character of the society in which one lives. This is undoubtedly the case for devout Muslims who voluntarily relocate to Western nations. This invariably will compromise what many of them profess to be their ultimate priority: living in accordance to the divine laws of Allah (i.e., sharia — most of which is derived from the words and deeds of seventh-century Mohammad).

Some of these Muslims arrive in the West and refuse to compromise. Consider the following news stories:

A few Muslim cashiers working at Target stores in Minneapolis last year refused to scan customer purchases that may have contained pork products. Instead of swiping the products themselves — which is their job — they inconvenienced the customers or fellow employees by having them do it.

Muslim cab drivers have long been discriminating against customers carrying or suspected of carrying alcohol. Officials at the St. Paul International Airport estimate that, on average, alcohol-bearing customers seeking cab rides are denied 77 times per month. Some blind customers have also been turned down on account of their seeing-eye dogs.

Muslims in Seattle have requested (and been granted) regularly scheduled hours for their exclusive use of public pools; an all-Muslim-girls basketball team at a Chicago university demanded that men be barred from attending their matches; some 200 Muslim women signed a petition at a Michigan fitness center demanding separate workout times for men and women, or at least the erection of a screen divider between the men's and women's section (which was granted).

More recently, Muslims have been demanding special rights in regards to prayer time during Ramadan.

All of these issues revolve around the Muslim desire to live according to Allah's laws — which, among other things, ban contact with pigs, dogs, and alcohol, insist on punctuality concerning prayer, and have rigid social guidelines, especially in regards to public interaction between the sexes. From a religious point of view, then, the anti-social behavior of these Muslims is logically consistent. They are doing only what their religion commands them to do. And their refusal to compromise on these points demonstrates that adherence to the commandments of Islam is a priority of the utmost importance to them.

However, if living in strict accordance to sharia is the first priority of some Muslims, one wonders: Why have they voluntarily come and immersed themselves in infidel countries that do not recognize sharia law and, indeed, allow many things that run counter to it, such as the selling and consumption of alcohol and pork and the liberal intermingling of the sexes?

Most of the Muslim countries that Muslims abandon for the West are much more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle and uphold many if not all aspects of sharia law. Yet, each year, thousands of supposedly "ultra-devout" Muslims forsake these countries and, of their own free will, come and surround themselves with wine-imbibing, swine-eating libertines. Why?

For the same reason that everyone else comes to the West — for the "good life." They come in order to be prosperous and to enjoy opportunities, security, and equality the likes of which they could never have in their own countries (ruled quite often — no surprise — according to sharia). The vast majority of Muslims emigrating from the Islamic world do not leave due to necessity — say, oppression or starvation. No, they come to the infidel West solely to prosper materially.

But why are Muslims of the "ultra-pious" variety seeking after material comfort in the first place — especially when doing so will almost certainly undermine their professed desire to live strictly according to the sharia? Coming to live in a democratic country composed of some 300 million infidels is bound to affect any Muslim's observance of sharia. These pious Muslims risk coming into daily contact with, not only pork, alcohol, and dogs, but all sorts of other defilements: flamboyant homosexuals, scantily clad women (who are often in positions of authority!), gamblers and usurers, to name a few. Are they not concerned that they, or especially their children, might become contaminated by the licentious and seductive practices of the infidel West?

If their priority is truly to strictly follow sharia, should they not remain in their Muslim countries of origin, which, if not as prosperous as the West, are definitely more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle?

Or, could it be that, despite all the ruckus (and subsequent headlines) made by these Muslims, living in accordance to Allah and his sharia is not their first priority, after all? At least, not to the degree that they would be unwilling to put this priority at substantial risk for the sake of living the good life, in a strictly secular and materialistic sense.

Furthermore, if common sense does not dissuade them from relocating to the West, the very sharia they claim to want to closely observe should. For instance, if pork and alcohol are condemned (e.g., Koran 5:4; 2:219), voluntarily living among infidels, idolaters, and atheists is looked on no better. The Koran declares: "O you who believe! Take neither Jews nor Christians as friends...whoever among you turns to them is one of them" (5:51).

There are countless verses and traditions, in fact, that make it clear that Muslims are to be in a constant state of animosity toward non-Muslims, waging war through tongue and teeth in order to spread Islam, and, when finally in a position of superiority, discriminating against those who refuse to convert (see, for example, Koran 3:28, 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, 9:25, etc).

When the Meccans persisted in their unbelief, refusing to accept the prophet-hood — and subsequent authority — of Mohammad, he finally abandoned his kinsfolk with these parting words, which some Muslims believe still define the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims: "We [Muslims] disown you [non-Muslims] and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — until you believe in Allah alone!" (60:40).

So why are some Muslims making public scenes here in the United States over scanning bacon or transporting customers with sealed bottles of wine in their luggage while at the same time freely choosing to live with — and of course benefit from — those whom they are commanded to hate and wage war upon, or at the very least, disavow and be clean of?

Of course, there is always the "stealth jihad" to consider — that is, the subtle, non-violent form of jihad that seeks to gradually turn the West into a part of the Abode of Islam. But that is another story for another time.

At any rate, "straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel" has long been a sure sign of hypocrisy. All Muslims who freely migrate to the West must understand that they can't have it both ways — that they can't have their cake and eat it, too. They must choose between either strictly upholding the laws and customs of 7th-century Arabia (in which case they should remain in their "sharia friendly" countries of origin) or, if prosperity and comfort is their first choice, let them relocate to the West, but prepare to assimilate — that is, compromise — to some degree. It's a simple question of priorities.

To Go To Top

Posted by Newsmax, October 19, 2008.

This was written by Nathaniel R. Helms and it appeared today
www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_missouri_mccain/ 2008/10/19/141977.html


Sandwiched between two heavily populated urban centers where voter roles are swelled by inner-city voters recruited by ACORN is the rest of Missouri, the rural heart of a bellwether state where presidential nominee John McCain is still the candidate of choice.

"Senator McCain has to win Missouri to win the White House," said Jared Craighead, executive director of the state's Republican Party.

On Sunday, McCain was five or six points behind Obama in most state polls with a plus or minus error factor of four. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — usually referred to as ACORN — wants to keep it that way.

Missourians have voted for the presidential winner in all but one election since 1904, and brings 11 electoral votes to the table.

This election, however, the influence of ACORN with neophyte voters without the sophistication or interest to registers themselves may overpower the traditional voice of consistant conservative voters in rural Missouri, worried Republicans predict.

Time after time since ACORN developed into a social and political force in St. Louis and Kansas City two decades ago, it has used means fair and foul to influence local and statewide elections by energizing the otherwise ignored inner-city precincts, events have shown.

In November 1993, ACORN helped register more than 100,000 voters from poor urban neighborhoods in St. Louis and Kansas City to pass an amendment to the Missouri Constitution to legalize gambling. The same amendment was defeated by 1,200 votes the preceding April on the strength of heated rural voters when ACORN wasn't involved.

When another edition of the amendment was rolled out for the November general election with strong ACORN support funded by $12 million paid by gambling interests to finance the campaign it passed by about 54,000 votes.

In 2006, ACORN was credited by Republicans with helping to defeat Congressman Jim Talent in his race against Democrat Claire McCaskill for the U.S. Senate.

Last April, eight of the ACORN organizers who ran the voter registration drive in St. Louis during the vicious campaign pleaded guilty to election fraud charges in federal court. They were accused of submitting registration cards with false names and addresses in the 2006 election.

Two weeks ago, officials in Jackson County, home to Kansas City, joined two other states in investigating ACORN when hundreds of bogus registrants began popping up.

"I don't even know the entire scope of it because registrations are coming in so heavy," Charlene Davis, the county's elections board co-director, told The Associated Press at the time.

Ultimately more than 400 registration cards with false names and addresses were discovered. The forms, she said, came from ACORN.

Missouri is particularly important to Republicans, both parties agree, as they trail in most of the other swing states, including Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

Both candidates have blitzed the state with political ads and multiple visits, with Sen. Barack Obama reportedly spending $6 million on media advertising and McCain almost $5.5 million.

It may not be enough for McCain. ACORN has enjoyed strong support from organized labor since its founding in 1970.

Its founder and chief organizer is Wade Rathke, who also serves as chief organizer for Service Employees International Union Local 100, which represents about 5,000 workers in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.

The union is powerful in neighboring Missouri as well, particularly in St. Louis and Kansas City where about 25,000 SEIU workers staff hotels, restaurants, hospitals and the gambling industry. It has endorsed Obama and offers a voter registration guide on its Web site

ACORN admittedly targets well-funded registration drives in close-race states like Missouri.

Talent lost to McCaskill by less than 50,000 votes, about the same number of voters ACORN claimed it had registered.

During that contest, city election officials in St. Louis, overwhelmed by more than 5,000 suspicious-looking voter registration cards, sent letters to the registrants asking them to contact the election office. Fewer than 40 people responded, officials later said.

The city's election director, Scott Leiendecker, said at the time that only about 10 percent to 15 percent of all ACORN registration cards reaching his office were legitimate.

In neighboring St. Louis County, election officials came across hundreds of bogus voter address changes in the months leading up to November. Most of the suspicious information had been submitted by ACORN, voter registration officials there said.

Across the state in Kansas City, election official Ray James, along with his Democratic counterpart, Sharon Turner Buie, announced that more than 15,000 registration forms were "questionable."

On Nov. 2, 2006, a federal grand jury indicted four ACORN employees for "knowingly and willingly" submitting false information to Kansas City election authorities.

A U.S. district court judge subsequently dismissed a two-count indictment against one of the defendants at the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney's Office. It turned out ACORN had used her identity "without her permission."

This year ACORN claims the political action group has registered about 34,000 voters in St. Louis for the presidential election.

Currently there are no problems to report at the St. Louis Election Board, Leiendecker said.

Despite the assurances from Leiendecker, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, a St. Louis Republican, spoke out and condemned the continued problems Missouri election officials in St. Louis and Kansas City have endured in every recent election. Danforth and former U.S. Sen. Warren Rudman head McCain's "Honest and Open Elections Committee."

"It's an outrage," Danforth said in his press conference. "It breaks the system down. There's a big difference between registration drives — that's great — and turning in bogus names. Register people, but register real people. Don't register, as was the case in our state in the last presidential election, where a dog was registered."

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, October 19, 2008.

This was published today in Newsmax.


As Barack Obama reaped a stunning $150 million in campaign donations in September, bringing his total to more than $600 million, new questions have arisen about the source of his amazing funding.

By Obama's own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain's campaign, Obama won't release the names of these donors.

A Newsmax canvass of disclosed Obama campaign donors shows worrisome anomalies, including outright violations of federal election laws.

For example, Obama has numerous donors who have contributed well over the $4,600 federal election limit.

Many of these donors have never been contacted by the Obama campaign to refund the excess amounts to them.

And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.

According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.

When asked by Newsmax about excess contributions, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said that contributions already identified as excess had been returned and that those the campaign was just learning about — either through news accounts or from the Federal Election Commission — "will be returned."

"Every campaign faces the challenge of screening and reviewing its contributions," LaBolt said. "And we have been aggressive about taking every available step to make sure our contributions are appropriate, updating our systems when necessary."

But many of the donors Newsmax canvassed said they had "never" been contacted by the Obama campaign or seen any refunds, even though their contributions went over the limit months ago.

In all, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had contributed in excess of the $4,600 limit for individuals per election cycle.

Such donations, if not returned within 60 days, are a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws.

Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because "I love Obama," she said.

According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.

The Obama campaign reported that it had "redesignated" the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.

But if that happened, it's news to Handley. "No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money," she said.

Ronald J. Sharpe Jr., a retired teacher from Rockledge, Fla., appears in the Obama campaign reports as having given a whopping $13,800.

The campaign reported that it returned $4,600 to him, making his net contribution of $9,200 still way over the legal limit.

But there's one problem with the Obama data: Sharpe doesn't remember giving that much money to the Obama campaign in the first place, nor does he recall anyone from the campaign ever contacting him to return money.

"At the end, I was making monthly payments," he told Newsmax. The Obama campaign records do not show any such payments.

Many donors refused to answer questions about the political campaign contributions appearing in their name when they learned that the caller was from a news organization.

John Atkinson, an insurance agent in Burr Ridge, Ill., refused to discuss his contributions, which totaled $8,724.26, before numerous refunds.

Atkinson and others gave in odd amounts: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one rounded contribution of $2,300.

Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.

In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions — for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44 — added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.

Also giving in odd amounts was Robert Porter, an accountant for the town of Oviedo, Fla. Porter gave a surprising $4,786.02 to the Obama campaign.

In all, Newsmax found an astonishing 37,265 unique donors to the Obama campaign whose contributions were not rounded up to dollar amounts. That amounts to more than 10 percent of the total number of unique donors whose names have been disclosed by the Obama campaign to the public.

Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.

Another 15,269 contributions gave in unrounded amounts between $101 and $999, while 704 of the unrounded contributions were in amounts of more than $1,000.

Campaign finance experts find the frequent appearance of unrounded contributions suspicious, since contributors almost invariably give in whole dollar amounts.

One expert in campaign finance irregularities offers a possible explanation.

"Of course this is odd. They are obviously converting from local currency to U.S. dollars," said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

"The overwhelming number of large dollar contributors — and even small donors — are in even dollar amounts," he told Newsmax. "Anyone who doubts that can go to FEC.gov and look through the campaign contribution data bases. You will not find many uneven numbers."

Boehm said he had rarely seen unrounded contributions in his 30 years as a lawyer doing campaign finance work.

"There's always the odd cat who wants to round up his checkbook, but they are very rare," he said.

Richard E. Hug, a veteran Republican fundraiser in Maryland who who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and spearheaded the successful 2002 gubernatorial race for Bob Ehrlich that brought in a record $10 million, told Newsmax that unrounded contributions were extremely unusual.

"I've never seen this in all my years of raising money for political candidates," he said. "The first thing it suggests is foreign currency transactions — contributions from foreign donors, which is clearly illegal."

Top Republican fundraiser Steve Gordon, who has raised $65 million for GOP candidates over the past 30 years, told Newsmax that such contributions in uneven amounts would be "pretty unusual."

"You might have a rounding process if there was some kind of joint event, but since all appears to be on the Internet, it's pretty unusual. At the very least, it would need to be explored."

LaBolt attributed the uneven amounts to the online "Obama store," which sells T-shirts and other campaign items.

"Contributions made to the Obama store often produce totals that are not exact dollar amounts," he said.

But the campaign has never produced any accounting for proceeds from its online store, which virtually shut down several weeks ago after Newsmax and news organizations revealed that Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and other foreigners had made large purchases there.

The Republican National Committee has filed a complaint against the Obama campaign for "accepting prohibited contributions from foreign nationals and excessive contributions from individuals," which incorporated reporting from Newsmax and other news organizations.

"Their responses to FEC inquiries have often been inadequate and late," RNC general counsel Sean Cairncross told Newsmax.

The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.

Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama's publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.

As of the end of August, those secret donors have given an incredible $222.7 million to Obama, according to the FEC — money whose origin remains unknown to anyone other than Obama's finance team, who won't take calls from the press.

While no exact figures are available, if the same percentage of potential foreign contributions found in the itemized contribution data is applied to the total $426.9 million the Obama camp says it has taken in from individuals, this could mean that Obama is financing his presidential campaign with anywhere from $13 million to a whopping $63 million from overseas credit cards or foreign currency purchases.

The sum of all unrounded contributions in the itemized FEC filings for the Obama campaigns comes to $6,437,066.07. That is the actual amount of money that appears to have been charged to foreign credit cards that the Obama campaign has disclosed.

If the same ratio applies to the unitemized contributions, which are again as large, then the Obama campaign may have taken as much as $13 million from foreign donors.

However, the donors who made those unrounded contributions gave a total of $31,484,584.27, meaning that as much as $63 million may have come from questionable sources.

Both presidential campaigns are required to submit detailed fundraising reports for September on Monday.

Ken Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc., and author of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net and go to his website: www.KenTimmerman.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 19, 2008.

This was written by Michael Welner, M.D. Dr. Welner lives in New York, NY.


Past is present. In 1942, the U.S. State Department, and leaders in American Jewry first confirmed the mass execution of Jews that was taking place under German direction. The enormity of the Final Solution was known even then, 2 years before the end of World War II. Yet anti-Semitism among decision-makers in the Roosevelt administration State Department, including the point man on immigration policy, and a meek American Jewish community stalled American efforts to save the doomed Jews until early 1944. Even then, death camps were not bombed or destroyed, and America turned a blind eye until the liberation of the camps by US forces. Consider how many of your own relatives could have been saved. Consider how many doctors never cured, scientists never invented, never had the opportunity to contribute to mankind. Consider the advances to all of humanity — including the Arabs and other hateful anti-Westerners — that we will never know because the talented Jewish parents and grandparents that would have produced them were exterminated like vermin. I only live to write this because my mother was spared by fate as she scrambled for her life all over Germany, hiding and by her wits, as a young girl, alone.

And so, the Holocaust was not merely an act of genocide, but of unparalleled cannibalism, as the world watched a culture of educated, philanthropic, community minded, generous, and inventive peoples wiped out, carrying the prospect of their children and future hopes of the world with them.

The role of American Jewish passivity in the disintegration of an enormous proportion of Jews cannot be understated. The late 1930s were an age of antiwar ambivalence, as Hitler marched. Jews had endured a depression that pitched the world into a resentment of Jewish influence; the hatred behind the genocide in Europe was echoed among many who tied America's downturn to Jewish bankers in a manner hauntingly similar to the comments of Iran's Ahmadinejad at his UN speech two weeks ago. And leaders in the Jewish community with ties to Roosevelt cared more about their proximity to power than to rock the boat with an administration that actively obstructed the efforts of righteous non-Jews to save lives. While papers were pushed aside, masses were pushed to shooting deaths at mass graves. While people who knew looked away, Germans and their enthusiastic neighbors herded the brilliance and spirit of millions into the gas chambers and ovens of a Solution to the "Jewish Problem."

In these, the days in which many of us pray for God's plan for the New Year ahead, it is worth remembering that between this year and the next Yom Kippur, the mullah's Iran will acquire the capacity for a nuclear bomb — with an expressed determination to use it. In the spirit of recognizing what a catastrophe it would be for another generation to endure a Holocaust, I ask each of you to pray for the safety of the free world from the Islamist menace and its access to the weapons of elimination of the miracle that is Israel. And I ask each of you to ask your rabbis and priests to do the same. The Islamist messianism of the Iranian mullahs has taken over Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and aims at Iraq is greeted by the same bloodthirsty enthusiasm for killing Jews that Hitler found in Poland, the Ukraine, and elsewhere. The difference is, that millions can now be killed at the touch of a button, and not through some systematic plan. The touch of a button. The touch of a button. Keep in mind also that unlike Nazi Germany who merely wanted to conquer the region and possibly more, the theocracy of Iran sees the apocalypse as idyllic.

Pray also for our leaders to not see the menace of Iran and economic priorities as mutually exclusive. That is a naïve and dangerous excuse. For the West powers the world's economy. Israel's role as part of that economic engine is wildly disproportionate. Cell phones, microchips, stem cell cures, countless creations are emerging from the miracle that is Israel. The safety of Israel is not a Jewish problem — it is a problem for a mankind that seeks to evolve forward. A single airborne nuclear device, peddled by Iran to the terrorists it sponsors worldwide, can dismantle the American electronic and technology infrastructure through EMPP. Just like that. The War on Terror has protected the economy from the sudden catastrophes that cost billions; economic policies of greed and pandering to voting blocks that need to be remedied do not change the reality that the belligerents who draw inspiration from the Koran interpret these setbacks merely as signs that we, the United States and the Great Satan, deserve to be destroyed.

In the spirit of this, I want to call your attention to the speech that Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin prepared a few weeks ago, anticipating the opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad on his recent visit to the UN. It is a speech of great clarity and essential urgency. It is absolutely required reading for every Jew, every American who admires Israel, every American who fears engaging a War on Terror with a nuclear-armed messianist, and every American who appreciates the precariousness of democracies and countries of free enterprise in a world of deprived liberties, economic socialism and corruption, and political dictatorship and backward oppression. My brief comments follow this speech, from Gov. Sarah Palin.

Palin on Ahmadinejad: 'He Must Be Stopped'
By Sarah Palin
September 22, 2008

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq (http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Iraq). If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

Final thoughts:

Past is present. For Gov. Palin was prevented from giving her remarks, and disinvited from this rally, by Jewish leaders who did not want to jeopardize their "influence" in the Democratic Party. They did not want to offend Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton (who withdrew from the opportunity to confront Ahmadinejad herself). It mattered more to them to curry favor than to use their responsible leadership to engage a genocidalist who has the temerity to dare the world to stand in the way and is applauded at the UN — on our own shores. This is exactly the extraordinary spinelessness and cowardice that enabled the Final Solution. Silence — death. And the urgency grows each day after Ahmadinejad left our shores. Those fearful of acting for their own self-interest forfeit the right to lead — and so we must stand up and do it ourselves.

Iran must be stopped. Be it by crippling economic sanction, or by abetting Israel's own military intervention (through giving Israel landing rights at forward US bases and refueling planes), it must be done. The world has been talking to Iran for years, to no avail. A policy of Neville Chamberlain's circa World War II Britain has only emboldened the theocracy in Iran to accelerate its development and to deepen its collaboration with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran must be stopped. This needs to be a rallying cry of every peace-loving rabbi, priest, and American leader. And so I appeal to those of you praying for the year ahead to deeply pray for the dismantling of the Iranian and Islamist nuclear menace. Share Governor Palin's comments with your spiritual leader and have them distributed to every member of your congregation — if they disagree, point out to their conscience about the consequences of putting political considerations ahead of a threat of genocide. Tell them about what the leaders before them did in 1942, and challenge them to do otherwise and prove themselves worthy of the pulpit.

There has been talk of whether negotiations with or without preconditions are appropriate. This debate is irrelevant — for negotiations with Iran have proceeded for several years — enabling Iran to exploit more time to push forward. Iran has taken advantage of the world choosing to negotiate with it. While more apathetic powers of the world have resisted sanctions on the nihilistic Iran, the mullahs and Ahmadinejad have accelerated refinement of material for assembly into nuclear weapons. German and Russian interests have supplied Iran with needed technical assets. Negotiations, with or without preconditions, will no longer work.

The time has come to sanction Iran now. The world's major economic powers, at a time of the falling price of oil and a time of Iran's own economic strains, must squeeze Iran into choosing its priorities — nuclear weaponization vs. economic collapse. The alternative is a regional war that will involve Israel, Iran, and the countries they control — Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians. Or, a nuclear attack on Israel that would kill millions and reprise the catastrophe of the Holocaust in a single moment. Millions dead — instantly. War will happen, and a war unleashed, unless leaders step up and Stop Iran now, Sanction Iran now.

Share this with your friends, priests and rabbis and prospective voters who care about Middle East Policy, the Iraq War, and the War on Terror. For Iran — the most active force in the killing of Americans in Iraq today — is poised to pounce on Iraq as soon as the US leaves, if done precipitously or to score points for an Obama presidency already running for re-election (with initiatives to clamp down on opposition talk radio and stations who run attack ads). Joe Biden has told Israel it must live with a nuclear Iran. Do you think so? Biden himself said, in the aftermath of 9/11, that we should give 200 million dollars to Iran, with no strings attached. Would you agree with that idea? And both Obama and Biden have reflected a voting record that avoids or opposes designating the arms of Iranian military hegemony as terrorist organizations, and sanctions to Iran.

There is a lot that can be done, and needs to be done. Gov. Palin may know less about the world than a number of experienced politicians who have dithered on this issue, but at least what she knows is true. Iran must be stopped. The plan of Senator McCain to mobilize the world's democracies to sanction Iran economically, and meaningfully, is a forceful start. We need to stop the genocide of the Jews of Israel before we ask ourselves why we were silent.

Past is present. Please spread the word. You and yours must not be silent, must not be passive, must not accept another genocide or choose the path of your own seeming popularity or personal benefit. You have the power. Stand up and fight!

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Samberg, October 19, 2008.

More BS from the UN. What are they going to do, send more ineffective observers?


Israel welcomed a call from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for Hizbullah to be disbanded. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki...

"If Lebanon is a sovereign state with an army, it must have a monopoly over power and the situation where Lebanese political parties have armies is totally unacceptable," a Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday.

Ban said Thursday he was encouraged by the positive developments in relations between Lebanon and Syria, but called on the two countries to take further steps to improve security along the border.

He also warned that Lebanon would not be a fully sovereign state until Hizbullah and other militia groups were disbanded.

The secretary-general's six-month report to the UN Security Council focused on Lebanon's progress in holding presidential elections, but underscored the immediate danger of armed groups.

"Over the last six months, Lebanon has experienced both the ruinous effects of sectarian violence and hope and optimism," he said in the report.

"I applaud the historical steps that have been taken so far by Presidents Suleiman and Assad," he said. "For the first time since their independence, the two neighboring states are establishing diplomatic relations."

The foreign ministers of Syria and Lebanon signed a document last Wednesday formalizing diplomatic ties between the two countries for the first time in their turbulent history.

Israel welcomed Syria's commitment to begin fulfilling its international obligations but stressed that this is just the first step.

"Israel expects Syria to fulfill its other international obligations by stopping support for terrorism and particularly Hizbullah in Lebanon, stopping interference in internal Lebanese affairs and to start implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701," the Foreign Ministry official said.

Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War, called for the dismantling of all militias in Lebanon.

Ban, in his report, said in addition to establishing diplomatic relations, Lebanon and Syria must also take concrete steps to implement other agreements reached during these meetings, including "joint activity to improve security arrangements along that border."

In his April report, Ban highlighted the mounting international concern over Lebanon's failure to fill the presidential post, left vacant after pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud stepped down last November.

In Thursday's report, he said the most significant progress made in the last six months was Lebanon's compliance with requirements for a "free and fair presidential election according to Lebanese constitutional rules."

Ban said Lebanese President Michel Suleiman's election on May 25 "represented a significant step forward," but said "I remain concerned by the political assassinations and explosions that continue to plague Lebanon."

The secretary-general said that clashes in May and violent incidents since then raised concerns "that groups on all sides of the political spectrum may be rearming."

In the report, Ban called on Lebanese parties to immediately halt all efforts to acquire and build paramilitary capabilities.

He reiterated that disarming and disbanding all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias should be done through a political dialogue "that will lead to the monopoly on the use of force by the government of Lebanon throughout all of its territory.

"The ultimate purpose of disarmament is the establishment of a strong Lebanese state for all inhabitants of Lebanon," he said.

"Hizbullah's maintenance of separate military assets and infrastructure is a fundamental challenge to the government's attempts to consolidate the sovereignty and authority of the Lebanese state," he said.

"In addition, several Palestinian militias operate in the country, inside and outside of refugee camps," he said, adding that they also undermine the stability of the country and the region.

Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, October 19, 2008.

"...associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate." — C.K.

Dear friends,

Charles Krauthammer's reputation is beyond reproach. He has been known to criticize all sides of the political spectrum.

Here he writes about Obama's associations. The Dems are trying to paint "guilt by association" as being unfair, or even racist. The truth is that this is not just "by association" but guilt by ALLIANCE.

It was said that if any person was running to any Federal government post, the FBI probe would not find him/her eligible, yet Obama is a heart beat away from the Oval Office....

This was published October 10, 2008 in the Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/10/ST2008101000943.html Contact Charles Krauthammer at letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Your Truth Provider,


Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.

McCain has only himself to blame for the bad timing. He should months ago have begun challenging Obama's associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.

McCain had his chance back in April when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that included the linking of Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.

This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.

Nonetheless, John McCain in his infinite wisdom, and with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama's associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.

Obama's political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he "didn't do enough."

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright's angry racism or Ayers's unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the "old politics" — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama's core beliefs. He doesn't share the Rev. Wright's poisonous views of race nor Ayers's views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright's pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

Do you? Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 19, 2008.

This comes from the Sign On San Diego


To end the many obstacles Southern states put up before African-American voters as late as the 1960s, Congress worked for decades to make voting much easier. These efforts had a hugely positive effect — until the 1993 "motor voter" law. This measure and some related laws made registration so easy — and so difficult to verify because of a lack of resources and time — that they created nothing less than a structural weakness in American democracy.

This election year, we're seeing a determined, well-funded effort to exploit this weakness, led by ACORN — the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Using corporate, partisan and taxpayer grants, the nonprofit group has spent $35 million this year to register 1.3 million people in 21 states. But it's highly likely that hundreds of thousands of these registrations are bogus. That's because ACORN relies on canvassers who appear to be paid based on how many signatures they get — an invitation to fraud — and because ACORN as an institution appears to collectively think such fraud is tolerable in the name of "social justice."

ACORN's voter drive in San Diego County — detailed in yesterday's Union-Tribune — is troubling. Nearly 2,000 of the 26,000 forms it turned in were invalid, much higher than the norm. But compared with what ACORN did elsewhere, its San Diego effort was a model of probity. In Ohio, for example, officials say ACORN gets the primary blame in the registration of 200,000 new voters whose forms appear to be bogus.

Unfortunately, many Democrats depict concern over ACORN as Republican hysteria. They are right that voter fraud has been a tiny problem in recent years. But they ignore a key point: the stunning scale of bogus registrations this time around.

Even if a tiny fraction of these fake voters actually fill out a ballot, they have the potential to tip the presidential vote in battleground states — such as Ohio. Or Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina or Wisconsin — all swing states where ACORN has been active.

If we have another very close race, the subsequent court fight could make Florida 2000 seem like a polite tiff.

So, please, spare us the "social justice" rhetoric. What ACORN has done isn't noble. It's reprehensible. We hope that the FBI's investigation into the group is vigorous and thorough.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, October 19, 2008.

This was first asked in April 2008


The following twenty Middle East policy questions are the questions that American voters may wish to pose to Senators Obama and McCain...along with all candidates for the US Congress

1. Numerous declassified security reports confirm that Saudi Arabia continues to fund groups defined by the US government as terrorist organizations, while Saudi Arabia maintains an active state of war against the state of Israel since 1948. How would you, as President relate to the security threat posed by Saudi Arabia?

2. The current administration offers major arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite its pro-terror posture. Would you, as President, continue this policy of arming the Saudis?

3. Successive US presidents have supported the idea that Palestinian refugees should be reside in the squalor of UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return", instead of being rehabilitated under the principles of UNHCR which work to rehabilitate refugees in decent living permanent living conditions, instead of perpetuation the unreal notion of the right of return to villages and homes that no longer exist. Would you, as President, call for an application of UNHCR principles to alleviate the plight of Palestinian refugees?

4. The Bush Administration has announced a program to arm the Fatah, despite current terror activities of the Fatah and despite the fact that Fatah remains on the list of organizations defined by American law as illegal terrorist organizations. Would you, as President, continue to arm the Fatah?

5 The PA has used US AID funds to foster an Islamic Sharia constitution which doe not provide juridical status for any religion besides Islam. Does you, as President, approve of this PA policy? Would you, as President, ask for a change in such a constitution as a condition of future aid to the PA?

6. The Bush Administration has restrained Israel from counterattacking in Gaza to put an end to the daily missile attacks from Gaza. Would you, as President, restrain the hand of Israel?

7. As a matter of policy, terrorists who fire missiles at Israel from Gaza use Gaza civilians as human shields. Would you, as President, recognize the fact that casualties in Gaza remain a direct result of this human shield policy?

8. The Palestinian Authority harbors terrorists suspected of murder and refuses to hand them over for trial. The Clinton and Bush Administrations turned a blind eye to such a policy. Would you, as President, allow such a policy to continue?

9. Palestinian Authority operates with no system of civil liberties or human rights. Would you, as President, condition for any future US assistance in a human rights and civil liberties reform in the PA?

10. Christians are persecuted in the PA and are often not allowed to practice their religion in the open in the PA. The American consulate in Jerusalem has refused to render assistance to Christians who are persecuted by the PA. Would you, as President, continue to ignore the plight of Christians who are persecuted in the PA or will you, as President, champion the cause of Christians to practice their religion freely in the PA?

11, Syria continues to host and support a plethora of terror groups. What would the policy to Syria, as President, be to Syria in this regard?

12. Syria continues to orchestrate the export of lethal narcotics to the world. Would you, as President, support an effort to destroy the Syrian source of lethal narcotics in the Bekka Valley?

14. Since the Golan Heights was used by Syria between 1949 and 1967 to attack Israeli communities in the Galilee, would you, as President, support an effort to force Israel to withdraw from the Golan?

15. The Bush Administration asks that Israel abide by the road map for peace. Which road map would you, as President, endorse — the road map of April 30th 2003 or the road map of May 25th 2003? [The second road map contains the reservations of Israel, which include detailed Israeli directives to disband terror groups as a precondition to continued negotiations]

16. The Bush Administration characterizes the Fatah terror organization as a "moderate" factor. Would you, as President, share in that characterization.

17. The Clinton and Bush Administrations overlooked the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo accord "declaration of principles" which required the PLO and Fatah to recognize Israel, denounce terror and cancel the PLO/Fatah charter which calls for Israel's obliteration. It will be recalled that the PLO signed the Oslo accords on the White House lawn on September 13th, 1993 and would not ratify these accords when the PLO executive convened on October 6th, 1993 in Tunis and would not cancel the PLO charter when the PNC convened on April 24th. 1996. Would you, as President, continue the Clinton/Bush policy of ignoring the fact that the PLO never ratified the Oslo accord and never cancelled the PLO charter?

18. The Clinton and Bush administration instituted a policy of ignoring the message communicated by the newly constituted Palestinian Authority in the Arabic language which communicates a clear language of continued war on Israel. Would you, as President, insist on a change in that policy and issue a directive that any aid to the PA require a cessation of calls to terrorism by the official media outlets of the PA?

19. The Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently ignored the fact that the new Palestinian Authority curriculum introduced by the PA inculcates the next generation to continue the war to liberate all of Palestine. Would you, as President, ask for a cancellation of such a curriculum?

20. Since the Gaza withdrawal demonstrates that Palestinians will use areas under their control to launch missile attacks against Israel, would you, as President, insist on future Israeli withdrawals?

David Bedein, author of the forthcoming book, "Swimming Against the Mainstream", has run the Israel Resource News Agency.
www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com, since 1987, at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, where he also heads the Center for Near East Policy Research and serves as the Middle East correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, www.thebulletin.us.

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 18, 2008.

I cringe every time the Obama campaign message is broadcasted, the one where he claims to have sat on his grandfather's shoulders waving a little American Flag. Who is he kidding??????

everyone, it seems.

This was written by Dr. Sam Bierstock, a physician and surgeon, who is a nationally recognized authority on healthcare clinical information systems. He is the past Chief Medical Officer for IBM's healthcare and hospital business consulting division. He is the author of more than 75 published professional articles, 3 books and lectures nationally and internationally on healthcare information technology. He is also the recipient of the 2007 George Washington Freedoms Foundation Award for his work in honoring veterans.


I am an American, a Jew, and an Independent. I think I have a good handle on the issues, the presidential candidates and their positions. I will be voting for John McCain.

I am also a physician and I think I have a reasonable degree of understanding of complex issues. I get the fact that Jews have historically been very liberal and often socialistic in their leanings and politics since the turn of the 20th century. That having been said, I am confounded, perplexed and completely confused by the fervor with which so many of my fellow Jews flock to, and support Obama and the democratic party in the face of the issues of today's world.

One year ago, I was concerned about allegations widely circulating on the Internet about a relatively unknown Barak Obama with claims that he was a closet terrorist sympathizer, raised by a fundamental Islamist, educated in radical Islamic Wahibism, a cohort and confidant of Lou Farrakhan, a disciple of racist Jeremiah Wright, a true Muslim masquerading as a Christian convert; that he refused to salute the American flag, wear a flag pin or say the pledge of allegiance. When I forwarded such notes to my Jewish friends and family, I received angry responses that this was all slanted hype and without basis in fact. I think they have been proven to be correct in debunking such early hysterical hype.

I now receive forwarded email from these same people telling me that Sarah Palin supported Pat Buchanan, is a right wing, anti-Semitic Christian radical, has no concerns for the environment, is a heartless hunter, an irresponsible mother, a hypocrite because her daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, fired her ex-brother in law for personal reasons, and is a radical right-to-lifer who has a husband who had a DWI many years ago. Apparently, this is valid hype.

I think it is fair to say that many people base their votes on a limited number of issues — or even a single issue. For some it is the economy, or women's rights, and for others it is the war or support for Israel. Herein lies my confusion.

How about this issue? Survival!

Our history as a people has taught us quite clearly, and as recently as 70 years ago, that complacency and comfort in what is viewed as an enlightened society with a "temporary" politically persuasive candidate with strong oratory skills can be a very dangerous mistake.

What value lies in placing the economy or woman's rights in a position of priority when there are forces out there who want to destroy us — as a country and as a people?

On the one hand we have a candidate who would sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unconditionally, enjoys the support of Louis Farrakhan, says he supports a united Jerusalem one day and changes his position under pressure the next, and who worshiped for 20 years with Jeremiah Wright (who has pro-Hamas literature circulated in his church). On the other hand we have a battle-hardened hero who has never wavered in support of Israel, has consistently supported a united Jerusalem, recognizes the accuracy of history relative to the holocaust, and who sees the threat of Iran and its anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, holocaust denying leader.

Um, Let's see. Shouldn't this be a slam dunk?

Try making these arguments in the Jewish community and you may receive, as I have, such arguments as "Yeah — well Palin is a right wing crazy!" Oy Veh!

I grew up in a Canadian town that was called Berlin until WWI. When the radio and newspapers announced German victories, the people poured into the streets to celebrate. I was in a small Jewish community and I had more than my share of bloodied noses and bruises as a kid. I grew up with friends living in eerily silent homes with parents who bore the tattoos of the camps on their arms. By the time I was a young adult, I learned that when someone stuck their finger on my chest with a threat or an insult, it was much more effective to grab that finger and hold it in a position where I could break it than it was to try to discuss how nice Jews really were — and that I really didn't personally kill Jesus.

Try listing the number of countries in the world where Jews can live entirely comfortably and with virtually no fear of harassment or veiled anti-Semitism. I suspect you will not get further than 3 or 4. Yet collectively, the American Jewish Community in this country astounds me in its attitude. We pride ourselves in being enlightened and tolerant to our own detriment, and I believe this to be the single most threatening characteristic to our continued comfort in this most wondrous of countries.

As an illustration, consider the case of Mel Gibson revealing his true feelings in an alcoholic rant — feelings handed down to him by his holocaust-denying father. Within a week of the event a Los Angeles rabbi invited Gibson to address his congregation. Did he think he was going to change life-long, deeply ingrained anti-Semitism by showing Gibson that we are really OK and a nice group of people? Did he think he was going to open up a dialogue and change Gibson's views? Did he think Gibson's expressed regret was because he was truly repentant — or did he consider that perhaps in accepting the invitation, Gibson was worried that his career in a largely Jewish industry might well be over and that speaking to the congregation would show that he really didn't mean what he said while under the influence?

What the hell was the rabbi thinking?

I also understand that woman's rights versus abortion is a volatile and controversial issue for our entire country. I don't have a "right" answer, but I have formed my own opinions in this regard because as a physician, I have literally been on the other end of abortion procedures and watched them being done. Because of those experiences, I cannot support abortion as a casual means of birth control — but accept its use in cases of rape, incest or severe deformity. I have seen the remnants of the life that is being ended. I recognize that to be my personal view, yet it is another issue that is often virtually undebatable in the Jewish community. When did Jewish law and ethic succumb to standard bearing for women's rights over those of the unborn? What happened to the Jewish tradition of respectful debate and discussion?

Lastly, I hear repeatedly from my lantsmen(mainly co-religionists) that another four years of McCain will be another 4 years of Bush. Excuse me — but if McCain is Bush, then let's consider that Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids — the most ineffective president of the 20th century. Obama is to the left of Carter — another skilled orator of high-minded rhetoric who brought is 18% interest rates, a humiliating 18 month hostage crisis in Iran with a botched rescue attempt, and the most anti-Israel secretary of state (and current advisor to Obama) Zbigneuw Brezinski — not to mention a fair number of anti-Semitic utterances during his post-presidency years — utterances from a self described deeply religious man who regaled us endlessly with descriptions of his deep Christian morals and values.

McCain is not Bush any more than Obama is Carter.

I am not asking my fellow Jews to flock to the Republican side, but it is a sad thing to me to so frequently encounter in a traditionally tolerant and liberal thinking population, an intolerance to opposing views.

We have become "Streisanded".

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, October 18, 2008.

This was written by Thomas Sowell and it appeared on the Townhall website
http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/17/ record_versus_rhetoric?page=1


Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience — none in an executive capacity — and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.

Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.

Sarah Palin has had executive experience — and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.

Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?

One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.

Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.

More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.

Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.

But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.

Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sultan Knish, October 18, 2008.

Joe the Plumber is important. Not simply because he represents the defense of middle class aspirations against a socialist system designed to create a wide gap between the dependent ranks of the working class and the upper classes safely ensconced and managing the socialist bureaucracy...

but because his case demonstrates quite well the fate of those who criticize an Obama administration. Even without government control, Obama's backers are using the weapon of media intimidation to silence and suppress critics and clear his way to the top job.

The media has managed to turn up more negative material on Joe the Plumber in a day than they have on Barack Hussein Obama in a year. The latter is running for President, the former was an ordinary man who asked him a question. This is the way things are supposed to work in a dictatorship, not in the United States. Here the critical eye is supposed to be on the politician, not on the American who asks him a critical question. Yet that is exactly where we are now, and if we don't stop it, there may well be a country called America, but it will have little in common with the United States of America.

Which makes it all the more important on election day to get out there and tell the messiah to stick his arugula where the sun don't shine.

Meanwhile in more of the Rage problem on the Obama side, PJM has an attack on a McCain supporter in Manhattan.

I'm not remotely surprised that the supporter was a middle aged woman or that the attacker was a burly man. This is actually common for your average enraged liberal coward. At pro-Israel rallies, lefties routinely went after signs held by older women.

Typical of this kind of enraged leftie cowards such as Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller at an anti-israel rally who assaulted Rachel Neuwirth or Nathan Winkler who chased a woman for having a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on her car.

Now put this in the context of the psychotic hate being directed at Sarah Palin, and you're closer to the real face of liberalism, sheer cowardice.

(By the way if anyone knows where I can buy a McCain button in the New York City area, I'd be grateful, since by the time the official store ships me one the election will be all but over.)

Meanwhile Obama supporters are doing their own GOTV in their own old fashioned way, by stealing it.

First we have this disgusting story when a mentally handicapped man was forced to vote for Obama when he was taken to the polls for early voting. Look for a lot more of this happening particularly with senior citizens in New York and Florida. Forget the Big Schlep, the real story will involve caretakers and social workers and others going in with disabled people and seniors into the voting both and voting for them. I've seen this repeatedly in New York City at the polls.
(http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/ mentally-handicapped-man-forced-to-vote.html)

Secondly the Supreme Court just legitimized Ohio's massive vote fraud, which just shows that the left will be happy to steal the election using the Supreme Court after all. How ironic.
(http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/ supreme-court-decides-will-allow-voter.html)

Meanwhile anti-jihadist sites are running reports of a link between terrorists and pedophilia websites.

British security sources confirmed that such a link had been discovered in several cases. They noted the contradiction between people supposedly devoted to theocracy and Islamic fundamentalism and their use of child pornography. "It shows that these people are very confused," a source said. "Here they are hating Western decadence but actually making use of it and finding that they enjoy this stuff."

This of course just goes to show you how dim British security sources are. Pedophilia is a product of the decadence of the Muslim world, far more than it is a product of Western decadence. And Islamic terrorists routinely piggyback their fund raising ventures on organized crime based on doing things that are illegal in the West but a part of their culture, whether it's drug, car theft or pedophilia. After all Islam's prophet raided caravans and took a child bride. I have no idea if he chewed quat, but either way it's 2 for 3.

Meanwhile the fire sale of Israel continues with the US having now chosen to back the giveaway of the Golan to Syria. The circus goes on with more terrorists set to be freed, Haredim continuing to sell out Israel, Shas playing its cynical games on Yerushalayim and the religious zionist camp experiencing leakage away from sanity. The picture could be grimmer probably, but not by much.

As I've said before a lot is on the line this year and by the end of this year we will either be headed in a virtually irreversible downward spiral. All the while the Obamas will be chowing down on Iranian caviar in the White House.

In a brief blogsphere roundup,

Daled Amos covers the murder of 3 Americans by Palestinian Arab terrorists

Not much attention seems to have been paid this past week to the 5th anniversary of the murder of three American security contractors, John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Martin Linde Jr. by Palestinian terrorists on October 15, 2003.

At the Keli Ata blog, riffing on Obama's Grapes of Wrath

In the movie, Henry Fonda does a much better job reciting it than does the plagarist Barack Obama. Another reference to Obama in pop culture/American literature? I can't help it because the man keeps framing himself with it, plagarizing.

For a man described as a poet, Obama has so little orginality. I'd even go so far as to say his whole platform of Hope (including the many hope signs) were plucked right out of The Grapes of Wrath:

The always highly readable Breath of the Beast blog has an important post on the underlying psychological framework behind what's going on today

Obama intentionally presents us with an image of ourselves in that is calculated to make us feel is a reflection of the kind of world we desperately long to see. Because of that image, many people have made the commitment to ignore any thing negative that may come up about him and threaten the coherence of the image. This, as in the strange little mirror dance of Groucho and Harpoo ceases to be gullibility and becomes credulity. Even in the face of mounting evidence that he is not a man of good character, experience or, even, good will.

Sultan Knish blogs at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, October 18, 2008.

With only days until the U.S. Presidential Elections Barack Obama has a clear advantage in all the leading polls. With voting less than three weeks away it seems that only a seismic event will reverse this trend and prevent Barack Obama from reaching the White House.

He was little known before he set out on his ambitious journey to be the head of the free world. The people of America, and interesting observers world wide, have come to learn something about the man, his personal history, the people who have influenced his political thinking, and the fire that has forged his ambition to take charge of the political life of Americans and, by default, the world.

He has led a glittering and impressive campaign. Yet, to a neutral eye, there have been a series of worrying, even dangerous, facts that have come to light that question who, truthfully, is Barack Obama, and what does he really stand for.

His history of association and close contact with murky characters does not seem to have affected the majority of voters in America.

In another world one would say that a life spent in the company of influential people demonstrate the mindset, motivation, and future policy of a Presidential candidate. This theory does not seem to have been applied to Obama.

The list of players linked to Obama would have led to an early defeat for any other candidate. Obama seems to float above the stench, oblivious and unaffected by the associations. Seemingly he is Teflon coated.

Worrying even more, is the Three Monkeys attitude adopted by Obama supporters. Whenever facts have been exposed they close their ears and eyes in the 'Hear no evil, See no evil' pose. Instead they accuse the opposing camp of negative campaigning and detracting from the leading issue, namely the economy.

But, eventually, important facts must be courageously faced. By not doing so now, Americans could find themselves with a default President leading their country in a direction which will be abhorrent to them and the free world.

 It seems that the fact that Obama's Presidency would be unconstitutional does not disturb them. One of the three basic conditions inscribed in the US Constitution is that a presidential candidate must be born in the United States. Obama was born in Kenya. His grandmother, older brother and sister were in attendance. His grandmother, to this day, proudly boasts about her successful grandson born in her country.

He now claims that he was born in Honolulu but he has refused to offer up the essential documentation to prove his birth. Why not? This document would clearly lay to rest a constitutional issue if it proved that he was a natural born citizen. Instead a lawyer, Philip J.Berg, is bringing a petition to the Supreme Court forcing Obama to produce his birth certificate that would clearly show that he was born within the United States.

It is incredible that this basic tenant has not been observed.  

FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS WAS OBAMA'S EARLY MENTOR in his days in Hawaii. Davis believed in, and outlined, the Communist plan to take over America from within.

This would be done by installing educators at all levels of the education system, gaining control of the media, getting liberal judges appointed, training and financing people to be elected to public office from local level all the way up to the White House.

Davis had a decisive influence on Barack Obama.

Davis put Obama in contact with the Socialist Party in Chicago. William Ayres was a member of this New Party. Barack Obama joined in 1996. By 1999, the New Party was defunct after losing a Supreme Court challenge that ruled the organization as unconstitutional. By that time, the New Party had gotten Barack Obama and others elected to local office.

Today the Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic National Congress have attempted to cover up and deny any ties between Obama and these socialist organizations, but they do exist.

During his days as a radical local politician a flag showing the portrait of Che Gevara hung prominently in his office.

Obama has tried to deny being influenced by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the ranting radical preacher of Black Liberation Theology. He has not, however, been questioned on how the writings of James. H. Cone, have influenced his political thought process. Cone advocated radical, even revolutionary, black racist action — the same Black Liberation Theology incited by Wright.

Barack Obama was financially assisted by a Khalid al-Mansour, who has been described as a Black Nationalist and Black Muslim. Mansour who was an influential figure and mentor of the infamous Black Panther movement in the 1960s. Obama know Mansour. He was influenced by him, and assisted by him.

Mansour's funds came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal. Bin-Talal is the man who blamed America for 9/11 because of their pro-Israeli policies. Rudy Guliani refused to accept bin-Talal's cheque for $10 million to help rebuild Manhattan.  

REGARDING ISRAEL, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN touted in the past by Obama's team that an Obama Administration would swing away from support for the Jewish state. A short list of foreign policy people close to Obama demonstrates a pro-Palestinian bent. Some examples are Samantha Powers, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama who is quoted as favouring sacrificing millions of dollars to Israel in favour of giving it to Palestinians, and creating a force against the Israeli I.D.F. She was fired after making derogatory remarks about Hilary Clinton.

Obama was forced to fire Robert Malley after he had regular meetings with members of Hamas. In a tight presidential campaign, it would have been embarrassing and a vote-loser to keep close contacts with Malley.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is someone who Obama called "an outstanding friend and one from whom I have learned a lot." This foreign policy advisor to Obama has a long track record of being anti-Israel.  

From his Chicago days, Obama is closely linked to Rashid Khalidi. This Chicago professor has justified suicide bombings if executed against Israelis. He also favours a bi-national state, rather than a two state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Yet Obama said of him, "He is a constant reminder to me of my own blind spots".

What is this if not an admission of an influence to his political development?

At an AIPAC gathering Obama declared that he stands for a "Jerusalem undivided". Yet, the next day when criticized by pro-Palestinians he said, "My words were poorly chosen." One must decide between remarks thrown to garner votes, and true intentions. True intentions can be evidenced by the people Obama has around him.  

ON FOREIGN POLICY, HIS RUNNING MATE, JOE BIDEN, is put forward as a friend of Israel. Yet Biden's record deserves close scrutiny. Joe Biden was one of only 16 senators who voted against a bill that would add Iran's Revolutionary Guards to the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations, because of it's involvement in murdering U.S. troops in Irag.

Biden's pro-Iranian record goes further. Rather than sanction Iran, Biden advocates that the U.S. should offer Iran a greater role in Iraq's internal affairs.

Joe Biden's decision to address the American-Iranian Council, and other pro-Tehran groups, has angered many American-Iranians, as well as Israel.

Bidens ties to the pro-Iranian regime lobby are a matter of conviction. When criticized for attending a fundraiser organized on his behalf by an Iranian Muslim charity in California, Biden ignored their concerns and attended the event on 19 February 2002.

At this event Biden delivered a speech in which he criticized President Bush's State of the Union address which identified Iran as being part of the Axis of Evil.

With Obama in the White House, and with Joe Biden as Vice President, what chance does Israel have of America exerting sanctions on Iran?  

OBAMA'S STATIONS OF THE CROSS LEADING HIM TO HIS CALVARY are replete with statements and actions that are troubling.

In his book 'Dreams of my Father' he wrote of his white mother, "I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race".

In his book 'Audacity of Hope' he wrote, "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

These published racist remarks and political intention statements should cause many deep reservations about the man who would be president.

He refused to wear the American pin early in his campaign. He failed to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem. His wife's careless remark about it being the first time she was proud to be an American when he defeated Hilary Clinton is in line with the "God damn America" of her pastor, the Reverend Wright.

Taken individually, they may be meaningless. Put together, they expose a thread that reflects the inner thoughts and feelings of the couple that may soon be residing in the White House.  

IF THE ECONOMY REALLY IS THE MAIN ISSUE on which American's will choose their next President, Obama's role with Freddie Mac and Fanny May, his involvement with ACORN, and the subsequent fallout that is the current financial crisis needs to be addressed. His participation in these companies and organizations activities, have not shown him to be a financial expert. At a minimum he clearly does not understand economics. On a more serious note his political agenda, when linked to financial activities as reflected in the Freddie/Fanny/ACORN loan scandals, is a proven disaster.

When the election campaign is over, and Obama is seated in the Oval Office, in what direction will he take America?

Will the politics of Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayres, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, James.H.Cone, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, be reflected in the White House? He may be portrayed as a Liberal, but his associates have been radical left wing figures.

His close links to these people may be excused as poor judgment, or minimized as part of a damage control exercise. They may also be exposed as a deliberate forging of a political philosophy and action plan that is about to descend on America.

To many, his campaign has been one of stealth, putting out a message acceptable to Americans while disguising the true purpose of his mission. Those eager for change have dismissed the criticism of him. This is allowing Obama to sail through to the White House without having these dubious and dangerous links, suspect political and religious influences, properly addressed by him or the American people.

It may be too late when the man becomes President Barack Hussein Obama of the United States of America. [One reader commented:

But let's not forget Khalid al Mansour, Michael Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, Bernadine Dohrn, Emil Jones, Nadhami Auchi, Raila Odinga... In fact, it is more difficult to find one — just one — of his friends, advisors, mentors, babysitters or whatever that is NOT a thug, terrorist, black nationalist, radical Muslim, marxist or some other manner of America hater.]

The View from Here articles are written by Barry Shaw Contact him at netre@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, October 18, 2008.

This was posted by Bill Levinson on IsraPundit


Obama: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career"

Contradicts Fight the Smears' claim, "Barack Obama never organized with ACORN"

Obama's two-faced statements on his involvement with ACORN reminds us of a scene in Gilbert and Sullivan's "The Mikado" in which Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner, must perform an execution to avoid the abolition of his office. The Mikado's incognito son, Nanki-Poo, volunteers to be "executed" to avoid an unwanted marriage, and goes into hiding afterward. The official Poo-Bah is initially quite pleased with his role in the purported execution.

Mikado: And this is the certificate of his death. "At Titipu, in the presence of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Mayor, and Groom of the Second Floor Front..."

Pooh-Bah: They were all present, your Majesty. I counted them myself. [Pooh-Bah holds all the named offices.]

Then, however, the Mikado discovers that the executee was in fact his long-lost son.

Mikado: I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent. ...Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. ...I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret — I'm not a bit angry.

Pooh-Bah: I wasn't there.

Like Pooh-Bah, Barack Obama was quite proud of his deep involvement and close association with ACORN.

Meanwhile, Obama was right there by ACORN's side all along.

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

Now that ACORN is up to its neck in indictments and actual guilty pleas for voter registration fraud, however, Barry tells a very different story.

Barack Obama Never Organized with ACORN

Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.

  • Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
  • Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
  • Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

Just like Pooh-Bah, Barry now wants us to believe "I wasn't there." Note also the doublespeak in his efforts to distance himself from ACORN. It is admittedly true that ACORN never hired Barry as a trainer; he trained its personnel for free. Let's go back to see how the Emperor of Japan reacts to Poo-Bah's excuse.

Mikado: That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake... Or not knowing... Or having no notion... or not being there. There should be, of course, but there isn't. That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then?

Now Barry, let's see about your landslide defeat — will November 4 suit you? Can you wait till then?

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by C.A. Fulghum, October 17, 2008.

I wanted to share the following article with you. It was written by Jack Cashill and it appeared today in the American Thinker

See Jack Cashill's first American Thinker article on the authorship of Dreams from my Father October 9, 2008 at American Thinker


Evidence continues to mount that Barack Obama had substantial help from Bill Ayers in the creation of his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, a book that Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." The evidence falls into five general categories, here summarized.

* The discovery of new matching nautical metaphors from both Ayers and Obama that almost assuredly came from the same source: Ayers, a former merchant seaman.

* The discovery of a Bill Ayers' essay on memoir writing, whose postmodern themes and phrases are echoed throughout Dreams.

* A newly discovered book chapter from 1990 that shows clearly and painfully the limits of Obama's prose style the year he received a contract to write Dreams.

* The revelation by radical Islamicist Rashid Khalidi that Ayers made his "dining room table" available for neighborhood writers who needed help.

* A refined timeline that shows Ayers had the means, the motive and the time to help Obama when he needed it most.

The timeline

A 1990 New York Times profile on Obama's election as the Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990 caught the eye of agent Jane Dystel. She persuaded Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, to authorize a roughly $125,000 advance for Obama's proposed memoir.

Obama repaired to Chicago with advance in hand and dithered. At one point, in order to finish the book without interruption, he and wife Michelle decamped to Bali. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. His agent hustled him a new, smaller contract.

Ayers published his book To Teach in 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, he had no other formal authorial assignment than to co-edit a collection of essays. This was an unusual hole in his very busy publishing career.

Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, get appointed chairman of the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, helped blaze Obama's path to political power with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.

In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place and the literary ability to jumpstart Obama's career. And, as Ayers had to know, a lovely memoir under Obama's belt made for a much better resume than an unfulfilled contract over his head.

Neighborhood assistance

Allow me to reconstruct how Obama transformed himself into what the New York Times has called "that rare politician who can write... and write movingly and genuinely about himself." There is an element of speculation in this, but new evidence continues to narrow the gap between the speculative and the conclusive. One clue comes from an unexpected source, Rashid Khalidi, the radical Arab-American friend of Obama's and reputed ally of the PLO.

In the acknowledgment section of his 2004 book, Resurrecting Empire, Khalidi writes of Ayers, "Bill was particularly generous in letting me use his family's dining room table to do some writing for the project." Khalidi did not need the table. He had one of his own. He needed the help.

Khalidi had spent several years at Chicago University's Center for International Studies. At a 2003 farewell dinner on the occasion of his departure from Chicago, Obama toasted him, thanking him and his wife for the many dinners that they had shared as well as for his "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

Chicago's Hyde Park was home to a tight, influential radical community at whose center were Ayers and Dohrn. In this world, the Ayers' terrorist rap sheet only heightened their reputation. Obama had to know. The couple had given up revolution in 1980 for the long slow march through the institutions. By 1994, if not earlier, Ayers saw a way to quicken that march.

I believe that after failing to finish his book on time, and after forfeiting his advance from Simon & Schuster, Obama brought a sprawling, messy, sophomoric manuscript to the famed dining room table of Bill Ayers and said, "Help."

Obama's limited skills

Obama needed all the help he could get. Prior to 1990, he had written very close to nothing. In 1981 Occidental College published two of Obama's poems-"Pop" and "Underground. Obama calls it some "very bad poetry," and he does not sell himself short. From "Underground":

Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch.
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance . . .

It would be another decade before Obama had anything in print, and this only an edited, unsigned student case comment in the Harvard Law Review unearthed by Politico. Attorneys who reviewed the piece for Politico described it as "a fairly standard example of the genre."

Once elected president of the Harvard Law Review — more of a popularity than a literary contest — Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal.

In 1990 Obama also contributed an essay to a book published by the University of Illinois at Springfield, an anthology called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. Although the essay covers many of the issues raised in Dreams and uses some of the memoir's techniques, it does so without a hint of style, sophistication, or promise. The following two excerpts capture Obama's range or lack thereof:

"Moreover, such approaches can and have become thinly veiled excuses for cutting back on social programs, which are anathema to a conservative agenda."

"But organizing the black community faces enormous problems as well . . . and the urban landscape is littered with the skeletons of previous efforts."

These cliché-choked sentences go beyond the merely unpromising to the fully ungrammatical. "Organizing" does not "face." "Efforts" do not leave "skeletons." "Agendas" do not have "anathemas." Indeed, the essay is clunky, pedestrian, and wonkish, a B- paper in a freshman comp class.

In "Why Organize" Obama makes use of the fully re-created conversation, a technique used to somewhat better effect in Dreams. Here, his ungainly conjuring of black speech makes one cringe:

"I just cannot understand why a bright young man like you would go to college, get that degree and become a community organizer."

"Why's that?"

" 'Cause the pay is low, the hours is long, and don't nobody appreciate you."

To read "Why Organize" in its entirety is to understand the profound limits of Obama's literary talent. I am sure he sensed those limits if no one else did.  

Postmodern themes

Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir Fugitive Days and Obama's Dreams From My Father follow oddly similar rules. Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history. Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Some appear out of precise chronology. Names have been changed.

Dreams and Fugitive Days are both suffused with repeated reference to lies, lying and what Ayers calls "our constructed reality." A serious student of literature, Ayers has written thoughtfully on the role of the first person narrator in the construction of a memoir.

In true postmodernist fashion, he rejects the possibility of an objective, universal truth. He argues instead that our lives are journeys, whose "narratives" we "construct" and, if we have the will and the power, impose on others.

Curiously, Obama says much the same in Dreams and in much the same language. "But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie," writes Obama, "something I'd constructed from the scraps of information I'd picked up from my mother."

The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed the stumbling literalist of "Why Organize" into the sophisticated postmodernist of Dreams, and he did not so not by tutoring Obama, but by rewriting his text. The Ayers' quotes that follow come from an essay of his, "Narrative Push/Narrative Pull." The Obama quotes come from Dreams:

Ayers: "The hallmark of writing in the first person is intimacy. . . . But in narrative the universal is revealed through the specific, the general through the particular, the essence through the unique, and necessity is revealed through contingency."

Obama: "And so what was a more interior, intimate effort on my part, to understand this struggle and to find my place in it, has converged with a broader public debate, a debate in which I am professionally engaged . . . "

Ayers: "Narrative begins with something to say — content precedes form."

Obama: "I understood that I had spent much of my life trying to rewrite these stories, plugging up holes in the narrative . . . "

Ayers: "Narrative inquiry can be a useful corrective to all this."

Obama: "Truth is usually the best corrective."

Ayers: "The mind works in contradiction, and honesty requires the writer to reveal disputes with herself on the page."


"Not because that past is particularly painful or perverse but because it speaks to those aspects of myself that resist conscious choice and that — on the surface, at least — contradict the world I now occupy."


The reader must actually see the struggle. It's a journey, not by a tourist, but by a pilgrim.


"But all in all it was an intellectual journey that I imagined for myself, complete with maps and restpoints and a strict itinerary."


"Narrative writers strive for a personal signature, but must be aware that the struggle for honesty is constant."


"I was engaged in a fitful interior struggle. I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America."


"But that intimacy can trap a writer into a defensive crouch, into airing grievances or self-justification."


"At best, these things were a refuge; at worst, a trap."

Although I cite one example for each, Dreams offers many more. There are ten "trap" references alone and nearly as many for "narrative," "struggle," and "journey." To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer who make their dining room tables available to would-be authors of a leftist bent.  

The sea metaphors

A newly discovered anecdote from Bill Ayers' 1993 book, To Teach, solidifies the case that he is indeed the muse behind Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father.

In the book, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who

would take her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city. As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river's edge, one student said, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student said, "No, it has to flow south-down."

Not knowing which was right, the teacher and the students did their research. What they discovered, writes Ayers, was "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."

In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama shares a stunningly comparable anecdote about tidal rivers from his own brief New York sojourn. He tells of meeting with "Marty Kauffman" at a Lexington Avenue diner, the man from Chicago who was trying to recruit him as a community organizer.

After the meeting, Obama "took the long way home, along the East River promenade." As "a long brown barge rolled through the gray waters toward the sea," Obama sat down on a bench to consider his options. While sitting, he noticed a black woman and her young son against the railing. Overly fond of the too well remembered detail, Obama observes that "they stood side by side, his arm wrapped around her leg, a single silhouette against the twilight."

The boy appeared to ask his mother a question that she could not answer and then approached Obama: "Excuse me, mister," he shouted. "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?"

"The woman smiled and shook her head, and I said it probably had to do with the tides." Obama uses the seeming indecisiveness of this tidal river as a metaphor for his own. Immediately afterwards, he shakes the indecision and heads for Chicago.

Even were there no other clues, Obama's frequent and sophisticated use of nautical metaphors like this one makes a powerful case for Ayers' involvement in the writing of Dreams. Despite growing up in Hawaii, Obama gives no indication than he has had any real experience with the sea or ships. Ayers, however, knew a great deal about the sea. After dropping out of college, he took up the life of a merchant seaman.

Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.

"Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages.

"The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."

Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness." Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea."

More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter." Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."

Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."

In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama." Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty." Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams.

On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well. Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's The Sea Wolf.

My own semi-memoir, Sucker Punch, offers a useful control here too. The book makes no reference at all, metaphorical or otherwise, to ships, seas, oceans, calms, storms, wind, waves, horizons, panoramas, or to things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, or murky. None. And yet I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean.

If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the black nationalist message: "A steady attack on the white race . . . served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair."

As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did.  

Why this matters

Obama's handlers have "constructed" his persona around his presumably superior intelligence. Bill Buckley's son Christopher, smitten by Obama's literary skills, is among those who have yielded to this imagery and joined the Obama crusade. Even if someone benign had ghostwritten the book it would present a problem for Obama.

The question is often asked why Obama associated with Ayers. The more appropriate question is why the powerful Ayers would associate with the then obscure Obama. Before Obama's ascendancy, it was Ayers who had the connections, the clout, and the street cred. Ayers could also write and write very well. By the mid-1990s he had had several of his books published. What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own.

My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case.

At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book.

The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Update October 29, 2008: Mr. Cashill has released one of the statistical summaries in PDF format at:

Additional information is available at World Net Daily:

Contact C.A. Fulghum at chasful@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, October 17, 2008.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (resigned but still in place), in collusion with the police, hid from the public — with the assistance of Israel's Leftist Hebrew Media — has been exposed by Carolyn Glick. We've been waiting for the full story to be revealed.

The full extent of this Arab Muslim pogrom against Jews, starting on Yom Kippur and continuing for four days, was suppressed by the corrupt Olmert government lest the public rise up against the Kadima Party's plans to transfer to the Muslim Arab Palestinians, all of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and those parts of Jerusalem (north, south and east) that Jordan occupied and desecrated for 19 years from 1948 to 1967.

This article below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017555421& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Contact her at caroline@carolineglick.com


The Arab pogrom in Acre on Yom Kippur was yet another wake-up call. The 200 Israeli Arabs who shattered the windshields of 110 Jewish cars, and burned and looted dozens of Jewish businesses in the city on the eve of Yom Kippur while shouting out, "Death to Jews!" "Allah Akbar!" and "We'll kill you if you leave your homes!" couldn't have made their point any more clearly.

They don't like Jews. They don't want peaceful coexistence with Israel. They don't recognize the authority of Israel's laws. They don't accept their identity as Israeli citizens.

If the actual violence wasn't enough to clarify matters, then we have the invitations for the Arab theater festival that began on Thursday, and its program.

Acre's Arab leaders decided to organize their festival in response to Mayor Shimon Lancry's decision to postpone indefinitely Acre's annual Alternative Theater Festival. Fearing continued violence, Lancry opted over the weekend to postpone the annual event that was scheduled to take place this week.

The Arabs called their festival, "Acre Is Not Alone." In the invitations distributed to the Arab residents of the city, the organizers wrote: "We will not surrender to the emergency laws that were enacted after the settlers' [that is, the Jewish residents of the city's] attacks. The settlers are trying to enact an ethnic cleansing of the eastern neighborhoods of the city. We call on Acre's Arab residents to come to the Old City and break the siege that has been enacted against the merchants there. We are organizing these activities to preserve the importance of Acre as a center of Palestinian tourism, culture, history and geography." So in short, "Acre is not Alone" has been organized to raise Arab awareness of Arab suffering at the hands of the Jews in Israel. Its main attractions include a movie that portrays the Arab riots in October 2000 from the perspective of the families of the Arab rioters killed by police trying to quell their violence against Jews; a one-man play fulminating on the victimization of Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority by Jews; and an "artistic" narration of the plight of an Arab who left Acre in 1948 as a result of Jewish "aggression," and died in a UN camp in Lebanon.

It is important to pause for a moment and set out as precisely as possible what happened in Acre on the eve of Yom Kippur and the following night, after the holiday ended.

On Wednesday night, when as is customary, after prayers ended Jews milled about in the streets that were empty of moving cars out of respect for the holiday, Acre resident Jamal Tawfik drove into the city's predominantly Jewish Ben-Gurion neighborhood. Jewish residents claim that Tawfik was driving at high speed with his windows down and music blasting out of his speakers, in a clear provocation of the Jews. Tawfik denied the allegations.

By all accounts, some Jewish youth approached his car. Some accounts claim that a handful of teenagers hit the sides of his car. Some accounts claim that some teenagers pelted his car with stones. All accounts agree that he exited his vehicle unscathed.

Just after this altercation, a still-unidentified Arab in the Old City broadcast that a Jewish mob had murdered Tawfik via the loudspeakers of a mosque. More than 200 Arab residents then descended on the Ben-Gurion neighborhood with axes and knives. They shattered the windshields of some 110 Jewish-owned cars. They then moved into the business district and looted and vandalized the Jewish-owned stores and businesses. Despite multiple calls for help from terrified Jews, it took the police several hours to appear on the scene. And when they arrived, they did nothing to end the Arab rampage. [Was This Akko'S "Kristallnacht"?: — EW]

The next evening, after the holiday ended, the Jewish residents started a spontaneous protest against the Arab riot. Arab rioters returned.

This time, the police, equipped with riot gear, succeeded in separating the Arabs from the Jews. A group of Jewish protesters, demanding revenge, torched a handful of Arab-owned apartments in mixed neighborhoods. The Arabs continued looting Jewish businesses and attacking Jewish cars. Police arrested rioters on both sides.

In the days that followed, Arab leaders published condemnations of violence "on both sides," and asked Jewish leaders to join them in their statements. Most Jewish leaders in the city refused. As Acre's Chief Rabbi Yoseph Yashar told a reporter, "As long as they speak of the Arab rioters from the eve of Yom Kippur in the same breath as the acts of vengeance carried out by Jews in response, it will be very hard to calm matters down."

On the national political level, Kadima and Labor party leaders have embraced the Arabs' moral equivalence. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their subordinates have all decried "acts of violence" and "lawlessness," while refraining from making any special mention of the fact that the violence was carried out almost entirely by Acre's Arabs.

Olmert went further than his colleagues. During a meeting with anti-Israel activists from the Arab sector, including the deputy head of the Hamas-linked northern branch of the Israeli Islamic Movement on Monday, Olmert claimed, "There can be no doubt that for years the Arab population has suffered from discrimination that stemmed from a variety of sources."

By making the statement to some of the most extreme anti-Israel voices in Israeli Arab society, Olmert seemingly justified the lawlessness of their followers.

The police have reacted to the Arab violence with now customary passivity. Decrying the police's belated and feckless response to Wednesday night's violence, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz minced no words:

"The public security minister [Avi Dichter] and the chief of police [David Cohen] must resign. The State of Israel has become the only country in the Western world where pogroms are carried out against Jews. Physical assaults are carried out against them and against their property amid calls of 'Death to the Jews.' A police force that is incapable of defending Jewish neighborhoods requires a serious overhaul."

WHILE STARTLING, the events in Acre — and the official response to them — are not new phenomena. Last Yom Kippur, an Arab driver from Shibli in the Galilee mortally wounded nine-year-old Tal Zino from neighboring Kfar Tavor. The driver entered the community at top speed on his all-terrain vehicle. Children playing outside the synagogue ran to evade him. Tal couldn't get out of his way fast enough. He ran her over.

As Tal's mother, Haya Zino, told Ma'ariv last Friday, that incident was the first attack against Jews carried out by an Arab operating a heavy motor vehicle. In her view, the more recent murders of Jews in Jerusalem by Arab bulldozer operators are simply a continuation of the attack on Kfar Tavor that killed her daughter.

Two years ago, an Arab mob in Acre violently attacked yeshiva students dancing in the streets on Simhat Torah. The students were forced to flee to their yeshiva, where the Arabs then besieged them. Rather than disperse the crowd, the police simply helped the students escape to their homes through the yeshiva's backdoor.

And in the riots in Peki'in earlier in October 2007, the police refused to confront the Arab mob that attacked the Jewish homes in the village. They allowed a policewoman to be held hostage for several hours and essentially begged anti-Israeli local leaders to intervene on her behalf.  

THE EVER-INCREASING radicalism of Israeli Arabs, who today openly and officially oppose the existence of the Jewish state, shows the imbecility of the government's plan to "separate" from the Palestinians by withdrawing from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Given that Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs openly identify themselves as one society, there is no way to separate from the Palestinians.

But the fact that Israeli Arabs are indistinguishable from Palestinian Arabs does not mean that there is no way to contend with their rejection of Israel. To the contrary, it points to the only way to contend with both the Palestinian Arab and the Israeli Arab rejection of Israel: By reestablishing law and order and respect for the law both within the 1949 armistice lines and in the areas Israel took control of in 1967.

Here, it is worth pointing out that in their rejection of the authority of Israel, the Israeli Arab rioters in Acre are little different from the French Muslim rioters who set their country ablaze in November 2005. In both cases, the rioters demonstrated their abject contempt and rejection of the state in which they live, at the same time that their governments were doing everything in their power to appease them as a suffering minority.

Responding to the violence, French voters elected President Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy campaigned on a law and order platform. Sadly, since taking office, he has done little to abide by his campaign pledges in this regard.

In Israel's case, no political leaders have made the connection between law and order and Israeli Arab or Palestinian Arab irredentism. Indeed, since the Arab riots in 2000, Israel has simply stopped enforcing its laws in the Arab sector. This is true not only with regard to violent crimes and treason, but also in relation to lesser offenses. For instance, polygamy is illegal in Israel. Yet, over the past decade, the prevalence of polygamy among Israeli Beduin has grown to unprecedented levels.

Last spring the government announced its intention to contend with the issue by forming committees and support groups for children of polygamous marriages and women who are involved in these illegal relationships. No thought was given to the obvious remedy of arresting the polygamous husbands and trying them for their crimes.

And this gets to the heart of the matter. While no doubt, historically, Israel has witnessed discrimination against members of its Arab sector, today, the chief form of discrimination they suffer is what US President George W. Bush has referred to as "the soft bigotry of low expectations." This of course causes both Israeli Jews and Arabs to feel contempt for the law and so increases the tendency of both Jews and Arabs to take the law into their own hands.

But more important, the pro-Arab discrimination of Israel's political and law enforcement arms has facilitated the radicalization of Arab Israeli society. Far from appeasing them, Israel has shown them that they are right to reject its authority. And their rejection of Israel — like their Palestinian Arab brethren's rejection of Israel — only increases as Israel seeks to appease them. By opting not to assert its authority over Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, by refraining from punishing their lawlessness and aggression against Jews, and even rewarding it, Israel guarantees that yet more dangerous attacks will soon follow.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 17, 2008.

This comes from the Joshua Pundit website
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/ head-of-bbc-admits-theyre-scared.html

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077816/The-BBC-tackle-



No great surprise here, but at least al-Beeb is now out in the open.

Al-Beeb's Director-General, Mark Thompson did an unusually honest bit of whinging and admitted that the BBC reports differently on Christianity than on Islam.

"What Christian identity feels like to the broad population is a little bit different to people for whom their religion is also associated with an ethnic identity which has not been fully integrated.

There's no reason why any religion should be immune from discussion, but I don't want to say that all religions are the same. To be a minority I think puts a slightly different outlook on it."

Thompson also said shows critical of Islam would be shown if they were of high quality...which, based on al-Beeb's programming and reporting can be translated as 'never in hell.'

Having seen what kind of violent behavior Muslims are capable of when they get riled up, the BBC simply decided that all that stuff about journalistic ethics and responsibilities and the Fourth estate wasn't worth risking their necks for, thank you very much.

Blasphemy against Christians, on the other hand, is cool and shows how modern and cutting edge we are according to Mr. Thompson's logic...and speaking of cutting edge, those wimpy Christians might shout a little but they're not going to issue a cash bounty death fatwa on reporters or start bombing the BBC's offices.

This sort of selective bias not only effects reporting on Islam but obviously impacts how Al-Beeb reports on stories about Israeli-Arab conflict (or indeed any stories about Israel) Iran, Pakistan, Islamist terrorism, no-go Muslim areas in British cities, the Iraq War and a host of other topics, something that's definitely not news to anyone with a fighting chance of a two digit IQ that's been paying attention.

But here's the question...the Beeb is a government monopoly, paid for by the taxpayers. Is it the official policy of the British government that Islam gets preferential treatment and benefits from de facto censorship? Did the British electorate vote for this?

And then the the little factoid that the vast majority of those taxpayers just happen to be Christians, at least nominally. According to Mark Thompson, that apparently means that their rights and sensibilities can be stomped on with impunity. Did I get something wrong here?

"All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." — George Orwell, Animal Farm.

Hat tip, Ms. Bookworm

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, October 17, 2008.

This is by the Jerusalem Post Staff and AP
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1222017555159&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Birkat Hacohanim. The Priestly Blessing

Thousands of Jews participated in the priestly blessing, or Birkat Cohanim, at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Thursday.

Birkat Ha'Cohanim at the Western Wall in Jerusalem

The Cohanim, believed to be descendants of priests who served God in the first and second Jewish Temple before they were destroyed, perform a blessing ceremony of the Jewish people once a year during the festival of Sukkot.

The blessing originally appears in the fourth book of the Torah, Numbers, and is comprised of three phrases. It is therefore also known as the "Triple Blessing."

The blessing is also the most ancient biblical text found on archaeological artifacts: Lucky charms and cameos bearing the three phrases were found in graves in the Valley of Hinom outside Jerusalem's old city (the Hebrew word for hell, Gehinom, literally means "the Valley of Hinom").

The cameos, dating back to the First Temple period, are displayed in the Israel Museum.

The blessing is recited by the Cohanim in synagogues in Israel every morning, while abroad it is only given on festivals.

Contact Avodah by email at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, October 17, 2008.


She squeaked in by slander ofg her rival, MK Mofaz, "disqualified ballots, extended voting hours and the reprehensible broadcast of exit polls falsely showing an overwhelming Livni victory — an appalling breach of democratic norms that could only have persuaded those Mofaz supporters still waiting to cast their ballots that they were wasting their time and should head home." (IMRA, 9/19.) Many polling stations had more voters counted than were allowed, and in others, votes cast were not counted (IMRA, 9/22).

Paid agents enrolled tens of thousands of last-minute "members" of Kadima, to vote in the primary as directed. The media hardly brought up Livni's disastrous policies she pursued as Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, Livni has herself portrayed as being "clean." She is as disgraceful and illegitimate as Olmert, the loser of a war against a Hizbullah ready to defeat her again.


Iran has threatened, if attacked, to fire at all oil tankers in, and shut, the Gulf, through which 40% of the world's oil is shipped (IMRA, 9/19).

Attacked by one or two states, it would punish all? If the UNO were for international law and peace, it would denounce Iran's threat. Instead, the head of the General Assembly plans to honor the President of Iran.

The threat is serious. It almost by itself justifies war on Iran as a global threat. A mere raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would have to be accompanied by war against Iran's navy and against all its intermediate-range missiles. Tall order.


Russia has spy ships in Syrian ports and has electronic surveillance facilities on Syria's side of the Golan. An Israeli security official accuses Russia of turning the resulting intelligence over to Syria, and Syria of turning it over to Hizbullah. Another official thinks Russia just wants to keep itself posted (IMRA, 9/20).


P.A. police have cleared the streets of armed gangs. They say they can't help releasing prisoners, for lack of room. They are said to be more competent. Haaretz touts this as showing that the P.A. can run an area in peace. However, the police have collected only 80 weapons. The many more not confiscated await a signal to attack Israel (IMRA, 9/20). The P.A. still incites Jew-hate.


The truce between Gaza Israel calls for certain supplies to be let into Gaza. This includes cement. Hamas has confiscated all cement supplies for its construction of bunkers and tunnels to be used in warfare. Israel is considering reducing cement shipments but not so much as to end the "calm." (IMRA, 9/20).

The "calm" is deceptive. It builds up the aggressive Islamist forces for the next war. Israel never should have agreed to it. If its leaders were not defeatist, they would have annihilated Hamas and not allowed it to get thousands of missiles from Gaza and enough munitions to make a later invasion costly.

Yes, the government talks about reducing the supply of cement. That just means it would take Hamas a little longer to build bunkers. If Israel's government were determined, it would cut off everything to Gaza and it would explain to the world why it must. It is not Israel's responsibility to assist a military buildup against it, a buildup that the whole population there supports.

As for complaints about hardship for the population, Israel should put that responsibility upon Hamas. Hamas attacks and steals relief shipments of food. cement, and gasoline from intended recipients to prepare for war. The supposed humanitarians should be told that their efforts support the next war.


J Street is an organization of leftist Jews who want Israel to withdraw from certain land. It boasts that in one day, it rounded up more than 20,000 signatures, compelling the organizers to rescind the invitation to Gov. Palin to speak at a rally against Iran (IMRA, 9/21).

Although the Obama campaign may not have tried to keep her from speaking, Democrats [including Clinton] did. As Palin's speech put it, Iran is fighting against the US and threatens the US. Unfortunately, the Democrats would rather deny her a platform than help the US. The effort to dis-invite was led by the two Jewish organization heads, one a former high Democratic Party official and the other a Jewishly subversive anti-Zionist (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 9/23).

J Street boasted of having won against Palin. Neither it nor the other organization that worked to keep her out gave their members information for attending the rally. They were partisan, not patriotic.


Kuntar, the terrorist convicted of heinous murder, and who was released by Israel, has been filmed getting weapons training (IMRA, 10/7).

That exposes the folly of releasing convicted terrorist prisoners.


Obama always and sometimes McCain talk about rallying the rest of the world against Iran. Democrats say that the US should not act alone, and mistakenly assert that Pres. Bush did, thereby alienating other countries. Liberals talk about the "international community, as Jews did during the Holocaust.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews and many gentiles did not believe that Hitler would take power or use it as radically he acted out of power. As European Jews were ostracized, they said, the "world" would not let this happen. The "world" did. Britain and FDR were complicit with it. The lesson of the Holocaust is not to depend on "the world, " to recognize evil ideologies, and to fight them.

Whom do our politicians expect to rally? The Organization of Islamic Conference comprises 49 states and the P.A.. The Communist bloc has half a dozen members. Some "world!"


Yes, but Democrats don't realize how dirty their own side is. The NY Times has become an Obama campaign journal. Its columnists find GOP dirt now and then, but scrutinize and distort everything in McCain's campaign. It keeps accusing voters of significant racism. The Times long has attempted to panic white voters into voting for Obama lest they be thought racist. That is racial demagoguery.

Palin's audiences did exhibit some racism. McCain denounced slurs against Obama. I think he should have said that their cries are used by the Democrats to take away decent voters from him, that those racists don't help him, if they even intend to. He'd better get Palin to say the same, fast. Else, they are suspect.

The campaigns are superficial. McCain doesn't realize about the terrorist-Ayers connection with Obama that either it must be thoroughly explained so its point gets accepted or else it is denied and he is made to seem unfair. He should have thoroughly explained the Rev-Wright connection to show that Obama is a radical, has been lying about it, and is dangerous to America.

Obama learns the right answers, as he goes along, except on taxes and big government. McCain does not. McCain does not criticize Obama enough about big government, but McCain is not conservative enough. Obama hinted but did not outright say that we should reduce aid to Iraq, which now has a $90 billion surplus. Why not? That surplus, a surprise due to the oil price hike, may not persist. The question is, what is being done with it? Can it replace our aid or does it go into faster rebuilding? Why didn't McCain either refute Obama's implication or accept it?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, October 17, 2008.

Without prompting and because he was talking (down) to a working stiff — someone who actually worked with his hands not his jaws, Obama did that un-Obamish thing: he spoke truth. "We want to spread the wealth." And so it happened that Joe the plumber pointed out that the American dream was to work hard to succeed, not to be part of a cargo cult who sat passively waiting for government handouts.

The Press on the other did as they always do. They ignored the issues; they avoided confronting Joe's important question. Instead they went after Joe. Kill Joe and his message dies with him. So they told us his name wasn't Joe — he uses his second name. Wow! Ain't that terrible. They told us about his private life. They slashed here, they slashed there. And with every slash, they made it apparent that it is leftist journalism/T.V. new reporting is no longer an admirable profession. Its practitioners could move over from selling Obama to selling soap or hemarrhoid relief, and they'd sound just the same.  

This was written by Lorie Byrd and it appeared today on Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2008/10/17/ the_obama_thugocracy_goes_after_joe_the_plumber?page=2

Lory Byrd blogs at http://www.loriebyrd.com. Contact her by email at lorie@fastmail.fm


The star of the final Presidential debate Wednesday night was not Barack Obama or John McCain. It was Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher from Ohio. Joe the Plumber came to the attention of the candidates when a video of him questioning Obama about his tax policy made news. Video of Obama's response that when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody, spread like wildfire across the internet, to some cable news shows, and to John McCain's attention. Since Joe was a big focus of the debate, and a big hit with Republicans, the Obama thugocracy (as tagged by Michael Barone) wasted no time targeting him.

Some liberal bloggers went after Joe the Plumber saying he didn't even make $250,000 and that he would receive a tax cut under Barack Obama's plan, supposedly proving "Joe the Plumber" was a Republican lie. Here is what Joe said in the exchange with Obama: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about 250, 270-80 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more isn't it?" So much for the Republican lie. Joe told Obama that he was planning on buying a company, which he hoped would put him in that $250,000 or more income range in the future, which prompted Obama's response about spreading the wealth around. By choosing that line of attack, those on the left proved what many of us on the right already believed — that they don't "get" the basic concept of the American dream.

The American "dream" is about aspiring to improve your lot — to take advantage of the freedoms this country affords those who are willing to work hard, invest time and energy and often to take risks, to achieve success. In the response of liberals trying to blunt the effect of Obama's spread the wealth comment they revealed their inability to understand that basic concept. Obama did the same in the full response he gave to Joe's question. Obama stressed over and over again not what his tax plan would do to those who have begun to experience the success of the American dream, but only what it would do for those behind them. The idea that increasing taxes on the rich could negatively impact the not yet rich is a completely foreign notion.

In addition to those who tried to make hay out of the fact that Joe doesn't yet make $250,000 (which they would have known if they had actually listened to his question), the Obama thugocracy went after him any other way they could. First they questioned Joe's political affiliation, some saying he had given to Republicans in the past and others saying he was not registered to vote at all. Then they moved to his personal financial and legal records — first digging up a tax lien against him, then pointing out that he didn't have a specific license (something required for commercial work, not residential).

Joe "not the plumber" Biden, evidently listening to the talking points and not to Joe the Plumber's question, thought that Joe the Plumber made $250,000 and therefore wasn't really a "real" plumber at all. On NBC's Today show Biden said, "John [McCain] wants to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber. I don't have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year." God love'em.

On Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Joe the Plumber said Obama's plan to take more money from those who are successful is "scary" and a "very socialist view" and a "slippery slope." If he continues to talk like that, and if he continues to resonate with Americans, there is no telling what we will learn next about Joe Wurzelbacher. Is he Trig Palin's baby daddy? Does he wear silk undergarments? Is he really bald? The point those on the left now trying to destroy Joe the Plumber don't get is that it doesn't matter. Not only do their nasty attacks on him discourage anyone else from becoming involved in public political debate, but nothing they could dig up on him would matter anyway.

Whether Joe the Plumber is a Republican or a Democrat, a decided or undecided registered or unregistered voter, gay or straight, a wearer of boxers or briefs, a huge GOP donor or even the secret love child of John McCain doesn't matter, because it doesn't change what Barack Obama said. Of his own free will, Obama admitted that he believes his tax plan is a good thing because when you "spread the wealth around" it's good for everybody.

Those of us who have believed Obama's policy proposals to be a socialist redistribution of wealth had everything we believed confirmed, straight from the horse's mouth. That is what was so shocking about the video exchange between Obama and Wurzelbacher — what Obama said.

Obama told Joe that it is okay to soak those making more than $250,000 because then you can "spread the wealth" around and everyone will benefit. That is redistribution of wealth — taking from the rich (and from the kinda rich) and giving to the not so rich and the poor. And Obama admitted it. Out loud. On video.

Joe the Plumber is not going to be making tax policy (unfortunately), so even if he was a plant or a liar or Trig Palin's daddy or John McCain's love child doesn't matter because it would not change what Barack Obama said. If the scenario described by Joe was real or fabricated would not even change the fact that Obama, the man asking to be allowed to reshape America's economic policies, said out loud what his philosophy on taxes is and it amounts to redistribution of wealth.

James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report said that in Obama's statement he was "playing into the most extreme stereotype" of the Democrat party "that is infested with socialists." He pointed to what he called McCain's best line in the debate, "Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around."

Pethokoukis then pointed to something from a Gallup poll from June: "When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."

That attitude may have changed a bit since June, considering the recent credit crisis and anger toward Wall Street fat cats. But even if it is not still an 84-13% split, it is almost certainly still a substantial majority. No wonder those on the Left have decided Joe the Plumber must be destroyed. What they don't get is that he is not what will cost them votes — Obama's own words are.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, October 17, 2008.

This was written by Judi McLeod, an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. She can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com


Last night's final presidential debate proved once again that Senator Barack Obama talks a lot, but really says nothing — nothing you can count on when he tells another whopper. ( see here.).

Time is closing in on the 11th hour of Election '08 but the search for the real Obama is still on.

If Obama steps out of the fog through the scavenger hunt for his birth certificate and unanswered questions about his alliance to Islam into the Oval office, he will usher in a new socialist America.

Concerns about Obama, the closet Muslim, fit right in with Obama, the Marxist. Marxists, always difficult to pin down, work hand in hand with radical Islam.

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez ("Carlos the Jackal") wrote in his book, L'islam revolutionnaire (Revolutionary Islam) that "only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States."

There can be little mistake that the United States of America, in throwback scenes to the Roman Empire, is being attacked from within.

Even before the economic meltdown, the landscape of Election '08 could be compared to soap opera, a shock in every episode, with the proverbial plot continuing to thicken.

Throughout all, Obama was like the errant husband. Confronted with the facts of his affair, he clings to constant denial.

Don't count on the tragically hip mainstream media to portray Obama for what he really is anytime before Nov. 4, 2008: a cog in a well-oiled machine.

Obama is the charismatic puppet of George Soros and other creators, who have worked for decades to deliver America over to Socialism.

Like the malcontents exploited by al Qaeda operatives, who recruit among prison populations, Obama was fertile ground.

But in his way, Obama is deadlier because he makes the White House the destination for the airtight agenda of his Marxist masters.

Difficult to keep up with the shock-a-day associations of Obama, the latest being ACORN registering Mickey Mouse as a voter and a Kansas City couple finding a donation to the Obama campaign they never made, courtesy of their own credit card.

Worry is all that comes from being told it's possible that not Obama but his mentor William Ayers is the real author of Dreams of My Father.

False hope is all that comes from elusive proof of Obama's birth certificate.

Loss of individual freedom and the end of an era is what will come to pass if the next President of the United States is a Marxist.

Only the American electorate can stop Obama from becoming the 44th president of the United States.

Don't count on John McCain or the mainstream media to tell you who Barack Obama really is.

Proof is in the Public Record.

"The public record is our only proof," says former Naval Intelligence Officer Marion Valentine.

"In 1963, while serving in Navy Intelligence (1958-1967), I read the FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis.

He had outlined the Communist plan to take over America from within, by installing educators at all levels of our educational system, gaining control of the media, getting Liberal judges appointed, recruiting, training and backing people to be elected to public office.

"I have researched every piece of legislation I can find that the Liberal Democrats have passed since the early sixties, and if you will research for yourself, you will find that they have been slowly moving this country toward Socialism.

"When Obama announced he was running for President as an unknown with only one major speech at the DNC (that the DNC and MSM made so much fuss over), he aroused my old intel suspicions. So I started researching.

"I have not found any evidence to convince me he is a Muslim, but I did find his radical associations were unusual.

I found Frank Marshall Davis, who had fled from Chicago to Hawaii when Obama was 12 years old, was Obama's mentor from then till Davis died in 1987.

"Davis put Obama in touch with the Socialist Party in Chicago (called the New Party) which Ayers is also a member of, (emphasis added) therefore the first "Planned" contact with Ayers.

The New Party helped launch and finance Obama's political career. Obama...selected, trained, groomed and scripted to become the "puppet" leader of the United Socialist States of America.

"Since I am in the 4th and final stage of congestive heart failure and will be lucky to live long enough to see the next president take office, why should this election matter to me?

Why does Obama's statement, that he wants a National Civilian Security Force" as strong and as well funded as our military (conjuring up images of the old-style USSR police state) matter to me?

"It's simple...I love America," says Valentine.

The public record states clearly on Obama's commitment to Socialism.

Even though no major mainstream media outlet has ever reported it, "Web archives confirm Barack Obama was a member of Chicago's Socialist "New Party" in 1996." (politicallydrunkblogspotcom, Oct. 8, 2008).

"In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party".

The New Party was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards."

In North America, Marxism never comes through the front door of federal elections, but sneaks in the back door of civic elections and school boards, whose elections are dogged by public apathy.

Americans have only to look northward to Canada to see Marxists elected to Toronto and Vancouver City Halls and school boards.

In the Chicago experience, "the admitted Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist "New Party" was essentially defunct after losing a Supreme Court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion reform platform as unconstitutional.

But their tentacles had already spread, and story begins rather than ends there.

"After allegations surfaced in early summer over the "New Party's endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democrat Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization, The DSA and "New Party" then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations.

However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party." (politicallydrunkblogspot.com).

The deceit that transpired in order to remove any trace of Obama-the-Socialist/Marxist is mind-boggling.

Back to the politicallydrunk blogspot: "On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page, which was published in October 1996, was an Internet newsletter update on that year's congressional races.

Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization (emphasis added) had archived the page.

"From the October 1996 update of the DSA "New Party': "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of the key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

(Proof of the above can be found through the WayBack Machine.)

Suppose for a minute that the information gleaned from the NP web page was erroneous.

Empirical proof that Barack is a socialist exists in the Progressive Populist magazine in November 1996.

"New Party members and supported candid dates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the country board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago:

"The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Editor of New Ground 47 Newsletter:

The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different (sic) in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base...

The NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join the Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in the 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task force on Voter and Education and Voter Registration.

In other words, Obama's presidential platform of change is not even his own. Change is what Socialists have wanted for American for decades.

Mainstream media hype notwithstanding, Obama is not "The Messiah", "The Anointed One", the Rock Star, the Cult Leader, the First Black President, Your Agent for Change or Messenger of Hope. To quote the Bible Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been is what will be, And what has been done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun."

Obama is the programmed robot of the global elite, working to usher in what some call a pre-orchestrated financially challenged world, The United Socialist States of America.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, October 17, 2008.

Decades ago Marshall McLuhan observed, "The medium is the message." As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping the views and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation.

Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas or certain people.

These are indeed trying times for the American people. Free people must decide their priorities with foresight and wisdom and shy away from shortsighted simplistic solutions. We live in a Democracy and Democracy, by its accommodating and benign nature, is susceptible to corruption and even destruction by forces from within and from without.

The Democrats have not gotten over the last two elections in which President Bush won. The left felt the presidency was stolen from Al Gore and John Kerry. Those losses caused most everyone on the left into a hate spiral, so severe is this hatred that Charles Krauthammer (who is also a trained psychiatrist) was compelled to diagnose it and give it a name: BDS — or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now that they believe they have found their Messiah in the person of Barack Obama. Now they want "social justice," they want revenge.

What the left calls "social justice" is actually "the revenge of the psychologically oppressed against people who look happier and more satisfied with their lives." As such, it is intimately related to the psychoanalytic understanding of envy, which is an unconscious mechanism that goes about destroying what one does not have, in order to eliminate the emotional pain of not having it, says Gagdad Bob.

Today's polls show that many Americans are unhappy with the Republican Party and that's enough reason to vote for a Democratic ticket. Fine and dandy. This is America, where the voter is king, and when one is king, one needs to be a sane and wise king. When people hear the word "insanity," they conjure up the image of someone out of touch with reality and out of control, a dysfunctional person fit to be tied. Yet, insanity comes in numerous types as well as degrees. It is also widely prevalent in groups, even in nations as a whole.

One common and troubling form of insanity is, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," warned Albert Einstein. America has already tried the path to insanity by electing Jimmy Carter as its president and he failed us miserably. Now, repeating this insanity by electing Mr. Obama is a national disaster.

Senator Obama's greatest weakness is his past, a deliberately obscured past that MSM is fiercely trying to make look irrelevant. He, as a sequacious politician, always toes their party's line. Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with some irresponsible leftists such as Bill Maher, (a humbug), who, in March 2, 2007 stated, "I'm just saying if he [Dick Chaney] did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

Please let me assure you, I do not say that Mr. Obama is a bad person. I say he's not the right person for America. He would lead this country to an abyss. The presidency of the United States is a very prestigious position which entails a great deal of skill, wisdom and high moral values. It cries out for integrity and truthfulness. Although the American presidency has not been invested with the same degree of glory as a monarchy has, the American people have upheld the office to a mythic status and hold its resident in reverent awe.

In comparing the two presidential candidates, it appears that many people see John McCain as a true American and Barack Obama as a true politician. However, in this race and in our era of uncertainty, more than anything else, character does matter, experience does matter and yes, patriotism does matter. "When patriotism dies, the nation dies."

It is said that you can tell a great deal about people by the company they keep. And who has been Senator Obama's close associates and mentors for many years, a partial list is given below:

— Tony Rezko, a convicted political fundraiser. He was called "slum landlord" by Senator Clinton. He was an activist who raised money for both U.S. political parties. He is charged with at least eight counts, including fraud, attempted extortion, money laundering and aiding bribery. Rezko was one of Obama's first campaign contributors when Mr. Obama first ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. The Sun Times implied that Senator Obama could possibly go down with Tony Rezko, sooner rather than later.

— Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ who came under fire for his anti-American, racist and "inflammatory rhetoric

— Louis Farrakhan is the black leader of the Nation of Islam and a prominent figure on the extremist scene by asserting hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals. Mr. Farrakhan, in his address to the world at Saviors' Day 2008, said: "Brothers and sisters, Barack Obama to me, is a herald of the Messiah. Barack Obama is like the trumpet that alerts you something new, something better is on the way," the Muslim leader declared. "Would God allow Barack to be president of a country that has been so racist, so evil in its treatment of Hispanics, Native Americans, and Blacks? Would God do something like that? Yeah. Of course he would."

William Ayers was part of the "domestic terrorist group" and a former leader of the Weather Underground. Ayers and Mr. Obama were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. Moreover, Ayers contributed money to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported in State Board of Elections

— Bernardine Rae Dohrn, a domestic terrorist and the wife of William Ayers.

— Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's childhood mentor and he was a communist. Obama had a relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Mr. Obama developed a close relationship with Frank Davis, almost like his son, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. In his books, Obama confesses attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature.

— Rashid Khalidi is an Arab-American historian. Khalidi, like Ayers, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home. A New York Sun editorial criticized Khalidi for stating that there is a legal right under international law for Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation. LA Times reported, "In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors."

— Father Michael Pfleger is a controversial Roman Catholic priest, a pastor of St. Sabiana Church in Chicago, the largest African-American Catholic Church. "He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St.