Ebola is the gift that will keep on giving, not just an October Surprise, it will continue to spread in coming months. Thanks President Obama. The only silver lining I can see in all of this is that it may finally tank the Obama Administration. Thanks to Obama’s idiocy (or is it his colossal ignorance, arrogance, or hatred of America) Ebola is now in the heart of America. Thomas Eric Duncan, who brought Ebola to Dallas, would (if he were still alive) be prosecuted in his native Liberia for falsely claiming he had not been in contact with any Ebola cases. He seems to have ‘shared’ his virus with a couple of his caretakers in Dallas and there are now at least 200 people being monitored – this is what is being widely report. Duncan had 70 (why so many?) healthcare workers who should have been quarantined. They could still be paid, they could still communicate with the outside world by telephone, but the rest of America would have been safe.
Those 70 healthcare workers have spouses, children, etc. (so at a minimum double that 70) and there were 132 (double that at a minimum) on the Cleveland to Dallas flight taken by one of his caretakers – so the numbers just don’t add up. Not much is known about Ebola. Is it possible that on the flight TO Cleveland she passed it along? Furthermore, the children of these 192 people are going to school and it only takes one to spread the disease to an entire school and from there it will go to every family with a child in that school.
There have been comparisons between Ebola and AIDS. Yes, they are both caused by viruses. Yes, they both come from Africa. But there is a huge difference. AIDS is ONLY spread by sexual contact or by blood transfusions – people tend to notice when they have sexual contact or a blood transfusion. Ebola is easily spread to people of all ages and both genders, and does not require any action on the part of the person catching it. You can walk right past someone with AIDS and not worry – but if you are near anyone with Ebola it is easy for you to catch it.
Nurse Nina Pham has been in the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas (and transferred Thursday night to a special care unit in Maryland) where she is still in serious condition after getting Ebola from Duncan, although she has received a blood transfusion from Dr. Kent Brantly, an Ebola survivor. The second infected healthcare worker from the same hospital, Amber Jay Vinson, is being moved to Emory Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia - I have been unable to discover why Vinson and not Pham, but I do know that Emory treated Brantly. However, I did find a number of stories about how Vinson flew to Dallas from Cleveland already had a low grade fever the day before being diagnosed, but was greenlighted for the trip by the CDC. Why did they do that? Why was she on a commercial plane after working with Thomas Eric Duncan? It would have made far more sense to have quarantined every health care worker who had any contact with him, and to do so for 30 days, yet here was a woman who traveled to Cleveland and back.
British recognition of Palestinian statehood corresponds to British appeasement of Nazi Germany, which recalls the adage, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose:The more it changes, the more it's the same. British appeasement of despotism led to World War II. It may very well lead to World War III.
George Orwell attributed British appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s to the pervasive doctrine of moral relativism then and still propagated by English universities. The same relativism underlies British recognition of Palestinian statehood. Melanie Phillips excoriates this relativism in her book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power (2010). So does Theodore Dalrymple in Our Culture, What’s Left of It (2005).
During World War II, American-born William Joyce, known as Lord Haw-Haw, became a Nazipropaganda broadcaster to England. His job was to undermine English morale. He had unwitting if not witting allies among England’s Left. Prominent among England’s anti-war protesters were intellectuals who hated Churchill. Haw-Haw was eventually captured and executed for treason by the British as a result of his wartime activities.
More recently, in September 2010, an American convert to Islam, Adam Gadahn, who became an English-language spokesman for al-Qaeda in the United States, was indicted in absentia by a federal grand jury for treason, “Aiding and Abetting al-Qaeda” (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). We have here a paradoxical phenomenon: Leftists, usually atheists, allied with Muslims.
To understand this phenomenon, we can hardly do better than study the letters and journalism of George Orwell. Although Orwell was, in sentiment, a socialist, he deplored England’s leftwing intelligentsia – especially its academics. He scorned the “emotional shallowness” of intellectuals who live in the world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality. He saw that many intellectuals of the Left were severed from the common culture of their country. “England,” said Orwell, “is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality” – precisely the feeling of many leftwing American professors.
Kansas voters will soon go to the polls and decide who they want to govern our state for the next four years. The question is what criteria will be used to fill this position? While economic issues such as business, jobs, and taxes always weigh heavily in our state, Kansans, more often than not, attempt to find leadership through people of faith and good moral values.
In 1998, I was a member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. One of several jobs I performed within this multi-agency group was that of serving drug search warrants. I was on location at the Secrets lounge near Coffeyville, Kansas, when a drug raid snared current Democratic nominee for governor, Paul Davis.
The Secrets lounge was very seedy strip club, the kind of place a person needed a tetanus shot just to drive by. Prior to serving the warrant, the Drug Task Force had conducted a methamphetamine sale in the parking lot with the establishment’s owner, a client of Davis’s law firm. Initial contact officers at the scene referred to Davis as “The a-hole attorney.” At least one police report describes Davis as initially noncompliant and more than one officer stated that he was extremely arrogant. As Davis addresses this past issue today, some might say things have not changed.
The Paul Davis strip club incident in 1998 could never be a “non-issue,” not in the Kansas Bible Belt. However, it could have been a less perplexing issue for social-minded voters if the 2014 Democrat Gubernatorial candidate had simply offered the people two things: a reasonable account of his actions and an apology for doing what is obviously wrong. Instead, when it came to picking between the high road and the low road for explaining the strip club incident, Davis picked an even lower road and thus reinforced the definition of the “scumbag politician.”
Davis gave an official statement to Politico:
“When I was 26 years old, I was taken to a club by my boss - the club owner was one of our legal clients. While we were in the building, the police showed up. I was never accused of having done anything wrong, but rather I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
If we critically analyze the Davis statement, we find it lacking. First, Davis acts as though he were a child being placed on the school bus by the principal for an ill-fated field trip. Does this ring true? Davis certainly grew up fast amidst the strippers at Secrets.
Second, Davis frames his presence at the strip club as part of a professional visit by saying the club owner was a legal client. This brings about the obvious questions as to why he was there in a pullover shirt and shorts and not in a suit with his law books in tow. Davis was found in the VIP room, a room where patrons enter after paying extra for a flesh-on-flesh session with a pleasure-worker. This is an overt action, not something everyone who gets a ride to the establishment receives. The going rate for the VIP room at Secrets in 1998 was twenty dollars. Did he pay the pleasure-worker (stripper) this fee or was the cost deducted from his firm’s legal fees? Davis should clarify the point.
Lastly, and most important of all, Davis says, “I was never accused of having done anything wrong, but rather I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.” These statements are painfully Clintonesque in nature and should anger all Kansas voters, treating us as if we are morally and intellectually inferior. Most Kansans are clearheaded enough to know one does not have to be handcuffed and end up in federal prison, as did Davis’s drug-dealing client, to have done something wrong. Simply put, there is criminal wrong doing and moral wrongdoing. Has Davis forgotten he lives in the Bible Belt?
Truth is the biggest challenger to Paul Davis in his current political race. He did wrong back in 1998, and he refuses to clarify his actions on that night. More importantly, Davis refuses to apologize to the same constituency he is asking for votes. If elected, will Davis display this same arrogance and lack of accountability at the voter’s expense? Davis’s own recent quote that says “The best example of future behavior is past behavior” may be foreshadowing things to come if Kansans treat Strippergate 98 as just another little innocent night out.
Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of several books and is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 award winning, Conscience of Kansas airing across the state. Visit his website at www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact email@example.com
ISIS or ISIL or IS, whatever they want to be called for the moment, is positioning itself for a play for Baghdad, the Capital of Iraq…. Kobani Syria is a lost cause and our Generals know it. The Turks have created a short sighted course of action that, as the Turkish street riots have indicated, have incensed the Kurdish refugees that have fled the battle front. They are sitting there and watching from on high in Turkish territory while ISIS or ISIL or IS slowly defeating the brave Peshmerga, street by street despite ineffective US Air attacks. They want the Kurdish fighters to be killed as much as possible to limit their taking action against Turkey, defending other Kurdish groups that are currently in Turkey…. The problem with that is they are cutting off their nose to spite their own faces.
What would benefit Turkey more?
By showing the Kurds in Turkey that they are fighting to save other Kurds, especially the Peshmerga fighting an evil like ISIS or ISIL or IS, it would be a poker chip in the big game to limit the influence of the Tactical Kurds in Turkey….
Our own Generals and all the other pundits for the moment were saying that ISIS or ISIL or IS could not possibly take the Iraqi Capital.
I can guarantee that ISIS or ISIL or IS will not take Baghdad…. due to the current population being mostly Shia, IRAN WILL INVADE IRAQ TO SECURE BAGHDAD before ISIS or ISIL or IS has a real chance to take over the city, the real seat of power in Iraq.
Once Iran is in control in Baghdad, and due to the feckless US Obama administration, THEY WILL NEVER LEAVE.
Albert Camus wisely said, “How many crimes are committed simply because their authors could not endure being wrong?” This applies to Israel’s ruling elites, among whom the sacrifizio dell'inteletto is quite conspicuous.
Twenty-one years of Arab terror and 15,000 Jewish casualties have cowed and stupefied the minds and hearts of these politicians. Isn’t it remarkable that the mellifluous Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to the Oslovian or Pavlovian policy of his predecessors? Having sacrificed his intellect as well as his moral sensibility, he salivates at the moment he hears the word “peace.” His paralytic mind and sclerotic heart can only offer his countrymen nothing more mind-numbing than territorial retreat on the one hand, and nothing more traumatic than the deportation of more Jews on the other.
The American educator, Max Lerner, once said, “Man’s will creates the things that paralyze his brain and brutalize his heart.” This applies not only to Israeli prime ministers, but also to Israel’s Supreme Court, whose stultified Jewish mentality referred to Judea and Samaria as “occupied territory” – Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization. Farewell Jerusalem, along with intellectual and moral integrity.
Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton once said that the American State Department is dominated by “moral equivalency” which applies especially to State’s morally neutral policy toward Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This means that State, consistent with the academic doctrine of cultural relativism, makes no significant distinction between good and evil regimes. American foreign policy thus tends to be morally neutral or value-free.
Carry the logic a step further. The State Department’s foreign policy requires its envoys or diplomats to be morally neutral or value-free. But to be morally neutral or value–free is to be shameless! This is the logically inescapable implication of the State Department’s mind-set. Hence, it’s reasonable to assume that this is the mind-set of Martin Indyk, former U.S. envoy who was chosen by the Obama Administration to mediate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on the basis of Moral Equivalency!
Four years ago I wrote a review of Martin Indyk. Indyk was born in England 1951 but grew up and was educated in Australia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in 1972 and received a PhD in international relations from the Australian National University in 1977. He immigrated to the United States and later gained American citizenship in 1993.
On April 19, 2010, Indyk wrote an op ed. item in the New York Times blaming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the rift with the Obama administration. He went so far as to say “Israel has to adjust its policy to the interests of the United States.”
Like his Washington handlers, and consistent with the moral equivalency that permeated his university education, Indyk has long advocated a Palestinian state. He should have no problem on that issue with Mr. Netanyahu who in effect manifested the same moral equivalency on June 14, 2009 when he endorsed the “two state solution” to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
One does not require military expertise to arrive at a former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conclusion that a Palestinian a state would endanger Israel’s existence. This is why Netanyahu insists that a Palestinian state must be demilitarized and barred from forming alliances with any Arab regime—a non-sequitur in international law.
Be that as it may, since no Palestinian leader would survive a day if he accepted such limitations, and since Bibi has the flexible spine required by the American State Department’s policy of moral equivalency, we should expect Bibi to flex his spine more than his muscles vis-à-vis Martin Indyk.
We certainly can’t expect Indyk to be holier than the Pope. After all, Bibi, like the American State Department, behaves as if ignorant of, or indifferent to, the murderous and mendacious character of Arab-Islamic culture. It matters neither to him nor to State that Egyptian-born scholar, the intrepid Bat Ye’or, has called Islam a “culture of hate.” Likewise, it matters neither to him nor State that another intrepid woman, Syrian-born psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, is so contemptuous of Islam that, unlike Bibi, she doesn’t deem Islam worthy of being called a “civilization.”
So what is to be expected of a diplomat like Martin Indyk whose university education has imbued him—as it has the American State Department as a whole—with the shameless doctrine of moral equivalency?
By the way, the intellectual and moral level of Indyk’s academic credentials and diplomatic posts reminds me of George Orwell’s assessment of British academics of the 1930s who held diplomatic posts in the Chamberlain government. Orwell saw that Britain’s intelligentsia was steeped in moral relativism, and that this pernicious doctrine had enfeebled Chamberlain’s foreign policy.
The same decadence is evident in the moral equivalency that Ambassador Bolton (with dismay) saw in the America State Department. No wonder: State has more PhDs than any other department of American government. Let me spell this out in the clearest terms, which requires a candid but unpublicized view of higher education in the democratic world, the education of the university graduates that shape the foreign policies of the secular democratic state.
Inasmuch these graduates, who have been virtually indoctrinated in moral equivalency and cultural relativism, are now pursuing a career in the cynical domain of international politics where power and economic interests predominate, do not expect them to take evil seriously. This means that the State Department diplomats referred to by John Bolton tend to behave like children who take civilization for granted!
Thanks to their morally neutral education, they are abysmally ignorant of what is required to preserve civilization. Smug and steeped in the moral equivalency, which they do not even recognize as shameless, they are oblivious of how much hard work and stamina, how much self-sacrifice and heroism, are required in each generation to defend civilization against its enemies. Think of how much it cost in blood and treasure for America to save Europe from barbarism in the last century—the barbarism threatening Israel today by Arabs animated by the genocidal charter of the Palestinian Authority.
But what does this matter to Martin Indyk and Benjamin Netanyahu, neither of whom has the spine of intrepid women like Bat Ye’or and Wafa Sultan?
Prof. Paul Eidelberg (Ph.D. University of Chicago), former officer U.S. Air Force, is the founder and president of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI), www.i-ari.org, with offices in Jerusalem and Philadelphia. He has written several books on American and on Jewish Statesmanship. His magnum opus The Judeo-Scientific Foundations of American Exceptionalism: Today’s Choice for the “Almost Chosen People" is in process of publication. Prof. Eidelberg lives in Jerusalem.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg is a political scientist, author and lecturer; Founder and President, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He is a valued contributor to Right Truth.
His books are available at Lightcatcher Books. His most recent book is: Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America. His recent books are: A Jewish Philosophy of History and The Myth of Israeli Democracy: Toward a Truly Jewish Israel. His previous book, Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall, provides the philosophical and institutional foundations for reconstructing the State of Israel. It has been translated into Hebrew and Russian. He is the author of Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America (Lightcatcher Books, 2009).
“No more than ten percent of all Muslims are radicalized.”Common liberal sentiment.
I will not jump into the recent Bill Maher and Ben Affleck debate regarding Islam, other than to say that I am growing tired of the “not all Muslims are bad” disclaimer. Of course, only a fool would declare that all members of a particular group are evil. That said, perhaps we should discuss some numbers and see how they compare vis a vis the radicalized Muslim debate. For starters, let us begin with the base number of global Muslims.
According to the Adherents.com Website, there are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims (Shiite, Sunni, etc.) in the world. If we take the almost routine declaration that “only” ten percent of all Muslims are radicalized, then we can argue that about 150,000,000 Muslims worldwide have become radicalized in some form. Now permit us to visit the last great global conflict: the Second World War (the presumption made that radical Islam represents a global movement). Japan, which dominated the Pacific region for most of the conflict, had approximately 9,100,000 people mobilized throughout the war, as did Italy. Nazi Germany, which thrust Europe upon its heels, mobilized approximately 17,900,000 individuals. The United States of America, which ultimately dominated both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (after soundly defeating Italy), mustered approximately 16,354,000 members of the armed forces. In contrast, the United Kingdom, the proverbial empire upon which the sun never set, only mobilized 5,896,000 personnel.
If we take the total number of fascists – remembering that not everyone was “diabolically evil” – the total number of Japanese, Germans, and Italians fighting against liberal democracies comes in at approximately 36,100,000 soldiers if my math remains correct. To repeat the numbers fighting against everyone else during the 1940s, we would only need to radicalize 2.4% of the global Muslim population. Now, allow us to consider another figure, one fully supported by academic research.
During his famous Yale University studies of the 1960s, Dr. Stanley Milgram proved that sixty-five percent (65%) of the human population “could be readily manipulated into inflicting a (seemingly) lethal electrical charge on a total stranger” and that these “subjects sincerely believed they were causing great physical pain, but despite their victim’s pitiful pleas for them to stop, 65 percent continued to obey orders…until…there could be little doubt that their victim was dead.” In other words, a simple researcher with a white lab coat and clipboard persuaded more than six out of ten people to torture unto death a completely innocent stranger.
If we return to our numbers, we can come to some startling considerations. If we take the 2.4% figure, we can say that 23,465,000 radicalized Muslims bear the capacity to kill us. If we take the oft-quoted figure of 10%, then we can assume that 97.5 million radicalized Muslims throughout the world are capable of killing us. That remains an extraordinary number, so let us retreat to the 2.4% figure (merely for sanity’s sake). If there were 1.5 billion tree huggers in the world, then we could fear that more than 23 million of them could also harm us. The same could be said for the 1.1 billion atheists, secularists, and other “non-religious” persons on the planet. Yet, I do not see videos of atheists beheading people for not separating Church and State or environmentalists blowing themselves up to save water. On the other hand, there are (at a minimum) hundreds of millions of Muslims upset at the West for supporting the world’s comparatively paltry 14 million Jews.
In the grander scheme of things, perhaps it is not the radical Islamists that represent the root problem. They remain very vocal about their intent to kill and maim the innocent. From Beirut to Africa to Bali and New York, London, and Madrid, they are not afraid to kill. Whether Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, they are open about killing anyone who stands in their way. No, the real problem in the world rests with the silent Muslim ummah – the vast majority of adherents that remain on their hands when others are being blown up or beheaded.
Permit us now to shift to the conflict in Northern Ireland. At the height of its brutality, every Roman Catholic bishop in the circle condemned the IRA. The terrorist group was well aware of drawing the wrath of Catholic clergy. Why, then, are decent Muslim adherents and imams deathly silent on the destruction conducted on their behalf? Are they afraid (or ignorant of) to admit that, in Islam, Muhammad was “both Caesar and Christ” – meaning that there was no room for dissidence. Even the Jewish residents of Medina – imagine that, Jews living in Arabia – “no longer liked [his] warlike faith, which had once seemed so flatteringly kindred to their own.” Again, perhaps the Muslims of the 21st century – and their non-Muslim supporters – are blind to the fact that beheadings, assassinations, and faith-spread-by-the-sword began with Muhammad himself.
However one bothers to dissect the global Muslim community – mostly violent, mostly peaceful, or mostly “wishful thinkers” – the true numbers do not bode well for peace. One can only evaluate religion based upon the life and actions of the founder – not alleged followers. Those well versed in Islamic teachings (and reared within Muslim, Middle Eastern cultures) understand that “the mosque during the prophet Muhammad’s time was not just the place of worship…[but] also a place to store weapons and make military plans.” The founder of Islam remained extremely violent in the propagation of his faith. More so than even the narco-traffickers affecting Latin America today.
That there are a great many peaceful Muslims in the world today says more about them and, perhaps, Christian/Western influence than it does about the actions of Muhammad himself. Without violence and the prospect of marrying multiple wives, there is very little to suggest that Islam could have flourished alongside the Jewish and Christian heritage that Muhammad borrowed heavily from. In fact, it seems that the only way that Islam can compete within the world today is through silencing the competition or rewriting history – aspects more in common with fascism and communism than democracy. Perhaps this is why the numbers will always favor freedom and responsibility.
R.J. Godlewski (GOD LESS KEY) is the manager of Tactical Extractions, LLC, a threat resolution services company, and presently serves as the president of Roadsailor Security Corporation. He is a graduate of American Military University, holding an M.A. in Military Studies, Asymmetrical Warfare concentration and a B.A. in Intelligence Studies, Terrorism Studies concentration, both earned with academic honors. He further holds graduate and undergraduate certificates in Security Management and Explosive Ordnance Disposal, respectively. Mr. Godlewski is a veteran of both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Navy Reserve. His latest book, More Skills of the Assassin: Delving Deeper into Human Depravity (ISBN-13: 978-1502421807),is due to be released during October 2014.
 http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, accessed October 2014.
 John Ellis, World War II: The Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures (Military Book Club, 1993), 228.
NPR’s political position is heard by many, and its audience is led to sympathize with the Islamic enemies of civilization. Our very future is in upheaval and I challenge NPR’s motives, ethics, and sense of responsibility.
I have written NPR (Notorious for Palestinian Revisionism) in the past, regarding its position on the war of Islam against Israel, the Jews and Christians worldwide. Whether it is Hamas, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, and even the most ludicrous appellation – “religion of peace,” their goal is the same: global conquest and the spread of Islam and Sharia law. The Hamas charter applies to all Muslims, including Palestinians, and how it obligates them to continue their 1400 years of bloodshed until the world is entirely Islamic, under Allah. Their history and plans are clearly delineated in the first paragraph of their Covenant – they obliterated cultures before and will continue doing so in the future. What is it about “obliterate” that NPR doesn’t understand?
In the name of the Most Merciful Allah
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it just as it obliterated others before it. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts.”
Hamas’s name means Islamic Resistance Movement in Arabic -- violence. They will never recognize the State of Israel’s right to exist as an independent sovereign nation, and Islam intends to “wipe it out as it wiped out what went before.” Moslems follow Mohammad’s behavior and decrees for jihad against all who reject Allah as their god and Mohammad as their prophet. They wiped out civilizations before in the Middle East, destroyed artifacts to erase all remnants of their existence, and they continue their malevolence, death, destruction, enslavement and looting. Their methods are numerous and adaptable, using violence as needed, and stealth jihad where it is more prudent. They will decapitate for expediency, but infiltrate into government and schools, using propaganda and deceit. They are inventive and methodical, and above all, dedicated.
Followed by every lame apology is another NPR report to the ill-informed, vulnerable public, using every myth and canard to claim Palestinian victimization by Israel. If there were a modicum of sincerity and honest journalism, the reporters would properly investigate incidents and compare their findings with those of the Jerusalem Post or Arutz Sheva before going to print.
Hamas, a Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan, yet NPR continues to transmit its dishonesty to the masses. Hamas is responsible for suicide bombings, murder tunnels, unspeakable slaughter and mayhem, and the launching of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to harm innocent civilians and children in Israel (not to mention the chaos, kidnapping and enslaving of students in Africa) and is now restoring to daily routine their 7th century barbarian practice of chopping heads of innocent civilians to Europe and America.
Be reminded that this death cult has no qualms about victimizing their own women and children, using them as human bombs and human shields to gain public sympathy. By contrast, it has been proven that the IDF does its utmost to avoid civilian casualties when retaliating against Hamas forces. Israel is a small home to many religions and nationalities, fighting for its survival amid a sea of 1.3 billion trained, obedient, riot-ready Muslims on a land mass a thousand times the size of Israel. Americans benefit from Israel’s industry, creativity, accomplishments in science and medicine. NPR’s staff would live freely in Israel, but eventually face a subservient life and horrific death in an Islamic country, yet they support the global Islamic cause as though they were mad or suicidal. Even NPR is being hoodwinked by its deceptive reporters.
Therefore I need to convey that Israel was vindicated by the United Nations’ damage assessment of Gaza. They confirm that Israel attacked Hamas targets with restraint.
Israel did not retaliate by rote against Hamas’s systematic attacks on civilian targets, but bombed specific facilities, bases, weapons and tunnels.
Most of the damage was limited to areas of 25 meters or less, and most of Gaza was not damaged – less than 5 percent of Gaza was hit by the IDF.
The most populated areas were disproportionally UNdamaged, or had limited damage.
The areas reported in the UN damage assessment report are compatible with the IDF briefings on Hamas’s battle areas.
When Hamas deliberately concentrated its terror against Israeli civilians from densely populated urban areas in Gaza, the areas were undamaged.
Israel demonstrated exceptional efforts to minimize collateral damage by warning civilians, thereby forfeiting the surprise effect; they were guided by security rather than retaliatory or political expediency.
Israel followed surgical bombing tactics, not carpet bombing, not random or indiscriminate.
Most Israeli bombing hit terror-related sites, such as multiple tunnel entrances and shafts, and mortar and missile launching sites.
Fifteen percent of Hamas rockets and mortars were short, hitting civilian targets inside Gaza.
Does NPR grasp that their protection emboldens Muslims to increase their evil against the world, and that what Islam does in Israel, England and Sweden will soon become conventional in America? Perhaps NPR can explain how its staff is preparing to survive our destruction. Any stealth funds they receive will only guarantee that they will not be eaten by the Islamic crocodile first; but they will be eaten.
NPR’s Lourdes Garcia-Navarro has reported that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are “seen” as illegal, rather than asserting that they are legal under the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Treaty, League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate (article 6), and UN Security Council Resolution 242. She has reported that Israeli residents are violent toward Palestinian residents, but statistics prove otherwise.
NPR reported that Mayor Goldsmith “said” there was a massacre of the Fogel family, but not that the massacre occurred, thereby questioning the occurrence and diminishing its importance and impact. Ignoring Palestinian violence, arson and stone throwing, Garcia-Navarro added there was “no justice for Palestinians.” Mike Shuster’s report on the Second Intifada, and Daniel Schorr’s report on the Gaza Flotilla, among others, were severely skewed.
Most recently, NPR reported the number killed in Gaza, without explaining the civilian count -- those women and children intentionally centered in the war zone to increase the horror, as Westerners express their shock at why Israelis kill so many “innocents.” NPR fails to inform the public that the IDF does and did warn citizens to flee an area that will be counterattacked, and that these dead are victims of their own people.
Will NPR ever realize that honorable journalism might be used to motivate and unite citizens to save our world before we run out of time?
When are we going to get it? We cannot wait to hear, we should have, we could have! November 24 is around the corner when the deal will be sealed by P5+1 with Iran where she will be able to run out the clock.Its time to separate the wheat from the chaff, the Iranian Nuclear Holocaust War Machine must be destroyed NOW!"
Contact Influential Organizations & Advocates for responsible government leadership:
They Stand Up We Win!
Luminaries such as:
Organizations such as:
Cufi NCJA AfSI ZOA
Collectively they command the attention of millions of followers. On their recommendation to their supporters, they have the power to unleash millions of calls to Washington that can end the Iranian threat.
Send the Luminaries and Organizations above this message:
a) I urge you and your followers to call Congress and insist they take immediate action to ensure world security. Demand the immediate destruction of the Iranian Nuclear Holocaust War Machine NOW.
b) Publicly proclaim we must not send Israel, a tiny country, our democratic ally, on a mission alone to deal with the Iranian global existential threat. America, as a super power and the defender of the Free world has a responsibility to end the Iranian Nuclear Threat
For years I have been touting that we cannot rely on Congress to stop Iran because they are too wrapped up with re-election issues, private deal makings and job security. Therefore pro Zionist organizations and pundits sole focus should be preventing a Nuclear Iran.
Shortly after Arafat signed the Oslo agreement (Sept.1993) he visited the Arab community in Capetown, South Africa. There, he was assailed by the ultras who accused him of selling out by recognizing the "Zionist entity" and abandoning the holy war against the Jews. But he calmly explained that he had acted like the prophet himself who signed the peace agreement of Hudaybieh with his enemies when he was weak militarily and then attacked them two years later and destroyed them and their Arabian tribes. "Am I, God forbid, better than the Prophet?" he concluded rhetorically, to the applaud of his audience.
Arafat's political heirs do not act differently. What the West fails to understand is that in Islam, such concepts as peace, treaty, agreement, accord carry different meanings. They are always temporary, as good as they are good for them, and can be revoked or broken at any time of opportunity.There are many terms to define these temporary arrangements; the most common is called hudna.
There were many hudnas in the recent Israel-Hamas war ,round three, limited in duration (one day, three days, seven days); the last one signed on August 26, 2014, was misnamed "permanent." There is no doubt that Hamas didn't believe in this characterization, and that Israel knew it. So why did they do it?
HAMAS: is still alive, in charge of the territory, and "negotiating." They stood up to the most powerful military in the Middle-East; that's their best currency of power and success , and that's a victory for them, duly celebrated with dancing and shooting in the air.They have been elevated to equal interlocutor, courted by their archenemy Egypt and by the US and the Europeans, thus putting their rivals Abbas and his Fatah in the cellar and increasing their popularity among their people. This will serve them well in the next showdown with Fatah, whether in elections or in military confrontation when , at stake, will be the West Bank and the control of all Palestinians.
They have manipulated the hudna system to their advantage, dictating the yes and no at will--and Israel followed--and changing the media narrative from "the savage terrorist organization that launches thousands of rockets against innocent civilians in Israel and uses its children as human shields, sacrificing them for political gains" to a wronged victim of Israeli oppression that had deprived them of their most elementary rights such as airport and seaport and open borders with Egypt and Israel and an expanded sea zone for fishing...While the first two demands had not yet been granted -- they will be negotiated later--it seems that the other two had been agreed to. The release of prisoners "with blood on their hands" may follow. Again, as with the previous two rounds, terrorism has been rewarded.
On the other column of the ledger, what should "normally' be counted as a negative result for Hamas, i.e. the killing of more than 2,000 Gazans--half of them military,says Israel--and the devastation of their cities, does not faze them a bit.To the contrary, that was their best weapon, and they glorify in it. They have cleverly studied the Jewish psyche, their compassion and humanitarianism, and exploited it to the hilt. While the Hamas rockets rained on its civilian population fleeing to underground shelters,Israel continued to supply food, fuel, and electricity to Gaza , and a field hospital to take care of their wounded; and before bombing in retaliation, the Israelis dropped thousands of leaflets, even "texted" warnings to the civilian population to leave , and take with them, of course, the terrorists who launched the missiles. The 4000 years of mankind bloody conflicts have never seen such "humanitarian compassion."
So what's for Hamas 2000 lives if they can inflame the world against Israel's "atrocities" and cause a recrudescence of the scourge of antisemitism with an intensity never seen before since Hitler!
As for the devastation, the other "compassionate and humanitarian" suckers , the Europeans and the Americans, will do the "reconstruction," as they did in 2009 and 2012, just a few more billions of dollars, disbursed by the US and EU taxpayers. The US has been paying to the PA and indirectly to Hamas an average of 500 million dollars a year; it pays 77% of the UNRWA budget, an organization that should have disappeared 40 years ago. I submit that these payments that have enriched many politicians and terrorists have contributed to the expansion and the strengthening of terror.
ISRAEL: Why did Israel accept this ceasefire? True, this was a traumatic experience for the population and, this time, not only the Southern localities around Gaza but practically all of Israel has been affected. But the majority of the Jewish population felt that the job was not finished as their leaders promised repeatedly. And it showed in the polls: Netanyahu's popularity , which reached 82% in July, dropped to 55% after the temporary ceasefires, and sank to 38% on August 27, 2014 ,one day after he signed on the "permanent" ceasefire. Many of his ministers were furious because he didn't bring it to a vote for fear it wouldn't pass.
Let us try to analyze the situation as objectively as possible. There are three main reasons that weighed heavily on the decision: Most of the Israelis I talked to, including some pundits and politicians, found the main reason to be the excessive number of casualties that "finishing the job" would have required: casualties in the "front" (hazit) and in the "back" ('oref) among civilians, on both sides.
The second reason is the fear of the "world"'s reaction and more antisemitism in Europe, at the UN, and even in the US government which they never trusted.
While these two are real, I believe in a third explanation which seems preponderant: strangely enough, it is the fear of success. Militarily, Israel could reconquer the Gaza strip (as many on the right, including cabinet members, have been demanding from the beginning of the hostilities), decimate the Hamas leadership who will be dead, or prisoners, or in exile. But then Israel will become the occupant sovereign, responsible for the welfare of a hostile vanquished population of 1.8 million that would certainly spawn guerrilla warfare, more repression and more casualties (as occurred in Southern Lebanon in 2000, which prompted then PM Ehud Barak to order a hasty withdrawal of all the military forces.) And then, what to do?
Some say "give it back to Abbas!" Israel does not trust him and his capacity to govern the Strip. First, it could make him more intransigent in his demands to not be accused of selling out, and also, with no Israeli boots on the ground, new terrorist groups could emerge , maybe fiercer than Hamas, and topple him in Gaza and maybe even in the West Bank.
Others say, "Give Gaza to the UN " like UNIFIL in the North. I don't believe the UN will accept the headache and even if it does, they will only give free rein to terror and tie the hands of Israel which could not retaliate for fear of hurting the UN "observers." And the UN is not a friend, not even neutral.
Another "possibility" is to return it to Egypt which controlled it for 19 years (1948-67) (Begin made the huge mistake of NOT returning to the status quo ante and giving Gaza back to Egypt with the Sinai at the signing of the peace treaty.) But Egypt does not need this "poisonous gift."
So it seems that Israel has deliberately chosen "the lesser of two, or four, evils," very conscious of the fact that it will have to face another provocation, followed by another retaliation, another "world" outcry and condemnation etc. It has not lifted the blockade on Gaza but it has not "demilitarized" it as was its original declared intent. A propos "demilitarization," it is worth reminding here that the Oslo II agreement, signed in 1995 by Israel and the Palestinians,and witnessed by the US, calls for "complete demilitarization of Gaza and the West Bank, " allowing only a police force. Netanyahu was not asking for the moon, but only for the implementation of agreements. But we saw what "agreement" means.
This blog is an exercise in the author's First Amendment Rights as pertaining to Free Speech with all the protections as afforded & granted by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The blog owner is not responsible for content of sites linking to this blog or sites that this blog links to.
Opinions quoted on this blog or left as comments on this blog, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
Opinions included in articles written by anyone other than the blog owner, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
If you are offended by anything written, quoted, excerpted, referenced, linked to ... on this blog: Then go somewhere else.