It is surreal and what tripe!

My friend Chodoff comes to the same conclusions I do - Carter is a bumbling bigot, Olmert is an incompetent leader and Hamas has no interest in peace as long as they continue to have the upper hand and can do what they want with impugnity.

Hamas bombs Israel, Carter lays wreaths and Olmert sits on his touchas waiting for Bush to visit before he decides whether protecting his citizens is worth the effort.
Unbelievable. It is surreal. (See 1 below.)

Professor Ellen Cannon talked about how Muslims eventually worm their way into a society many years ago and how they eventually plan to gain influence in the process. (See 2 below.)

Hillary's win gives her more oxygen but will she eventually turn blue in the face? Not for now in any event. She was outspent two to one but still proved her message resonates with white voters as Obama proves he has the Black vote. In her victory speech she told about all the things she hopes to do for the "little people cause she is one of them. Lofty tripe!

Meanwhile,Obama high tails it out of Pa. and beats a path to Indiana and keeps on telling the public what they want to hear as he continues along his populist ways setting up straw men and knocking them down with his messianic emptiness. He wants to pull out of the war in Iraq so he can fight a war in Afghanistan, he talks about shedding cynicism as he continues his cynical speeches, he talks about casting off the politics of usual and money from lobbyist but rakes it in from the same crowd and he decries the voices of doom as he speaks of the poor people sitting around the table figuring out how they are going to make it through the next day as their bills mount and their health care baffles them. Finally, he keeps repeating the message of change without getting into the details because details tell the true story. Same old same old, and more tripe! (See 3 below.)

An American spying for Israel gives it a black eye. All nations spy on each other and even their friends. That said, the message is don't get caught. Israel is now engaged in embarrassing damage control and hopes to lie out of it as GW gets ready to visit and celebrate its 60th birthday.(See 4 below.)

Dick




1) Carter’s Magic Touch
By Elliot Chodoff

It has been a surreal holiday weekend in the Middle East. While former president Jimmy Carter was hugging and kissing Hamas leaders in Damascus on Saturday morning, Hamas was preparing a proper Passover gift to Israel in Gaza. Armored vehicles, given to Fatah during the heady days of the Oslo Peace Process and since acquired by Hamas, were packed with explosives and sent to attack the IDF positions at Kerem Shalom Crossing. Kerem Shalom is one of the terminals through which supplies are transferred to the Palestinian population in Gaza, so the attack was not only against Israeli soldiers, but was meant to increase the suffering of the Palestinians as well. Fortunately, the IDF troops, Bedouin soldiers of the Desert Reconnaissance unit (Sunni Muslims, incidentally), responded quickly and professionally, and with a little help from a tank, destroyed the terrorists’ vehicles and drove off the attack. The result, 13 Israeli soldiers wounded and a number of terrorists dead. Just another day along the Gaza-Israel border.

Carter’s snuggling up with murderous dictatorial types, such as Kim Il Sung, Fidel Castro, and Radovan Karadzic to name a few, is old news, so his hobnobbing with Hamas terrorists after laying a wreath on Yasir Arafat’s grave shouldn’t really raise any eyebrows. And, after his book criticizing Israeli “apartheid,” we should hardly be surprised that he referred to Israeli policy in Gaza as an “atrocity” while saying little about Hamas’ ongoing attacks beyond the rather bland request to Hamas that they should cease.

Nonetheless, Carter has returned to Israel with fantastic news: Hamas, after decades of insisting that Islamic law requires the destruction of the Jewish State, has succumbed to the charms of the former president and is now willing to live in peace alongside Israel. As a sign of their new benevolence, Hamas hinted that they may, sometime in the future, permit a letter to be sent by Cpl. Gilad Schalit to his parents. Schalit has been held incommunicado by Hamas since June 2006.
Unfortunately, this sudden change of heart on the part of the Hamas leadership was not transmitted to anyone other than Carter. While he is telling everyone in Jerusalem that is willing to listen that Hamas is ready to make peace, the Islamic terrorist organization rejected an Egyptian cease fire proposal, fired more rockets into southern Israel, and stated that attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians will continue as before.

To make matters worse, the Israeli government has given Hamas a virtual license to continue attacks for at least another couple of months. If reports are to be believed (and with this government we’ll believe anything), it has been decided to postpone any offensive operations against Hamas until after President Bush’s visit and the 60th Anniversary celebrations scheduled for May. Not only does this send a message that Israel is wiling to fiddle while Sederot burns, but it informs the terrorists that they have plenty of time to prepare for the attack. In the meantime, they can feel secure in the knowledge that they will maintain the initiative against Israel for the immediate future, time enough to grab another soldier or two, kill some more, blow up a terminal, or just keep rocketing the towns and cities around Gaza. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Israeli leadership has been drinking something stronger than wine at the Passover Seder.

Carter’s typical shenanigans notwithstanding, the situation in and around Gaza is certainly escalating. While it is understandable that the Israeli government is reluctant to give the order to launch a full scale military operation into Gaza, the facts on the ground leave it no real choice. Either Israel will decide to take the initiative against the terrorists, or the terrorists will force Israel’s hand by means of a bloody attack that will make a response imperative. Unfortunately, the Israeli government seems to have chosen the latter, so that IDF will be forced to fight when it suits the terrorists, rather than with the advantages of surprise and initiative.

2) What Islam Isn't
By Dr. Peter Hammond


The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom --Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago --Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offend Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.


3) OFF TO THE RACES: Keystone Candidates
By Charlie Cook


It’s no wonder supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., are wandering around and repeating over and over again, “why didn’t all this happen sooner?”

What is happening now is precisely what they needed to happen to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The things that contribute to the perception that he is not the perfect Democratic nominee, including incidents, stories, and debate performances have all come about fairly quickly and somewhat recently.

In addition to this, there is the perception that he might have problems with some swing independent voters or conservative or older Democrats. But it’s probably too late to help her, even if she wins by 10 points in today’s Pennsylvania primary.

Given the vagaries of the Democratic Party’s delegate selection process, it would require almost unattainable landslides by Clinton in the remaining primaries to make this race close enough to encourage the super delegates to possibly break a tie in her favor.

Given the lopsided margins of the superdelegates who have reached and announced a decision over the last two-and-a-half months, it is considerably less than a 50-50 shot they would break her way, even if they were so inclined.

Obama supporters are outraged over the treatment he received from ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson in last week’s debate in Philadelphia.

Is it true that he was given far rougher treatment than Clinton? No question about it. He got worked over.

But some of these same folks didn’t seem so agitated when Clinton got the rubber-hose treatment in debates. The thin skin of Obama’s supporters and double standards being applied are hard to ignore.

In some ways, Clinton is almost in a no-win situation.

Even if she wins, she doesn’t really win in the sense of making a meaningful dent in Obama’s roughly 140-delegate lead unless she wins by a huge margin.

This is due to proportional representation and the existence of so many even-numbered delegate districts.

In those districts, landslides are needed in two-way races to avoid a delegate split. If Democrats don’t like this dynamic, perhaps they should revisit their proportional representation system when they contemplate the rules for 2012.

Had Clinton not won Ohio and Rhode Island, and performed much more strongly than expected in the bizarre “Texas two-step” primary and caucus, her donors would have said “enough” a month ago and she would be out of the race already.

Even if she wins somewhat handily in Pennsylvania, she won’t significantly close the gap in delegates, yet the win would make it difficult to withdraw.

Anything short of an enormous landslide will not get her any closer to the nomination and yet continued victories makes it hard for her to drop out of the race.

It’s almost like she’s stuck in a race that she no longer has a decent chance of winning. Short of Obama completely collapsing, it’s hard to see how Clinton can still prevail but not at all hard to see how she gets outcomes today and perhaps in some of the future events that keep her in the race.

Polls show that the Democratic Party is deeply divided on this nomination and increasingly there is hand-wringing in the party over whether this continued fight will jeopardize their chances in November.

Many are pointing to polls that show an inordinate number of Clinton supporters not eager to support Obama if he wins the nomination as well as Obama backers who don’t want to support Clinton should she win.

These kinds of results are hardly unusual while a nomination is still contested, indeed they are to be expected.

If you still see these results in September or October, that’s a problem. In April, that’s not a problem.

And with Democrats’ fund raising more robust than ever and Republicans not measuring up to past financial benchmarks, that buys Democrats some time and offsets many of these problems. It’s not to say that these things won’t be problems but that they are not yet problems for Democrats.

Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, what should concern them more is that while Obama might outperform Clinton and do better than Democrats usually do with college-educated and younger voters, he under performs among older and less-educated voters.

To have presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., running 6 points ahead of Obama among the 1,140 voters with a high school education or less, in a Gallup Poll of 6,158 registered voters taken March 31-April 6 — a group that Democrats normally win easily — should be a cause of considerable concern. That sample had a 3-point error margin.

Can Obama count on over performing with college graduates enough to make up for his losses among less educated, white voters? Can Obama count on young voters turning out in sufficient numbers to offset his weaker performances among older voters?

Party strategists already worry that Florida, Missouri and Ohio might be less competitive for Democrats with Obama running than they were for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Vice President Gore in 2004 and 2000, respectively, and maybe weaker than if Clinton were the nominee.

Can stronger anticipated performances by Obama in Colorado, New Hampshire and Wisconsin make up for that?