Total campaign contributions 1999-present by Journalists and Reporters:
To Democrats: | $2,746,650 |
To Republicans: | $509,665 |
No surprise, really. More than 5 times as much of their money supporting Democrats as Republicans.
Yet more evidence of the overwhelming liberal bias in the mainstream media.
Detailed information available at http://www.campaignmoney.com/journalists.asp"
---
I am often taken to task for my pronouncements about 'President Number Four/Fore' and I understand but I have no unbreakable commitment to any particular party. I am socially liberal, militarily hawkish and am ruled by my fiscal conservatism. Thus, I tend to lean towards Republicans who also often disappoint me when they talk the talk but fail to walk the walk.
My fiscal conservatism, therefore, means I am unwilling to support socially flawed concepts and progressive ideas because they historically fail, produce unintended consequences that have proven to have a serious and negative impact on our society and have made us a dependent and uneducated people.
Specific to Obama ('PNF/F') I find his inexperience disqualified him to be president, his record of accomplishments has more than validated this belief and he has proven to be both an unmitigated liar who has little respect for our Constitution.and has a leadership style that is provocative and racially dis-uniting.
The fact that his is a big spending social liberal Democrat is a further turn-off and I certainly believe Rep.Pelosi and Sen. Reid are pathetic but again, not because they are Democrats but because they are who they are and because of their legislative efforts and philosophy.
I consistently voted for Sam Nunn, urged him to run for the Presidency, offered to devote 6 months of my life to his behalf and sought nothing. I must also add Sam and I crossed on many issues but I saw him as a man of integrity, a thoughtful, intelligent and decent person who placed America's interests first. I still would love to see him run, though I know he will not, and have made the same offer to him in recent days.
When and if Democrats come to their economic senses and quit imposing their inane sound good but destructive value system on my nation, I would be more than happy to give them a second look. Until such time as they do, I will pick and choose and continue to lean right because it is right for me and for America.
Most of my liberal friends judge me yet, have neither engaged me in a conversation on a specific subject nor have ever sat down and really been willing to engage in a dispassionate exchange of ideas. Most of the facts are not on their side so they tend to embrace an emotional stance which is not productive. I understand their concerns. I understand why their hearts bleed. I do not understand , however, why they persist in adhering to solutions that both do not work and are costly beyond reason when measured against result .
The primal purpose of government is protective, ie. protect the citizenry not their wealth transfer.
The primal purpose of government is protective, ie. protect the citizenry not their wealth transfer.
That, in a nutshell, is why I unabashedly hope and pray our nation will rid itself of Obama and with him Sen. Biden. You decide. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
---
Is the October surprise going to become a reality? (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
Glick on Land For Peace fallacy. (See 3 below.)
---
Glick on Land For Peace fallacy. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
The Top 5 Reasons Obama Must Be Removed as Commander-in-Chief
By Stella PaulObama recently signed a mysterious new law that proclaims all American soil is a "battleground," thereby allowing the president to indefinitely detain any American citizen without charges. Critics fear Obama will use his fun new unconstitutional powers to make his political enemies disappear, but that may not be necessary.
The way things are going, most patriotic Americans will soon be six feet under, felled by apoplectic strokes brought on by reading the latest outrage committed by our "Commander in Chief." He may not have a limit to what he'll inflict; but our collective blood pressure may have a limit to what we can bear.
With each passing hour, the question becomes not if America can survive a second term, but whether we can survive another day. It's not just the $15 trillion in debt, the Muslim Brotherhood in the catbird seat, and our bleeding open border. It's the never-ending deliberate assaults against our safety and security laughingly committed by the cold-eyed man with the nuclear code.
Here are the top 5 reasons Obama must be removed as Commander-in-Chief. Please read them while seated.
ONE - LightSquared: If we had an actual media, you should be able to wake up an average fourth grader at 3 AM and ask, "Who's General William Shelton?" and the fourth grader would chirpily recite: "He's the Air Force Commander who was pressured by the White House to change his testimony about LightSquared."
The facts are not in dispute. A four-star general has testified to Congress that he was pressured by the White House to alter his testimony to make it friendlier to a broadband company backed by a major Democratic donor.
The problem with LightSquared's new wireless project is that it could disrupt all military communications and GPS. But what worth has the entire capacity of the military's communication system against the pleadings of LightSquared's biggest investor, Philip Falcone, who shovels cash to Obama?
TWO - Fast and Furious: No matter how many times you hear the facts they never get less sickening or bizarre. The United States Department of Justice deliberately ran thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels, which then used them to commit at least 11 violent crimes in the US and 200 violent crimes in Mexico. A Fast and Furious gun was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and possibly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata.
ATF Agent Vince Cefalu was fired for whistleblowing about this surreal horror show. Attorney General Eric Holder perjured himself to Congress, pretending he knew nothing about it. And newly released emails confirm that the motivation for supplying weapons to Mexico's most violent criminals was to use the ensuing chaos to enact stricter gun control laws here.
Not content to unleash murder and mayhem, the Department of Justice also went into the money-laundering racket, washing clean millions of dollars for Mexico's drug cartels. Your tax dollars at work! And while this evil madness was raging, Obama conducted a hysterical campaign against Sarah Palin for using an image of a target on her website.
THREE - Giving Top-Secret Technology to Our Enemies: Last week brought word that Obama is planning to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia, over the strenuous objections of security officials who say it could devastate the effectiveness of our entire defense system. They also fear Russia will share our secrets with China, Iran and North Korea.
Remember how Obama's Mommy and Daddy met in Russian class? If only they could see their little boy now.
Obama also gave a freebie of our most classified intelligence to Iran, refusing all three options to destroy a downed U.S. drone. Instead, he let the mullahs paw their way through our most sensitive high-tech secrets. Not to worry -- he did politely ask them to give it back.
FOUR - Waging War Against Libya Without Congressional Approval: Obama's handlers dreamed up a catchy new doctrine called Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and they were itching to try it out. So Obama gave them a nice, peppy little war to conduct in Libya. Why not take out the mad transvestite, Qadaffi? Nobody likes him, anyway.
Flagrantly flouting the War Powers Resolution, Obama spent a billion dollars to wage an unconstitutional war. The grand result is Al Qaeda's flag waving over Benghazi and 20,000 anti-aircraft missiles missing, which will probably wind up blasting towards us.
FIVE - Hollowing Out Our Military: This week we learn that Obama is slashing the defense budget, planning to lay off 14% off our troops, reduce our nuclear arsenal, shelve key weapon systems and explicitly cripple our ability to wage ground wars. What hath Saul Alinsky wrought!
Already, Obama has strait-jacketed the military in political correctness, forbidding discussion of the nature of radical Islam and sanitizing the jihad-crazed murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood into "workplace violence." But that was not enough for our Commander-in-Chief.
Our troops are so heroic that even in straitjackets, they can win. And if there's one thing Obama will not tolerate it's American victory.
From George Washington to Barack Obama - it's been quite a ride.
Write Stella Paul at Stellapundit@aol.com
1a)
Obama's Political Ploys Could Backfire
By Ed LaskyBarack Obama is taking a bigger risk than he realizes, testing the limits of the American electorate's patience with his insultingly manipulative political strategies. He is playing with fire.
The president's campaign strategy is to distract attention from his record of failure by attacking a do-nothing Congress. He has pointed his finger (yet again) at Republicans for putting the interests of the rich one percent over the welfare of the rest. President Obama has used this bogeyman to justify actions that, had a Republican taken them, would be bandied about the media as grounds for impeachment.
While these steps may fire up his base and win applause from certain quarters, they also bear grave political risks for the president. They may also ignite a backlash that will shellac him come November.
After three years of President Obama's term, Americans have become wary of his Cook County style of governing. When Congress was in Democratic hands, he was spoiled and able to ram through measures that many Americans opposed at the time (ObamaCare) or now oppose as being wasteful failures (the stimulus bill). He had to resort to bully tactics and legislative skullduggery and bribes even to get ObamaCare passed. These measures, of course, flew in the face of candidate Obama's promise to work across the aisle, respect and work with his opponents, and bring us together. They were also red flags that helped give rise to the Tea Party and to a Republican wave that swept many Democrats from office in 2010.
Those GOP victories finally posed a challenge to Barack Obama. But how did he respond? Certainly not by any appreciable compromises -- even when the House Republicans forced an extension of the Bush tax cuts upon him, he made sure to lash out and promise higher taxes would return in 2013. Having been cocooned in academia, unschooled in the ways of compromise by virtue of living in the deep blue haven of Cook County, coddled by a worshipful media, and surrounded by a small entourage of "yes people" cheering him on, there was no reason in Obama's mind to deign to work with others in his own party or with Republicans.
His obstinacy was bolstered by the Soros-supported Center for American Progress (CAP), which has been not just a "brain trust" for Barack Obama ("Obama's Idea Factory" according to Time Magazine), but also a hiring hall for the administration. John Podesta, for instance, headed the CAP for years and was also in charge of the Obama transition team before Obama assumed office. After the American people expressed their resistance to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis that had forced so much unwanted legislation on us by bringing so many Republicans into office, the CAP responded by sending Obama his marching orders. President Obama was advised to resort to extraordinary measures to circumvent Congress -- and ignore the 2010 election results.
He has done so with alacrity.
President Obama has been practicing "The New Authoritarianism" that liberals have been dreaming about for years (see this superb column by Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin). This "political philosophy" holds that Americans are basically dodos and must be ruled from above by elites who can ignore the wishes of the hoi polloi.
John Kass of the Chicago Tribune argues that this is "the Chicago Way" writ large. Under that system "citizens, even Republicans, are expected to take what big government gives them. If the political boss suggests that you purchase some expensive wrought-iron fence to decorate your corporate headquarters, and the guy selling insurance to the wrought-iron boys is the boss' little brother, you write the check." However, that is penny ante. Remember Obama's boast that he would fundamentally transform the nation?
Indeed, his presidency has been marked by a power-grab of unprecedented scope. He is, as Michelle Malkin writes, the American Pharaoh whose motto might be "So let it be written, so let it be done."
Be it through signing statements, executive orders (his latest is to give illegal immigrants a big break by allowing many of them with family members in America to avoid deportation while they seek green cards -- a pander to bolster Hispanic support), rule interpretations, selectively refusing to enforce some laws (Attorney General Eric Holder has run the Department of Justice in ways reminiscent of Tammany Hall), promulgating regulations to curry favor with some groups -- environmentalists among them -- while punishing adversaries, or making recess appointments (which he derided during the Bush years), Obama's role models seem increasingly to be the dictators of China toward whom he expressed envy not too long ago for their ability to impose policies regardless of the will of the people. Pundits have characterized his reign as being Chávez-like or akin to the ruler of a banana republic.
Here is the problem: Americans are not the dodos Obama and his allies think they are -- call it bitter clingers. However, Americans do cling to the Constitution and to the letters and the spirit of our laws. They are the bulwark against tyranny. This reverence toward the law and not toward Obama is his Achilles heel.
The president's increasingly flagrant disregard for the law and his disrespect for the will of the people may be the very self-inflicted wounds that cost him a second term. Unfortunately, this gift will need to be handled adeptly by a Republican Party not known since the Reagan days as being great communicators. Republicans have a willing audience, but are they ready to perform?
All the recent polls and surveys have shown, Americans have become increasingly distrustful of big government. While Obama has been pounding away at theme of income inequality in America with the idea that this tack will pay political dividends and justify his aggressive actions, Americans do not believe that redistribution should be a priority of the federal government. Pro-growth policies are far more important to Americans. While Obama may have been marinated in the academic swamps of anti-capitalism, most people have a favorable view of corporations compared to the Leviathan that the federal government has become.
According to a Gallup poll, more Americans prioritize the federal government helping to grow the economy then redistributing wealth.Forty-six percent of Americans believe it is extremely or very important that the federal government reduce the wealth gap while 70 percent think it is important for the government to increase equality of opportunity. Eighty-two percent think it is important for the government to grow and expand the economy.Gallup reports that 52 percent now say that "the fact that some people in the United States are rich and others are poor" is an acceptable part of the economic system -- an increase from the last time the question was asked more than a decade ago.Another Gallup poll shows that fear of big government is at near-record level at 64 percent. Only 26 percent thought big business was the biggest threat to the country in the future while 8 percent thought this of big labor.
As conservative media outlets have exposed the munificent pay and pension packages that public unions enjoy, as more and more states have their credit ratings cut (most recently and tellingly Illinois, Obama's home state, had its rating cut to the lowest of any state), as Americans look across the pond and see those European systems of government that Obama wants to emulate bring their people and nations to the brink of disunion and ruin, Americans have had their eyes opened to the perils of big government.
These findings comport well with the fact that an increasing percentage of people are identifying themselves as independents and conservatives as opposed to liberals. Just as more and more Democratic politicians have been finding reasons to avoid joint appearances with President Obama when he flies into their states, more people do not want to share the same party label as the president. Adding salt to the wounds, Democratic registrations have been falling across the nation. The McCain campaign was poorly run, but the one bright spot was the spots they ran characterizing Obama as a "celebrity." People tire of celebrities and fads; has Obama reached his own expiration point after three long years?
His favorability ratings may enjoy a bump up every now and then (there are only so many bin Ladens to kill), but they have plummeted from the heights when he came into office.
If -- and this is admittedly a big if -- Republicans are adept at crafting the right message, they can topple this vulnerable president. Americans have an abiding faith in the paramount importance of the checks-and-balances system of our government. Even the revered Franklin Roosevelt faced a backlash of public anger after his Supreme Court-packing scheme came to light. Americans have an instinctual reflex action when they feel a president does not respect the Constitution or the will of the people.
Republicans should have a drumbeat of stories regarding not just the myriad of problems of Obamacare (1/6 of the economy), but also the disgraceful ways in which it came to pass. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska bore the brunt of his state's disgust at his role in passing ObamaCare and chose not to run again; that should have been a warning sign to Obama. But so should the rise of the Tea Party. Cartoonists have made light of Obama's ears; Republican operatives should take advantage of his tin ear for politics.
Republicans must point out that Obama has constantly circumvented the will of the people when he has imposed regulations that will increase our energy costs (his "war on carbon"; his refusal to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built), granted a disproportionate number of ObamaCare waivers to union members; made non-recess recess appointments; imposed czar after czar, blatantly ignoring the "advise and consent" role that the Constitution gives to the Senate; selected radical federal judges -- who have lifetime tenure -- whom even the left-leaning American Bar Association finds "not qualified" to a shockingly large extent (Obama has his own court-packing scheme); flouted bankruptcy laws when he handed over a big chunk of the auto industry to unions and left taxpayers holding the bag; and the list goes on and on. There is a surfeit of material for Republicans to use in commercials, and each one should end by raising the specter of what President Obama would do in a second term -- completely free of concerns regarding the electoral consequences of his aggressive actions.
Obama has taken aggressive steps that should offend and worry all Americans who respect our Constitution and rightly fear a president who seemingly does not.
Will Republicans be able to tap voter angst?
Stay tuned.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.
1b)Obama guts military but gives raises to bureaucrats
1b)Obama guts military but gives raises to bureaucrats
AP PHOTO/J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE
President Barack Obama has a quiet lunch with a small group of supporters at a restaurant in Washington on Friday.
Hard facts ought to prevail where American security is concerned. This applies equally whether the issue at hand is the geopolitical consequences of ill-advised defense cuts or the possibility that waste and fraud in military procurement might result in the deaths of American soldiers. It is in that spirit that we view President Obama's announcement last week at the Pentagon of his new national defense doctrine. While there will be much more to say here in the future, two points stand out for now.
First, Obama claimed that "even as our troops continue to fight in Afghanistan, the tide of war is receding." What logically should have followed such an assertion was something about the surrender of an enemy and assurance that his defeat was so total and comprehensive that decades, if not centuries, will pass before he might again threaten the safety and security of the American people.
Obama could say nothing like that because no such surrender has been tendered, and it is clear to anybody with open eyes that the aggressors in the War on Terror are -- Osama bin Laden's death notwithstanding -- planning lethal new attacks on Americans here at home and American interests around the world. It is as though FDR had said in April 1943 that the tide of World War II was receding and therefore it was time to slash American defense spending because American pilots had shot down a plane carrying Japanese Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, chief planner behind the attack on Pearl Harbor. No matter that Japanese troops still occupied half of the Pacific and would continue to wage war against the U.S.
Second, another Obama decision became public last week: The chief executive wants to give federal civil servants a half-percent pay raise. The absurdity of this proposal is clear in light of the excellent reporting of USA Today's Dennis Cauchon. In a series of stories in 2010 that drew emotional criticism from federal employee union leaders but no factual refutations, Cauchon used the government's own data to show that civil servants' compensation has far outstripped that of private-sector workers. "The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade," Cauchon found. "Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009, while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available." If anything, Obama should freeze federal pay indefinitely so private-sector employees can catch up with the bureaucrats.
To be sure, the proposed raise is so small as to be largely symbolic, but that's precisely the point: It carries a vital re-election year message from Obama to a key sector of his base constituency -- unionized public employees. It tells them Obama will take care of them, even as he paves the way for firing half a million men and women in uniform who likely are not among his re-election supporters. The hard-eyed conclusion here must be that winning re-election is more important to Obama than assuring American security at home and abroad.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2)
Panetta We Will 'Stop' Iran's Weapons Program
WASHINGTON — The United States will respond if Iran tries to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Gulf, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday, saying such a move would cross a "red line."
"We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz," Panetta told CBS television. "That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them."
Panetta was seconded by General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said Iran has the means to close the waterway, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes.
"But we would take action and reopen the Straits," the general said on the same show, "Face the Nation."
Their comments follow Iranian threats to close the strait if the European Union slaps an embargo on Iranian oil, the latest step in a US-led campaign to pressure Tehran to give up their nuclear program. Western powers suspects Iran is bent on gaining atomic weapons, which Tehran denies.
The rising tensions have driven oil prices soaring over 100 dollars a barrel, hitting an eight-month high earlier this week, and sent jitters throughout the oil-rich Gulf amid growing fears of a spiral into conflict.
What to do about Iran also is rising as an in US electoral politics, with most Republican candidates blasting President Barack Obama as too soft on Tehran.
Panetta said the United States does not believe Iran is actively developing a nuclear weapon, and reaffirmed Washington's preference for diplomatic and economic pressure over military action as the way to deter Tehran.
But he bluntly warned Tehran against going from developing a nuclear capability to developing an atomic weapon.
"I think they need to know that if they take that step that they're going to get stopped," he said.
At another point, Panetta said, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."
Dempsey sidestepped questions on the difficulty of taking out Iran's nuclear capability, but said planning was underway for a military option.
"My responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on," he said.
Asked whether the United States could take out Iran's nuclear capability without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons itself, Dempsey said, "I absolutely want them to believe that that's the case."
Panetta, meanwhile, suggested the United States would not welcome unilateral military action by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about," he said.
On the Strait of Hormuz, Dempsey said Iran could close the waterway "for a period of time."
"We've invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that. And so the simple answer is yes, they can block it," he said.
"We've described that as an intolerable act. And it's not just intolerable for us, it's intolerable to the world. But we would take action and reopen the Straits."
2a
 UN nuclear watchdog sources in Vienna confirm that uranium enrichment has begun Iran's Fordo underground site • Iranian court sentences to death a former US marine of Iranian descent convicted as a CIA agent • Washington demands release of Amir Mirzaei Hekmati who has 20 days to appeal • FM Lieberman throws cold water on second Israel-Palestinian Amman meeting Monday • He told Knesset panel not to expect breakthrough because Palestinians have not abandoned violence • They only agreed to talks to gratify Jordan's king • US top soldier Gen. Dempsey: Iran has ability to block Strait of Hormuz "for a period of time" • "We are invested in capabilities to ensure we can defeat that." At Jenin checkpoint, Israel border police detain four Palestinians carrying 12 explosive devices, an improvised firearm, ammo and a commando knife • Russian aircraft carrier and two warships dock in Syrian port of Tartus in apparent show of support for Assad • Arab League calls on Syria to admit more monitors as Assad's forces continue to kill protesters • |
Russian, French warships off Syria, Iran, US drones over Iranian coast
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kutznetsov in Syrian port
The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, Jan. 8, arriving together with the destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and frigate Yaroslav Mudry.
To counter this movement, France consigned an air defense destroyerForbin to the waters off Tartus.
Military sources report a buildup in the last 48 hours of western naval forces opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea in readiness for Tehran to carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Britain has dispatched the HMS Daring, a Type 45 destroyer armed with new technology for shooting down missiles, to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the FrenchCharles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
Saturday, the giant RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV, took off from the USS Stenning aircraft carrier for surveillance over the coasts of Iran. The Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.
This was the first time the US has deployed unmanned aerial vehicles over Iran since its RQ-170 stealth drone was shot down by Iran on Dec. 4. It was also the first time the huge drone was ordered to take off from an aircraft carrier for a Broad Aerial Maritime Surveillance Mission (BAMS).
US military sources reported Monday, Jan. 9 that the Global Hawk's mission is "to monitor sea traffic off the Iranian coast and the Straits of Hormuz." The US Navy was ordered to maintain a watch on this traffic, another first, after Iranian Navy chief Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said in a televised broadcast Sunday night that the Strait of Hormuz was under full Iranian control and had been for years.
Also Sunday, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff, warned in no uncertain terms that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time.” He added in a CBS interview: “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.” Gen. Dempsey went on to emphasize: "Yes, they can block it. We've described that as an intolerable act and it's not just intolerable for us, it's intolerable to the world. But we would take action and reopen the straits."
Appearing on the same program, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a quick, decisive and very tough American response to any Iranian attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz.
They both spoke a few hours after a spokesman for the Revolutionary Guards said the supreme Iranian leadership had ruled the Strait must be closed in the event of an oil embargo imposed on Iran by the European Union.
The constant escalation of military tension around Iran and Syria in recent days as not just stemming from the rapid advances Iran is making toward production of a nuclear weapon, but from fears in the West and Israel that Tehran and Damascus are in step over their military plans for the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean sectors.
After the Admiral Kuznetsov docked in Tartus Sunday with much fanfare, the Syrian Navy commander Dawoud Rajha was received on the deck by a guard of honor of marines under a flyover of Russian Su-33 and Su-25 fighter-bombers. This was taken as a signal of Moscow's willingness to back the Assad regime up against any Western military intervention as well as a gesture of support for cooperation between Syria and Iran in their operational plans.
Sunday, the Iranian media issued divergent statements about the situation at Iran's undergrounduranium enrichment plant at Fordo, near Qom: In English, the site as described as going on stream soon, while the Farsi media reported it was already operational.
The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoun Abbasi Davani declared furthermore," …the Islamic Republic is capable of exporting services related to nuclear energy to other countries."
This statement showed Tehran has no fear of raising the level of its threats to the West up to the point of offering to hand out its nuclear technology to other countries in a gesture of uncontrolled proliferation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The land-for-peace hoax
By Caroline B. Glick
 | |
The rise of the forces of jihadist Islam in Egypt places the US and other Western powers in an uncomfortable position. The US is the guarantor of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. That treaty is based on the proposition of land for peace. Israel gave Egypt Sinai in 1982 and in exchange it received a peace treaty with Egypt. Now that the Islamists are poised to take power, the treaty is effectively null and void.
The question naturally arises: Will the US act in accordance with its role as guarantor of the peace and demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel? Because if the Obama administration or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty does not issue such a demand, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.
Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian- Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.
Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel — that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace — will be exposed as worthless lies. As we are already seeing today, no one will stand up for Israel's rights. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.
As it has become more apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties will hold an absolute majority in Egypt's democratically elected parliament, Western governments and media outlets have insistently argued that these anti-Western, and anti-Jewish, movements have become moderate and pragmatic. Leading the charge to make the case has been the Obama administration. Its senior officials have eagerly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi is reportedly mediating negotiations between the US and the Taliban
Qaradawi, an Egyptian who has been based in Qatar since 1961, when he was forced to flee Egypt due to his jihadist politics, made a triumphant return to his native land last February following the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak. Speaking to a crowd of an estimated two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Qaradawi led them in a chant calling for them to invade Jerusalem.
Qaradawi, an Egyptian who has been based in Qatar since 1961, when he was forced to flee Egypt due to his jihadist politics, made a triumphant return to his native land last February following the overthrow of president Hosni Mubarak. Speaking to a crowd of an estimated two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square, Qaradawi led them in a chant calling for them to invade Jerusalem.
Over the years, Qaradawi has issued numerous religious ruling permitting, indeed requiring, the massacre of Jews. In 2009, he called for the Muslim world to complete Hitler's goal of eradicating the Jewish people.
As for the US, in 2003, Qaradawi issued a religious ruling calling for the killing of US forces in Iraq.
BOTH THE Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are happy to cater to the propaganda needs of Western journalists and politicians and pretend that they are willing to continue to uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But even as they make conditional statements to eager Americans and Europeans, they consistently tell their own people that they seek the destruction of Israel and the abrogation of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' Jonathan D. Halevi documented last week in a report on Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist positions on the future of the peace between Egypt and Israel, while speaking to Westerners in general terms about their willingness to respect the treaty, both groups place numerous conditions on their willingness to maintain it. These conditions make clear that there is no way that they will continue to respect the peace treaty. Indeed, they will use any excuse to justify its abrogation and blame it on Israel. And they will do so at the earliest available opportunity.
It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the US will cut off military aid to Egypt in the wake of Cairo's abrogation of the peace treaty. But it is impossible to imagine that the Obama administration will abide by the US's commitment as the guarantor of the deal and demand that Egypt return Sinai to Israel. Indeed, it is only slightly more likely that a Republican administration would fulfill the US's commitment as guarantor of the peace and demand the return of Sinai to Israel after Egypt's democratically elected Islamist regime finds an excuse to abrogate the peace treaty.
It is important to keep this sorry state of affairs in mind when we assess the prospects for a land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This week, following months of intense pressure from the US and the EU, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met face to face for the first time in 16 months. According to Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, who hosted the meeting, the Palestinians submitted their proposal on security and border issues to Israel. The sides are supposed to meet again next week and Israel is expected to present its proposals on these issues.
There are several reasons that these talks are doomed to failure. The most important reason they will fail is that even if they lead to an agreement, no agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is sustainable. Assuming for a moment that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas goes against everything he has said for the past three years and signs a peace deal with Israel in which he promises Israel peace in exchange for Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, this agreement will have little impact on the Palestinians' view of Israel. Abbas today represents no one. His term of office ended three years ago. Hamas won the last Palestinian elections in 2006.
And Hamas's leaders — like their counterparts in the Muslim Brotherhood — make no bones about their intention to destroy Israel. Two weeks ago at a speech in Gaza, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh proclaimed, "We say today explicitly so it cannot be explained otherwise, that the armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."
In his visit with his Muslim Brotherhood counterpart, Mohammad Badie, in Cairo this week Haniyeh said, "The Islamic resistance movement of Hamas by definition is a jihadist movement by the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian on the surface, Islamic at its core, and its goal is liberation."
WITH HAMAS'S Brotherhood colleagues taking power from Cairo to Casablanca, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which supposedly peaceseeking Fatah will win Palestinian elections. It is in recognition of this fact that Abbas has signed a series of unity agreements with Hamas since May.
So the best case scenario for a peace deal with the Palestinians is that Abbas will sign a deal that Israel will implement by withdrawing from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and expelling up to a half a million Israeli citizens from their homes. Hamas will then take power and abrogate the treaty, just as its brethren in Cairo are planning to do with their country's peace treaty.
This leads us to the question of what the diplomatic forces from the US, the EU, and the UN who have worked so hard to get the present negotiations started are really after. What are they trying to achieve by pressuring Israel to negotiate a deal that they know will not be respected by the Palestinians?
In the case of some of the parties involved it is fairly obvious that they want to weaken Israel. Take the UN for example. In 2005, Israel withdrew all of its military forces and civilians from Gaza. Rather than reward Israel for giving up land with peace, the Palestinians transformed Gaza into a launching pad for missile attacks against Israel. And in June 2007, Hamas took over the territory.
Despite the fact that Israel is wholly absent from Gaza, and indeed is being attacked from Gaza, no one has called for the Palestinians to give the territory back to Israel. The UN doesn't even recognize that Israel left.
Last September, the UN published yet another report labeling Israel as the occupier of Gaza. And in accordance with this fiction, the UN — along with the EU and the US — continues to hold Israel responsible for Gaza's welfare.
Ironically, Hamas itself denies that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. In an interview with the Ma'an news agency on Tuesday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar openly admitted that Gaza is not under occupation. Speaking of Fatah's plan to launch massive demonstrations against Israel, Zahar said, "Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable."
Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah can all freely tell the truth about Israel and their commitment to its destruction without fear of any repercussions. They know that the Western powers will not listen to them. They know that they will never have to pay a price for their duplicity. Indeed, they know they will be rewarded for it.
Since the inauguration of the land-for-peace process between Israel and the PLO 19 years ago, the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their bad faith. Israeli land giveaways have consistently been met with increased Palestinian terrorism. Since 1996, US- and European- trained Palestinian security forces have repeatedly used their guns to kill Israelis. Since 1994, the PA has made it standard practice to enlist terrorists in its US- and European-funded and trained security forces.
The US and Europe have continued to train and arm them despite their bad faith. Despite their continued commitment to Israel's destruction and involvement in terrorism, the US and the EU have continued to demand that Israel fork over more territory. At no point have either the US or the EU seriously considered ending their support for the Palestinians or the demonstrably fictitious landfor- peace formula.
As Israel bows now to still more US and EU pressure and conducts land-for-peace talks with Fatah, our leadership may be seduced by the faint praise they receive from the likes of The Washington Post or even from the Obama administration. But this praise should not turn their heads.
To understand its feckless emptiness, all they need to do is direct their attention to what happened this week in Cairo, as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists secured their absolute control over Egypt's parliament. Specifically, our leaders should note the absence of any voices demanding that Egypt respect the peace treaty with Israel or return Sinai.
The time has come for Israel to admit the truth. Land-for-peace is a confidence game and we are the mark.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where her column appears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment