Monday, June 30, 2014

Obama down by 9 Zip. Past Time for Israel to "Whack a Mole" and Take Off The Gloves!

I'm off to the gym after I send this and then going to play tennis.
===The Supreme Court has played' whack a mole' with Obama's domestic agenda.

Obama recently blamed Republican obstruction for causing him  to circumvent Congress in order to pass unconstitutional legislation. 

The arrogance and hubris of this disaster of a president knows no bounds.

So far in just the past few weeks the score is: Constitution 3 - Obama 0.

(Republicans are willing to negotiate immigration legislation but they have learned , as the nation finally has, Obama's word is meaningless. (See 1 below.)

In  foreign affair matters the score is worse: Islamist Radicals and Putin 6 Obama 0. (See 1a below.)

That said, there is not a 'smidgen' of truth to suggest Obama had anything to do with setting  the tone that has led to the various scandals that have engulfed his administration. No doubt it is because the stars are unaligned and all that  pollution from coal emissions.
Why The Bull still has legs! (See 2 below.)
My sentiments exactly.

It is time to deal Hamas a wipe out blow and bring those living in Gaza to their knees!

Carterites, Presbyterians and the rest of the 'anti-Israel  bleeders' will object to anything Israel does so ignore them  because  it is well past the  time for  Israel takes off the gloves, take restraint off the table and 'whack a mole' in earnest!!!!   (See 3 and 3a below.)
1) GOP warns Obama: Don't Overstep Executive Powers On Immigration

Conservatives railed at President Barack Obama's announcement Monday that he would  take executive action to reform the U.S. immigration system after hopes of passing legislation in Congress officially died.
Republican John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, said the announcement was "sad" and "disappointing"  and warned that unilateral action was not a solution.

"In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don't trust him to enforce the law as written," Boehner said in a statement. "Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue... It is sad and disappointing that – faced with this challenge – President Obama won't work with us, but is instead intent on going it alone with executive orders that can't and won't fix these problems.

Boehner told Obama last week that his chamber would not vote on immigration reform this year, killing chances that a wide-ranging bill passed by the Senate would become law.

Republicans have seized on the Central American surge to criticize the president’s immigration policies.  Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith is warning Obama could face legal action is he goes too far on his own.

“If the president insists on enacting amnesty by executive order,” said Smith, “he will undoubtedly face a lawsuit and will find himself, once again, on the wrong side of the Constitution and the law.”

The collapse of the legislative process delivers another in a series of blows to Obama's domestic policy agenda and comes as he struggles to deal with a flood of unaccompanied minors largely from Central America who have entered the United States.

It also sets up a new battle with congressional Republicans, who accuse Obama of going beyond his legal authority to take executive action on issues such as gay rights and equal pay for women and men.

Obama chided House Republicans for refusing to bring immigration reform to a vote and said only legislation could provide a permanent fix to the problem.

"I take executive action only when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing. And in this situation, the failure of House Republicans to pass a darn bill is bad for our security; it's bad for our economy, and it's bad for our future," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

"America cannot wait forever for them to act. That's why today I'm beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."

But Boehner, in his statement, fired back saying Obama caused the border crisis by his haphazard immigration policies.

"The president’s own executive orders have led directly to the humanitarian crisis along the Southern border, giving false hope to children and their families that if they enter the country illegally they will be allowed to stay," Boehner chided.

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly also criticized Obama's actions, playing a video Monday night of Obama saying he would direct resources from the interior to the border.

"Well, why didn't you do that five years ago?" O'Reilly asked.

Obama didn't act until the "crescendo of criticism" began against him, O'Reilly said, noting that a recent joint raid with Mexican authorities freed 200 children being held against their will.

No such raids had happened previously, he said, because Obama reacts to crises rather than being proactive and preventing them.'s Mary Katherine Ham said Obama was following a familiar pattern.

"He gives a speech, he asks for a list of things he can do on his own," she told O'Reilly. "He says he's going to act on his own. He then makes fun of Republicans in Congress and then asks them for a bunch of stuff."

Some of Obama's ideas make sense, she said, but he trashes the people he is asking to help him.

Earlier Monday Obama directed Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to move enforcement resources from the U.S. interior to the border to promote public safety. He said he asked his team to prepare recommendations on other actions he can take unilaterally by the end of the summer.

Monday was another chapter in a long-festering test of wills between Obama and Boehner about the direction the country should go. They have battled over healthcare, deficits, government spending and gun control. Compromises have been rare and could be even more elusive if Republicans increase their majority in the House in November elections and seize control of the Senate.

Boehner inflamed tensions with the White House last week by announcing he was considering a lawsuit charging the president with overstepping his constitutional boundaries with the series of executive actions he has pursued all year.

A Boehner spokesman said the two leaders spoke in person about immigration reform last week.
"Speaker Boehner told the president exactly what he has been telling him: the American people and their elected officials don't trust him to enforce the law as written," spokesman Michael Steel said. "Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue."

Obama has pushed for years for reform that would create a path to citizenship for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants within the United States. The U.S. Senate bill had such provisions, but Republicans in the House largely opposed them on the argument that they amounted to amnesty for people who had entered the country illegally.

His shift to executive action comes at a tricky time for the administration. The president sent a letter to Congress on Monday asking for additional resources to deal with the problem of unaccompanied minors entering the country and creating a humanitarian crisis.

Obama repeated on Monday that most of those children would be sent home.

That crisis and the death of reform legislation puts Obama in the awkward position of studying new ways to help the undocumented workers who have been in the country for years while getting tougher on juveniles who are entering now.

Not long ago the White House had held out hope that House Republicans would move on immigration reform this summer before November congressional elections. It delayed a review by the Department of Homeland Security over changes to U.S. deportation policy to give lawmakers space to pursue a legislative solution.

Many members of Congress have predicted that if legislation is not enacted this year, any new attempts would have to wait until 2017 after a new president takes office.

1a)  How Abbas Duped Kerry and Indyk

Kerry and Indyk failed to understand that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to make concessions to Israel as part of a peace agreement. Concessions would be tantamount to signing his own death warrant. Abbas is being denounced as a "traitor" for merely opposing the abduction of three Israeli teenagers.
The release of 78 prisoners, some with "blood on their hands," is seen as a major achievement for Abbas, who was never even asked to pay anything in return.
U.S. envoy to the Middle East Martin Indyk announced on June 28 that he was quitting his job "battered and unbowed."

But Indyk forgot to mention that he is also leaving his job after Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in tricking him and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Abbas has, in fact, emerged as the biggest winner from the nine-month peace talks, which ended in failure in late April. Abbas proved that it is easy to fool the Americans into thinking that he would be able to sign a peace agreement with Israel that included concessions unacceptable to most Palestinians.

Abbas managed to persuade the Americans that the release of Palestinian prisoners imprisoned by Israel before the Oslo Accords would enhance his standing among Palestinians and boost his chances of signing a peace agreement with Israel.

Kerry and Indyk were quick to buy Abbas's argument, and they exerted heavy pressure on the Israeli government to comply.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and PA President Mahmoud Abbas share a laugh in Ramallah on January 4, 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Dept.) Inset: The "battered and unbowed" U.S. special envoy Martin Indyk. (Image source: Aspen Institute/Flickr)

The Israeli government reluctantly approved the release of some 104 prisoners, including many with "blood on their hands."

During the nine months of the peace talks, Israel released 78 Palestinian prisoners in three stages, in the hope that this would boost the peace process with the Palestinians and enhance Abbas's credibility among his people.
The release of the prisoners is indeed seen as a major achievement for Abbas, who was never even asked to pay anything in return.

When some of Abbas's advisors were asked why they were continuing with the U.S.-sponsored negotiations even though they knew Israel was not going to give them everything they were asking for, they pointed out that the effort was worthwhile even if it only led to the release of veteran prisoners.

In the end, the release of the prisoners brought about neither a peace agreement with Israel nor bolstered Abbas's standing among Palestinians. Moreover, the release of the prisoners does not seem to have increased the number of Palestinians who support the peace process with Israel.

A public opinion poll published last week shows that a majority of Palestinians now oppose a two-state solution and reject permanent acceptance of Israel's existence.

As for Abbas's standing among his people, it has become clear over the past few weeks that the PA president is being denounced as a "traitor" for merely opposing the abduction of three Israeli teenagers. Obviously, Palestinians have forgotten that Abbas managed to secure the release of prisoners incarcerated by Israel more than 20 years ago.

Apparently, Kerry and Indyk were convinced up to the last moment that Abbas would be able or willing to make concessions that were tantamount to signing his own death warrant.

Abbas was clever to pursue the negotiations until the end of the nine-month deadline set by Kerry in the hope that he would get the fourth and final batch of the 104 pre-Oslo prisoners.

Abbas, at the same time, wanted to give Kerry and Indyk a last-minute chance to force Israel to accept all his demands, namely a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

When Abbas realized that his scheme was not working, however, he embarked on a series of steps that caught the Obama Administration by surprise.

First, Abbas signed applications for Palestinian membership in 15 international treaties and conventions.
Second, he struck a unity deal with Hamas, which resulted in the establishment of a Palestinian "national consensus" government.

He seems to have gotten away with these two surprise moves, which were seen as severe blow to U.S. efforts to move forward with the peace process.

Abbas appears to be the only player who benefited from the botched U.S.-sponsored peace process. Not only did this peace process get 78 prisoners released, but it also paved the way for Abbas to embark on unilateral moves and wage a diplomatic war against Israel in the international arena.

As if that were not enough, the peace process eventually drove Abbas into the open arms of Hamas: Abbas would rather join forces with Hamas than succumb to U.S. pressure to reach a "treacherous" agreement with Israel.

Kerry and Indyk failed to understand that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to make real concessions to Israel as part of a peace agreement.

Instead, they chose to endorse the false assumption that Abbas would be able to deliver a deal. By doing so, they actually forced Abbas to mislead them into thinking that if only Israel released more prisoners, he would be able to make concessions. The question now is whether Kerry and Indyk will be prepared to admit that they were duped by the Palestinian Authority president. Probably not.

2)  Cumberland's Kotok: 6 Reasons Why Stocks Still Have Juice
By Dan Weil

With the S&P 500 standing within 1 percent of its record high, some financial commentators say the end of the five-year bull market is near.

David Kotok, chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, cites in his Market Commentary six factors that drove the market in the second quarter and why you should stick with stocks. 

1. The short-term interest rate remains near zero.

2. Although they were expected to rise, long-term government bond rates have fallen.

3. Inflation rates worldwide are at very low levels. "In Europe, the inflation rate is now recorded at 0.50 percent," he writes.

4. Central banks are continuing easy money policies. For instance, Kotok states, "Even though the Federal Reserve is tapering, it is still expanding excess reserves and acquiring assets on its balance sheet."

5. The federal deficit is still falling, from a[n annual] run rate of $1.4 trillion at its peak to an annualized run rate of $400 billion.

6. The trade deficit and current-account deficits are shrinking because of the growing U.S. energy self-sufficiency.

"The combination of these factors continues to support equity prices. On a comparative or relative basis, stocks still seem attractive," he insists.

"The bottom line is that the stock market is still in an uptrend."

The market's next move might depend on U.S. economic strength. GDP shrank 2.9 percent in the first quarter, but many economists expect it will expand more than 3 percent for the rest of the year.

"In the third and fourth quarters, we should see [strong] growth, but anything that calls that into question . . . will be a problem," David Donabedian, chief investment officer of Atlantic Trust, tells The Wall Street Journal

Not the Moment for “Restraint” Against Hamas

In a sentiment that was echoed across the Israeli political spectrum, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed today that “Hamas will pay” for the murders of three Israeli teenagers kidnapped two weeks ago. What exactly Netanyahu meant by this phrase isn’t yet known. But given the track record of both Israel and the Palestinians and the efforts by President Obama to head off any tough action by Netanyahu the leaders of the terror group may not exactly be shaking in their boots.

In the wake of the discovery of the victims’ bodies, anger against the Islamist terror group is widely felt and it is likely that Netanyahu’s government will have wide political leeway to hit Hamas hard, both in the West Bank and Gaza. But, the question facing Israel is not so much whether to launch air strikes at Hamas headquarters or to round even more of their supporters. Rather, it is whether if, after an interval of a week or two, Hamas is still functioning and is still part of the ruling coalition of the Palestinian Authority. If, after absorbing a pounding from the Israeli army, the Islamist movement’s leadership can claim that it not only shed more Jewish blood but also survived another Israeli counterattack, then despite all of the fearsome rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, Hamas will have won.

President Obama’s condemnation of the deaths of the three Israeli teens was appropriate but it was accompanied by the standard call for “all sides to exercise restraint.” Which is to say that the U.S. is making it clear to the Israelis that anything beyond a minimal retaliation that will not make a difference will be condemned as worsening the situation. But, like all past efforts to enforce restraint on Israel, such counsel merely ensures that this tragedy will be played out again and again.
It must be understood that while the gruesome crime committed against three teenagers may damage Hamas’ already shaky reputation in the West, the willingness of the group to commit this atrocity may increase its popularity among Palestinians. In the last year, Hamas’ political stock has fallen as the cash shortfall caused by its rift with Iran and the closing of smuggling tunnels to Egypt undermined its ability to maintain local support. Where once it was seen as a viable alternative to the Fatah kleptocracy that rules over the West Bank, it is now seen as merely an Islamist version of the same corrupt model. Its willingness to maintain a rough cease-fire with Israel along the border with Gaza also robbed of its mantle as the standard-bearer of the struggle against the Jewish state. It was for these reasons that it was forced to sign a unity agreement with Abbas’ Fatah.
Should a determined Israeli offensive take out some of its leadership and undermine its capacity to function, perhaps that decline will continue. But Hamas and its backers also know that violence has always been the main factor legitimizing Palestinian political parties. Should the kidnapping lead to another round of violence in which Hamas could portray itself as the true defender of Palestinian honor, then the incident could give it a new lease on life even as its members duck for cover.
That may incline some to counsel Israelis to avoid what in the past has been considered a “disproportionate” response to Palestinian provocations. Since Israeli attacks may actually undermine Abbas and boost Hamas, some (especially in the United States) may advise Netanyahu to make some noise but then get back to business as usual as quickly as possible lest a new counter-terror campaign serve to create a new generation of terrorists.
While that line of reasoning may sound logical, it would be a mistake. Israel needs to do more than launch some symbolic strikes that will do nothing to assuage Israeli anger while doing nothing to deter Palestinians from emulating this horrific deed. Nothing short of a stroke that will decapitate the leadership of this group will convince the Palestinians that Hamas has made a mistake.
As a poll I discussed last week showed, the vast majority of Palestinians want the struggle against Israel to continue but they don’t want to personally pay the price of that conflict. Making the vast majority of Palestinians pay for Hamas’ outrages would deepen their bitterness against Israel and lead to charges of collective punishment. But if, instead, Israel makes Hamas’ leaders pay in such a measure as to make it difficult if not impossible to carry on then perhaps Netanyahu can thread the needle in between an escalation and a weak non-response.
It may be that Israel’s options are limited by political realities and Hamas’ ability to withstand attacks. But no matter what choices Netanyahu makes, “restraint” will be merely an invitation for Hamas to repeat this crime again in the future.

3a)  Where Are The Palestinian Mothers?

A culture that celebrates kidnapping is not fit for statehood.

By Bret Stephens 

In March 2004 a Palestinian teenager named Hussam Abdo was spotted by Israeli soldiers behaving suspiciously as he approached the Hawara checkpoint in the West Bank. Ordered at gunpoint to raise his sweater, the startled boy exposed a suicide vest loaded with nearly 20 pounds of explosives and metal scraps, constructed to maximize carnage. A video taken by a journalist at the checkpoint captured the scene as Abdo was given scissors to cut himself free of the vest, which had been strapped tight to his body in the expectation that it wouldn't have to come off. He's been in an Israeli prison ever since.

Abdo provided a portrait of a suicide bomber as a young man. He had an intellectual disability. He was bullied by classmates who called him "the ugly dwarf." He came from a comparatively well-off family. He had been lured into the bombing only the night before, with the promise of sex in the afterlife. His family was outraged that he had been recruited for martyrdom.

"I blame those who gave him the explosive belt," his mother, Tamam, told the Jerusalem Post, of which I was then the editor. "He's a small child who can't even look after himself."

Yet asked how she would have felt if her son had been a bit older, she added this: "If he was over 18, that would have been possible, and I might have even encouraged him to do it." In the West, most mothers would be relieved if their children merely refrained from getting a bad tattoo before turning 18.

I've often thought about Mrs. Abdo, and I'm thinking about her today on the news that the bodies of three Jewish teenagers, kidnapped on June 12, have been found near the city of Hebron "under a pile of rocks in an open field," as an Israeli military spokesman put it. Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16, had their whole lives ahead of them. The lives of their families will forever be wounded, or crippled, by heartbreak.

What about their killers? The Israeli government has identified two prime suspects, Amer Abu Aysha, 33, and Marwan Qawasmeh, 29, both of them Hamas activists. They are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Less innocent was the view offered by Mr. Abu Aysha's mother.

"They're throwing the guilt on him by accusing him of kidnapping," she told Israel's Channel 10 news. "If he did the kidnapping, I'll be proud of him."

It's the same sentiment I heard expressed in 2005 in the Jabalya refugee camp near Gaza City by a woman named Umm Iyad. A week earlier, her son, Fadi Abu Qamar, had been killed in an attack on the Erez border crossing to Israel. She was dressed in mourning but her mood was joyful as she celebrated her son's "martyrdom operation." He was just 21.

Here's my question: What kind of society produces such mothers? Whence the women who cheer on their boys to blow themselves up or murder the children of their neighbors?

Well-intentioned Western liberals may prefer not to ask, because at least some of the conceivable answers may upset the comforting cliché that all human beings can relate on some level, whatever the cultural differences. Or they may accuse me of picking a few stray anecdotes and treating them as dispositive, as if I'm the only Western journalist to encounter the unsettling reality of a society sunk into a culture of hate. Or they can claim that I am ignoring the suffering of Palestinian women whose innocent children have died at Israeli hands.

But I'm not ignoring that suffering. To kill innocent people deliberately is odious, to kill them accidentally or "collaterally" is, at a minimum, tragic. I just have yet to meet the Israeli mother who wants to raise her boys to become kidnappers and murderers—and who isn't afraid of saying as much to visiting journalists.

Because everything that happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is bound to be the subject of political speculation and news analysis, it's easy to lose sight of the raw human dimension. So it is with the murder of the boys: How far will Israel go in its retaliation? What does it mean for the future of the Fatah-Hamas coalition? What about the peace process, such as it is?

These questions are a distraction from what ought to be the main point. Three boys went missing one night, and now we know they are gone. If nothing else, their families will have a sense of finality and a place to mourn. And Israelis will know they are a nation that leaves no stone unturned to find its missing children.

As for the Palestinians and their inveterate sympathizers in the West, perhaps they should note that a culture that too often openly celebrates martyrdom and murder is not fit for statehood, and that making excuses for that culture only makes it more unfit. Postwar Germany put itself through a process of moral rehabilitation that began with a recognition of what it had done. Palestinians who want a state should do the same, starting with the mothers.

Constitution 3 - Obama 0! When Arabs and Muslims Meet To Agree About Unity, Disunity More Likely Occurs Because They Are Driven By Tribal Hatred!

From my retired lawyer friend:

1.         Not compelled to pay for abortions.
2.         Non union members cannot be compelled to pay dues.
3.         Recess appointments ruled unconstitutional if  Senate is in session when it says it is under its own rules 

Constitution 3, Obama 0

How does it feel Obama, to be slapped around by the Justices you dissed in one of your first State of The Union addresses before Congress?

Obama said he did not want to engage in a 'whack a mole' foreign policy.  Seems like he is being subjected to a 'whack a mole' domestic rebuke by The Supreme Court.

Once again, as I have suggested, the courts are going to save us despite Justice Ginsburg.
As ISIS takes over The Middle East, our best hope is their desire to impose their will on other radical Islamists will result in Arabs and Muslims killing each other at an accelerating pace.  

I have said repeatedly, when Arabs and Muslims come together for a unity meeting they simply create more disunity because they are driven by tribal and sectarian hatreds.

Obama's closest ally, Turekey's Erdogan, is not helping his alleged friend! [Written by my friend and fellow memo reader Jonathan Schanzer, before the three Israeli youth who were captured have now been found killed.] (See 1 below.)

What I propose is that Obama quit sending Kerry all over the world and he go himself and make nice to these animals! After all Obama's policies are based on his belief he can get the lion to lay down with the lamb and we are ready for one world under U.N auspices!

No more use for the Israelis so the Arabs killed them.

Why should anyone be surprised? Saddened yes, surprised no. Arabs enjoy killing.  It is part of their DNA.  (See2 below.)
1)   An Unhelpful Ally
Author:  Jonathan Schanzer 

The Middle East is aflame. The rapid march of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, from Syria into Iraq has rattled Washington and Brussels. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is also heating up, as the Jewish state searches frantically for three teens kidnapped in the West Bank. And the world powers continue to wrangle with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program.
None of these crises are easy to solve, and all three have been exacerbated by policies crafted in Europe's backyard by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey.
The ISIS crisis in Iraq is inextricably tied to the dangerous and permissive border policies of Mr. Erdogan's government in Turkey over the past two years. It was only last year that U.S. President Barack Obama chided Mr. Erdogan for “letting arms and fighters flow into Syria indiscriminately and sometimes to the wrong rebels, including anti-Western jihadists.”
Mr. Obama wasn't alone in that assessment. As Human Rights Watch noted in an October report, “Many foreign fighters operating in northern Syria gain access to Syria via Turkey, from which they also smuggle their weapons, obtain money and other supplies, and sometimes retreat to for medical treatment.”
Mr. Erdogan has denied these allegations and vowed to prevent aid from flowing to jihadists in Syria. But media and law-enforcement reports contradict his statements. “The relative accessibility of the Syrian-Turkish border explains” why so many jihadists have made their way to Syria, the Journal reported earlier this month, citing Europol.
ISIS has found other transit points into Syria. But it's clear that this group, and other violent factions, have benefited from Turkey's Wild Wild East. As Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment told the website Syria Deeply in December, “Turkey is to Syria now what Pakistan was to Afghanistan in the 1990s.”
Ankara may also be serving as a remote headquarters for the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Senior Hamas figure Saleh al-Aruri “operates out of Turkey, with the backing of the Turkish government,” Ynet reported in October. And a high-ranking Israeli intelligence official confirmed his presence there to me, adding that al-Aruri is “one of the most important leaders of Hamas” and is “involved in a lot of things including finance and logistics.”
More specifically, al-Aruri is in charge of Hamas's portfolio in the West Bank, according to the London-based pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat. As with other Hamas leaders, his violent proclamations are publicized on the English-language website of the Qassam Brigades, Hamas's military arm. “Hamas will be at the forefront of the resistance work in the West Bank,” the site quotes him as saying in October.
Aruri has been based in Turkey since 2012, according to the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly, after Hamas abandoned its Damascus headquarters in protest over the Assad regime's slaughter of fellow Sunnis. He joined a Hamas delegation in March 2012 that took part in talks with Mr. Erdogan, the Palestinian Maan News Agency reported. Later that year, he traveled from Turkey to Gaza to attend the Qatari emir's visit to Hamas-controlled Gaza. The following October, al-Aruri joined Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal for a high-level meeting with Mr. Erdogan in Ankara, according to a Hamas-linked website.
Aruri's name has recently appeared in the Israeli and Palestinian media as a person of interest in the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens in the West Bank earlier this month; shortly after these reports surfaced, the Israelis razed al-Aruri's home. His leadership role in the Qassam Brigades in the West Bank raise troubling questions about what he is doing in Turkey—and why Ankara allows him to remain there.
An even more troubling question is why, amid global financial pressure to convince the Islamic Republic's leadership to dismantle its illicit nuclear program, one of Turkey's three state-owned banks, Halkbank, was allegedly executing gas-for-gold transactions with Iran. Turkey in 2012 and 2013 purchased Iranian natural gas in Turkish lira and transferred the proceeds to Halkbank accounts. Iranian traders then used these proceeds to buy gold from Turkey, which was shipped to Dubai before making its way to Iran. Ankara insisted that the transactions didn't violate sanctions because the gold was going to individuals, not the Tehran regime (trade with individuals wasn't proscribed at the time).
Washington adopted new legislation in January 2013 that imposed a blanket prohibition on all gold sales to Iran. Yet the Obama administration didn't make the prohibition effective immediately. The sanctions only became effective six months later, on July 1, 2013. By forestalling the imposition of the sanctions, the White House granted Turkey and Iran additional months of trading opportunities. According to a report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Roubini Global Economics, “Iran's golden loophole” allowed Tehran to receive more than $13 billion before gas-for-gold slowed to a trickle.
Then, on December 17, 2013, a massive corruption probe in Turkey alleged multiple links between the Turkish political elite and a shadowy business network tied to Iran. One anti-AKP newspaper reported that Reza Zerrab, an Iranian-Azeri businessman, was “accused of being involved in irregular money transactions, mostly from Iran, that total some 87 billion euros.” Using his connections in Iran and Turkey, Mr. Zerrab moved “almost a metric ton of gold to Iran every day for 1 1/2 years” in transactions amounting to more than $28 billion, according to Bloomberg. A Turkish prosecutor's report, leaked in March, leveled additional allegations about this financial network between Turkey and Iran.
Mr. Erdogan and his allies deny any wrongdoing, and the AKP has deferred a parliamentary investigation to next year. But if the allegations are true, Turkey helped the mullahs attain financial leverage at a crucial moment in the battle over Iran's nuclear future.
Ankara is now imploring NATO for assistance in repelling ISIS. The AKP is also condemning Israel's West Bank manhunt, while opposing an Iranian nuclear bomb (Turkish President Abdullah Gul last year voiced his concern about a “neighboring country possessing weapons not possessed by Turkey”). Yet Turkey bears some responsibility for all three crises, and Europe must hold Ankara to account.
Mr. Schanzer is vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Three Bodies Found in Hevron Confirmed to be Kidnapped Teens

kidnapped boys israel

Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel, Courtesy of the families

Three bodies that were discovered by the IDF in the Hevron area have been confirmed to be those of kidnapped Israeli teens, Naftali Frenkel (16), Gilad Sha'ar (16), Eyal Yifrah (19).

The bodies were partially hidden in an open field, in a manner that indicates they were disposed of in a hurry.

It appears that the boys were murdered soon after their abduction, possibly hours after they were taken, two and a half weeks ago.

The Israeli cabinet was summoned to an emergency session Monday night to determine how to respond to the tragic deaths.

Clashes with Palestinians in the vicinity of Halhoul, are being reported, while police and other security forces are blocking roads between Hebron and Halhoul.


Sunday, June 29, 2014

Hobby Lobby Wins, Obama Loses! Will Obama's War On Nuns Continue? Obama's Caliphate!

Recently there has been much discussion regarding Common Core.

What do you know about Common Core?

Is it good for improving education?

Is it something you support?

On   July 22, The Skidaway Island Republican club will be hosting a presentation on this subject along with insights to the benefits of Charter Schools. At 5 PM we will be conducting this True Perspective in The Azaela Room of The Plantation Club. If you like, join us early and enjoy refreshments and a members bar prior to the meeting.

Roger Moss, Chairman of The Savannah Classical Academy (SCA) and Benjamin Payne, Headmaster, will discuss the pros and cons of Common Core and what their Chatham County Charter School have been able to attain in educating their students. This will be a very informative session and helping you gain greater knowledge of educational opportunities for the future.

Education is critical to our nation's survival and this is particularly so among inner city children who have been denied access to a solid educational foundation because of a variety of factors among which are: federal intrusion, political correctness and the break down of the family unit.

As always, a question and answer period will follow the presentation.

We are limited in seating to  70. Please let us know asap your plans to attend.

Sustaining Members no charge, Regular Members $5.00 and non-Members $10.00.

Please contact Russ Peterson for reservations at 598-9845 or
Penetration of our borders creates an opportunity according to Pelosi.  (See 1 below.)
Another perspective but always the same conclusion.  Obama and his misguided dreamy policies or intentional ones have helped create a new Caliphate.

Meanwhile, he arrogantly blames Republicans for blocking him causing him to end run the Constitution.  This from a professor who claims to have taught Constitutional Law. What garbage was fed to American voters waiting to be duped because of their hatred of G.W.

So now we are paying for this stupidity and Obama's incompetence and the cost will only escalate.

And I have yet to even mention the disaster this buffoon of a president is causing on our borders , the various scandals which he denies have occurred or he is not to blame etc.

Welcome to Obama's World!  (See 2 and 2a  below.)
The ice man cometh?  (See 3 below.)
Hobby Lobby wins, Obama loses again!
1) Pelosi calls surge of illegal immigrant children an ‘opportunity’

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi argued Saturday that the surge of illegal immigrant children and families crossing from Mexico into the U.S. is more of an "opportunity" than a "crisis." 

The Obama administration itself appears to be treating the surge as a crisis, assigning a point person -- FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate -- to coordinate the federal response. But Pelosi, D-Calif., visiting the Texas-Mexico border on Saturday, suggested those crossing should be welcomed and not treated as a problem.

"This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi said. "If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect -- what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect."

Pelosi acknowledged that the surge "does have crisis qualities," but again urged the public to use it as an "opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their dignity and worth."

Republican lawmakers have blamed the surge -- largely made up of illegal immigrant minors trekking from Central America, through Mexico and across the Rio Grande Valley in Texas -- on the Obama administration's policies, arguing that they've only encouraged more illegal immigration.

The Obama administration, for its part, has tried to telegraph to Central American countries that their residents will not be given a free pass to stay in the U.S.

Due to the backlog in the immigration system and other factors, however, the reality is that the U.S. government is housing many of those crossing for an indeterminate period of time.

According to The Associated Press, President Obama plans to seek more than $2 billion to help respond to the crossings, and seek "fast track" authority for the Department of Homeland Security to more quickly screen and deport children crossing the border illegally.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Obama’s Mideast - An autopsy

Five years after its much-heralded presentation, Obama’s Middle East vision comes into focus in all its ignorance, arrogance and naivete.
It seems like an eternity has passed since the Cairo Speech, in which President Barack Obama said he came “to
seek a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world,” was delivered a mere five years ago this

Half a decade on, Obama’s vision is in shambles. US interests in the Middle East are imperiled as they have not
been for half a century. Disrespect of America is rife among those Obama set out to appease, while America’s
allies mistrust Obama. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of Americans – including Democrats – have lost
 faith in his foreign policy, according to a New York Times/CBS poll published this week.

Back in 2009, Obama delivered more than 5,000 words of sweeping generalizations and pretentious declarations,
 many of which he now surely regrets.

Quoting the Koran, he preached the merits of truth, apologized to Iran for a US-aided coup in 1953, vowed to close
the Guantanamo prison, assured Muslims that America is not “a self-interested empire,” cried “Islam is part of
America,” derided governments “dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear,” hailed democracy while
equivocating that “no system of government can or should be imposed on one nation by another,” insinuated that
the Holocaust was the reason for Israel’s existence, compared the Palestinian plight to that of the American
slaves, and, to audience applause, demanded an immediate cessation of settlement building in the West Bank.

Obama’s move was already attacked at the time, most notably by Lebanese- born, Middle East expert Fouad
Ajami, who incidentally passed away this week.

“I was in Saudi Arabia,” reported Ajami days after the Cairo Speech.

“There was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease
and haste.”

Referring to an earlier statement by Obama, that he wanted American- Muslim relations restored to how they were
“30 or 20 years earlier,” Ajami noted that Obama’s imagined idyll actually included the Khomeini Revolution, the
standoff with Libya, the fall of Beirut to America’s enemies, and the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

Still, at the time the damage of Obama’s speech seemed to be mainly to his image, which came across as
frivolous. Critics noted that no plan of action was associated with his lecture, no prior coordination occurred with
local allies, and no experts were consulted about the likely results of such high-profile rhetoric in societies
unaccustomed to American-style public debate.

Now, with events making a mockery of his vow to help Baghdad build its army and “support and secure a united
Iraq,” a consensus is emerging in the West that US strategic interests have been seriously damaged, that
American diplomacy fell victim to ignorance, arrogance and naivete, and that policy overhaul is imperative – if not
for the sake of America’s interests, then at least for the sake of worldwide diplomatic stature.

THE FAILURE of Obama’s diplomacy is climaxing now in Iraq, but his strategic losses began in Egypt.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s appearance this week in Cairo was a trip to Canossa.

Having previously sided with Egypt’s Islamists, and responded to their ouster by suspending aid to the interim
government of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Obama’s emissary this week arrived in Sisi’s chambers and sheepishly
restored that aid.

It was a belated recognition that the florid rhetoric of the Cairo Speech had little to do with reality, which is
embodied in the elevation of Sisi to president of Egypt. And as has happened repeatedly because of his Middle
East hyperactivity, Obama ended up buying the damaged goods and paying double the price.

Obama’s original sin with Egypt was the delivery of his ideas through a loudspeaker in then-president Hosni
Mubarak’s living room. There are only two possible explanations for this conduct: maybe Obama did or didn’t
understand that he was potentially helping unseat one of America’s most loyal allies. If he didn’t understand such
an elementary Middle Eastern dynamic, he was in no position to discuss our troubled region’s problems. And if
he did understand the risks, he should have considered how his ideas would come across to locals as betrayal.

As it were, Obama’s treatment of Mubarak resulted in Egypt turning to Russia, which gladly agreed to sell Sisi
advanced aircraft and missiles.

That was a strategic bonanza Moscow had never dreamed of, considering the superiority of American weaponry
that Egypt had been buying ever since its peace treaty with Israel. Obama, in sum, failed to bring Egypt closer to
democracy, lost its trust, and eased its way back to Moscow’s bosom.

This failure to understand the most elementary laws of power-play was repeated in Syria, although in a different
way. At stake there was not loyalty and alliance, but enforcement. It would have been one thing for Washington to
say that it is neutral on Syria, or to remain mum while President Bashar Assad gassed his people. However, to
vow to use force and then fail to deliver on the threat indicates that Obama did not merely play the game poorly –
he didn’t even know the rules.

Such conduct calls for bad guys throughout the world to do as they please – which is indeed what they did. The
first to test Obama was North Korea, when it violated agreements with the US and conducted a nuclear test,
incidentally or not, the week before the Cairo Speech. Obama’s failure to respond to such a drastic provocation
was registered by autocrats worldwide, from then-Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who helped Iran survive
sanctions, to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who later prowled Ukraine.

The diplomatic inconsistency displayed in Syria was compounded by the ideological inconsistency displayed to
its south.

If US policy was to demand democracy in Cairo, then why not make the same demand in Riyadh, Kuwait City and
Doha? And if popular upheaval is to win US support, then why not back the Shi’ite majority’s challenge to
Bahrain’s pro-Saudi government? Yes, the Middle East is a very complex place, and no one would have
demanded that Obama reinvent it. He volunteered to present himself as the region’s reinventor, and the funeral for
 this pretension is now taking place in Iraq.

THE TROUNCING of Iraq’s American-built army by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s armed forces would have
been avoided had Washington thought historically, and acted creatively.

The underlying assumptions of Obama’s policy in Iraq were that international borders are sacred, its army is
reliable and its democracy is viable. Yet any student of Middle Eastern history would have told him that Iraq, like
Syria and Lebanon, is an artificial country that European colonialists imposed on rival minorities and faiths.

Americans, who by definition superimpose their citizenship on their religious and ethnic backgrounds, find the
Iraqis’ inversion of these priorities difficult to understand.

Yet that is the norm in this part of the world, and this mentality is in fact now reshaping Syria, Lebanon and Libya.
To distance himself from the colonialist legacy he decried in Cairo, Obama could have embraced Iraq’s organic
divides, and supported their building a future around its three major communities’ well-known identities.

Instead, he enshrined the colonialists’ untenable legacy.

A proper reading of Iraq’s American-led democratization would have led to the conclusion that dissolution is
effectively the will of the Iraqi people, considering that they voted, and their politicians ruled, according to sectarian
priorities. That is also why the Iraqi army unraveled. Handing Sunni conscripts nice uniforms and new guns did
not make them feel closer to those who dressed and armed them than to the tribe and faith that defined them.

IT IS NOT TOO LATE to redefine Washington’s Middle Eastern policy. But it must first ask what its overriding
interest in this part of the world actually is.

The Middle East has been, over the centuries, many things to many powers. For Alexander the Great, it was a
bridge between civilizations.

For the Ottomans, it was an imperial center of gravity. For the British, it was the passage to India. For US president
Franklin D. Roosevelt, it was an oil field. For the Cold War’s protagonists, it was a wrestling arena. For US
president Bill Clinton, it was a peacemaker’s Gordian knot. And for his two successors, it became a field of

Now, the dreaming is making way for sober watchfulness.

America has only one enemy in the world, and it is not autocracy – it is Radical Islam. Rulers like Putin, Sisi or
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah are bad for their people, but they don’t target America.

Islamism does.

It follows that in the Mideast, the US should play with those who are strong and pragmatic, and focus on
confronting the fanatics – be they Sunnis in Mosul and Gaza, or Shi’ites in Beirut and Tehran.

Judging by its acceptance of Sisi, the White House is now beginning to understand this.

The next logical step is therefore to accept Iraq’s and Syria’s dissolution, cultivate the Kurdish Regional
Government, accept the emergence of a Shi’ite state in southern Iraq, and help Jordan and Turkey shape a Sunni
state between western Iraq and eastern Syria.

No, this will not be panacea.

Western values will remain  foreign to them, and Western interests will still require struggle. However, the
struggle’s aim will be clear, and its prospects vastly improved.

2a)   SIS declares new Islamic caliphate

ISIS changes name to just Islamic State, says 'legality of all emirates, groups, states and
organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority.' 

The al-Qaeda breakaway group that has seized much of northeastern Syria and huge tracts of neighboring Iraq
formally declared the establishment of a new Islamic state on Sunday and demanded allegiance from Muslims

With brutal efficiency, the Sunni extremist group has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased 
the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state. But the declaration, made on the first 
day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, could trigger a wave of infighting among the Sunni militant factions that
formed a loose alliance in the blitz across Iraq and impact the broader international jihadist movement, especially 
the future of al-Qaeda.
Devastation in Mosul, Iraq (Photo: AP)
Devastation in Mosul, Iraq (Photo: AP)
The spokesman for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (or ISIS) declared the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi, as the leader of the new caliphate, or Islamic state, and called on Muslims everywhere, not just those
in areas under the organization's control, to swear loyalty to al-Baghdadi and support him.
"The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's
authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas," said the spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, in an audio
statement posted online. "Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day."
Al-Adnani loosely defined the Islamic state's territory as running from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala -
a vast stretch of land straddling the border that is already largely under the Islamic State's control. He also said
that with the establishment of the caliphate, the group was changing its name to just the Islamic State, dropping
 the mention of Iraq and the Levant.

Iraqi military spokesman General Qassim Ata (Photo: AFP)
Iraqi military spokesman General Qassim Ata (Photo: AFP)
Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East,
much of North Africa and beyond in various forms over the course of Islam's 1,400-year history.
It was unclear what immediate impact the declaration would have on the ground in Syria and Iraq, though experts
predicted it could herald infighting among the Sunni militants who have joined forces with the Islamic State in its
fight against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite-led government.
"Now the insurgents in Iraq have no excuse for working with ISIS if they were hoping to share power with ISIS,"
said Aymenn al-Tamimi, an analyst who specializes in Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, using one of several
acronyms for the Islamic State. "The prospect of infighting in Iraq is increased for sure."

Terror under threat

The greatest impact, however, could be on the broader international jihadist movement, in particular on the future
 of al-Qaeda.
Founded by Osama bin Laden, the group that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the US has long carried the
mantle of the international jihadi cause. But the Islamic State has managed to do in Syria and Iraq what al-Qaeda
never has - carve out a large swath of territory in the heart of the Arab world and control it.
ISIS forces (Photo: AP)
ISIS forces (Photo: AP)

"This announcement poses a huge threat to al-Qaeda and its long-time position of leadership of the international
jihadist cause," said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, in emailed comments. "Taken
globally, the younger generation of the jihadist community is becoming more and more supportive of (the Islamic
State), largely out of fealty to its slick and proven capacity for attaining rapid results through brutality."
Al-Baghdadi, an ambitious Iraqi militant who has a $10 million US bounty on his head, took the reins of the
Islamic State in 2010 when it was still an al-Qaeda affiliate based in Iraq. Since then, he has transformed what
had been an umbrella organization focused mainly on Iraq into a transnational military force.
Al-Baghdadi has long been at odds with al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, and the two had a very public falling
out after al-Baghdadi ignored al-Zawahri's demands that the Islamic State leave Syria. Fed up with al-Baghdadi
and unable to control him, al-Zawahri formally disavowed the Islamic State in February.
But al-Baghdadi's stature has only grown since then, as the Islamic State's fighters have strengthened their grip
on much of Syria, and now overrun large swathes of Iraq.
Iraqi forces in desert (Photo: Reuters)
Iraqi forces in desert (Photo: Reuters)
In Washington, the Obama administration called on the international community to unite in the face of the threat
 posed by the Sunni extremists.
"ISIL's strategy to develop a caliphate across the region has been clear for some time now. That is why this is a
 critical moment for the international community to stand together against ISIL and the advances it has made,
" State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
The Islamic State's declaration comes as the Iraqi government tries to wrest back some of the territory it has lost
to the jihadi group and its Sunni militant allies in recent weeks.
On Sunday, Iraqi helicopter gunships struck suspected insurgent positions for a second consecutive day in the
northern city of Tikrit, the predominantly Sunni hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi military
launched its push to wrest back Tikrit, a hotbed of antipathy toward Iraq's Shiite-led government, on Saturday with
a multi-pronged assault spearheaded by ground troops backed by tanks and helicopters.
The insurgents appeared to have repelled the military's initial push for Tikrit, and remained in control of the city
on Sunday, but clashes were taking place in the northern neighborhood of Qadissiyah, two residents reached by
telephone said.
Muhanad Saif al-Din, who lives in the city center, said he could see smoke rising from Qadissiyah, which borders
the University of Tikrit, where troops brought by helicopter established a bridgehead two days ago. He said many
of the militants had deployed to the city's outskirts, apparently to blunt the Iraqi military attack.
Military spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi told reporters Sunday that government troops in full control of the
university and had raised the Iraqi flag over the campus.
"The battle has several stages. The security forces have cleared most of the areas of the first stage and we have
 achieved results," al-Moussawi said. "It is a matter of time before we declare the total clearing" of Tikrit.
A provincial official reached by telephone reported clashes northwest of the city around an air base that previously
served as a US military facility known as Camp Speicher. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.
Jawad al-Bolani, a security official in the provincial operation command, said the US was sharing intelligence with
Iraq and has played an "essential" role in the Tikrit offensive.
"The Americans are with us and they are an important part in the success we are achieving in and around Tikrit,"
 al-Bolani told The Associated Press.
Washington has sent 180 of 300 American troops President Barack Obama has promised to help Iraqi forces.
The US is also flying manned and unmanned aircraft on reconnaissance missions over Iraq.
Iraq's government is eager to make progress in Tikrit after weeks of demoralizing defeats at the hands of the
Islamic State and its Sunni allies. The militants' surge across the vast Sunni-dominated areas that stretch from
Baghdad north and west to the Syrian and Jordanian borders has thrown Iraq into its deepest crisis since US
troops withdrew in December 2011.
More ominously, the insurgent blitz, which prompted Kurdish forces to assert long-held claims over disputed
territory, has raised the prospect of Iraq being split in three, along sectarian and ethnic lines.

For the embattled al-Maliki, success in Tikrit could help restore a degree of faith in his ability to stem the militant tide. Al-Maliki, a Shiite who has been widely accused of monopolizing power and alienating Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish minorities, is under growing pressure to step aside. But he appears set on a third
consecutive term as prime minister after his bloc won the most seats in April elections.
3) Antarctic Sea Ice Growing Despite
Global Warming Warnings
By Sandy Fitzgerald

The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice
surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist
and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings
of global warming.

The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online
The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.

It's not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his
Talking About the Weather.
Ambler is a journalist and author of the book "Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About
Climate Change." 

"The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square
kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007," said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea
ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived
at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.

While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are
showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.

"A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the
winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice
during the period of satellite measurement," said Ambler. 

However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the
Antarctic sea ice.

According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between
years, and it's less significant to the Earth's climate than is the ice around the Arctic.

Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing "a public relations
problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace."

During the past 18 months, global sea ice "has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13
years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001,
" he wrote.

In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole's temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.