.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Palestinian Dump Truck?
===
Condell, at it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch v=YQjTLGgQV2w&feature=youtu.be
===
Israeli Amb. Dermer's address at an event in Florida. (See 1 below.)
===
Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table.
Obama has removed many sanctions and is allowing Iran to finance the construction of enough centrifuges during the constantly extended negotiations to be within a few months of producing enough material for several nuclear bombs. Iran has also been developing a delivery capability while negotiating and has sworn to annihilate Israel.
Netanyahu is coming to warn the world of what this administration seems unwilling to admit. In doing so he is serving the interests of his people, Americans and the world.
Obama has given up any clout he may have had and has proven, time and again, he either lacks negotiating skills or is intent on assisting terrorists which he cannot bring himself to even define.
The world is not safer because of his presidency, America is not respected because of his presidency. America is weaker and more in debt but as his former Secretary of State reminded us: "What difference does it make/" Well in due course we are going to find out it makes a great deal of difference but by then it will be too late.
The ghost of Chamberlain walks the halls of The White House.
Truthfully, Dershowitz must be reading my memos because he just posted this after I wrote much the same and sent, by way of an LTE, to the local paper. (See2, 2a and 2b below.)
One more Obama flop! (See 2c below.)
===
Andrew Klavan and the "but-heads." (See 3 and 3a below.)
It is all about choosing sides isn't it? http://youtu.be/GsYzRJcWh9Q
===
It is evident Obama and Netanyahu do not like each other. Obama tried to shove Israel around and Netanyahu resisted. Obama does not like being upended and always seeks an enemy to stick pins in because that is the type of sick narcissistic personality he has.
Netanyahu understand his primary role is to protect his nation and people. Obama would rather play golf, lead from behind, enjoy the fruits of his office and free rent and do what he can to ignore reality because were he to do so he would further reveal his impotent leadership.
That is not to suggest Netanyahu is without blame or everything he urges is correct but, when it comes to Iran, I would rather stick with Netanyahu's assessment because he is closer to the situation,Israel is existentially threatened and Obama has proven he is incapable of crafting a foreign policy that is worth a damn. Obama's naivety helped create the mess in Egypt, the situation in Libya, the loss of Yemen and the utter loss of our influence in the entire Middle East but as his former Secretary of State, soon to be the anointed queen of the Democrat Party, said: "What difference does it make."
Obama is not a big person. In fact he is a very small thin skinned person who maintains a permanent chip on his shoulder.
Not only has he proven to be the worst modern president he has gone beyond and become a tragic embarrassment who has an demoniacal intent behind virtually every move he makes and an unmitigated liar to boot.. But then, I find I am repeating myself.
===
Affirmative Action, like most every 'do good' program, eventually outlives its usefulness and/or intended purpose an in the interim gets stretched beyond recognition:
Debate: D'Souza vs. Frank Wu on Affirmative Action === |
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Ladies and Gentlemen,"... And in the nearly 67 years of Israel's independence, we should be grateful for many things. We should be grateful that we have signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have endured decades of challenges. We should be grateful that Israel has transformed itself from an agriculturally based economy to a global technological power. We should be grateful that Israel is a world leader in medicine and science, and can boast of a dozen Nobel Prize Winners. We should be grateful that Israel has world class museums, first rate restaurants, European League Basketball Championships and a country so exciting that Israelis actually have to go to Manhattan to unwind. But above all else, the birth of the Jewish state should make the Jewish people grateful for three things: First, Israel gave us a voice. Second, Israel provided a refuge. Third, and most important, Israel enabled us to defend ourselves. Now, everyone can appreciate the significance of having a refuge. For nearly seven decades, Jews fleeing oppression have found a home in Israel. They came from the killing fields of Europe, were driven out of hostile states in North Africa and the Middle East, were rescued from Ethiopia and arrived en masse when the iron curtain fell. Today, it is the Jewish community of France that is flocking to Israel. Three years ago, 1900 French Jews made Aliyah. Two years ago, 3500 came. Last year, 7,000 came. This year, we expect 15,000 to come. That's nearly 3% of the French Jewish community - the equivalent of some 200,000 American Jews moving to Israel in a single year. French Jews are coming because like Jews elsewhere in Europe, they live with a fear they have not experienced since the 1940s. Their cemeteries and synagogues are desecrated, their schools are attacked, and their fellow Jews are murdered for being Jews. For a few decades after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism in Europe was politically incorrect. But time has shown that this proved to be a notable exception rather than a new norm. Anti-Semitism has once again become as European as Croissants. And it is not just militant Muslims in Europe, who with their grotesque chants of Gas the Jews, spread the old poison. It also includes many European intellectuals -- only they mask the old hatred of the Jewish people behind a new hatred of the Jewish state. When Nobel Laureates compare Gaza to Auschwitz, when the Middle East's only democracy is singled out for boycotts, and when European governments fall over themselves to embrace a Palestinian government which is backed by a genocidal, terror organization, it's not legitimate criticism of Israel. It's anti-Semitism. When 60% of the Human Rights Council's resolutions are directed against Israel as hundreds of thousands are being butchered in Syria, gays are being hanged from cranes in Tehran, and scores of journalists rot in Turkish prisons, it's not legitimate criticism of Israel. It's anti-semitism. A few weeks ago, the signatories of the Geneva Conventions convened for only the third time in their history to condemn a county - and guess what, all three times they have met was to condemn Israel. They didn't meet to condemn the Khmer Rouge for killing two million Cambodians. They didn't meet to condemn the genocides in Rwanda or in Darfur. They didn't meet to condemn the giant concentration camp that it called North Korea. They met to condemn Israel, the most beleaguered democracy on Earth - where there is free speech, freedom of religion, independent courts, genuine elections and where the rights of women, gays and all minorities are protected. And one more thing: When the International Criminal Court - a court that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust to be a permanent Nuremberg that would ensure that mass murderers are brought to justice - when that court goes after Israel for defending itself against a terror organization that fires thousands of rockets at its cities and uses its own people as human shields, it's not legitimate criticism of Israel. It's anti-Semitism. But amidst all this hatred, and the threats to Jews living in Europe, one thing has changed. Despite all the concerns regarding the future of French Jewry, one set of questions is not being asked today: Where will the Jews go? Who will take them in? Where can they find refuge? Those questions are not being asked because Israel is the answer. And I am proud that my Prime Minister made clear to all French Jews that while they have the right to be protected in France, they will be welcomed with open arms in Israel. And if they decide to come to Israel, they will not be treated as visitors from a foreign land but as family members who have come home. Ladies and Gentlemen, If people can appreciate the significance of Israel as a refuge, they can appreciate even more the significance of the Jewish people restoring our capability to defend ourselves. They appreciate it because they know what happened to our people when we lacked that capability. They know that a defenseless Jewish people was once subjected to calamities of a scope and scale that is unprecedented in the history of nations -- centuries of persecution and blood libels, expulsions and countless massacres, and of course the most horrific calamity of all - the Holocaust. They appreciate that the simple truth remains that if Israel's enemies laid down their arms, there would be peace, but if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no Israel. They appreciate that without the capacity to defend ourselves, Israel would not have survived five wars, two conflicts in Lebanon, 3 conflicts in Gaza, decades of terrorism and tens of thousands of rockets. And they appreciate that Israel must have the power to defend itself by itself against the enormous threats we face today - from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, terror organizations in the Sinai and the Golan, and of course from an Iran determined to develop nuclear weapons. But if people can appreciate having a refuge and having the ability to defend ourselves, few seem to appreciate what it means for the Jewish people to finally have a voice - a sovereign voice that must be reckoned among the nations. That became clear to me earlier this month in the debate over whether the Prime Minister of Israel should go to France for the solidarity march in Paris. To me, his trip there was a no-brainer. After all, Israel constantly asks France to stand with us in our battle against terrorism. It's only natural that Israel should stand with France in its battle against terrorism. But there were those in Paris and even some in Jerusalem who thought that Israel's presence there would divert attention from the united message France was trying to deliver against terror and focus it instead on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Now, those who think that what the French are facing in Paris is fundamentally different than what Israel is facing in Jerusalem simply don't get it. And it is precisely because of this wrongheadedness that is was imperative for an Israeli Prime Minister to be there. He had an obligation to explain that Israel's fight is their fight. He had an obligation to explain that the fanaticism that is driving Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Al Qaeda throughout the Middle East is the same fanaticism that drives people to attack sentries in Ottawa, shoppers in Sydney, and cartoonists in Paris. And he has an obligation to explain that this fanaticism is the same fanaticism that drives people to fire thousands of rockets from Gaza, stab passengers on a bus in Tel Aviv and hack worshipers to death in a synagogue in Jerusalem. This fanaticism is not about this or that grievance. It is not driven by the policies of this or that Israeli government. It is bred by Palestinian leaders who glorify terrorists as heroes, name public squares after killers and who through their media and schools poison children with constant incitement toward Jews and Israel. Ladies and Genetlemen, In the battle against militant Islam, Israel is the canary in the coal mine. Israel is an outpost of Western civilization, tolerance and pluralism in a region poisoned by tyrants and terrorists. You know when we'll know that what happened in Paris proves more than a powerful photo-op. You know when we'll know that Europe has truly woken up to the dangers of militant Islam. When they stop blaming the canary for the poison. When they stop blaming Israel for militant Islam and start standing with Israel against militant Islam. But for that to happen, to enable Europe to begin to connect the dots - for our sake and theirs - Israel must not be silent. Israel must speak the truth. Fearlessly and unapologetically. That is why it was so important for the Prime Minister to go to France. That is why it was so important for him to march in Paris and speak out. And if was important for the Prime Minister to speak out in Paris about anti-Semitism and the threat from militant Islam, it is even more important for him to speak out in Washington DC about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. The Prime Minister's visit here is not intended to show any disrespect for President Obama. Israel deeply appreciates the strong support we have received from President Obama in many areas - the enhanced security cooperation, heightened intelligence sharing, generous military assistance and iron dome funding, and opposition to anti-Israel initiatives at the United Nations. The Prime Minister's visit is also not intended to wade into your political debate. Israel deeply appreciates the strong bipartisan support we enjoy in the American Congress -- where Democrats and Republicans come together to support Israel -- Just as Israel appreciates the wide and deep support that itenjoys among the American people. Rather, the Prime Minister's visit to Washington is intended for one purpose -- and one purpose only. To speak up while there is still time to speak up. To speak up when there is still time to make a difference. Ladies and Gentlemen, Iran is the world's most dangerous regime. It has already devoured four Arab capitals - Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Saanain Yemen - and it is hungry for more. Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world, perpetrating or ordering attacks in 25 countries on five continents in the last four years alone. Iran is responsible for the murder of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of Marines in Lebanon. It is responsible for the bombings of US Embassies in Africa and for the twin bombings two decades ago in Argentina. This reign of terror and violence has all happened without Iran having a nuclear weapon. Now just imagine how much more dangerous Iran will be with nuclear weapons. And do not think that America is beyond Iran's reach. Today, Iran is building ICBMs - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Now only in cartoons do ICBMS carry TNT. In the real world, they carry nuclear payloads. And those ICBMS that Iran is building are not designed to hit Israel. Iran already has missiles for that. Those ICBMs are designed to reach Europe and the United States - to reach New York, Washington and Miami. For Israel, a nuclear armed Iran would be a clear and present danger. Iran's regime threatens Israel with destruction. Its leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, recently tweeted - in English - that Israel must be annihilated. Iran has used Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other proxies to fire thousands of rockets and threaten Israel from Lebanon, Gaza, the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Iran's regime is both committed to Israel's destruction and working toward Israel's destruction. Today, the international community stands at the precipice of forging an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program. The agreement that is being discussed today is not an agreement that would dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons capability, but rather one that could leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state. That is an agreement that could endanger the very existence of the State of Israel. Now there may be some people who believe that the Prime Minister of Israel should have declined an invitation to speak before the most powerful parliament in the world on an issue that concerns the future and survival of Israel. But we have learned from our history that the world becomes a more dangerous place for the Jewish people when the Jewish people are silent. That is why the Prime Minister feels the deepest moral obligation to appear before the Congress to speak about an existential issue facing the one and only Jewish state. This is not just the right of the Prime Minister of Israel. It is his most sacred duty -- to do whatever he can to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons that can be aimed at Israel. Ladies and Gentlemen, For nearly two thousand years, the Jewish people were a stateless, voiceless, and powerless people. We had no sovereignty, no voice in international affairs, and no capability to defend ourselves. As storm clouds gathered against us, the Jews often had nowhere to go. They begged others to speak to Kings and Presidents on their behalf. They begged others to raise the alarm so that people of good will might heed their call. And when those storms finally raged, the Jewish people pleaded with others to protect us, to give us shelter to survive another day. Are there any survivors here tonight? Please stand up. You know what it means to live in a world where the Jewish people had no state. You know what it means for the Jewish people to have no one to speak on their behalf. You know what it meant to live in a world where the Jewish people have no power to defend themselves. But today is not 1938. The Jewish people are no longer stateless. We have restored our sovereignty in our ancestral homeland. The Jewish people are no longer voiceless. Israeli Prime Ministers can address the United Nations and the American Congress, and Israeli Ambassadors can speak up in the world's capitals and on CNN. And most important, the Jewish people no longer beg others to defend us. We can defend ourselves. Ladies and Gentlemen, The Jewish people are a people who have survived all the evil that history has thrown at us. And we will survive the evil that we face today. But we will not do it by bowing our heads and by hoping that the storm will pass. We will do it by standing tall and by confronting the storm with faith and courage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Experts: Iran Now a Nuclear-Ready State, Missiles Capable of Hitting US
By William R. Graham, Henry F. Cooper, Fritz Ermarth, and Peter Vincent PryRegardless of intelligence uncertainties and unknowns about Iran's nuclear weapons and missile programs, we know enough now to make a prudent judgment that Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies.
On Jan. 22, The Jerusalem Post reported that Iran deployed a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) "whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe." It was also shown on Israeli television.
Iran's development of an ICBM at this time would be consistent with unclassified U.S. intelligence community reports that in 2013 warned Iran could test an ICBM by 2015.
Iran and others claim the missile is not a military ICBM for delivering nuclear warheads but a peaceful Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) for orbiting satellites.
This is a distinction without a difference.
Iran has a demonstrated capability to orbit satellites weighing over a ton, which means it could also deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S. or any nation on Earth.
Indeed, Iran has orbited several satellites on south polar trajectories passing over the western hemisphere from south to north, as if practicing to elude U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radars and National Missile Defenses, which are oriented to detect and intercept threats coming from the north.
Moreover, the altitude of these satellites, if they were carrying a nuclear weapon detonated over the center of the U.S., was in all three cases near optimum for generating an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) field across all 48 contiguous United States. EMP could cause a protracted blackout of the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures.
Iranian military writings describe eliminating the United States with an EMP attack. Rep. Trent Franks in congressional testimony given in December 2014 noted that an official Iranian military document, recently translated by the intelligence community, endorses making a nuclear EMP attack against the United States. The document describes the decisive effects of an EMP attack no fewer than 20 times.
Iran has missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, but does Iran have a nuclear warhead?
Seven years ago, in 2008, Mohammed El Baradei, then director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), warned that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within six months. The IAEA nuclear watchdog has repeated this warning every year since.
On Jan. 20, 2014, former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen warned that Iran could build a nuclear weapon in 2-3 weeks. He also acknowledged that this estimate is based only on Iran's known capabilities — not on what Iran may be capable of doing, or may already have done in secret facilities. Iran has underground facilities suspected of being used for nuclear weapons development to which the IAEA has repeatedly been denied access.
Nonetheless, IAEA has discovered Iran has experimented with implosion technology, necessary for making more sophisticated nuclear weapons. IAEA also discovered plans for a nuclear warhead that could fit on Iran's missiles.
We know from our own experience that developing a re-entry vehicle (RV) for a nuclear missile warhead is not all that difficult. The U.S., working from scratch and using the technology of over 50 years ago, in 1955, developed its first RV for the Thor, Jupiter, and Atlas missiles in just a few years.
Nor is it necessary for Iran to test a nuclear weapon in order to develop a missile warhead.
Israel, we know from the defection of Israeli nuclear scientist Mordecai Vanunu and other sources, developed a sophisticated array of nuclear weapons, including missile warheads, without testing. South Africa too, before dismantling its nuclear arsenal, deployed nuclear weapons and designed a missile nuclear warhead without testing.
However, Iran and North Korea are strategic allies. Iranian scientists reportedly have participated in North Korea's nuclear tests.
If Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, it will be the first nation to go through the great trouble and expense of developing an ICBM capability without first having nuclear warheads to make the missile militarily useful. Historically, every other nuclear missile state has always developed nuclear weapons first, before long-range missiles.
The fact of Iran's ICBM capability and their proximity to nuclear weapons necessitates that Iran be regarded as a nuclear missile state — and as a menace to the entire world — right now.
Congress and the President should give high priority to passage of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act and the SHIELD Act, which will protect the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures from EMP attack.
2a) 2016: The Search for a Commander-in-Chief Begins
By Roger L. Simon
With uncounted strains of Islamic radicalism metastasizing across the globe like some new version of the Plague, lopping off heads with no antidote in sight, and the Iranian ayatollahs on the brink of nuclear weapons thanks to a U.S. administration that seems almost eager to help them get them (most recently apparently switching allegiance in the Syrian civil war to Iran’s client Assad), America, it has become evident, has no commander-in-chief, at least not one who is wholeheartedly (or even partially) on the side of the West.
And the one we have — such as he is — humiliates our military on a practically daily basis, a sure prescription for defeat. Ten years ago if someone told you Shariah law would come to America, you would probably have shrugged, possibly even laughed. It isn’t so funny anymore. (I’m not laughing. They evidently lash bloggers.)
"The threat is increasing, has increased substantially since 2006-2007 when I was writing about this years ago, and it's only getting worse and if we don't stop it now … in the years to come it's going to be far, far worse."
In January, The Jerusalem Post reported that Iran had deployed a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which not only can reach Israel, but also Europe.
The missile and its launch pad are "a direct threat to the United States as well," according to a 2013 U.S. intelligence report that stated that Iran could test an ICBM this year, according to the Post.
The Obama administration's "negotiations" are a joke, according to Dershowitz, who noted that even if Iran accepts the proposed deal — which some reports have said give Tehran 80 percent of what it wants — there's nothing to prevent them from developing "trigger mechanisms."
"All it stops them from doing, or it requires them to go underground to do it, is their centrifuges, and it allows them to remain a threshold nuclear power and it has a sunset prevision," Dershowitz said. "After a few years, the number has not been explicitly stated, they can go on and do whatever they please.
Terrifying as this may be, it simplifies greatly who and/or what Republicans should be looking for in a presidential candidate. Forget economic expertise, special healthcare knowledge, foreign language skills or whatever else you might think is important. Those things are all fine, but increasingly irrelevant. Desperately, urgently, above all things, America needs a true commander-in-chief.
But what does that mean? Though there are undoubtedly many qualities one could name, I would suggest three basic ones:
1. Someone with a real strategy for how to win. This would include, as a very basic prerequisite, naming the enemy, something not done for two administrations — the first, I would imagine, out of cowardice, the second out of something close to treason. (Yes, they both have obvious explanations for this behavior that we have all heard a dozen times, but they have reached the level of complete absurdity. This war has been going in for nearly fourteen years in its current phase – about to triple in length World War II.)
2. The will to carry out this strategy. This is no small thing. Tremendous courage and commitment will be necessary to overcome radical Islam, which has more adherents and fellow travelers than communism and Nazism ever did. Also, it promises eternal life, something a bit more potent than free health insurance or food stamps. Furthermore, that person will have to have the fortitude and stamina to deal with non-stop opposition from our liberal media, one of the more self-destructive entities in the history of the human race.
3. The communication skills to bring the country with him. (I should add “or her,” because I don’t give a hoot about the gender of this person, only if he or she can do the job. I suspect Lady Thatcher could have done better than anyone currently on our horizon, at least anyone I have seen.) We need someone with a modicum of charisma and the ability to speak to the masses of the American people, many of whom, despite the years since 9/11, have little idea of what is going on. It must be explained to them patiently and extensively. They must be convinced and become part of the team. This, again, is not easily accomplished.
So, mes amis, it’s the first of February in the 2015th year of somebody’s Lord. We have a lot to do because we have a lot to lose. We have to start vetting these people. We are looking for someone with a backbone the size of Brooklyn but at the same time someone who can charm the pants off the country. So far, I’m not willing to elevate anyone, although there are some I would cancel out. But I’m not going to enumerate them here, because I think that is a distraction. The object is to lift someone up, not pull others down (not on our side away). As difficult as this search may seem — and it is extraordinarily difficult — we have one thing working on our behalf. Difficult times seem to bring forth great leaders. And make no mistake about it, we are in difficult times.
2b) Dershowitz: On Iran, Obama Is Another Neville Chamberlain
Iran is "funding Hamas and Hezbollah and these other major terrorist organizations," Kerik said. "There is no negotiating with a bully. You don't put that bully on the world stage especially in this position, and that's what we've done, that's what we continue to do.
"The threat is increasing, has increased substantially since 2006-2007 when I was writing about this years ago, and it's only getting worse and if we don't stop it now … in the years to come it's going to be far, far worse."
In January, The Jerusalem Post reported that Iran had deployed a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which not only can reach Israel, but also Europe.
The missile and its launch pad are "a direct threat to the United States as well," according to a 2013 U.S. intelligence report that stated that Iran could test an ICBM this year, according to the Post.
The Obama administration's "negotiations" are a joke, according to Dershowitz, who noted that even if Iran accepts the proposed deal — which some reports have said give Tehran 80 percent of what it wants — there's nothing to prevent them from developing "trigger mechanisms."
"All it stops them from doing, or it requires them to go underground to do it, is their centrifuges, and it allows them to remain a threshold nuclear power and it has a sunset prevision," Dershowitz said. "After a few years, the number has not been explicitly stated, they can go on and do whatever they please.
"This is a very bad deal, a bad deal for the United States, a bad deal for the international community."
Furthermore, Dershowitz said, the deal does not address Iran being the major exporter of terrorism.
"My fear is that whether it's this year or next year or 10 years from now, Barack Obama is going to go down in history as the (former British Prime Minister) Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century, if Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons.
"We will point to this point in history and say, this was the turning point. This was the point where the president could've recognized the greatest threat to the world in the 21st century and, like Chamberlain in the 20th century, he failed to do it. That will be his legacy if Iran develops nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them."
The men also addressed future terror attacks and whether Islamic militants are planning another "spectacular" event like 9/11.
"I strongly believe that you don't need that today, you don't need four planes flying into buildings," Kerik said. "If you had an attack like you had in Paris here, not one, but if you had four attacks like you had in Paris in different cities at the same time on the same day — in a school, in a hospital, in a tourist location — I can assure you that's going to be a spectacular event.
"It's going to create major fear and things like that, which is what these guys try to instill," he said.
"Is that possible? Yes it's possible and our intelligence capabilities, our intelligence ability, is what we have to depend on right now to make sure that that stuff doesn't happen."
American trains are particularly vulnerable, said Dershowitz, author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas."
"When you go to Grand Central Station or Penn Station in rush hour, there are thousands of people and there's very, very little security," he said.
The airlines are far more secure today than pre-9/11, according to Kerik, but there's always the possibility of someone slipping through the cracks.
"Especially in some of these airports that don't have the physical security, perimeter security that they should have," he said. "We have to look at everything and most importantly it's got to be preemptive and proactive.
2c) EDITORIAL: The Failed 'Yemen Model'
By Ron Paul
Last September President Obama cited his drone program in Yemen as a successful model of US anti-terrorism strategy. He said that he would employ the Yemen model in his effort to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
But just a week ago, the government in Yemen fell to a Shite militia movement thought to be friendly to Iran. The US embassy in Yemen's capitol was forced to evacuate personnel and shut down operations.
If Yemen is any kind of model, it is a model of how badly US interventionism has failed.
In 2011 the US turned against Yemen's long-time dictator, Saleh, and supported a coup that resulted in another, even more US-friendly leader taking over in a "color revolution." The new leader, Hadi, took over in 2012 and soon became a strong supporter of the US drone program in his country against al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula.
But last week Hadi was forced to flee from office in the coup. The media reports that the US has lost some of its intelligence capability in Yemen, which is making it more difficult to continue the drone strikes. Nevertheless, the White House said last week that its drone program would continue as before, despite the disintegration of the Yemeni government.
And the drone strikes have continued. Last Monday, in the first US strike after the coup, a 12-year-old boy was killed in what is sickeningly called "collateral damage." Two alleged "al-Qaeda militants" were also killed. On Saturday yet another drone strike killed three more suspected militants.
The US government has killed at least dozens of civilian non-combatants in Yemen, but even those it counts as "militants" may actually be civilians. That is because the Obama administration counts any military-aged male in the area around a drone attack as a combatant.
It was al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that claimed responsibility for the brutal shooting at an anti-religious magazine in Paris last month. At least one of the accused shooters cited his anger over US policy in the Middle East as a motivation for him to attack.
Does anyone wonder why, after 14 years of drone strikes killing more than 800 al Qaeda militants, it seems there are still so many of them? As a Slate magazine article this week asked, "What if the drones themselves are part of the problem?" That is an excellent question and one that goes to the heart of US anti-terrorist strategy. What if it is US interventionism in general and drone strikes in particular that are motivating so many people to join anti-US militant movements? What if it is interventionist and militarist Western foreign policy that is motivating people to shoot up magazines and seek to bring terrorism back to the countries they see as aggressors?
That is the question that the interventionists fear most. If blowback is real, if they do not hate us because we are so rich and free but because of what our governments are doing to them, then US interventionism is making us less safe and less free.
The disintegration of Yemen is directly related to US drone policy. The disintegration of Libya is directly related to US military intervention. The chaos and killing in Syria is directly related to US support for regime change. Is there not a pattern here?
The lesson from Yemen is not to stay the course that has failed so miserably. It is to end a failed foreign policy that is killing civilians, creating radicals, and making us less safe.
This article contributed courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Note: LewRockwell.com has posted a 20-minute interview with Dr. Paul here: "Doomsday: Ron Paul talks to Lew Rockwell about what could be ahead." Lew began: "Thinking about the issue of peace, there's an organization called the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. They have a doomsday clock, as they call it, and they set the hands to see from foreign policy questions how close things are to doomsday. They've recently moved the hand closer to the doomsday point because they're concerned that the chances of atomic warfare are worse than they used to be. What's your feeling about that?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)- Andrew Klavan: Attack of the But-Heads!
In a world gone crazy, in a world gone mad, a strange new horde of mindless leftist zombies lurk in the shadows. These unthinking undead claim to support your fundamental freedom to think, say, believe and report any damn thing you think, say, believe and report, BUT!!!!
That's right. It's the Attack of the But-Heads.
Today a tale of horror all the more frightening because it’s true.
As a poisonous miasmic fog of sharia creeps like a poisonous miasmic fog of sharia across the nations of the west, strange creatures are growing up among us. They are haunting our halls of power, the sewers of our news media and the circus tents of our universities. They move in hordes as mindless and destructive as the zombies in The Walking Dead or the Democrat voters in the last presidential election or the walking dead democrat voters in Chicago and Philadelphia.
If you listen carefully, in the watches of the night, you can hear these shambling monsters murmuring their eldritch refrain: “I believe in Free speech but… I support the first amendment but… I believe in free expression but…”
That’s right. It’s The Attack of The But-Heads.
The “but” in the phrase “I believe in free speech but…” is bigger than Kim Kardashian’s, has more wiggle room than Jennifer Lopez’ and is as white and soft as Kate Upton’s… all right, maybe I just got distracted on that last one.
But the point is… the but-heads are everywhere and they’ve come to devour your rights, one exception at a time.
Consider this. When Islamist terrorists staged a vicious mass murder in Paris in response to a magazine satire of Muhammed, the terrorists declared, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” No, wait that wasn’t the terrorists that was President Obama. No, no, it was the terrorists. No, it was Obama. No, it must’ve been the terrorists, right?
Obama: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Anyway, whether it was the terrorists or our president, they were expressing the creeping but-head belief that there should be an exception to free speech when it comes to blasphemy. The Obama administration has even lent support to United Nations efforts to curtail blasphemous speech, and in England, Italy and Holland, people are being prosecuted for anti-religious speech already. Now I know, many of the west’s foundational nations had anti-blasphemy laws. That’s why they executed Socrates and Jesus. So what could possibly go wrong?
But in the present day, those who try to outlaw blasphemy only look like western human beings. They’re really but-heads.
In our media the horror continues. Even after the Paris slaughter, many western news outlets refused to display cartoons that had offended the delicate sensibilities of cold blooded Islamist butchers. Editors at The New York Times, a former newspaper, said, “We do not normally publish… material deliberately intended to offend religious sensibilities.” Which was a lie since they’ve repeatedly published material offensive to Christians. But then the editors of the Times only look like free-speaking men and women… they’re really but-heads.
Then there’s our universities. From Yale to Purdue to UC Berkeley, the academy’s but-heads have banned, persecuted and harassed students, teachers and visiting speakers whose speech violated leftist principles by being truthful about Islamism.
So be afraid. The Nazi-like thugs of militant islam are only men and can be destroyed… but the but-heads are the hollowed-out shell of free people animated by oppressive undead ideas. They’re your worst nightmare. No buts.
3a)
Defensible Borders in the Age of ISIS
What does the upheaval in the Middle East mean for Israel’s territorial needs?By Dore Gold
An excerpt of a map showing threats to Israeli population centers from the West Bank. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment