Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Dangerous and do nothing American leaders

Israel surrounded and our leaders are on the wrong side
Today we see Egypt in chaos as violent protests erupt nationwide, while in the insufficiently policed Sinai, jihadists are mobilizing and posing increased threats to Israelis.

In Syria, more than 100,000 are dead in the country's escalating civil war, the regime's cache of chemical weapons at serious risk of falling into terrorist hands.

Meanwhile, to Israel's north and south, Hamas and Hezbollah have stockpiled more than 65,000 rockets on Israel's borders. And in Tehran, Iran’s leaders continue to call for Israel's destruction, while rapidly advancing a nuclear weapons program that could do just that.

These are events that demand attention now. But where is Obama, Kerry, Samantha Powers, Susan Rice? Backing the wrong sides, doing nothing. and Hillary's top aid is from a family full of Muslim brotherhood terrorists, and the scandal ridden Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation has taken huge money from radicalized Arab sources. Makes you pretty sure President Hillary will be even worse for israel then B. Hussein Obama has been. . Read this and get scared for our future

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Is obama aiding our enemies wilfully or out of stupidity?

Is Obama's traitorous behavior, aiding our enemies,  willful or just incompetence?

Egypt’s Islamic Chaos, America’s Islamic Threat
August 24, 2013 by Alan Caruba 4 Comments

Obama Brother Muslim Brotherhood Ambassador Patterson Egypt SC Egypt’s Islamic Chaos, America’s Islamic Threat
The President who, in 2009, said he thought it unseemly to “meddle” in the affairs of Iran when protesters against its regime were being shot dead in the streets of Tehran, announced to the world on August 15, 2013 that he was angered by the killing of civilians in the streets of Cairo as the Muslim Brotherhood was busy burning Christian churches and homes when they weren’t firing on the Egyptian military that was attempting to end its efforts to impose Sharia rule.

Egypt may be thousands of miles away, but the intent of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to destroy America (and, of course, Israel) is close to home as the President and his national security advisors have misled Americans as to the true intent and threat of the MB.
In his new book, “The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy”, Erick Stakelbeck reminds the reader that in February 2011, “the Obama administration’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, portray(ed) the Brotherhood as an Egyptian version of the Peace Corps.” At the time, the “Arab Spring” protests were in full swing; and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was on the verge of being overthrown. Clapper described the MB as a “largely secular” organization that has “pursued social ends” and a “betterment of the political order.” This was and is utter nonsense, a deception.
Clapper is rivaled in his ignorance of Islam by the current Director of the CIA, John Brennan, who is a well-known fan of Arabs and Islam. He routinely refers to Jerusalem by its Arabic name “Al-Quds” and has called jihad “a legitimate tenet of Islam,” extolling Islam as a faith of “peace and tolerance,” of “goodness and beauty,” that has “shaped (his) own worldview.”
The fact is that the Brotherhood has been repeatedly banned in Egypt, starting in 1948. In 1954, the MB tried to assassinate then-president Nasser and, as Stakelbeck notes, “The Brotherhood would be severely repressed in Egypt for most of the next five decades.” So even in a Muslim nation, the threat the MB represented was understood.
The battles in the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and other Egyptian cities reflect the ultimate intent of Islam to dominate the governance of the Middle East and to establish a global caliphate. It is doubtful that most Americans realize the threat it poses more than a decade past 9/11.

For reasons that historians will puzzle over for years to come, Americans elected, not just the first black President in 2008 and, despite a record of foreign and domestic policy failure, reelected him in 2012. They elected a man who makes no effort to hide his deep sympathy and support of Islam.
During his June 2009 speech in Cairo, President Obama, the son of a Muslim and adopted son of a Muslim who had spent four years of his youth in Indonesia (an Islamic nation), had attended an Islamic school, and even gone to prayers at a mosque, said “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States of America to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Stakelbeck noted that “The Obama administration reportedly ‘insisted’ that ‘at least ten Muslim Brothers (who were then in opposition to the Mubarak regime) be allowed to attend the speech.’” Earlier, in January 2009, Obama gave his first formal interview as President to the Arabic-language network Al-Arabiya; and, as we all know, in April 2009 at the G-20 Summit in London, the President of the United States bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia “as other Western leaders looked on in shock.”
Earlier, Stakelbeck had described “the bow” as a “shameless act of groveling, performed in one of his first forays onto the international stage” that “signaled that debasing America and exalting Islam would be key elements in achieving his oft-stated goal of improving America’s image in the Muslim world.” We are all witness to how well that has worked out.
“Just thirteen days after Islamic jihadists murdered four Americans in Benghazi; the president stood before the world’s leaders” at the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2012 “and uttered the now-infamous line: ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’”
Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood is defined by its hatred of the West and of Jews. Stakelbeck warns that “The MB’s much-deserved reputation for violence, radicalism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism is rapidly disappearing in the Age of Obama,” and that is why the struggle for a modern Egypt being fought there against the MB requires the full support of the United States as its military strives to drive its members and supporters from its streets. Obama’s response has been to take time from playing golf to denounce the current interim government that removed Muhammad Morsi from office.
What do you need to know about the Muslim Brotherhood? Consider its motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law.  Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” It is devoted to imposing Sharia law on the world, a barbaric system that promotes beheadings, stoning, and discrimination against women and other religions.
“The Muslim Brotherhood”, notes Stakelbeck, “is now present in at least eighty countries, and according to one longtime Brotherhood leaders, boasts some 100 million adherents worldwide.”
It has long been active in the United States through a web of front organizations.
A demonstration of its utter contempt for America is a planned “Million Muslim March”  in Washington, D.C. on September 11 by the American Muslim Political Action Committee “to demand social justice by the U.S. government”, claiming that Muslims “continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”
Despite 9/11, despite the murder spree by Major Nidal Hasan of solders at Fort Hood, and despite the Boston Marathon bombing, militant Muslims in America such as AMPAC’s spokesman, Isa Hodge, are claiming that “our government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries…” adding “These lies told to the American population have made it impossible for us to do true Dawa,” the practice of proselytizing or preaching Islam.
On September 11 in the nation’s capital, the lies Hodge has spoken will be repeated. Within them is hidden the greatest threat to the nation and the West, to Christians, Jews, and other “unbelievers.”
Stakelbeck warns that “We’ve neutered ourselves as a society and succumbed completely to a suicidal brand of political correctness imposed by the leftist gatekeepers of the media, the government, and academia. We’ve also just about dumbed ourselves down to the point of no return. And the Brothers know it.”
The threat that the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and militant Islam poses will be like the smoke from an incipient forest fire wafting through the nation’s capital on September 11. Actual fires are burning in Egypt these days, and our enemies live and walk among us.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

should we be worried?

Why has Obama not condemned the burning of 50 Churches by Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Could it be because they have a revolving door at the White House
and Hillary's top aid, married to Weiner, comes from family of them,
or because Obama's brother in Kenya is very active with them?

Monday, August 19, 2013

And the Palestinians say Jews are latecomers. Haven't seen any 2700 year old "Palestinian" pottery

A link to Jerusalemites at the end of the First Temple period

2,700-year-old Hebrew inscription found in Jerusalem

First Temple-era pottery fragment features name similar to Biblical prophet’s father, archaeologists say

August 18, 2013, 11:29 am 31

2,700-year-old pottery fragment discovered in the City of David site in Jerusalem (photo credit: courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority)
2,700-year-old pottery fragment discovered in the City of David site in Jerusalem (photo credit: courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority)

Archaeologists working in Jerusalem have discovered what they say is a 2,700 year-old pottery fragment with an ancient Hebrew inscription possibly containing the name of a Biblical figure.
Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories
  Free Sign up!
The fragment, discovered just outside the capital’s Old City at the City of David site, in what is now the Arab village of Silwan, was likely part of a large ceramic bowl dating from between the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, the Israeli Antiquities Authority said Sunday.
The text fragment on the shard, roughly transliterated without vowels into English characters as “ryhu bn bnh,” is similar to the name of Zechariah son of Benaiah, the father of the prophet Jahaziel, whose name appears in 2 Chronicles 20:14 when Jahaziel spoke prophecy to King Jehoshaphat before the king went off to war.
“While not complete, the inscription presents us with the name of a seventh century BCE figure, which resembles other names known to us from both the Biblical and archaeological record… and provides us with a connection to the people living in Jerusalem at the end of the First Temple period,” the statement said.
The City of David, while today located outside the southern walls of the Old City, is understood by archaeologists to be the site of the ancient city of Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible.
Fragments of oil lamps, stamped handles and female figurines dating from the end of the First Temple period discovered at the City of David site. (photo credit: courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority)
Fragments of oil lamps, stamped handles and female figurines dating from the end of the First Temple period discovered at the City of David site. (photo credit: courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority)
The bowl fragment, along with a number of other small artifacts dating from the same period, was discovered by archaeologists Joe Uziel and Nahshon Zanton during an investigation of remains associated with the destruction of the First Temple, which occurred in 587 BCE at the hand of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.
Uziel and Zanton said that the letters inscribed on the bowl shard likely date from “sometime between the reign of Hezekiah and the destruction of Jerusalem under King Zedekiah.” Based on their analysis, they noted, the inscription “was engraved on the bowl prior to firing, indicating that the inscription originally adorned the rim of the bowl in its entirety, and was not written on a shard after the vessel was broken.”
The bowl possibly contained an offering, given by the person whose name was inscribed on the vessel, they said.

Hillary's top aid has radical islamic past

Extremism Found in Journal During Huma Abedin's Tenure

Mon, August 12, 2013
Huma Abedin, (left) shown with former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton. Abedin was an aide to Clinton beginning with an internship in the White House in 1996. She was Clinton's travelling chief-of-staff during Clinton's bid for the White House and deputy chief of staff while Clinton was Secretary of state. (Photo: © Reuters)
Huma Abedin, (left) shown with former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton. Abedin was an aide to Clinton beginning with an internship in the White House in 1996. She was Clinton's travelling chief-of-staff during Clinton's bid for the White House and deputy chief of staff while Clinton was Secretary of state. (Photo: © Reuters)
Islam expert Dr. Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad andSharia vs. Freedom, has discovered alarming extremism in an Islamist journal bearing the name of Huma Abedin, former Secretary of State Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and wife of New York City mayoral candidate, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
The Clarion Project helped bring attention to the Islamist ties of Abedin in July 2012, specifically her family’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and her position as an assistant editor of the Islamist journal from 1996 to 2008. More recently, we’ve covered thedonations from an Al-Jazeera lobbyist to the mayoral campaign of her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
The publication in question is the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Originally known as the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs Journal from 1979 when it began to 1995. The Institute was founded by Abedin’s late father and two Islamist colleagues that led the Muslim World League and World Assembly of Muslim Youth, two powerful engines of Wahhabism.
Abedin was the assistant editor of the journal for at least a dozen years, from 1996 (the year she began working as an intern at the White House) to 2008. She worked alongside several family members on the publication, including her mother, brother and sister.
Her mother, Saleha, has an especially strong Islamist resume, though the overlaps in the Islamist infrastructure can make it confusing. In short, Abedin’s mother is a member of the female counterpart of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Muslim World League. She leads a group called the International Islamic Committee for Women and Child, a subsidiary of a Muslim Brotherhood-led group that is banned in Israel for its links to Hamas.
In 1999, the Abedin family journal and Saleha Abedin’s group published a book in Arabic titled “Women in Islam.” This was three years after Huma Abedin joined the journal.
The book teaches that man-made law is inherently oppressive towards women, while Sharia law is liberating. According to the text, Muslim women have an obligation to contribute to jihad; apostates are to be put to death; freedom of speech should be conformed to the boundaries set by Sharia and wives must have sex with their husbands on command.
The Center for Security Policy has published a 28-page analysis of the book. Page three of the Center for Security Policy analysis states that the organization led by Huma Abedin’s mother “advocates for the repeal of Mubarak-era prohibitions on female genital mutilation, child marriage and marital rape, on the grounds that such prohibitions run counter to Islamic law, which allows for their practice.”
Dr. Andrew Bostom found an issue of the family journal from 2000that states on page 125 that non-Muslims should give up resistingSharia governance and join Muslims in fighting secularism. It even states that this resistance to Sharia is nearly an act of treason.
“In the name of peaceful co-existence and religious harmony, non-Muslims should stop opposing the application of shari’ah by and for the Muslims … Moreover, the Ahl al-Kitab [Christians and Jews] should eschew all acts bordering on treasonable felony but cooperate with Muslims and, as scripturalists, should not support secularism.”
And what is the consequence of treason? Look at an issue from 2011after Huma Abedin left. It explicitly states that treason qualifies as a crime with a specific sharia-proscribed punishment. Left unsaid is that this punishment is death. The other offenses in this category are adultery, defamation of character, alcoholism, theft, apostasy and oppression.
This post-Huma issue explicitly states that the criminal justice system of sharia is to be implemented because it prevents chaos and vigilantism. “The Shariah penal code is best. People in societies where the Shariah is not operative have lost total confidence in the penal code of the existing laws, and hence they may resort to what one may call ‘jungle justice,’” it states.
The Abedin family journal reiterated that those that fight against the Islamist agenda deserve death in an issue in 2004, Huma’s eighth year at the publication. According to Bostom, page 167 states a summary of Abul Ala Maududi’s position as follows:
“Waging war with the Creator and His Apostle is serious for it amounts to a clear rebellion against the Islamic State where the principles of equity, justice and respect for all are established. So anyone who disturbs or attempts to disturb that system of life is an outlaw who deserves capital punishment. Abul-A’la Maududi explains that it does not make any difference whether that mischief is created by criminals or murderers who cause disorder in the settled and peaceful society, or by armed forces who attempt to overthrow an Islamic State and establish some corrupt un-Islamic system instead.”
Maududi is the founder of the Pakistani Islamist group, Jamaat-e-Islami. The Abedin family journal teaches that this radical thinker is a foremost authority and his words are to be followed today.
If Huma Abedin is an anti-Islamist Muslim, then she must explain how she reconciled her involvement with an Islamist journal. More importantly, the U.S. government must explain whether any of this was taken into account when granting her a top-secret security clearance. 

Israel backs Egyptian military of course

Israel is working behind the scenes to encourage its allies to continue backing the Egyptian military regime, the New York Times reported on Monday.

The Jewish state is apparently deeply concerned that the E.U. and especially the U.S. will cut off military and financial aid to Egypt due to the recent brutal crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, which has already claimed hundreds of lives.

The alternative, Israeli officials are quietly telling their international counterparts, will be far worse.

"At this point, it’s army or anarchy," the Times quotes one official saying. "You may not like what you see, but what’s the alternative?" The official said that Israel is "trying to talk to key actors, key countries," and telling them, "First, save what you can, and then deal with democracy and freedom and so on."

Israel has thus far made no public comments on the events in Egypt, beyond boilerplate support for the official government, but its concerns are not surprising. At this point, a Muslim Brotherhood takeover would likely be a revolutionary one, installing a radical Islamist regime in a strategically important country on Israel's southern border.

Sunday, August 11, 2013

How can there be peace when the other side just hates?

Culture of Violence: A Palestinian Hobby

In the last year, the Western press has focused a great deal of attention on what has been described as a wave of violence committed by Jewish settlers living in the West Bank against Palestinians. The vandalism and other crimes committed by Jews—known as “price tag” attacks—have been widely condemned by the Israeli government and virtually everyone in Israeli society outside of the extreme right. But this marginal phenomenon—and even Israel’s sternest critics must concede that this is something that is the work of a tiny minority even of settlers, let alone Israel—that has received disproportionate news coverage is rarely contrasted with a far more widespread phenomenon: Arab violence against settlers and Israelis.
As we learn in a front-page story published today in the New York Times under the headline of “My Hobby is Throwing Stones,” violence directed at Jews isn’t just a troubling trend, it is something that has become more or less the national Palestinian sport. Children, adolescents, and even adults treat flinging lethal rocks at any passing car with Israeli license plates as not merely boys being boys but acceptable behavior that is somehow justified by the ongoing dispute between the two peoples over the land and a host of other issues. The conflict between Jews and Arabs over the land is complex and there are victims on both sides. But what this story tells us about contemporary Palestinian culture and its glorification of violence, as well as the rejection of alternate means of dealing with the Jewish presence in their midst, speaks volumes about how difficult it will be to ever achieve peace.

There are a couple of key points to understand about this wildly popular Palestinian “hobby.”
The first is that though the story only mentions the victims of the stone throwing in passing in one sentence, flinging a large rock at an individual or a moving vehicle is not a game. It is a form of terrorism. Such actions are felonious assaults by any definition of the law. The purpose of the stone throwing is not making a political statement but to inflict injury and even death on those so unfortunate as to be in range of these missiles. Anyone who wants to understand what is driving the “price tag” attacks by a small number of settlers need only read this piece and understand that what they are reacting to is routine illegal violence that is condoned by the entire Arab community.
Defenders of the Palestinians may say that stone throwing is a reaction to the “occupation” and that those who throw rocks have no other way of protesting the settlements or what they consider wrongful behavior on the part of the Israel Defense Forces. But this ignores the fact that most of the tense encounters between the IDF and Palestinians stems from the violence that the latter habitually commit.
That leads to the second point: nowhere in this story does anyone ever stop and say that perhaps it would be better for the Palestinians’ quality of life and even their political aspirations if they decided to treat the Jews who live near them as human beings rather than merely enemy targets.
It is worth noting that Beit Omar, the town featured in the Times story, is located nearby the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements in the West Bank. Jodi Rudoren, the paper’s Jerusalem bureau chief, notes that Beit Omar’s location is ideal for stone throwing since it abuts a major highway near a group of Jewish communities. But she leaves out the fact that there is an interesting history of Jewish-Arab interaction in the era that is instructive in understanding the conflict.
The Gush Etzion bloc is, after all, not built on stolen Arab land, as the cliché goes about all such West Bank settlements, but on the ruins of Jewish communities that existed prior to 1948. In the months prior to Israel’s birth as the ruling British stood back and allowed a civil war to rage on their watch, local Arabs, aided by foreign volunteers, laid siege to the Jewish villages in the Gush Etzion area. Efforts to reinforce them from Jerusalem (which was itself under siege) failed and eventually they fell to Arab attack. Many of the inhabitants were subject to indiscriminate massacre while others were captured. Their homes were destroyed as local Palestinian Arabs celebrated.
Nineteen years later, after Israel took possession of the West Bank ending an illegal Jordanian occupation, the process of rebuilding Gush Etzion began and today the various towns in the area flourish and are rightly seen as Jerusalem suburbs that are not centers of settler violence or intolerance. No one envisions its evacuation even in the unlikely scenario of a peace deal being signed.
If Palestinians still dream of repeating the events of 1948, at least as far as Gush Etzion is concerned, that is more than a public safety problem. It represents a basic unwillingness to live in peace alongside their Jewish neighbors. If Palestinians can think of nothing better to do than to steal from or attack Jews in the town over the hill, how can we believe they are ready to accept peace with Israel under virtually any circumstances?
The Palestinians’ culture of violence goes much deeper than stone throwing. It is in fact merely a symptom of the hatred of Jews and Israelis that is fomented in their official media and throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Whatever your opinion about settlements or where the borders of Israel should be located, the longer Palestinians condone routine violence and train new generations of children to take part in this mayhem, the longer they are putting off the day when peace will arrive.

Kerry unspins jewish leaders

12:30 PM, AUG 9, 2013 • BY ELLIOTT ABRAMS

Secretary of State John Kerry met with a group of key Jewish leaders this past week, and was accompanied by the administration's all-star team on "peace process" matters: Martin Indyk, Susan Rice, and Ben Rhodes.
john kerry
Kerry apparently read a prepared speech, which is odd in a setting like this at the White House. He told the heads of Jewish organizations that peace was a "strategic imperative" and that time was running out. The elders among the leaders will have been told exactly the same thing by Secretaries Rogers, Kissinger, Vance, Baker, Christopher, Albright, Powell, Rice, and Clinton.
Few if any of them will have been persuaded by Kerry's arguments. According to the Jerusalem Post, Kerry "argued that the regional strategic environment has become favorable for a peace agreement because opponents of peace have weakened over the past two years." He may believe this, but none of them do. Mubarak is gone and Egypt is unstable; Jordan has seen more demonstrations against the King in the last two years than in the ten before that, and now houses about 600,000 Syrian refugees; Syria is at war and the jihadi presence on Israel's border is growing. Moreover, American passivity in the face of successful and growing Iranian and Hezbollah activity in Syria, while Iran moves closer and closer to a nuclear weapon, will not seem to most Jewish leaders to help create a "favorable regional strategic environment."
Kerry also told them Israeli security issues are central to the negotiations, but his explanation of how Israeli security would be handled cannot have won many fans. According to the Times of Israel, Kerry said "one of the lynchpins of the current peace process is the separation of Israel’s security assurances from the general negotiations, assurances he said would be guaranteed in a separate agreement with the US. The security track is being worked out under the auspices of retired Marine Corps general John Allen, who is currently Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s special adviser for the Middle East Peace."
This suggests that Israel is negotiating security matters with the United States rather than with the PLO, which is itself unworkable--because the PLO, not the United States, has to agree and sign the deal. For example, in the past Israel has demanded control of the airspace over a Palestinian state (to guarantee against air attacks), no international airport in such a state, and an IDF troop presence on the Jordan River. The Palestinians have said no to all this in the past, so how is peace advanced by arguing over these matters with General Allen?
How does a separate American "guarantee" help? If the Palestinians agree to such terms, Israel can enforce them (and prefers to do so itself, certainly without foreign troops present); if the Palestinians do not agree, the United States cannot enforce them. So what, exactly, will the United States guarantee? And will such a guarantee be trusted, given that it will bind only Mr. Obama, who by next year (when the Kerry negotiations have used up their proposed nine months) will have less than three years left in office? In 2004, President Bush gave Prime Minister Sharon certain guarantees about American policy, but the Obama administration treated those as a kind of private letter having no binding policy impact. Is Kerry going to propose a security treaty, such as we have with Japan, and send it to the Senate for ratification? Do the Israelis want one? Is it a good idea--or a better idea not to substitute the United States for a PLO that may be unwilling to give the guarantees and promises that real peace requires?
Mr. Kerry sounded optimistic, all accounts suggest, and this must have been plain mysterious to his listeners. Their own contacts in the Middle East are good enough for them to know that this enthusiasm and optimism is shared nowhere among Palestinian or Israeli pundits or political elites. Mr. Kerry was right to speak to Jewish leaders (and apparently will soon speak to leaders of Arab-American groups), but his prepared statement won him no ground. It's old wine in old bottles. And after a while, old wine grows sour.