Archive

Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

How a liberal “defends” citizens of the USA from terrorism

February 7, 2017 Leave a comment

By their fruits you shall know them: the anti-semitic resolution

December 31, 2016 Leave a comment

Below is the latest column from Charles Krauthammer and it is in ref to the anti-semitic resolution recently passed in the UN.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits.” the Lord Jesus Christ quoted in Matthew 7:16

The two so-called legacies of CES’ foreign policy negatively impact the Jewish nation of Israel.

Also the recent CES action and press release in ref to supposed connection of Russia with election and the kicking out of Russia diplomats was the administration’s way to change the news cycle/focus from their anti-semitic actions of the past week into something else so MSM will fill the airwaves/internet with liberal propaganda tied to their LOSS in the presidential election.

Emphasis added below by me…

 

By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer December 29

“When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

— Barack Obama, AIPAC conference, March 4, 2012

 

The audience — overwhelmingly Jewish, passionately pro-Israel and supremely gullible — applauded wildly. Four years later — his last election behind him, with a month to go in office and with no need to fool Jew or gentile again — Obama took the measure of Israel’s back and slid a knife into it.

People don’t quite understand the damage done to Israel by the U.S. abstention that permitted passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel over settlements. The administration pretends this is nothing but a restatement of long-standing U.S. opposition to settlements.

For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel’s Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)

Nonsense. For the past 35 years, every administration, including a reelection-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.

An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.

Moreover, the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

The peace parameters enunciated so ostentatiously by Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday are nearly identical to the Clinton parameters that Yasser Arafat was offered and rejected in 2000 and that Abbas was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Abbas, too, walked away.

Kerry mentioned none of this because it undermines his blame-Israel narrative. Yet Palestinian rejectionism works. The Security Council just declared the territories legally Palestinian — without the Palestinians having to concede anything, let alone peace. What incentive do the Palestinians have to negotiate when they can get the terms — and territory — they seek handed to them for free if they hold out long enough?

The administration claims a kind of passive innocence on the text of the resolution, as if it had come upon it at the last moment. We are to believe that the ostensible sponsors — New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and a Venezuela that cannot provide its own people with toilet paper, let alone food — had for months been sweating the details of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

In major speech, outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry defends the U.S. abstention of a U.N. resolution vote that demanded Israel end settlement building, saying the vote reflected U.S. values and was intended to defend the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Reuters)

Nothing new here, protests deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes: “When we see the facts on the ground, again, deep into the West Bank beyond the separation barrier, we feel compelled to speak up against those actions.”

This is a deception. Everyone knows that remote outposts are not the issue. Under any peace, they will be swept away. Even right-wing Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in one of these West Bank settlements, has stated publicly that “I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution.” Where’s the obstacle to peace?

A second category of settlement is the close-in blocs that border 1967 Israel. Here, too, we know in advance how these will be disposed of: They’ll become Israeli territory and, in exchange, Israel will swap over some of its land to a Palestinian state. Where’s the obstacle to peace here?

It’s the third category of “settlement” that is the most contentious and that Security Council Resolution 2334 explicitly condemns: East Jerusalem. This is not just scandalous; it’s absurd. America acquiesces to a declaration that, as a matter of international law, the Jewish state has no claim on the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, indeed the entire Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. They belong to Palestine.

The Temple Mount is the most sacred site in all of Judaism. That it should be declared foreign to the Jewish people is as if the Security Council declared Mecca and Medina to be territory to which Islam has no claim. Such is the Orwellian universe Israel inhabits.

At the very least, Obama should have insisted that any reference to East Jerusalem be dropped from the resolution or face a U.S. veto. Why did he not? It’s incomprehensible — except as a parting shot of personal revenge on Benjamin Netanyahu. Or perhaps as a revelation of a deep-seated antipathy to Israel that simply awaited a safe political interval for public expression.

Another legacy moment for Barack Obama. And his most shameful.

 

John Kerry Anti-Israel Speech Fallout Continues [VIDEO]

December 31, 2016 1 comment

2 cents: Fantastic summary and analysis that I want to share.

victorygirlsblog.com/john-kerry-anti-israel-speech-fallout-continues-video/

by Toni Williams

Why do Barack Obama and John Kerry despise Israel?

Last night, Israel Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer appeared last night on the Fox News’ Kelly File with guest host Sandra Smith. The subject was John Kerry’s “+30” pathetically horrendous speech to quote Nina Bookout’s post yesterday. Nina did a great roundup of the Kerry speech in its “patheticness”. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu issued a forceful response and Ambassador Dermer batted cleanup.

The “Settler Agenda” in Israel? That would be Jews living Judea and Samaria, currently known as the West Bank (since 1946). Weren’t Jews in Judea and Samaria in the Bible?

David French in The Corner at National Review rightly asks which American values ask us to facilitate the deaths of the Jewish people?

As Ron Dermer noted to Sandra Smith last night, Israel is a sovereign nation. What gives Barack Obama, John Kerry of the thugs at the United Nations the right to dictate how the peoples of Israel, both Jews and Arabs, live? Why on their way out of power have Barack Obama and John Kerry decided to poke Israel with a stick over and over?

Ben Shapiro, also in the National Review, asks the question about Barack Obama and his hatred of Israel:

Barack Obama has done his best for nearly eight years to undermine the state of Israel. He’s signed a treaty that enshrines an Iranian path to a nuclear weapon while funding their global terrorist activities to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. He’s repeatedly undercut Israel’s image on the world stage, labeling Israel a mere outgrowth of the Holocaust and suggesting that Israeli intransigence stands as the chief obstacle to peace. He’s ushered Benjamin Netanyahu out the side door of the White House, attempted to undercut the prime minister’s speech before Congress, and then deployed an election team to Israel to try to defeat him in an election. Obama has tried to cut weapons shipments to Israel in the middle of a war against terrorists, forced Israel to apologize for stopping weapons shipments to Hamas terrorists, and funded the Palestinian terrorist unity government with American taxpayer dollars.

Shapiro asks the question, provides evidence, but no answers.

There is a very strong, outward current of anti-Semitism on the left. Barack Obama is a social justice lefty from the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Barack Obama has shown his bigotry and racism often over the last eight years. I don’t really need to list examples, do I?

What explains John Kerry? He is not just carrying water for the Obama Administration. He has been an anti-Semite for years. To the left, being an open anti-Semite and hating Israel is a significant strength. Just check out this link: Kerry Stands Tall in War and Peace, on Israel and Palestine. Check this quote:

Kerry made unprecedented efforts to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Kerry knows, as every student of history knows, that in a negotiation for peace under difficult circumstances, all parties to the negotiation make concessions to other parties, and must receive concessions from other parties.

Every student of history knows, when Israel makes a concession, Palestine bows out of negotiations, AND what do you concede when the other party wants to wipe out your existence.

I am no psychoanalyst and I don’t play one on tv. Barack Obama and John Kerry, indeed the core of the leftist ideology, despise the very existence of Jews and Israel not as much as the “Palestinians” but despise them they do.

Source: John Kerry Anti-Israel Speech Fallout Continues [VIDEO]

A great resource on Islam

December 22, 2016 Leave a comment

“The truth is that Islam is not like other religion and it is certainly not a religion of peace.  Sometimes the truth isn’t comfortable.  Sometimes the truth offends.  But it is far better that we offend others than lose our own freedom.”

What makes Islam so different?

Dive immediately into the section on M the moralist (under myths of M)

Look at the list of attacks against those who call themselves Christian since 9/11/01. The list is updated quite frequently due to the constant Islamic attacks.

 

 

Saudi Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton

November 5, 2016 Leave a comment
Whistleblower Julian Assange has given one of his most incendiary interviews ever in a John Pilger Special, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, in which he summarizes what can be gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year.

John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US. Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website.

JP (John Pilger): The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.

JA (Julian Assange): And twelve million dollars from Morocco …

JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.

JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].

JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East.  Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.

JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation.  Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion.  In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.

JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

JA: Yes.

JP:That’s extraordinary.

 

Link to transcript of interview

2 cents: of course I am sure she would say “what does it matter?”

How global elites forsake their countrymen

August 12, 2016 Leave a comment

How global elites forsake their countrymen
By Peggy Noonan
This is about distance, and detachment, and a kind of historic decoupling between the top and the bottom in the West that did not, in more moderate recent times, exist.
Recently I spoke with an acquaintance of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and the conversation quickly turned, as conversations about Ms. Merkel now always do, to her decisions on immigration. Last summer when Europe was engulfed with increasing waves of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries, Ms. Merkel, moving unilaterally, announced that Germany would take in an astounding 800,000. Naturally this was taken as an invitation, and more than a million came. The result has been widespread public furor over crime, cultural dissimilation and fears of terrorism. From such a sturdy, grounded character as Ms. Merkel the decision was puzzling—uncharacteristically romantic about people, how they live their lives, and history itself, which is more charnel house than settlement house.
Ms. Merkel’s acquaintance sighed and agreed. It’s one thing to be overwhelmed by an unexpected force, quite another to invite your invaders in! But, the acquaintance said, he believed the chancellor was operating in pursuit of ideals. As the daughter of a Lutheran minister, someone who grew up in East Germany, Ms. Merkel would have natural sympathy for those who feel marginalized and displaced. Moreover she is attempting to provide a kind of counter-statement, in the 21st century, to Germany’s great sin of the 20th. The historical stain of Nazism, the murder and abuse of the minority, will be followed by the moral triumph of open arms toward the dispossessed. That’s what’s driving it, said the acquaintance.
It was as good an explanation as I’d heard. But there was a fundamental problem with the decision that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the least affected by it and likely never would be.
Nothing in their lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures, negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and fearfulness on the street—that was put on those with comparatively little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle, not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing crisis that shows no signs of ending—because nobody cares about them enough to stop it.
The powerful show no particular sign of worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,” “narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,” and “hero of human rights.”
And so the great separating incident at Cologne last New Year’s, and the hundreds of sexual assaults by mostly young migrant men who were brought up in societies where women are veiled—who think they should be veiled—and who chose to see women in short skirts and high heels as asking for it.
Cologne of course was followed by other crimes.
The journalist Chris Caldwell reports in the Weekly Standard on Ms. Merkel’s statement a few weeks ago, in which she told Germans that history was asking them to “master the flip side, the shadow side, of all the positive effects of globalization.”
Caldwell: “This was the chancellor’s . . . way of acknowledging that various newcomers to the national household had begun to attack and kill her voters at an alarming rate.” Soon after her remarks, more horrific crimes followed, including in Munich (nine killed in a McDonald’s) Reutlingen (a knife attack) and Ansbach (a suicide bomber).
***
The larger point is that this is something we are seeing all over, the top detaching itself from the bottom, feeling little loyalty to it or affiliation with it. It is a theme I see working its way throughout the West’s power centers. At its heart it is not only a detachment from, but a lack of interest in, the lives of your countrymen, of those who are not at the table, and who understand that they’ve been abandoned by their leaders’ selfishness and mad virtue-signalling.
On Wall Street, where they used to make statesmen, they now barely make citizens. CEOs are consumed with short-term thinking, stock prices, quarterly profits. They don’t really believe that they have to be involved with “America” now; they see their job as thinking globally and meeting shareholder expectations.
In Silicon Valley the idea of “the national interest” is not much discussed. They adhere to higher, more abstract, more global values. They’re not about America, they’re about . . . well, I suppose they’d say the future.
In Hollywood the wealthy protect their own children from cultural decay, from the sick images they create for all the screens, but they don’t mind if poor, unparented children from broken-up families get those messages and, in the way of things, act on them down the road.
From what I’ve seen of those in power throughout business and politics now, the people of your country are not your countrymen, they’re aliens whose bizarre emotions you must attempt occasionally to anticipate and manage.
In Manhattan, my little island off the continent, I see the children of the global business elite marry each other and settle in London or New York or Mumbai. They send their children to the same schools and are alert to all class markers. And those elites, of Mumbai and Manhattan, do not often identify with, or see a connection to or an obligation toward, the rough, struggling people who live at the bottom in their countries. In fact, they fear them, and often devise ways, when home, of not having their wealth and worldly success fully noticed.
Affluence detaches, power adds distance to experience. I don’t have it fully right in my mind but something big is happening here with this division between the leaders and the led. It is very much a feature of our age. But it is odd that our elites have abandoned or are abandoning the idea that they belong to a country, that they have ties that bring responsibilities, that they should feel loyalty to their people or, at the very least, a grounded respect.
I close with a story that I haven’t seen in the mainstream press. This week the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reported that recent Syrian refugees being resettled in Virginia, were sent to the state’s poorest communities. Data from the State Department showed that almost all Virginia’s refugees since October “have been placed in towns with lower incomes and higher poverty rates, hours away from the wealthy suburbs outside of Washington, D.C.” Of 121 refugees, 112 were placed in communities at least 100 miles from the nation’s capital. The suburban counties of Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington—among the wealthiest in the nation, and home to high concentrations of those who create, and populate, government and the media—have received only nine refugees.
Some of the detachment isn’t unconscious. Some of it is sheer and clever self-protection. At least on some level they can take care of their own.
Article link http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-global-elites-forsake-their-countrymen-1470959258

2 cents:

For her to articulate this undoubtedly will label her as pro-Trump. I don’t whether she is or not but that is actually not the point. What she writes is true. Dems will throw labels meant to be derogatory because they don’t either want to deal with the issue or (and more than likely) they are Dem voter and actually don’t have a clear reasonable curse-free response to offer. While CNN, MSN, ABC, CBS and NBC are giving Hillary the queen and smooth sailing treatment the REAL ISSUES are again swept away from the candidate of their choice so they don’t have to articulate to the world their position or insight on such matters. Meanwhile Hillary has a wall around her compound. Walls are bad remember? Mr. FB has a wall around his compound. But a wall to protect the rest of the society in the USA is hate-mongering, racist or whatever derogatory label they put on it. Meanwhile Chief Empty Suit funnels in a predominantly Middle-Eastern “style” of Muslim into neighborhoods far from him and his cronies. Undoubtedly the property values in the areas of the residences of the global elite won’t be conducive to unemployed, under-educated, poverty or lower class individuals so “of course” they get shipped away to “those areas best suited for them”. Of course they put them up on the tax paying citizen so they have food, some type of shelter and O****-care.  

What happened to democracy? Why not put up the matter for a vote in all of the precincts in our country (BTW “precinct” – really must have been a Freudian slip by someone)? 

Islam and the need to vote wisely

July 4, 2016 Leave a comment

President Hassan Rouhani said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”

Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.

“By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.

From article at Jerusalem Post

2 cents:

In other words, what Rouhani was saying is that it is always wise to sacrifice a few pieces on the game board in order to capture the king.

There has been a non-stop stream of news involving the desire of many muslims to change the different countries in the world to their warped, barbaric and masochistic evil ungodly ways. All that Rouhani, Khamenei and other like in evil spirit have is their hate, belligerence & narcissism to fuel suffering, wickedness and death.

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

In the USA where the moniker of diversity has been twisted and used to force many wrong ideologies at the expense of individualism, liberty and freedom – one SHOULD think that its society would be rising and pressing our national government to do all it can to protect our people and allies from a religion that is against diversity.

But low and behold it is not happening. Instead what we have in the USA, is the people/party who hijacked the beauty and value of diversity, is the undying loyalty of these people to a religion which maims women, denigrates women, actively uses force and execution to eliminate opposition.

All the while the religion of Islam has its forces networking, planning for a new phase of bringing the world under its hideous sharia law.

The chief empty suit of the USA has done more to assist the treacherous Ayatollah than any president before him.  NOW – His supporters are wanting to elect a new president with the same like mind. In four years from now, I wonder how far our country and the rest of the world will be in submission to Islam.

Vote wisely.

%d bloggers like this: