Palestinian boys dressed in uniforms of Palestinian security forces and holding plastic toy guns take part during a rally marking “Nakba” in the West Bank city of Nablus May 15, 2011. Palestinians on Sunday mark the “Nakba”, or catastrophe, to commemorate the expulsion or fleeing of some 700, 000 Palestinians from their homes in the war that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. (REUTERS/Abed Omar Qusini)
Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category
Posted by iusbvision on June 21, 2011
Senate Subpoena’s Obama Administration. Hiding Facts on How Outspoken Jihadist Fort Hood Shooter Was Promoted Instead of Discharged
Posted by iusbvision on June 16, 2011
[Editor’s Note: Be sure to read the following link HERE as it provides very enlightening insight as to how this disaster happened]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins today issued subpoenas to Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanding information on what the government knew about accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan prior to the Nov. 5 incident.
In a letter accompanying the subpoenas, Lieberman, I.-Conn., and Collins, R.-Me., the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said they had been forced to issue the subpoenas by a lack of cooperation from the Obama administration.
“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation for more than five months,” said the letter. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already publicly available, and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding the documents and witnesses that we have requested.”
During a conference call with reporters, Lieberman said he wanted to learn what information the government had about Hasan’s contacts with radical Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki. “What were the signals, what was done to stop them,” said Lieberman, “and why wasn’t an investigation done then?”
“We think our request is quite reasonable,” said Lieberman, “”Our goal is to look back and see what these two federal agencies could have done to stop this man from committing a massacre of 13 Americans.”
The subpoenas demand information on contacts between Hasan and Awlaki in the months before the shooting spree. “Given the warning signs about Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” asked the letter, “why was he not stopped before he took thirteen American lives?”
The subpoenas command Holder and Gates to appear before the committee on April 27 at 10:00 a.m., and to bring specified materials with them.
Holder is asked to provide the names of individuals on the Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego and Washington or the National Joint Terrorism Task Force who might have been familiar with emails between Nidal Hasan and Awlaki prior to the shooting.
Gates is ordered to produce Hasan’s official personnel file and any performance evaluations. He is also commanded to provide the names of defense department intelligence and criminal investigation employees who had knowledge of Maj. Hasan prior to the shootings, or who may have worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in D.C. and San Diego “during the period of time in which information linked to Major Hasan came to those entities.”
Lieberman and Collins had been threatening to issue the subpoenas for nearly a month. On Thursday, they restated their intention to issue the subpoenas during a press conference.
On Friday, Secy. Gates told reporters that the administration was not seeking to hide information from Congress, but that its first priority was the prosecution of Maj. Hasan. [Editor’s Note: This excuse is a crock as a Senate Committee can meet in closed session.]
Posted by iusbvision on June 10, 2011
Posted by iusbvision on June 5, 2011
How do you have a peace agreement with people this demoralized?
|Two Palestinian youths from the West Bank village of Awarta, arrested in April on suspicion of murdering five members of the Fogel family in Itamar, were charged with five counts of homicide at a military court on Sunday.
The defendants, 17-yearold Hakim Awad and 18-yearold Amjad Awad, who are from the same clan, have confessed to stabbing and shooting two young brothers, their parents, and a three-month-old baby in the attack.
“I don’t regret what I did, and would do it again,” Amjad Awad told reporters in court. “I’m proud of what I did and I’ll accept any punishment I get, even death, because I did it all for Palestine,” he added.
The charge sheet detailed how the two saw two young brothers sleeping in their beds, 4-year-old Elad and 11- year-old Yoav, snuck into the home, and stabbed them both to death. They then entered the parents’ bedroom, where they launched a knife attack on Ehud and Ruth Fogel. The parents fought back, attempting to fend off the attackers. Ehud died of stab wounds and Ruth was shot dead by the attackers with a stolen M- 16 gun. The two then left the house, before hearing cries from three-month-old baby Hadas. Awoken by the attack, the baby lay in its crib in the parents’ bedroom.
“They went back into the house and stabbed the baby to death to silence her cries,” a security source said following the arrests in April.
Posted by iusbvision on June 5, 2011
Why is it that the elite media will not show you this? This is typical of Islamist TV.
Two 11-year-old girls articulate their personal goal to become shahids [people who die for Allah], explaining that “all Palestinian children” see Shahada [death for Allah] – because of its promised grand Afterlife – as more worthwhile than living.
Palestinian Media Watch – http://www.pmw.org.il
Palestinian Mother Expresses Joy at Son’s Death in Suicide Attack
Posted by iusbvision on June 3, 2011
Video at Socialist Conference: Work with Hezbollah and other jihadists to oppose the US, Britain, Israel…
Posted by iusbvision on May 31, 2011
We have seen leftist groups coordinate with the Muslim Brotherhood backed Muslim Students Association on campus. David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer have been talking about it for years. Glenn Beck has also highlighted this issue on his program. Leftist groups in coordination with MSA have joined forces to disrupt campus speeches made by traditionalists, Israeli’s, Republicans etc.
Posted by iusbvision on May 31, 2011
Wall of Lies:
Horowitz at UCLA:
David Horowitz Q&A:
Posted by iusbvision on May 29, 2011
Posted by iusbvision on May 27, 2011
U.S. President Barack Obama’s Palestinian Authority-Israel peace plan is a ”formula for war,” writes Bret Stephens, foreign affairs editor and deputy editorial page editor of The Wall St. Journal. – LINK
Just to give you an idea of just who it is Israel is asked to “negotiate with”…
She is referring to the Hebron massacre of 1929.
Read the smaller headline on the right.
“The Middle East Problem” from Prager University:
Just how bad is campus antisemitism from radicalized professors?
VIDEO: David Horowitz outs genocidal Muslim Student Association member
And homeland security is letting these people in and not only that they are encouraged by college faculty.
Via David Horowitz:
MSA member: If I support Hamas, because your question forces me to condemn Hamas. If I support Hamas, I look really bad.
Horowitz: If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?
MSA member: For it.
Horowitz: Thank you for coming and showing everybody what’s here.
David Horowitz talks about his experiences on college campus’ with Sean Hannity
Posted by iusbvision on May 26, 2011
Continued from Israel Part I
So let us examine the Obama administrations record when it comes to Israel so far, much of this list we have already reported. This list is from the Canada Free Press.
- In May 2009 Obama announced he will be addressing the Arab and Muslim world from a mosque in the city of Al-Azhar in Egypt—a location writer Ruth S. King has described as “the locus of Koranic-inspired Jihad.” Indeed, this Sunni bastion supports suicide-bombings. And only last week, according to JihadWatch.org, Sheikh Ali Osman of the Egyptian government said “Pigs are Jews cursed by Allah, and thus can be lawfully slaughtered.”
- In May of 2009, by Executive Order, Obama directed the expenditure of $20.3 million—of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars—in “migration assistance” to the Palestinian refugees and “conflict victims” in Gaza, which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas and its Islamic Resistance Movement to resettle in the United States. Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009 was recorded in the Federal Register on February 4.
- Also in May 2009, Obama submitted a budget to Congress that while increasing military aid to Israel for the Arrow 3, cut in half aid for the Arrow 2 and significantly reduced aid for short-range missile interceptors, just as Iran is strengthening its conventional ballistic missile force.
- Also in May 2009, Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu for the P.M.‘s planned visit to address the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference in D.C. [As if Obama did these things to send Netanyahu a message – Editor]
- At the same AIPAC meeting Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told donors that America’s ability to face Iran depended on Israel’s ability to make progress with the Palestinians, once again echoing the tired Leftist canard that all conflicts in the Middle East are the result not of the jihadist mentality, but rather the failure of Israel to accept their virulently anti-Semitic propaganda (in the media and in schools), non-stop homicide bombings, and relentless rocket attacks…
- In numerous Obama-sanctioned public statements, his henchmen have, in the common vernacular, put the screws to Israel, among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who threatened: “For Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts … they go hand in hand,” and National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones who recently told a European foreign minister that the U.S. is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
- Obama let it be known that his plan for a “two-state solution” was perfectly in-sync with the wipe-Israel-off-the-map crowd, including terrorist-sponsoring Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. And what sweet nothings do you suppose Obama whispered into the ears of Iran’s Ahmadinejad that just prompted the sudden release from jail of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi?
- Obama let it be known that his plan for a “two-state solution” was perfectly in-sync with the wipe-Israel-off-the-map crowd, including terrorist-sponsoring Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. And what sweet nothings do you suppose Obama whispered into the ears of Iran’s Ahmadinejad that just prompted the sudden release from jail of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi?
- And let’s not forget that Obama’s first phone call to a head of state was to Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory, and who also wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. Did I mention Abbas’ loyal second-in-command fealty to “the father of terrorism,” Yasir Arafat?
- Obama gave his first TV interview to Al Arabia television.
- Obama summarily dismissed all charges against the Muslim murderers of 17 American sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2001.
- Obama, according to David Patten at Newsmax.com, “is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances.”
- Obama bowed so repugnantly on his recent European trip to the Saudi Arabian potentate.
Also look who the President has surrounded himself with, again fronm the Canada Free Press:
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who according to Dick Morris has had “relationships with terrorists [that] began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization [when] the PLO was officially recognized by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization.”
- Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and has inspired dozens of articles with titles like these in Commentary: Susan Rice Is Doing Something at the UN: Targeting Israel and What Was Susan Rice’s Embarrassing Anti-Israel Tirade Supposed to Accomplish?
- Lee Hamilton, who Ed Lasky calls the eminence grise of Obama’s Mideast policy and who has suggested that the U.S. should pressure Israel to surrender the Golan Heights and leave the West Bank—but not a word about dismantling Hamas or Hezbollah!
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, longtime Israel loather, who suggested that the Obama administration should tell Israel that the U.S. will attack Israeli jets if they try to attack Iran.
- John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security,suggests, among other egregious things, that Obama & Co. “reach out” to Hezbollah.
- Samantha Power, now on Obama’s National Security Council, has advocated ending all U.S. military aid to Israel and written of her willingness to “alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [American Jews]…” She has also advocated, Ed Lasky writes, “that America send armed military forces,” “a mammoth protection force” and an “external intervention” to” impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.”
- Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Senior Advisor. According to Ulsterman, the by-now infamous Washington Insider, “weeks after widespread Middle East chaos first erupted, and with a growing number of nations now poised to join the likes of Egypt and Libya into all out rebellion, some are finally questioning the role played by the Obama White House in helping to hasten these events. Of primary concern is the reasoning behind Barack Obama’s quick repudiation of Egypt’s Mubarak, and near silence regarding Libya’s Gaddafi. Why such a disparity in tone between one uprising vs another? …Perhaps the answer to this disparity can be found with President Obama’s closest and most powerful adviser—[Iranian-born Muslim] Valerie Jarrett
Senator Marco Rubio:
Reaffirming the Bond Between America and Israel
May 23, 2011
The United States and Israel stand at a crossroads in our historic special relationship. Since recognizing Israel’s independence in 1948, we have stood by her as a beacon of political and economic freedom in the midst of tyrannical regimes and terrorists determined to destroy her. American support has been crucial to Israel’s continued existence and must be part of its future.
Today, the “Arab Spring” that toppled authoritarian rulers in Tunisia and Egypt now threatens tyrants in Libya and Syria. America should be working to ensure that these transitions do not come at the expense of security, especially Israel’s. But instead, our bond with Israel is unconscionably being torn apart by the Obama administration’s policies and its bizarre adversarial treatment of a long-standing friend.
Relations have been strained since President Obama came into office in 2009, but they reached an absurdly low level last week as, without warning, he called for Israel to return to its 1967 borders as a pre-condition for peace negotiations. In both style and substance, this is a dangerous innovation in U.S. policy that undermines the entire peace process by insisting on an unworkable goal that ignores what has transpired over the past 44 years and jeopardizes Israel’s security.
The U.S. must not predetermine the outcome of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Our focus should be on encouraging direct and meaningful negotiations between the sides and continuing to serve as a security guarantor in the region.
America’s role in this effort should be guided by a set of key principles that would ultimately resolve fundamental disagreements, end the conflict, and result in two democratic states living in peace and with security.
First, we must recognize that the safety of the Israeli people is first and foremost in the mind of every Israeli decision-maker. Decades of tough negotiations demonstrate Israel’s record of making enormous sacrifices to achieve peace with its neighbors when its people are reassured of their safety. Instead of pressuring Israel to accept demands we would never tolerate if we were in their shoes, we should do everything possible to assure Israeli safety and security.
Second, Israel should not be compelled to negotiate with any entity that openly denies its right to exist, refuses to reject terrorism, and refuses to honor previous agreements made with Israel and international organizations. Israel could only achieve lasting peace with a Palestinian state based on democratic values and with functioning institutions. The U.S. should actively support pragmatic efforts to build Palestinian institutions in Samaria, so that Palestinian self-rule becomes possible. However, implementation of the recently announced Fatah-Hamas agreement will compel Congress to cut off direct U.S. assistance to such a Palestinian governing authority and further delay the dream of Palestinian self-rule.
Third, any agreements on borders between Israel and a future Palestinian state should be the outcome of direct negotiations between the sides. After more than six decades of the modern state of Israel, it is unrealistic to believe that such negotiations will not be based on the defensibility of Israel’s borders as well as the demographic changes that have taken place. To ignore these realities would be a disservice to the Palestinian people who are in desperate need of strong leadership. On the refugee question, the right of return of Palestinians should mark a return to the eventual Palestinian state negotiated by both parties.
Fourth, in working towards a solution, we must secure verifiable commitments from the Arab nations to take meaningful steps to normalize relations with Israel and actively eradicate terrorist organizations that threaten the security not only of Israelis, but ultimately of the region as a whole. This is especially important during this period of transition in the Middle East.
Fifth, although the president failed to address the status of Jerusalem, we must make clear that it is Israel’s capital, as the U.S. Congress has repeatedly recognized. Jerusalem should never be divided again. Any eventual recognition of a Palestinian state should be accompanied by America’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state by finally relocating our embassy there.
And sixth, a legitimate agreement must include a Palestinian commitment to reject violence and live in peace with Israel and their neighbors. To date, the Palestinians have not been prepared to commit to this. The recently announced Fatah-Hamas coalition imperils this non-negotiable requirement for a final agreement and lasting peace. But no two-state solution is acceptable if it allows for perpetual conflict.
In the end, a two-state solution is only worth pursuing if it enhances Israel’s security and serves as a foundation for long-lasting peace in the region. This is more likely to be achieved if America reaffirms its unshakable commitment to the security of the democratic Jewish state of Israel.
At this moment of uncertainty and transition in the Middle East, with the threats from Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah as grave as ever, America must make clear to the world that we stand by our most loyal ally in the world and that, if Israel is left with only one friend in the world, that will be the United States.
Impact on the 2012 election?
Via American Thinker:
Haim Saban, a billionaire Israeli-American donor to the Democrats has announced he won’t be donating to President Obama’s re-election effort. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera of CNBC reports:
The most prominent Israeli-Americanbusiness leader in the United States, Haim Saban, says President Obama needs to do more to show his support of Israel in light of the President’s comments last week suggesting Israel needs to return to its pre-1967 borders to achieve peace with the Palestinians.In an exclusive interview with CNBC, Saban, one of the biggest individual supporters to the Democratic Party and chairman of Saban Capital Group, said Obama needs to visit Israel as he has done with other countries in the Middle East.
Democrats realize that Obama blundered big time. Debbie Wassserman-Schultz, chair of the DNC, even tried to use PM Netanyahu to urge Jewish Republicans to put Israel off the table in themcoming elections. Fat chance. It is a genuine policy difference, and the American people overwhelmingly reject Obama’s philo-Palestinian approach.
In key swing states Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, Jews are more numerous than in most of the country, and a swing of 10 percent or more of the Jewish vote could make a big difference. [Emphasis ours – with that said, these states already swung massively to the Republicans/TEA Party in the 2009 and 2010 elections. In Pennsylvania and Florida the move to the Republicans was 18 points – Editor]
Obama is already trying to walk back his comments on the ‘67 borders, but the words still hang there in the air, unforgettable to all who care about Israel’s survival.
Posted by iusbvision on May 26, 2011
Posted by iusbvision on May 21, 2011
IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton:
Normally I do not get riled up easily, but as a rule one does not write when angered. So I gave myself some time before posting on this further because even the possibility of genocide is very serious.
Yes I said genocide… “But Chuck, going back to the 67 borders doesn’t mean Genocide” … Anyone who tells you that, even if it is a President, is either lying to you or simply has not studied the issue and/or been to Israel. That is not extremist talk, that is not a theory, it is the reality on the ground. We understand that many people reading this do not understand or could even fathom such a reality. The following short video shows exactly the how and why of what we have told you, and what the Israeli government has maintained for many years.
Let us keep a few thoughts in mind that President Obama went to that “church” in Chicago which preached caustic antisemitism for many years. Antisemitic comments from Rev. Wright and Louis Farakhan are nothing new (Farrakhan was a frequent visitor) . Antisemitism is also in high fashion among the academic left which the other of Obama’s peer circles.
What I found amusing is that lie that came from the far left immediately after Obama’s speech is that “1967 borders have always been the policy of the United States so Obama isn’t saying anything new (so you must be racist because you are criticizing him for saying it)”. The truth must be put to this lie right now:
What Real Presidents, and their Secretaries of State, had to say about pre 1967 borders.
Obama’s speech today took the peace process backward, instead of forward. Back when the USA had an adult in the White House, here is what they had to say about the Pre-1967 “Borders”
In an address delivered on September 1, 1982 President Ronald Reagan said:
In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again… So the United States will not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or permanent control by Israel. There is, however, another way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gazain association with Jordan offers the best chance for a durable, just and lasting peace. It is the United States’ position that – in return for peace – the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza. When the border is negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security arrangements offered in return. Finally, we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations
Meanwhile Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the U.N. Security Council: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’. In the view of my Government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty, a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories. “Had this language appeared in the operative paragraphs of the resolution, let me be clear: we would have exercised our veto. In fact, we are today voting against a resolution in the Commission on the Status of Women precisely because it implies that Jerusalem is “occupied Palestinian territory”.
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled the first time he heard someone invoke “the sacramental language of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, mumbling about the need for a just and lasting peace within secure and recognized borders”. He said the phrase was so platitudinous that he thought the speaker was pulling his leg. Kissinger said that, at that time, he did not appreciate how the flood of words used to justify the various demands obscured rather than illuminated the fundamental positions. Kissinger said those “clashing perspectives” prevented any real bargaining and explained: “Jordan’s acquiescence in Resolution 242 had been obtained in 1967 by the promise of our United Nations Ambassador Arthur Goldberg that under its terms we would work for the return of the West Bank of Jordan with minor boundary rectifications and that we were prepared to use our influence to obtain a role for Jordan in Jerusalem.”
However, speaking to Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon said “You and I both know they can’t go back to the other  borders. But we must not, on the other hand, say that because the Israelis win this war, as they won the ’67 War, that we just go on with status quo. It can’t be done.” Kissinger replied “I couldn’t agree more”
Moreover, President Gerald Ford said: “TheU.S. further supports the position that a just and lasting peace, which remains our objective, must be acceptable to both sides.
So this is what adults, from both political parties, have had to say about UN 242, and pulling back to 1967 borders. Of all the Presidents, Gerald Ford said it best: it must be acceptable to both sides. Trying to jam a dead UN Agreement down the throats of Israel, sets the stage for another blood bath.
Mini-Update: The spin several days later is that the Obama proposal was similar to the former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert peace proposal. What the administration forgot to say is that when Olmert made this proposal the Israeli population was not pleased as it made a border that was completely indefensible; when Olmert made his proposal to the Palestinian Authority they did not even answer diplomatically, they attacked with mortar fire and rockets [keep in mind that this was the old “more moderate” pre-Hamas Palestinian Authority]. Prime Minister Olmert had to step down because he was indicted for corruption.
The Escape Hatch
Of course, as in most speeches made by politicians an out word or phrase is always inserted so as to make it easier to be securely on both sides of the issue in case backtracking becomes a political necessity [Note: always look for the escape hatch phrase in any political speech]. In the case of Obama’s speech it was 1967 borders “with mutually agreed swaps”. That sounds so good doesn’t it? Tell me, after watching that video how can Israel give up any land West of the large valley between Israel and Jordan, or the Golan Heights etc? To do so would leave Israel with borders that are structurally indefensible. It has only been by the bravery of the Israeli people and the overwhelming technical superiority of American military hardware that has prevented a second holocaust.
With the escape hatch phrase Obama can say “I wanted borders based on the 1967 lines” which resulted in an invasion, while at the same time saying “I said that we cannot just go back to the 1967 borders”. There are few politicians who speak that do not include these escape hatch phrases [Gov. Christie of New Jersey does not use them and even made a speech against their use.]
So Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made use of Obama’s escape hatch phrase and wiped his feet on it saying “President Obama says that we cannot go back to the 1967 borders”. Of course the Prime Minister knows full well this was not Obama’s intent, but graciously gave him an out. One thing is strikingly obvious, President Obama was shocked by the push-back he received from some in his own party. Not only did almost every Republican condemn Obama’s remarks, but so did many Democrats. The simple truth is that most Democrats are not antisemites in spite of the fact that the racist “liberation theology” types and many on the academic left are.
Congressman Allen West (Florida-22) gave a response that was representative of most Republicans:
Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.
From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.
The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.
Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.
In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.
America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority – which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid rebuked Obama on national television – video.
Legendary musician, KISS lead, and actor Gene Simmons did not mince words either. Warning this IS Gene Simmons so you know what to expect. Simmons is an Israeli by the way.
Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the White House and in a most unusual happenstance, he took President Obama to school right in front of the press. Aside from the substance of the video, we are privy to watch a master diplomat at work.
“Everybody knows this (1967 borders) isn’t going to happen.” “Peace based on an illusion will crash upon rocks of reality.”
Everyone is beating up on President Obama, but in fairness to the President, he has been inundated with antisemitic propaganda much of his life. His father was a communist, his mother was a radical academic leftist, his mentor was Frank Marshall Davis who was also a communist. Obama wrote in his book that he sought out the Marxists in college. Campus leftists and antisemitism are like bacon and eggs. Obama’s preacher. Rev. Wright, is as hateful an antisemite as they come. This may be the first time the President was exposed to a realistic appraisal of this issue. I hope that his time with Prime Minister Netanyahu will have an impact, but if it didn’t this did…
This was not Israel’s message to Obama in the video above; rather in standing ovation after standing ovation the message was clear, this was a unified Congress’ message to the President and his administration. I am grateful for it because the world became much more unstable for a few days until this message was sent to the world.
My Thoughts – This is just conjecture so take it as such. What the Obama Administration has been doing to Israel is exactly what Joe Biden promised would not happen in the campaign. So I would like to know what is going on with him. It is no secret that Valerie Jarret and her crew are hostile to Israel and that they are the closest to Obama and have been since Chicago. Advisors Samantha Power and Cass Sunstien are very hostile towards Israel. While I have many critiques of Joe Biden, wavering on support for Israel is something I never thought I would see from him. It is clear by the video that Biden is thrilled to see this reaction from Congress I wonder if he helped to orchestrate it and protect Obama from himself by undermining his 1967 proposal.
UPDATE – Egypt to permanently open border with Gaza – LINK.
This is important because Iran has been sending arms to Hamas, including anti-ship missiles. Israel has been inspecting ships coming to Gaza and confiscating heavy weapons. Now Syria and Iran can send weapons to Egypt and they will gto to Gaza and be used against Israeli civilians. So much for the “Arab Spring” for democracy that Obama has been talking about. The result of Obama not helping Mubarak is that the Christians in Egypt are under even attack worse than before, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the country and they have promised to end the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. They have also banned any new mass protests in Egypt and the few that were serious about “democracy” have vanished (VIDEO – LINK – LINK). We seem to be also be helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over Libya, but in Iran, when REAL pro-democracy and freedom protesters were rising up against the regime Obama let them get slaughtered with no serious support.
See Israel Part II HERE
Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011
Having discovered Dr. Chesler’s web site I feel as if I have found a treasure trove of interesting information. Next time I am in New York I am definitely going to offer to buy her lunch along with my good friend the soon to be Dr. Jeffery Cappella, global security consultant (Cappella is a supra-genius. A name you will be hearing you can be sure).
This letter from the CUNY Alumni Association says it all:
As alumni, professors and students of the City University of New York, we wish to comment regarding the character assassination that is now transpiring via email attack and media attacks on Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a gifted and serious CUNY Trustee who performed his duty and exercised due diligence regarding the recent vote on CUNY honorary degrees. Many who are presently impugning Mr. Weisenfeld’s character are also responsible for a very unwholesome and dangerous demagoguery that is creeping into mainstream dialogue at CUNY campuses. We are particularly cognizant of a dangerous demagoguery at Brooklyn College where we have most recently been made aware of an anti-Israel and anti-semitic culture that is growing, aided and abetted by the campus administration. Brooklyn College is not alone in this regard, however, and documentation is mounting regarding abuses on other campuses, supported by local CUNY administrations.
On many CUNY campuses, Muslim Student Association (MSA) clubs (sometimes dubbed Palestinian Clubs) are aided, abetted and supported by off-campus “advisors” and Imams from radical Muslim groups. They operate as virtual missionary groups, exercising tactics which are contrary to free inquiry and which seek to foment hatred towards other campus groups. Most are also supported by a professors’ union that promotes rhetoric which encourages and promotes this hatred.
We have also been made aware that professors who are politically pro-Israel are intimidated and prevented from speaking freely, out of fear of retribution when seeking reappointment, tenure and/or promotion. There is little doubt that there are valid bases for this fear.
All this is reflected in the venom that is pouring out of the CUNY professoriate in the attempt to stifle Trustee Wiesenfeld for the simple exercise of his right and responsibility as a member of the Board of Trustees.
We ask that the Board initiate an investigation into the assault on Jews at the City University, disguised as anti-Israelism, which seeks to mask its true agenda: anti-semitism. We ask that a representative task force be established to investigate this phenomenon.
We are grateful that one member of the Board, Mr. Wiesenfeld, has the courage to speak the truth. He is a giant among men and a hero to so many. We shudder to think what will happen when his tenure on the Board is over. We fear the demise of CUNY as an institution of free speech and inquiry.
Should the Board of Trustees continue to ignore the current assault against those of free will who object to the administration’s uninspired and cowardly support of radical liberal orthodoxy and against those who are supporters of the State of Israel, then please be aware that our Association of CUNY Alumni and Retirees will assure:
- That CUNY alumni are apprised of recent events and are exhorted to reconsider donations to their alma maters – colleges which are no longer institutions which are protective of all.
- That Jewish graduates and others of good will are apprised that the colleges which were once their homes, are no longer welcoming to supporters of Israel.
We will not sit by idly and allow this cancer to continue to grow.
Members, Association of CUNY Alumni and Retirees
Posted by iusbvision on May 12, 2011
A pro-Israeli women’s studies professor and psychologist who actually has the guts to stand up and say “you know women are treated pretty badly in Islam”. I am amazed.
She is looking for an intern, and of course many universities are rife with antisemitism and the most dishonest pro-Islamic/antisemitic propaganda imaginable. Of course like the most effective “attitude change propaganda’ the victim is left short on facts and big on attitude and “feelings” as you are about to see.
Life is funny, life is great, but life is also strange, the way it all boils down to one’s views on only two or three subjects, namely Israel, Islam, and America.
Yesterday, I met with a potential intern sent my way by a local area college with whom I’ve happily worked before. She seemed alert, bright, interested, talented and ready to start her (unpaid) full-time summer internship almost immediately. I had already told her to visit my website and to read some of my articles and assumed that she knew my current subjects and views. She did. In fact, on the phone, she went out of her way to agree with me on my critique of the academic feminist view that the Islamic face veil and polygamy are “liberating” for women.
Just after we finished discussing hours and possible projects, she stopped, smiled smoothly, and said this:
“But I have to tell you that I take issue with your position on Israel.”
“Oh” said I. “Have you lived in Israel, do you know any Palestinians, have you read many books, written many articles, taken many courses about Israel and about the Middle East?”
“Well no,” she said, “but I feel strongly about it.”
And then I said: “So, based on your feelings and perhaps on some peer pressure, you are willing to give up an internship that you might otherwise want?”
I stressed that I had no problem with her holding a view different than my own. I asked her whether she could work with someone with whom she did not agree exactly on this one issue.
She paused. And then she said: “But I have another problem. I think it is wrong to condemn all of Islam.”
Now I looked at her for a moment without saying anything.
Then I spoke. “But I don’t. In fact, I champion the work of some religious Muslims as well as those of secular Muslims and ex-Muslims and I work with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. To expose honor killings, to challenge Islamic gender apartheid practices is not the same as condemning all Muslims or all Islam.”
Again, I told her that I could work with someone with whose views I did not completely agree; could she? Although by now I was fearing that if she said yes that instead of working for me she would force me to teach her in an unpaid tutorial.
She was not yet done.
“I also take issue with an article you wrote in which I believe you are stereotyping lesbians and Jewish lesbians.”
Friends: I actually managed not to laugh out loud.
I assured her that I was not at all biased against lesbians or against Jewish lesbians but indeed, that I had seen many lesbians, including Jews, who were “Queers for Palestine,” and who defended a toxically homophobic “Palestine” over the Jewish state when that Jewish state actually grants political asylum to Palestinian homosexuals who have been tortured and near-murdered by their Palestinian families, neighbors, and political leaders.
And then I said: “Look, if you decide that you can work for someone with whom you do not agree, call me.”
She left. Calm, cool, unruffled, almost satisfied.
This was the second time in which a young woman–no more than 20 or 21 years old–felt entitled to preach at me, rather righteously, when they were applying for a job with me. The first young woman was applying for a paid position but she did not let me speak until she first spent 15 minutes “filling me in” on her Third Worldist views. Yesterday’s cream-of-the-crop came all the way for an interview, ultimately in order to challenge me up close and personal.
For all I know, a tape recorder might have been running in her bag because when she left my apartment she seemed strangely happy.
Why is this all important? Because these two young women (granted, they do not represent all young Ivy League women), do not seem to respect authority or at least authority with whom they do not agree. This means that, potentially, they might be willing to destroy their own civilization since they disagree with its authorities on certain key issues. Standing on no serious knowledge base, they and others of their generation nevertheless feel absolutely entitled to stake out a position based on “feelings.”
Is this a continuation of the student uprisings in Europe and America in the 1960s? Is this the result of the politicization of knowledge, i.e. its Stalinization and Palestinianization?
Where will this end if we do not stop it? And, how can we do that?
Posted by iusbvision on March 29, 2011
You have seen us here at IUSB Vision tell you how antisemitism is on the rise in Europe. We have also informed you about the increase in antisemitism on campus. Prof. Dershowitz provides yet another example of just how bad it has become. (Artwork via Bob Schneider)
I recently completed a tour of Norwegian universities, where I spoke about international law as applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the tour nearly never happened.
Its sponsor, a Norwegian pro-Israel group, offered to have me lecture without any charge to the three major universities. Norwegian universities generally jump at any opportunity to invite lecturers from elsewhere. When my Harvard colleague Stephen Walt, co-author of “The Israel Lobby,” came to Norway, he was immediately invited to present a lecture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. Likewise with Ilan Pappe, a demonizer of Israel who teaches at Oxford.
My hosts expected, therefore, that their offer to have me present a different academic perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be eagerly accepted. I have written half a dozen books on the subject presenting a centrist view in support of the two-state solution. But the universities refused.
The dean of the law faculty at Bergen University said he would be “honored” to have me present a lecture “on the O.J. Simpson case,” as long as I was willing to promise not to mention Israel. An administrator at the Trondheim school said that Israel was too “controversial.”
The University of Oslo simply said “no” without offering an excuse. That led one journalist to wonder whether the Norwegian universities believe that I am “not entirely house-trained.”
Only once before have I been prevented from lecturing at universities in a country. The other country was Apartheid South Africa.
Despite the faculties’ refusals to invite me, I delivered three lectures to packed auditoriums at the invitation of student groups. I received sustained applause both before and after the talks.
It was then that I realized why all this happened. At all of the Norwegian universities, there have been efforts to enact academic and cultural boycotts of Jewish Israeli academics. This boycott is directed against Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian land—but the occupation that the boycott supporters have in mind is not of the West Bank but rather of Israel itself. Here is the first line of their petition: “Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land . . .”
The administrations of the universities have refused to go along with this form of collective punishment of all Israeli academics, so the formal demand for a boycott failed. But in practice it exists. Jewish pro-Israel speakers are subject to a de facto boycott.
The first boycott signatory was Trond Adresen, a professor at Trondheim. About Jews, he has written: “There is something immensely self-satisfied and self-centered at the tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews. . . . [They] as a whole, are characterized by this mentality. . . . It is no less legitimate to say such a thing about Jews in 2008-2009 than it was to make the same point about the Germans around 1938.”
This line of talk—directed at Jews, not Israel—is apparently acceptable among many in Norway’s elite. Consider former Prime Minister Kare Willock’s reaction to President Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his first chief of staff: “It does not look too promising, he has chosen a chief of staff who is Jewish.” Mr. Willock didn’t know anything about Mr. Emanuel’s views—he based his criticism on the sole fact that Mr. Emanuel is a Jew. Perhaps unsurprisingly, fewer than 1,000 Jews live in Norway today.
The country’s foreign minister recently wrote an article justifying his contacts with Hamas. He said that the essential philosophy of Norway is “dialogue.” That dialogue, it turns out, is one-sided. Hamas and its supporters are invited into the dialogue, but supporters of Israel are excluded by an implicit, yet very real, boycott against pro-Israel views.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.
UPDATE – Read this no miss article, especially the second half. Ynet News – Something rotten in Norway
Posted by iusbvision on March 26, 2011
Anti Israeli-ism and anti-Zionism often goes too far on campus. This is no secret. When you have professors who are PLO/Hamas sympathizers and professors who are so outrageously biased that they use Jimmy Carter’s mistake ridden anti-Israeli screed as a textbook it creates a hostile environment for Jews and supporters of Israel’s right to exist. And when I was in student government I got complaints from Jewish students about these professors but none would go on the record out of fear of grade retaliation.
So what to do? Campus Watch does a great job of outing bigoted academics, but many academics are very comfortable in their bigotry. This is also about academic freedom. Many bigots use academic freedom as a shield for bigoted indoctrination and harassment of Jews. Antisemitism is quite fashionable among the far left so many academics and administrators provide cover for each other. The excuse is always the same “You just oppose any critique of Israel”. Of course this is a canard because those who say that provide nothing even close to a balanced view of the issue and only make a token gesture at it when investigated.
The course could be taught from the Hamas perspective for half a semester and from the Israeli perspective the other half. Or it could be a two semester course.
Eventually the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) came out with a policy that very imbalanced anti-Israeli-ism is antisemitism and is actionable. While freedom of speech and academic freedom issues should prevent close cases from being acted upon, which is a good thing because one should tilt the scales toward freedom, this policy could be effective at going after the more egregious cases, which is long over due.
The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has announced plans to investigate the University of California at Santa Cruz for anti-Semitism, based on a lecturer’s complaint that administrators there had turned a deaf ear to her concerns that critics of Israel were creating a hostile climate for Jewish people on the campus.
The case marks the first major investigation of anti-Semitism on a college campus by the civil-rights office, known as OCR, since its decision last fall to step up its efforts against such discrimination in a manner that some civil-rights experts saw as likely to pull the agency into debates over campus speech critical of Israel or Zionism. The University of California system is now defending itself against allegations of anti-Semitism on several fronts, as its Irvine campus remains the subject of a separate OCR investigation, undertaken in 2008, and its Berkeley campus and system administration were named in a discrimination lawsuit filed by a Jewish student this month.
Kenneth L. Marcus, who was the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights from 2002 to 2004 and now directs the Institute for Jewish and Community Research’s efforts to fight anti-Semitism, said on Tuesday that the investigation of Santa Cruz “would have been a nonstarter” if the OCR had not adopted the harder line against anti-Semitism urged by his organization and other Jewish groups.
Under the agency’s changed approach toward such complaints, announced in October as part of a broader effort to crack down on forms of student bullying and harassment seen as violating antidiscrimination laws, the OCR made clear that it intends to investigate charges of anti-Semitism where the discrimination might be based partly on ethnicity, and will be less likely to assume that anti-Semitic incidents are the result of religious discrimination, which falls outside its purview.
The Santa Cruz investigation “is a really important signal from OCR that they may be taking their new approach to anti-Semitism as seriously as we wanted them to,” Mr. Marcus said. “There is still a big question as to how vigorously they will pursue cases that involve a mix of anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism. This suggests a willingness to go forward.”
‘Harassment and Intimidation’
The new investigation is in response to a June 2009 complaint sent to the OCR by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew on the campus. In her letter, she describes several incidents in recent years in which administrators there rejected demands that the university drop its sponsorship of events focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that she regarded as one-sided attacks on Israel and Zionism. In some cases, she said, all that resulted from such complaints was that the people who brought them were villified by faculty members as threatening academic freedom.
“The anti-Israel discourse and behavior in classrooms and at departmentally and college-sponsored events at [Santa Cruz] is tantamount to institutional discrimination against Jewish students, which has resulted in their intellectual and emotional harassment and intimidation, and has adversely affected their educational experience at the university,” Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’ letter said. [This is exactly the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored chapters of the MSA and their far left allies – Editor]
In a letter sent to Ms. Rossman-Benjamin on March 7, Arthur Zeidman, director of the OCR’s enforcement office in San Francisco, said his agency would investigate whether the university had failed to fufill its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to respond to her concerns. He noted that the OCR’s decision to open such an investigation “in no way implies” that it has made a determination as to the merits of her complaint to the agency.
In a written statement, Santa Cruz’s campus counsel, Carole Rossi, said the university would “fully cooperate” with the OCR’s investigation.
The separate lawsuit against the University of California system was filed in U.S. District Court this month by Jessica Felber, a former Berkeley student who now works as a campus liaison for Hasbara Fellowships, an organization established by the Jewish organization Aish International. It argues that the university tolerated an anti-Semitic climate on the campus and failed to deal with complaints of “campus terrrorist incitements” by two student groups, the Muslim Students Union and Students for Justice in Palestine.
The lawsuit accuses the university of failing to have provided Ms. Felber with adequate protection against anti-Semitic violence in a March 2010 incident in which a student involved with Students for Justice in Palestine “intentionally rammed” a shopping cart into her on the campus, causing her an injury for which she received medical attention.
The Berkelely campus on Tuesday issued a statement that said it “is committed to maintaining an inclusive and respectful campus environment that is safe and welcoming for everyone, without regard to religion, race, ethnicity, or ideology,” and rejects “any allegation or implication that bias or prejudice plays any role” in how the administration deals with students or student groups.
Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011
Terrorists go into Israel and cut the throats of an entire family and the people in Gaza are dancing in the streets.
Hamas is launching rockets against Israeli civilians again.
Hamas set off another bomb in Israel.
Check out the video’s on the web site and at MEMRI.org and you will see Hamas state run TV using kids cartoon dubs and such to teach hate, genocide, killing Jews etc. There is no way to negotiate with people like that.
If Cuba launched rockets at us for 20 minutes, we would make it into the 51st state. They have been launching them at Israel for 20 years and still Israel shows so much restraint that its enemies are not deterred.
The entire interview is here. Sarah goes in-depth into several policy areas here so if that is something you care about be sure to watch:
UPDATE – Israel boarded a ship headed for Gaza with 50 tons of weapons, including six Iranian made anti-ship missiles of Chinese design.
Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011
This time it is the wife of Cass Sunstien. Sunstien works in the White House and his wife sits on Obama’s National Security Council.
On tape she came out against Israel and wants us to fund Hamas/Palestinians.
Of course any private business in Hamas controlled territory will vanish because money is power and Hamas, like the PLO, will not have their power challenged. That is why Arafat killed off most of the business leaders as “Israeli collaborators” when he took power.
Glenn Beck blasted the administration again for turning against Israel. This is exactly the kind of thing that VP Biden promised would not happen.
See the video HERE.
Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011
Thousands of Christians have been forced to flee their homes in Western Ethiopia after Muslim extremists set fire to roughly 50 churches and dozens of Christian homes.
At least one Christian has been killed, many more have been injured and anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000 have been displaced in the attacks that began March 2 after a Christian in the community of Asendabo was accused of desecrating the Koran.
The violence escalated to the point that federal police forces sent to the area two weeks ago were initially overwhelmed by the mobs. Government spokesman Shimelis Kemal told Voice of America police reinforcements had since restored order and 130 suspects had been arrested and charged with instigating religious hatred and violence.
Reminder: The “popular” and “hip” RT is actually Russia Today. Anti-Western, anti-democratic & antisemitic.
Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011
You hear about reporters who are killed, tortured, or just vanish in Russia by Putin’s goons. RT will never have that problem. RT is perhaps the best and most effective anti-western propaganda on the net.
My research specialty in college was attitude change propaganda and no one does it better than Russia Today.
RT often isn’t news, it is entertainment propaganda. It looks great, the women are hot, it has a slick presentation with top notch production value. Notice how the screen changes every few seconds (MTV style) to keep young peoples eyes peeled. The content is designed to deliver an attitude with only a few facts that create a propaganda narrative. The piece not so subtlety pushes the entire “Jewish Conspiracy” angle pushed by supremacists, skinheads, and militant Islamists.
Cynthia McKinney is shown as a credible legislator and presidential candidate. The very young and those around the world have no idea that she is a full blown antisemite who is considered too nutty to be taken seriously even by her own party. The events form the last few days about Palestinians dancing in the streets over a young family being murdered by terrorists, rockets being fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians, a bombing in Israel and yet none of that is in this report. The report makes it seem that Israel is the big mean aggressor and those “wascally wepublicans” are in league with them.
Posted by iusbvision on March 24, 2011
NPR was caught on tape willing to help launder $5 million in illegal money from the Muslim Brotherhood in a sting.
“Anti-Hate” group that protested councilwoman for criticizing Islam turns out to be Muslim Brotherhood front group.
Posted by iusbvision on March 23, 2011
It is called Taqiyya, deception. Preach peace, love and tolerance while attacking anyone who would critique Sharia Law or the other parts of Islam that are anti-American and anti-civilization.
The Islamic Circle is such a group, like CAIR, which documents obtained by the FBI among other evidence shows that this Islamic Circle group you will see in the video below, is in fact a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest and oldest radical Islamic group in the world, whose founding goes back to the Grand Mufti in WWII. This group wanted to help Hitler to carry out “the final solution” against the Jews.
To see the evidence about the Islamic Circle you can get the narrative, filled with links and the documents themselves right HERE.
[Editor’s Note – Notice that the anchor said that the councilwoman made statements about Muslims. No she didn’t. She made a statement about Islam itself, which is a theo-political, legal and cultural belief system. This is another example of reporters just making dumb mistakes.]
Islam is not a religion of peace, a statement I will be happy to debate anytime. Most Muslims do not take their religion to militant levels of seriousness, but since he Koran, the Hadith and Islamic precedent are what they are we cannot be afraid to acknowledge that many of the militant groups are interpreting these documents correctly. We also cannot forget the lesson of Lebanon. Lebanon was a modern Christian country. When Islamists started coming in many Christians wanted it stopped, but they insisted that they were about peace, love, democracy and “social justice”. The numbers continued to grow. It was not long before Christians were being killed, and the Islamist numbers grew to the point where they started to get power in the government. Anyone who wanted to slow down the immigration was dealt with by the tactics you see in this video above into silence, or otherwise eliminated. Now look at what has happened. Within a few short years the Christians are out of power, being slaughtered and many had to flee. Then Lebanon started launching missiles against Israel.
Now Lebanon is a Iranian satellite state controlled by Hezbollah. These same tactics were used the 70’s in Iran. Jimmy carter and Zbignew Brzezinski were so fooled that they helped the Mullahs come to power. The same tactics have been used in Egypt where now it seems that the Muslim Brotherhood may take over the country, and Obama helped them by helping them force Mubarak out. The same tactic is bing used in Sweden and France and England. All of these countries are having problems with Islamic Rape gangs targeting young girls. Those who speak out against the gangs in Europe get the treatment you saw in that video, and these militant Islamists combined with their allies on the radical left have set up the hate crime laws and their biased enforcement to makes it dangerous for others to speak out against them.
Posted by iusbvision on March 21, 2011
The press in both India and Israel was very positive. No matter what you think about Sarah Palin this trip helped her and served her well. Her prepared comments were well done and policy substantive, which, as Tammy points out, explains the American elite media brownout on the coverage. The conference in India can be seen HERE. Transcript HERE.
Posted by iusbvision on March 19, 2011
Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2011
If you are an elite media journalist, this is what will happen to you if you pull the David Gregory style of bogus accusations in the form of a question trick.
Robert Spencer is a remarkably clear thinking man. I have met Mr. Spencer and chatted with him for about five minutes at CPAC. He could not have been more gracious and kind. Do not confuse his willingness to stake out where he stands with boldness as being unkind or nasty.
Posted by iusbvision on March 14, 2011
Israel demands CNN apology over attack coverage
Via Ynet News.
American network reporters present tendentious coverage of Saturday’s gruesome murder in Itamar, question fact it was a terrorist attack. Israel’s Government Press Office ‘dumbfounded, astonished’
Israel is demanding an apology from CNN over its coverage of Saturday’s terrorist attack in Itamar claiming it was “tendentious and deceptive.” Government Press Office director Oren Helman sent a letter to CNN’s Bureau Chief Kevin Flower saying he was astonished at the network’s coverage of the ruthless attack.
A CNN website report avoided describing the event as a terror attack, noting that the Israel Defense Forces consider it an act of terrorism. “Only you decided to use the term terrorist attack in quotation marks, as if this were not necessarily the case,” Helman wrote. “There is a limit to the extent of objectivity regarding such a horrific deed.”
The CNN report stated: “Five members of an Israeli family were killed in the West Bank early Saturday morning in what the Israeli military is calling a ‘terror attack.'”
The report went on to say: “According to a military spokeswoman, an intruder entered the Israeli settlement of Itamar near the northern West Bank city of Nablus around 1 am, made his way into a family home and killed two parents and their three children.”
The IDF’s official statement noted that forces were searching for a “terrorist” and not an “intruder” as the CNN report noted. The terrorist was also referred to as an “assailant” later in the report. There was no mention of the possibility this was the act of a Palestinian terrorist.
The BBC also referred to the terrorist as an intruder in its report. “The family – including three children – were stabbed to death by an intruder who broke into their home, Israeli media reported,” the BBC reported Saturday. Readers might deduce the family members died in a failed burglary attempt.
The BBC went further and evinced its stance on Israel’s policy in the territories. “Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel’s 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem,” the report stated. “They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.”
UC Berkeley sued by Jewish student who was attacked by student jihadists. University knew about threats and violence on campus by student Islamic groups and failed to act.
Posted by iusbvision on March 11, 2011
Something similar happened to Ruth Malhotra at Georgia Tech except she was persecuted by far left students, faculty, and administrators. A professor told Ruth that if she attended the Conservative Political Action Conference that it would mean an automatic fail in the class. The professor carried out the threat and when Ruth complained the university exonerated the professor. The threats against Ruth were so bad that local police had to escort her form class to class because university police refused to respond to the threats against her. Ruth and fellow student Orit Sklar, in conjunction with our friend David French at the Alliance Defense Fund, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Georgia Tech. It gets better, after Georgia Tech lost the first ruling, they put out a press release claiming victory. After the second ruling George Tech suffered a large payout and revocation of their illegal speech codes
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Neal Sher, an attorney practicing in New York City. He, along with San Francisco attorney Joel Siegal, is presently representing Jessica Felber, a Jewish UC Berkeley student who is suing the university over being physically attacked by Muslim Students.
Previously, Sher was the Director the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations, which investigated and prosecuted Nazi criminals in the U.S. In that capacity, he was responsible for bringing many dozens of prosecutions and for barring former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim from coming to this country. He also served as the National Executive Director of AIPAC and was the President of the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
FP: Neal Sher, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Tell us about this suit that you are filing on behalf of Jessica Felber. What happened exactly?
Sher: On March 5, 2010, Jessica Felber, a twenty-year-old Jewish student at Berkeley, was attacked and injured on campus during a pro-Israel event while she was holding a sign stating “Israel wants Peace.” Her assailant, Husam Zakharia, also a UC Berkeley student, was the leader of Students for Justice in Palestine at Berkeley. There is no doubt that she was attacked because of her religion and Jewish ancestry.
Defendants – UC Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials – were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students. Nevertheless, in clear dereliction of their legal responsibilities, Defendants took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.
The Complaint further describes how the SJP conspires and coordinates with the Muslim Student Association, which has a publicly documented history of affiliation with and support of organizations deemed “terror organizations” by the United States Department of State. That they have resorted to intimidation and harassment is evidenced most recently by the fact that the District Attorney of Orange County, California, has indicted eleven students from these groups for inciting and disrupting a speech given by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States at the University of California, Irvine.
Ignoring complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus, defendants condoned, allowed and enabled groups such as the Muslim Student Association and the SJP to threaten, harass and intimidate Jewish students and to endanger their health and safety. Their tolerance of the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses, and their failure to take adequate measures to quell it, violated the rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environment free from threats and intimidation.
FP: Tell us in what ways this is a very significant and important lawsuit. It can be seen in many ways as turning point right?
Sher: This is, to our knowledge, a precedent complaint demanding that the university honor its legal obligations to protect the rights of its students. It is also important because, as people who follow and monitor events on campuses around the country well know, universities and colleges are major battlegrounds for those who are pressing the campaign to delegitimize and denigrate Israel. They have created an atmosphere of intimidation and harassment for Jewish and pro-Israel students which has been condoned and allowed to fester by university officials.
FP: Why did UC Berkeley fail to provide security to Felber?
Sher: It’s also difficult to pinpoint motives. Perhaps officials themselves were intimidated or, perhaps, they were simply hostile to students like Jessica and their causes. But, the central point is that the officials were fully aware of the threats posed by the SJP, MSA and their followers and they failed to respond adequately as they were legally obligated to do.
FP: Your thoughts on the growing Muslim extremism on campuses putting Jewish students in danger?
Sher: Clearly, this is a very serious problem as there has been a growing number of incidents on campuses, not just within the University of California system but throughout the country, where groups like the SJP and MSA have intimidated and harassed students and faculty members. Moreover, this campaign appears to be highly organized and thoroughly planned.
It is also very troubling that the on-campus activities of the SJP and MSA against Jessica and other students – and the university’s failure to confront them – present a disturbing echo of the darkest period in history: the incitement, intimidation, harassment and violence carried out under the Nazi regime and those of its allies in Europe against Jewish students and scholars in the leading universities of those countries during the turbulent years leading up to and including the Holocaust.
I can tell you that there is a genuine fear by Jessica and other students of Jewish ancestry on campuses throughout the University of California system that the tragic lessons of history have not yet been learned by these defendants. They fear that the University of California campuses are no longer places of hope and dignity, of academic and personal freedom, or of peaceful life and personal safety.
FP: What do you hope this lawsuit will help achieve?
Sher: First, we are demanding damages for Jessica injuries she suffered, physical and otherwise, due to defendant’s failure to honor its legal obligations. And, we would all like to see a sea change in the attitudes and actions on the part of the university and officials. As it now stands, students such as Jessica have been deprived of their constitutional rights and their ability to live and learn in a campus environment free of intimidation, threats and bullying.
FP: The thought of the roles reversed here, and with Berkeley having the same disposition toward the events, is simply unfathomable. What I mean is this: I can’t even imagine (1) Jewish students physically attacking Muslim students on a campus and (2) that if this hypothetically happened, that Berkeley would respond in the same way. First, if Muslim students sensed they were in danger from Jewish students, I am sure Berkeley would have made security arrangements – to say the least. And if Jewish students attacked a Muslim student, while the entire country’s media would be up in arms, Berkeley would be engaged in all kinds of disciplinary action. What are your thoughts on this observation?
Sher: You’ve hit the nail on the head. There is no question that if the shoe was on the other foot, immediate and decisive action would be taken by the powers that be. It’s time that we demand an end to the hypocrisy and double standards which have gone on far too long and which will be exposed in this lawsuit. The silent majority should remain silent no longer!
FP: Neal Sher, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview and thank you for coming to the defense of those who are no longer safe from violence on our campuses.
Posted by iusbvision on March 4, 2011
I now have a better understanding of why the services of Donald Rumsfeld have always been in great demand.
It is well known that during the the early days of the Iraq War mistakes were made, what is less known is that Donald Rumsfeld predicted most of them. Other elements of the Bush Administration either did not take those warnings as seriously as they could have, or plan as effectively as possible in light of his warnings.
Rumsfeld’s “Parade of Horribles”
Posted by iusbvision on March 4, 2011
Hillary should resign as Sec. of State as the political damage will soon be too great to overcome.
Posted by iusbvision on February 21, 2011
…lets just say he picked the wrong guy to try and intimidate and BS.
The elite media fears West. To say he is rhetorically gifted is an understatement. Having seen West in action in person the best way to describe his rhetorical ability is to mix Ronald Reagan and General Patton.
This is not something I say lightly or easily, but it happens to be the truth. West is so brilliant and so gifted that the White House is his for the taking. I have never said that about anyone before.
CAIR’s executive director Nezar Hamze confronts Allen West thinking he can intimidate and use PC pressure tactics, only to get schooled by Allen West on Islam and its history.
UPDATE – Better video of same incident. The fireworks start a 3:10 –
Posted by iusbvision on February 6, 2011
By IUSB Vision Editor Chuck Norton
Isolationists need to understand that technology has made the world a whole lot smaller and that “invasion” is no longer the only risk as it was in 1802. Of course even in 1802 the Islamic Jihad was such a threat that Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy and the Marines to force a halt to their attacks on our shipping.
The Marine Corps Hymn starts “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our countries battles in the on the land as on the sea“.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don’t have that problem. – Ronald Reagan
Imagine if France had the isolationist Ron Paul view during our own revolution against the British. Without the aid of France the American Cause would have been nipped in its infancy.
If you won’t take my word for it, take Ronald Reagan’s
Every lesson of history teaches us that the greater risk lies in accommodation or appeasement. Show an aggressive culture weakness and you guarantee war and not just with three jet liners. Next time they will be back and will hit us with everything they’ve got and then we would be fighting a war for survival on their terms.
Even Hollywood once understood this:
Many of you who are taking the isolationist view are young and idealistic. Except for veterans, you have never known adversity or evil of this nature. You do not remember the Cold War. You do not understand what those who manned the East German border came to understand when the Soviets would gun down a family trying to get across. They would leave the bodies there for a few days as a reminder to others of what would happen if they tried to flee to freedom.
Look at what is going on in Western Europe now. They will not stand against the radical left and militant political Islamists who are bent on replacing Western Culture with their own and the violence is getting out of control. The Europeans learned the wrong lesson from WWII. Instead of learning that evil must be fought, they learned that fighting is evil. Now they are paying the price.
Posted by iusbvision on February 6, 2011
Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2011
A professor at IUSB used a Jimmy Carter book in a political science class, without balance. While I was Chief Justice many students complained that it was more of a propaganda class for one side. Of the students making this particular complaint, none would go on the record in fear of retaliation.
Of course the errors in this particular book became known rather quickly.
NEW YORK – A $5 million lawsuit filed in federal court in New York on Tuesday against former US President Jimmy Carter and publisher Simon & Schuster alleges that Carter’s 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid contains false information and was intended to deceive the public and promote an anti-Israel agenda.
The five plaintiffs in the suit, readers of the book, want their lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, to be deemed a class action, meaning that the plaintiffs would be seen to represent a much larger group – that is, everyone who purchased Carter’s $27 book.
The plaintiffs are Americans, with two of the five holding dual American-Israeli citizenship.
The suit alleges that the five plaintiffs in the suit who purchased Carter’s book, as well as others, assumed they were buying an accurate record of historic events relating to Israel and the Palestinians.
By claiming to be a Middle East expert, the suit claims, Carter and, by extension, his publisher, intentionally presented inaccurate information that was highly critical of Israel and therefore violated a New York law that makes it illegal to “engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business.”
According to a press release sent out by plaintiffs’ attorneys David Schoen and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the suit is “the first time a former President and a publishing house have been sued for violating consumer protection laws by knowingly publishing inaccurate information while promoting a book as factual.”
The complaint notes that former Carter aides and colleagues contacted Simon & Schuster with concerns about inaccuracies in the book, but that the allegations were not investigated further.
Schoen, in an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post, noted that there is precedent in New York for a class-action suit against writer and publisher “for falsely marketing as true and accurate a book that is neither.”
Similar suits, Schoen said, have been filed in New York against James Frey, the muchreviled author of the notentirely- accurate memoir A Million Little Pieces. Those suits ended in settlements.
“Ours is a much more serious subject I believe, because the book intentionally misleads and misrepresents about actual historic events and much of the public debate going on today about Israel is based on what people believe actually has transpired in past discussions, etc.,” Schoen wrote in his e-mail.
“For a former President to misstate these things obviously was anathema enough for his closest aides, supporters, and confidantes to quit over it and expose the falsehoods for what they were.”
Posted by iusbvision on February 4, 2011
Now the hard left is finally talking about torture and other undemocratic abuses in Egypt and Jordan, as well as the despotism of virtually all Arab regimes. Do you recall any campus protests against Egypt or Mubarak? Do you recall any calls for divestment and boycotts against Arab dictators? No, because there weren’t any. The hard left was too busy condemning the Middle East’s only democracy, Israel. Radical leftists and campus demonstrators, by giving a pass to the worst forms of tyranny, encouraged their perpetuation. Now, finally, they are jumping on the bandwagon of condemnation, though still not with the fury that they reserve for the one nation in the Middle East that has complete free speech, gender equality, gay rights, an open and critical press, an independent judiciary and fair and open elections.
The double standard is alive and well on the hard left, and its victims include the citizens of Arab regimes who suffer under the heal of authoritarian dictators. Even more important they include victims of genocides, such as those perpetrated in Rwanda, Darfur and Cambodia—victims who did not prick the consciences of the hard left because the perpetrators were Arabs or Communists, rather than Americans or Israelis.
The same must be said for the United Nations, which rewarded Arab despots by according them places of honor on human rights bodies that devoted all of their energies to demonizing Israel. In a recent op ed, Amnon Rubenstein, the conscious of Israel, has pointed out that the UN Human Rights Commission, to which both Egypt and Tunisia were elected, has gone out of its way to compliment both regimes. Egypt was praised for steps it has “taken in recent years as regard to human rights….” Tunisia was lauded for constructing “a legal and constitutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights.” Israel, on the other hand, was repeatedly condemned for violating the human rights not only of Palestinians, but of its own citizens as well.
Nor do I recall Bishop Tutu urging the Cape Town Opera to boycott Egypt, Tunisia or Jordan as he urged them to boycott Israel. I do recall Jimmy Carter, who has falsely accused Israel of Apartheid, embracing some of the Arab’s worlds worst tyrants and murderers. Many who claim the mantle of human rights ignore or even embrace the worst human rights violators and direct their wrath only against the Jewish nation.
The anti-American and anti-Israel hard left is a topsy-turvy world where the worst are declared the best and the best are condemned as the worst. This topsy-turvy view has become a staple of higher education, particularly among Middle East study programs in many colleges and universities. Among many on the hard left, where the only human rights issue of concern seems to be Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the views of convicted terrorists Marwan Barghouti are preached as gospel. This is what Barghouti, who is serving a life sentence for planning terror attacks against civilians, but who remains among the most popular Palestinian leaders, recently said about Israel: “The worst and most abominable enemy known to humanity and modern history.” It is this skewed view of modern history that runs rampant through the hard left and that gives exculpatory immunity to Arab and Muslim tyrants.
There is only one acceptable standard of international human rights: the worst must come first. Under that universal standard, any person or organization claiming the mantle of human rights must prioritize its resources. It must list human rights violators in order of the severity of the abuses and the ability of its citizens to complain about those abuses. It must then go after the worst offenders first and foremost, leaving right-left politics out of the mix. This standard must be applied by individuals, such as Bishop Tutu, by organizations, such as the United Nations, by the media and by everyone who loves human rights. Until that standard is universally applied, despotism will continue, interrupted only occasionally by revolutions such as those taking place in Tunisia and Egypt.
The irony, of course, is that in the most repressive regimes, such as Iran, revolution is well nigh impossible. Revolution is far more likely to occur is moderately despotic regimes, such as Tunisia and Egypt, where at least some basic liberties were preserved. It is the citizens of the most despotic regimes that need the most help from human rights activists. But don’t count on it because too many so-called “human rights” leaders and organizations misuse the concept of “human rights” to serve narrow political, diplomatic or ideological agendas. Unless we restore human rights to its proper role as a neutral and universal standard of human conduct, the kind of tyranny and despotism that stimulated the current protests will continue.