Sunday, August 29, 2010


A look at what Imam Rauf wants to add to Ground Zero - insult to injury!

Brutal & Inhumane Islamic Law (Sharia) is Totally Against Our Laws and our Constitution.

The Builder of the Ground Zero Mosque Wants to Apply Sharia Here!

The New York Times mentioned on August 22, 2010 that it is not just the Taliban who stone adulterers, but also Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Pakistani, Sudanese, Somalian and even Nigerian Muslims. Why? Because this simply is Islamic law, “Sharia”.

In front of me now is a book called The Ordained Penalties of the Sharia Law, published by the most prominent and influential Islamic University, Al-AZhar of Egypt. This book is distributed to all Mosques in the United States. It says on pages 9 and 25 that adultery should be punished by stoning to death. Mohammad himself stoned men and women by his own hands. The Taliban are not extremists, but rather are genuine in that they want to apply Islamic Law.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam leading the effort to build the Ground Zero Mosque, wants to apply Islamic Law. What is this law all about? What is literally included in this book written by Al-AZhar? Indeed, Americans need to know some basics facts that top Islamic universities confess, including that Islam:

- Is not peaceful at all and rejects freedom of religious and human rights.
- Degrades and dehumanizes women, and discriminates and persecutes Jews and Christians.

Authorized Muslim scholars have openly confirmed that their “prophet” Mohammad taught the following:

1. He was ordered by God to fight all people until they say that he is His messenger. “If they say that I am not, I am allowed to shed their blood, seize their property, and capture their women.”
2. If any Muslim converts to become a Christian or a Jew, he should be killed. (Law of Apostasy).
3. If anyone steals even an egg, his hand should be cut off. (Law of Theft).
4. If anyone drinks any alcohol, he should be flogged with 40 lashes.
5. Only the blood of Muslims is made equal. Consequently, if any Muslim kills one of another faith he will be required only to pay money to the family, but not be killed. However, the penalty for killing another Muslim is death. (Burkari, Vol. 9)
6. “Hang the whip where your wives can see it.” (According to Al-Zomokhshori, in his popular book The Revealer, while explaining the Quran, Sura 4:34).
7. A wife is considered to be a slave to her husband (See AL Gazyia, Volume 5), and he said that all Muhammad’s friends including Omar, his successor, confirmed what Muhammad said.

Note: It is well-known that Mohammad not only owned slaves, but was a slave trader in the market of Mecca, especially after he became a “prophet” (according to Al Gawzyyia in his book Zad Al-Miad, page 160, part 1). He said also that he bought more than he sold, and he liked for all his friends to have Female slaves for sex.


Egypt – Al-AZhar University

In page 30 of the abovementioned book, the “prophet” Mohammad said that anyone who runs away from Islam should be killed, whether they adopted another faith or not. A woman called Um Marawan renounced Islam. Mohammad ordered that if she failed to repent, that she should be put to death. All of Mohammad’s successors continued this practice. It is well-known that the first successor killed thousands of Arabs who renounced Islam after Mohammad’s death. Junior High students in Islamic countries are taught about this War of Apostasy.

Saudi Arabia – Islamic University

In 1974 A.D. the Muslim professor Ibn baz wrote a book to threaten the former president of Tunisia, Borkeba, as an apostate (one who renounces Islam) because he said that the Quran is filled with a lot of contradictions and fictional stories. Borkeba also degraded Muhammad and prohibited polygamy.

Kuwait and The Qatar Islamic University

The Muslim scholar Dr. Ahmad of Qatar said boldly and literally in the book Individual Guarantee in Islamic Law that “We reject the United Nation’s Article 18 pertaining to Human Rights which states that anyone has the right to change his or her religion because Islam does not acknowledge this type of freedom.”

Also see the weekly Kuwaiti magazine Islamic Society, April 17, 1989 – Dr. Jabir, who confirmed this.

If you are looking for more references, search The Law of Apostasy Must Change, a book by Reverend Bassam Madany, and also an article in the New York Times, May 12, 2008, about President Obama, titled, “The Apostate President.” The article stated that according to Islamic Sharia Law, any Muslim country may not punish any individual who tries to kill President Obama because he (Obama) was raised as a Muslim.

No Compulsion in Religion – What Does This Verse Mean?

In his popular volume Al Muhalla, Ibn Hazm said in volume 8, part 2, that any Christian or Jew is free to be a Muslim or not. There is no compulsion. But if he becomes a Muslim, then he is not free anymore to renounce Islam, and if he does he should be killed. He also added on page 196, that Mohammad used to force the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam or be killed. AL-Sharawy of Egypt said the same.

Another very popular Muslim scholar, Al Shafi in his book The Ordinance of Quran, part 2, page 50, stated that Mohammad used to capture and kill Jews and Christians until some of them were forced to be Muslims. He imposed large taxes and humiliation on the others.

Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion

A very honest confession comes from one of the top contemporary Muslim scholars, Dr. Al-Buti, in his frequently printed book Jurisprudence of the Mohammad Biography. in the English edition, 1988, page 73, he says, “It is a wrong statement to say that Islam is a peaceful and loving religion.” I hope Obama, Bush, Bloomberg, Ron Paul, and Congressman Keith Ellison will learn this. In the same book he keeps repeating that jihad and the holy war in Islam are basically offensive, not defensive, to expand the religion because Mohammad said, “I was ordered by God to fight all people.” Actually that is what has happened throughout Islam’s history.

What About the Verses of Peace in the Quran?

In his very popular book Exactness – Itqan in Quaranic Science, part 3, pages 61 – 69, Imam Al-Suyiti himself said that the verses of peace in the Quran were issued first in Mecca when Muslims were few and weak, but when they became strong in Medina they were ordered to fight and all these earlier verses were abolished, “abrogated”, and replaced by the verses of the sword!

Islamic Law of Theft

In The Ordained Penalty of Sharia, page 5, the author said upon the first offense that the right hand should be amputated. Upon the second offense, the left foot should be amputated. All of this is according to the Quran, Sura 5:38.

That Mohammad used to hang the amputated hand on the thief’s neck and make him walk around the city is written in the book Zad Al Miad-Gawzyaa, volume 5, pages 52-56, Library Al Minara Al Islamyia.

About Beating the Wife

In his book You Ask and Islam Answers, page 94, the Muslim scholar Mushtahari commented on Sura 4:34 about beating the wife. He said that many wives are the sort of women who need punishment and beating to bring them back to their senses. Dr. Ahmad of Qatar Islamic University in his above-mentioned book Individual Guarantee also agrees with this statement. No wonder that Liberal Muslim women protest as does Taslima Nasrin in her popular novel, SHAME. Of course she escaped Bangladesh to avoid death.

About women in general, Mohammad said also that they have a deficiency in their mind and they are the cause of an evil omen and have crooked character, and most of the people that are going to hell are women. (Listed in the hadith of Bukhari, volume 7, and in the English translation as well.)

Tolerance Versus Intolerance

We should definitely have love and tolerance towards all peace-loving Muslims, but inhumane Islamic Sharia Law is very intolerant toward human rights and women. It is contrary to and violates our laws and our Constitution which provides respect for women and grants freedom of religion to us all. We have every right to be intolerant toward the religion of Islam while still being tolerant and loving towards Muslims.

Before building the Ground Zero Mosque or any other Mosque in our land, those who build it should be required to state that they renounce and will not permit or promote the establishment of any aspect of Sharia Law in the United States.

We must never, never, ever tolerate any aspect of Islamic political ideology that calls for the conquest of all nations and imposition of sharia and theocratic rule. These go far beyond a religion and must not be accorded the freedom we grant to religions.

Nor should we ever tolerate or even permit the advocacy of Islam’s so-called religious teachings or beliefs which run contrary to our established laws regarding such issues as polygamy, underage marriage, punishments, rights of inheritance, divorces, honor killings, family law, testimony of women in courts, rights of non-Muslims to testify in court, lying under oath, etc. Sura 4:11 in the Quran states that women can inherit only half that of a man. Sura 2:282 states that court testimony must include two men, or one man and two women; testimony that does not include a man is not allowed. Muslims who insist on following or advocating teachings or beliefs that are contrary to or violate our laws should be deported to a nation where they can live under sharia laws.

We must recognize that Muslims who are terrorists — or who support terrorism in any way — are not simply “radicals” as we are so often told; rather, they are simply being truly obedient Muslims who are following the example of Muhammad, obeying the doctrines of the Qur’an, and observing the tenets of Sharia developed from the Qur’an and the sunnah. These are not “moderate Muslims”. They are, without exception as we have seen, a threat to our freedoms, our way of life, and our Constitution.

If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Congressman Ellison of Minnesota, or others who have stated they would like to see the United States governed by Islamic law want to live under Sharia, they should move to a Muslim country – even though they will surely lose some of the freedoms they enjoy here. If they have become citizens of the U.S., they agreed when they swore their Oath of Allegiance, “…I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”.

Friday, August 20, 2010


The First Time I Heard of Barack

The First Time I Heard Of Barack

By Tom Fife 11-20-8

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.
One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice- president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”
She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

Tom Fife

Marine met Mulatto Muslim Abomination (in 1980)

While back in Hawaii by late June of 1980, we went back to Honolulu for liberty. I don’t remember the exact address, or the exact business, but one August night, early August 1980, I stopped at a small shop that was either on Kalakaua Blvd, now called Ala Moana, or the street just north of it, one block north. I struck up a conversation with a young man, Mulatto, about 18, all teeth, smiling, skinny, short hair that I remember, at least short for the year we lived in.

We struck up a conversation simply because he was at the same place as I was. He appeared to be either an employee there on his off day or was visiting the other older Black American man working there. “Hey, are you a military dependant or do you live here?” I asked. He told me he lived in Hawaii. Not too many black Americans lived in Hawaii at all then, so his being there was an oddity in itself. Heck, my hometown of 16,000 in Connecticut had only three or four Black families until 20 years ago. I asked if he was in the service and he said no. I told him that I was a Marine and had recently gotten back from float. We spoke of world travel at this time and I told him the places we went to.

What strikes me most is what he said as to where he grew up: Indonesia. Having stopped in the Philippines and Thailand that previous deployment made me curious and I asked him if Indonesia was as poor as the Philippines, but he hadn’t been to the Philippines so he didn’t know. We had spoken of how both our travels abroad had given us great perspectives in how we viewed the world.

For myself, I admit that things I had heard of how superior the United States was were proven accurate and also proven false. Our nation was surely the greatest in economic power, with technical jobs for those who searched it out, with higher pay for our labors. Many other places I had been to in the western Pacific had complete poverty; mothers who take their daughters into the field where Marines are deployed and try to prostitute them for money so they have food to eat, women who believe there is no better way to advance their own lot in life than to become a prostitute themselves and try to marry an American who is lonelier than another and would take her home as a bride. But the people, I expected something different, I can’t put a word to the emotion or expectation, but because of my travels, I learned that the heart of man is identical across the world.

People want something better for themselves and they want something better for their children and many are willing to go to great lengths to find it, using methods that we would find repulsive, but be sympathetic to because of their poverty. I used to think of Americans as “better people”, that our nation was superior, but I learned that we are different because we were blessed, not because of whom we are but despite whom we all are inside. The persons I met were no different than anyone I met here at home in their basic character, they were just living in a culture that either allowed them to naturally succeed or one that forced them, or appeared to force them, to do things to survive that our American culture has long forgotten about.

I asked this Indonesian immigrant of these things but he told me those things were not common where he grew up. Our conversation drifted to our dreams of what we are going to do once we are “all grown up”. I replied that I was not sure and most likely would either re-enlist in the Marines or go home to attend college on the GI Bill.

He told me he wanted to be President of the US someday. I remember lightly smiling and commenting that maybe by the time he gets to be 40 or so, America will be ready for a Black man to be President and I wished him luck. We spoke of the racial tensions I saw at home while growing up, of the outright hostility of Hawaiians toward white Americans and black Americans and I asked him if he ever saw that overseas or since he returned back to Hawaii. I don’t remember his answer, but we spoke more of his time overseas and his thoughts on life and philosophy of government.

He made some strange comments to me; it was obvious he never set foot for any time on continental United States and I told him he better realize that he is making judgments about the United States when he himself never actually lived there. I told him, “Hawaii aint the United States!”

He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things later in an effort to be nice to him. Since we spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it, I told him I had been to Africa, Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, “I was born there.”

I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay. But it was what I did after that makes this a true memory: I went back to the barracks and told others of this guy and suggested we all grab our photo albums and visit him again and show him pictures of Mombassa so he could see where he was from.

No one wanted to go, and before that time, my camera had failed the weeks before we hit Mombassa. It was late August or early September until I had borrowed someone else’s pictures to develop myself so I had copies of pictures of where I was. But I never forgot meeting that man for those reasons. I was going to do him a favor and show him his home country of birth. And I never went back for some reason, most likely I forgot to or just felt that a one time chance encounter would be meaningless to both of us and didn’t mean we were friends.

In the light of what is called the ‘Birther’ movement these memories are foremost in my mind. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, nor can I prove it beyond doubt, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim was born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii.

The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised in Indonesia, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he wanted to be President.

And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table or countertop to my right front, his hands resting on the edge, him leaning forward, his grin; all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii.

Does it matter? Of course it does. It should not have to be explained why it matters.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010


Standing on a landmine [Caroline Glick on why Obama is like a landmine]
Jerusalem Post ^ | 8/17/2010 | Caroline Glick

Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:26:46 AM by HearMe

Obama’s stance on the Ground Zero mosque should signal to Israel that the president is so wed to his ideology that he will push it regardless of political conditions.

US President Barack Obama’s warm endorsement of the plan to build a mosque by the ruins of the World Trade Center tells Israel – and its enemies – everything we need to know about the president of the United States of America.

Speaking during a Ramadan fast breaking meal at the White House to an audience of people affiliated with various Muslim Brotherhood- related groups in the US, Obama couched his support for the mosque at Ground Zero in constitutional terms.

In his words, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.”

Of course, none of those who have voiced opposition to the mosque project at Ground Zero have claimed that the Islamic group behind the mosque project is acting unlawfully in seeking to construct a mosque. The nearly 70 percent of Americans who oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero oppose the mosque because they believe it is wrong to build a mosque at the site where less than a decade ago Muslims acting in the name of Islam murdered nearly 3,000 people in an act of war against the US and an act of terror against the American people.

Obama has been pilloried by his opponents for his position. And his fellow Democrats, facing the likelihood of massive defeats in the Congressional elections in three months, are reportedly deeply frustrated by his statements. Indeed, the uproar Obama’s pro-mosque remarks has unleashed has been so harsh it raises the question of why he made it.

THERE ARE two possible explanations for Obama’s move. Either he was motivated by politics or he was motivated by ideology. The view that Obama was motivated by politics is easily dismissed. With more than two-thirds of Americans telling pollsters they oppose the Ground Zero mosque project, it makes no political sense for a politician to strike out a position in favor of the mosque. Indeed, major Democrats have either refused to state a position on the issue or, like New York Governor David Paterson, they have recommended that the mosque builders construct their mosque elsewhere.

Perhaps Obama thought he could he could get away with making his statement. However, with his polling numbers consistently eroding, it is hard to imagine Obama’s advisers would have told him that was a realistic view.

This leaves ideology. But what ideology motivates Obama to embrace such an unpopular initiative at such an explosive political juncture? Obama and his supporters would like us to believe this is a civil rights issue. In his defense of the Ground Zero mosque, Obama claimed his position was based on the American values such as, “The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us.”

But if Obama is motivated by a belief in civil rights that is so strong it propels him to take on deeply unpopular causes in an election season, then one could reasonably expect that his support for civil rights would be absolute. That is, one could expect him to use the same yardstick for all groups, in all places and at all times.

But for Obama, there are some groups who must be denied the same civil rights he upholds as absolute in his defense of the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. As Obama has made clear since his first days in office, he believes that Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews.

OBAMA IS so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel’s capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything – synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools – in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews – Israeli and non-Israeli – should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved “in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

At the same time, Obama has insisted that Israel take no action to enforce its “local laws and ordinances” against illegal structures built by Arabs in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria.

Next month the deeply discriminatory and legally dubious 10-month moratorium on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria that Obama coerced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into instituting is set to end. So now Obama is putting the full weight of the White House on Israel to again coerce Netanyahu into prolonging the discriminatory ban that denies the civil rights and property rights of Jews simply because they are Jewish.

Obama claims to be embracing the nullification of Jewish civil right in the interests of peace. In his stated view, to forge peace in the Middle East it is necessary for the Palestinians to achieve statehood. But it hard to see how the establishment of a Palestinian state squares with Obama’s purported dedication to civil rights.

In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, “I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil.”

The notion that an inherently anti-Semitic Palestinian state, predicated on Jew hatred that strong, could possibly live at peace with Israel is simply ridiculous. But tellingly, in all the American pressure that has been placed on Abbas to begin direct negotiations with Israel, at no time has the administration been reported to have insisted that Abbas abandon his anti-Semitism. Obama has made no statement addressing the fact that the Palestinians demand that Jews be barred from living in the future Palestinian state. He has certainly not objected to this position although it squares with none of the American values of tolerance and property rights he upheld so strongly in his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.

SO THE ideology Obama holds so strongly that it provokes him to take positions antithetical to the political interests of his party during an election season is not civil rights. Rather it has to do with his commitment to advancing the interests of a specific group or groups over the interests of other specific groups. In the case of the Ground Zero mosque he prefers the rights of Muslims over the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. In the case of the Palestinians, he prefers their anti-Semitic nationalism over the civil rights of Jews.

Obama’s behavior tells Israel’s leaders something very important about how they should think about their relations with the Obama administration. It tells them that Obama is so wed to his ideology that he will push it regardless of political conditions. This means that for Israel, dealing with Obama is like standing on a landmine. Just as a landmine can explode at any minute, Obama can attack Israel at any moment. He is so ideologically bound to the Palestinian cause against Israel that he is liable to provoke a crisis when it is least politically advantageous – from his perspective – for him to do so.

This lesson is particularly urgent on the eve of yet another round of direct negotiations with the Palestinians and as the freeze on Jewish property rights is about to expire. Obama’s ideological fanaticism means that nothing Israel does in the upcoming talks will help us.

As Obama’s media surrogates like Tony Karon at Time magazine have made clear in recent weeks, the anti-Israel narrative has already coalesced. Everything that happens regarding those negotiations is Israel’s fault. It is Israel’s fault that they haven’t begun. It will be Israel’s fault when they falter. It will be Israel’s fault when they fail. And if they succeed, Israel will still be blameworthy.

Facing this US President and his radical ideology, Netanyahu and his deputies must understand that they cannot appease him. They cannot convince him of Israel’s good intentions.

The US leader who has rejected the expressed views of 68 percent of his fellow citizens in favor of the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero is not going to be moved by reason. The American president who defends the Ground Zero mosque builders even though their leader refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has claimed that the US had the Sept. 11 attacks coming to it; and the American president who upholds the Palestinian cause even though it is virulently, and often genocidally anti-Semitic is not going to be appeased by Israeli building freezes and other confidence building gestures.

What this means is that Netanyahu and his deputies must concentrate on defending Israel and advancing its national interests. It is in Israel’s national interests to guarantee the civil rights and property rights of Jews. It is in Israel’s national interests to forthrightly set out and defend Israel’s legal rights in Judea and Samaria and its sovereignty in united Jerusalem. It is in Israel’s national interest to enforce its laws without prejudice towards all its citizens and expect all its citizens to respect its laws.

We are dealing with a self-consciously radical President who intends to remake the US relationship with the Muslim world. We will find no understanding from him.

Alan Note: we are dealing with a radical Moslem usurper of the White House, who hates America as much as he hates Israel and wants to destroy both in different ways. Totally destroy Israel and Jews and scatter any live ones left, to the four winds.

America he wants to enslave just as the Communists enslaved the people of the USSR (Russia and dependant States)

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Guide to the Perplexed [about Obama]

Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations?

Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense.

The answer is no.

For all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories: Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.

Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.

First of all, Obama refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security.

Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then, that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.

And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America.

America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets.

Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.

Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area.

For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to them than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil-consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.

The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil pricesetting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the well-being of the US economy.

Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.

As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress toward intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.

In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama canceled plans to deploy antiballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.

THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.

In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel.

Three recent moves by Obama and his advisers make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel as neither a credible ally nor a credible democracy.

First, there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors.

In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel toward the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives.

Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. Second, as Globes reported last week, Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles – was cut by $50 million.

The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.

An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning.

Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude toward Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31.

In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself, and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee.

Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation.

As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack.

Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller.

All of these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions.

FIRST, AND most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new – and hopefully more rational – US administration will certainly be in office.

Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat, and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, and Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish- Hamas terror ship.

Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms.

Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians.

No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.

But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves.

Saturday, August 14, 2010


Years of Math 1950 - 2010

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $ 2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register . I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters , but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this?

Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20.. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok. )

6. Teaching Math In 2009

Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

7. Teaching Math In 2010

Who cares, just steal the lumber from your rich neighbor's property. He won't have a gun to stop you, and the President says it's OK anyway cuz it's redistributing the wealth


Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming


The Lemon Picker

The woman applying for a job in a Florida lemon grove seemed to be far too qualified for the job.

The foreman frowned and said, “I have to ask you this”. "Have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?"

"Well, as a matter of fact, I have!” she replied. "I've been divorced three times, owned 2 Chryslers, and I voted for Obama."


DID YOU KNOW OBAMA HAS NEVER HAD A GIRLFRIEND? (No! Michelle was not his girlfriend).