Displaying posts published in

September 2013

MY SAY: SEPTEMBER 1939- THE INVASION OF POLAND AND ZEEV JABOTINSKY’S PROPHETIC WARNING

In September 1939 German forces bombarded Poland on land and from the air and invaded. World War II had begun.
The invasion was aided and abetted by Russia after the signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact. The campaign was ended on October 6 with Germany and Russia dividing and annexing Poland. The Polish Jews were trapped.
The Polish Jews had been warned by Zeev Jabotinsky…please read:
As this day of mourning, Tisha B’Av, approaches, it is fitting to read the words of a great prophet and Zionist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, as he pleaded with the Jews of Poland 73 years ago to save themselves from the certain death that Hitler was planning for them. In addition to seeing the horrible danger, he also foresaw the birth of the State of Israel.
A PROPHETIC WARNING – Ze’ev Jabotinsky – Warsaw, Tisha B’Av 1938

“…it is already three years that I am calling upon you, Polish Jewry, who are the crown of world Jewry.
I continue to warn you incessantly that a catastrophe is coming closer.
I became grey and old in these years.
My heart bleeds, that you, dear brothers and sisters, do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spit its all-consuming lava.
I see that you are not seeing this because you are immersed and sunk in your daily worries.
Today, however, I demand from you trust. You were convinced already that my prognoses have already proven to be right. If you think differently, then drive me out of your midst! However, if you do believe me, then listen to me in this 12th hour:
In the name of God! Let anyone of you save himself as long as there is still time. And time there is very little…and what else I would like to say to you in this day of Tisha B’Av:

The Myth of the Moderate Syrian Rebels: Daniel Greenfield

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/there-are-no-moderate-syrian-rebels/ The moderate Syrian rebels, like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, are a myth; an imaginary character used to tell soothing stories to children. Unfortunately the storytellers think that we’re the children. The Syrian Civil War is a religious war. It’s not a war over democracy or freedom. It’s a conflict between two […]

JOHN FUND: HOW NOT TO WIN OVER CONGRESS—SEND IN SUSAN RICE

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357927/how-not-win-over-congress-john-fund Sending Susan Rice, on the Benghazi anniversary, to argue for Syria is one of many missteps. If anyone in the Obama administration thought having former Democratic representative Jane Harman appear on NBC’s Meet the Press to support the Syrian war resolution was a good idea, he must be cringing now.  Harman, a former congresswoman […]

EDWARD CLINE: OF MALIGNITY AND MEMORY HOLES

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/09/of-malignity-and-memory-holes.html
There is a purge afoot, not at the behest of the Left or the White House, or at the Huffington Post or Salon, but in the ranks of “conservatives” and “neo-conservatives.” The purge, instigated by the Neocon editors of FrontPage Magazine, is designed to discredit and smear Diana West and her book, American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character, and to claim any collateral damage in the meantime. I have written on this purge in my August 8th column, “FrontPage’s Spitballs Strike Diana West,” and also reviewed her book. It is the Neocons who are sniping at West and anyone who defends her. I will not repeat everything I wrote in the “Spitball” column, except this:
But, then, we are dealing with Neocons here. Neoconservativism is simply a smorgasbord of supposedly “right-wing” ideologies populated largely by former communists, retired radical left-wing activists, cringing liberals, and even ex-SDS members such as Radosh. It is as philosophically rudderless as traditional “right-wing” Republican philosophy (provided anyone can find it). As a movement, it is so open-ended it may as well admit Barack Obama and all three Clintons as honorary members. Neoconservatism can accommodate just about every ideology but Islam.
And to judge by the way FrontPage’s leading editors are conducting the smear campaign, it’s not beyond fantasy that they could also accommodate totalitarian Islam. Islam is against everything, too. FrontPage may as well run ads on Al Jazeera TV. Perhaps the editors could also pen a series of defenses of Walter Duranty, the New York Times writer who helped to whitewash Stalin’s (and Lenin’s) skull-crushing, famine-as-policy régime.
On a dramatic note, the campaign against West brought to mind Milan Stitt’s 1976 play, The Runner Stumbles, in which an attractive nun is murdered by a Catholic convert, because she was too tempting to the parish priest.
The chief problem with Neocons is that while they are against Islam and make token noises about their opposition to “big government,” they are not for anything. This partly explains why the Neocons are fulminating against West. West, after all, is for the truth about the U.S.’s role in aiding and abetting, by design or by default, the perpetuation and arming of the Soviet Union. She is for revealing the depths and scope of the Big Con, a con which is reflected in academia and in the history of WWII found in most standard textbooks and read by most living Americans in their formative years. That con has been established dogma and narrative, and that dogma and narrative originated with FDR and his administration.
Woe to those who depart from it or challenge it.
West’s compellingly demonstrated and amply documented thesis swims against the current of standard history, which is that FDR cut cards with a very personable devil (Josef Stalin) in order to crush Nazism and Hitler, and that it wasn’t his fault or that of his cronies, dupes, and advisors (chiefly Harry Hopkins) that Stalin got atomic bomb materials and know-how and helped to replace Hitler’s murderous totalitarianism in Europe with the Soviet Union’s after the war.
The standard history is that it just “happened.” No fingers should be pointed at St. Franklin, because up to a point, Stalin was viewed as just a benevolent despot looking out for “his people.” That is how Stalin was sold to Americans during WWII in propaganda. After it was “revealed” that the U.S. was ignorant of Stalin’s responsibility for the murders of millions of Russians in a concerted campaign to eliminate all opposition to the Soviet régime, and that it really, really was the totalitarian horror that others had described, the standard history is that the U.S. could only adopt an Alfred E. Neuman-like “What-Me-Know??” stance.
West and her book have been defended by Andrew Bostom, Michael McCann and Shari Goodman, among others. The contemptible behavior of FrontPage’s editors has been noted and highlighted by Family Security Matters, Breitbart, and Gates of Vienna. West has published the first part of a lengthy and detailed rebuttal (not on FrontPage, of course) here.
I mentioned collateral damage. On September 3rd The Gatestone Institute published an article by Clare Lopez, “Recognizing the Wrong People,” in which she cites Diana West’s book and focuses on what moved West to write it, the baffling accommodation by especially the Obama administration of hiring Muslims into the most sensitive realms of policy and in indiscriminately patronizing the Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez discusses the distinct and observable parallel between that and FDR’s accommodation of the Soviet Union with its formal recognition in 1933 and its consequences.
Without warning or explanation, that article was removed by Gatestone the very same day. The next day Lopez was removed from Gatestone’s stable of writers and researchers. Shall we say expelled or purged? Qua terms, there’s not much difference in the motive or the consequence. The Gates of Vienna relates the sequence of events.

JED BABBIN: PASSIVE AND CONTEMPTIBLE ****

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/09/passive-and-contemptible Our president prepares for his big showdown. With public opinion against him, President Obama took his act to the G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia hoping that he could persuade European leaders to join in his idea of punishing but not destroying Syrian dictator Bashar Assad for his use of chemical weapons. The Europeans […]

Syria: To Strike Or Not To Strike — on The Glazov Gang …..

How is Obama’s Syria strategy designed to benefit U.S. national security interests?
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/syria-to-strike-or-not-to-strike-on-the-glazov-gang/

DANIEL GREENFIELD: SHOOTING THE SYRIAN ELEPHANT

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ The majority of Americans do not want to invade or bomb Syria. The majority of American leaders do. Such a disparity between the leaders and the people is not wholly unique, but it arises in this case not from the usual disparities of power or corruption. Americans don’t want to fight Syria because it […]

AIPOC? AMERICA ISRAEL PRO OBAMA COMMITTEE?

http://www.meforum.org/3604/obama-syria-aipac

President Barack Obama’s decision to make Congress decide on the course of the Syrian intervention has put the pro-Israel camp just where it did not want to be: openly advocating American military involvement in the volatile Middle East. It’s a calculation based on the lesser of two evils, the greater being risking Washington’s withdrawal from leadership on global security just as Iran crosses the nuclear threshold. No one has a greater stake in a strong United States — and the credibility of America’s deterrent capability — than Israel and the Jewish people. Indeed, many of the arguments that motivate the president’s opponents on Syria could also apply in the event that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities becomes necessary.

Yet this is a debate about the American national interest, and most American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) supporters do not want it to degenerate into a debate about Israel. Most agree with former Israeli Ambassador Itamar Rabinovitch that, “It’s bad for Israel [if] the average American gets it into his or her mind that boys are again sent to war for Israel.”

Paralyzed by these fears, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and AIPAC supporters in Washington remained nearly silent for weeks, even after evidence of Bashar al-Assad’s murderous chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians outside Damascus. And they remained quiet even after Obama indicated that he was preparing a military strike. They did not want to be drawn into a political melee in a deeply divided Congress, risking strains in the bipartisan support for Israel that forms the bedrock of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

All that has now changed. Responding to a full-court press by the Obama administration — a call to Netanyahu, a direct message to AIPAC, and messages via congressional leaders — AIPAC has weighed in fully in support of the president’s call for intervention.

GLOBAL WARMING? NO…ACTUALLY COOLING CLAIM SCIENTISTS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Global warming? No, actually we’re cooling, claim scientists
A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.

> There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.
> In a rebound from 2012’s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
> The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
> A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
> If correct, it would contradict computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. The news comes several years after the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice-free by 2013.

HAS AIPAC BECOME PRESIDENT OBAMA’S “AMEN” CORNER? PLUS COLUMN ON SYRIA…RICHARD BAEHR

AIPAC has acceded to the request of the President, and has committed to fighting hard in a very uphill struggle to get the votes he needs, especially in the House, to back the use of force in Syria. The President’s normal lobbying ally, Organizing for America, is sitting this one out. There is a reasonable chance the vote drive will fail. Obama will recover, but will AIPAC? I, for one, believe the President already has zero credibility abroad. Whatever the vote, and whatever limited action we take in Syria, will not change that. Will America suddenly be respected abroad, if the House passes this vote by 220-213, and Obama fires cruise missiles for one or two days at targeted sites already abandoned (like Clinton did in 1998 after the African embassy bombings)? Obama is uncomfortable with anything but crude politics on the domestic level, at which he is quite good, but strategic calculations, especially international ones, are beyond him. Obama versus Iran or Obama versus Putin is not a fair fight. Ditherers lose. Obama does not seem to be all in in this battle, which is why he threw it to Congress and AIPAC to make it their war. Obama has no ability to accept responsibility. Now if Obama wins the vote, the war will be seen by the majority of the country who are opposed to military strikes , as a war for Israel. It would be one thing if military strikes altered the course of the war, assuming we think the jihadist infused rebels are much better than Assad, and his backers. But pinprick strikes, with no strategic purpose, which is what these will be (and what we have told the world they will be) are useless.

RICHARD BAEHR:Obama’s war: When cynicism trumps credibility:http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5627

Until some insiders break ranks and tell the truth, we will not know why U.S. President Barack Obama changed his mind over launching cruise missiles at Syria last week.

Until recently, there was speculation that when the president saw the public opinion polls showing that Americans were sharply opposed to a strike, he became nervous about being out there on his own, without the U.N., the British, or Congress, especially if there was a modest risk that things might “go south” after a strike (retaliation against U.S. assets or domestic terrorism). Another circulating theory was that if the British were taking the war to a vote, then Obama, who had been a frequent war critic as a senator, needed to do the same.

But now a new explanation is gaining currency: that the president simply lost his will to fight because he became afraid of Iranian/Hezbollah repercussions. Unlike the Iranians, the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Russians and pretty much everyone else on the international stage, who understand that the president is an empty vessel at this point, and whose word means little or nothing, Obama may take the Iranian threats seriously.

One Iranian cleric, Alireza Forghani, offered this: “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”