Displaying posts published in

February 2014

PETER HUESSEY: KEEPING THE PEACE AMIDST CHAOS AND CRISES

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/keeping-the-peace-amidst-chaos-and-crises#ixzz2trFo0Shv

In 2002, former top defense official Michelle Flournoy and Capitol Hill staffer and former USAF official Clark Murdock published a Center for Strategic and International Studies assessment of what further strategic nuclear weapons reductions the United States should pursue and what kind of deterrent force we should maintain to keep the peace and maintain stability.

They concluded a Triad of nuclear forces including submarines, land based missiles and bombers made the most sense, at levels of nuclear weapons from 1000-2200, the higher number then being under consideration by the Bush administration. Eventually, the United States and Russia concluded the Moscow Treaty that reduced deployed strategic nuclear weapons from 6000 to 2200 which was the single largest percent reduction of strategic nuclear weapons in history.

Under the New Start treaty of 2010 that further reduced our deployed nuclear weapons to 1550, we continued to maintain a Triad of forces including 450 Minuteman land based missiles.

However, some radical proposals continue to be put forward to eliminate the ICBM force from our nuclear deterrent largely under the assumption that the Cold War is over and there are no serious threats to the United States from any nuclear armed adversary.

While the Cold War did end in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union, the totalitarian threats to America’s security remain although in changed form.

SARAH HONIG: EXPOSING THE CHARADE

http://sarahhonig.com/2014/02/18/exposing-the-charade/

Odds are that convicted spy Jonathan Pollard is now in his 29th year in prison only because of thinly camouflaged anti-Semitism. That is the learned opinion of James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Woolsey has said so in interviews to Channel 10, as well as to The Jerusalem Post. He went on the record and without beating around the bush. He thus gave an authoritative voice to what many suspected and hinted at for years.

Woolsey may be the only higher-up in the US security establishment to head-on cite anti-Semitism, but he is not the only one to have called for Pollard’s release on the grounds that he had served an unreasonably and disproportionately long sentence in comparison to the time other spies for US allies spent behind bars.

In many cases the spies from friendly countries were sent up for less than four years, and they didn’t serve the full sentences either. Egyptian Abdelkader Helmy got a three-year-and-10-month sentence. Jean Baynes, who was caught spying on behalf of the Philippines, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years. Spies for Britain and South Africa were each given two years.

After the Woolsey statements, the specter of anti-Jewish prejudice, however denied, can no longer be covered up. The elephant in the room has materialized and come out in full view. Nobody – on either side of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – can continue pretending the issue is not there.

Which Israeli will Europe and Arabs Target Next? by Timon Dias

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4182/israel-europe-discrimination The fact remains that a Dutch soccer player was excluded from a training camp on the sole basis that he is Jew with an Israeli passport. Not only is the Dutch Foreign Ministry’s advice to “keep sports and politics separated as much as possible” bankrupt of any enforceable meaning; it conflicts with the Dutch […]

ABOUT A.M. ROSENTHAL AND THE NEW YORK TIMES: AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS WITH JACK ENGELHARD

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144361#.UwXXLYWCUtX

Jack Engelhard, author of “The Bathsheba Deadline” and “Indecent Proposal”, as well as the award-winning memoir of his experiences as a Jewish refugee from Europe, has decided to make public a private exchange of letters he had with the world-famous and brilliant former New York Times editor Abe Rosenthal.

Rosenthal faced up to the mistake of New York Times’ minimization during WWII of the slaughter of the Jews of Europe in an editorial in 1996. He admitted that the daily wrote about what was happening to Jews on inner pages. He regretted that error deeply and worried about the state of israel.
Engelhard’s decision to release the letters to Israel National News for publication followed the recent op-ed by PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas published by the New York Times.

“So what else is new when, upon reading the paper Tuesday, May 17, here’s Mahmoud Abbas getting himself published as an op-ed contributor,” Engelhard wrote in an opinion published by INN. “This is like Al Capone getting to tell his side of the story, or Josef Mengele giving advice in the Journal of the American Medical Association.”

Abbas NYT piece effectively buried the Oslo Accords, upon whose ratification Roshenthal famously said, “The signing of these accords proves the anti-semites wrong – Jews aren’t smarter than other people.”

The Gray Lady’s decison to give Abbas a bully-pulpit, and its skewed reporting of Itamar massacre, Nakba, and Obama’s Cairo speeches, makes one wonder what Rosenthal, a 56 year veteran of the New York times (1943-1999) and 1960 Pulitzer Prize winner for international reporting, would say about her were he alive today.

TABITHA KOROL: WOOING WYOMING

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11481

I was pleased to hear from Shannon Smith, executive director of Wyoming Humanities Council, but disappointed to learn that she disagreed. When people disagree with facts, it means they cannot abide information that conflicts with their belief system. Did she not grasp that our world is afire? That our World Trade Center was bombed and 3,000 citizens killed? That Christians are being slaughtered in Africa and Asia? That Jews are fleeing Europe again? That Sweden and Norway have been called the rape capitals of the world? That the violence occurring around the globe is caused by one group and one group only?

The books gifted by the Muslim Journeymen were described as containing “history, faith, and Muslim culture around the world.” Islamic history, antithetical to all we believe and trust, is severely misrepresented in their accounts. They do not divulge their 1400-year history of violence, slavery, destruction of 270 million people and their cultures, the permanent land grabs, and the forced imposition of Islamic ideology to 1.3 billion people. They do not disclose their cruel Islamic law, Shari’a, and its incompatibility with our heritage and Constitution. Our God is not their God; our Torah and Bible are not their Qur’an, of which eighty percent deals with killing the infidels. The adherents will not live harmoniously with other nations and ideologies and they are a danger to all humanity. Their literature warrants inspection.

Of the five novels the libraries received, Smith and her staff read Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi, and admitted it was disturbing. So was In the Country of Men, by Hisham Matar. Both are stories of a desolate future and inappropriate, vulgar material. In the former, Marjane lives in Iran, a country in transition from secular to Islamic religious extremism; in the latter, nine-year-old Suleiman lives a frightening life in despotic Libya. Both books deal with issues of repression; abandonment and neglect; explicit sexuality and drugs; both have unsavory characters, and deal with issues of unhappiness, anxiety, martyrdom and death, and “life is pain.” These are very different from the decent, moral literature that produced the people who created our great nation.

The immersion in degradation is intentional. The books were chosen to discourage the innocent from reading and creative thinking, to produce “common” and “standard” (Common Core Standards) workers who are compliant and easily controlled, like the masses who lost their will to rise up against the Islamic and socialist regimes. In the words of Montesquieu, “As virtue is necessary in a republic…so fear is necessary in a despotic government.”

EDWARD CLINE:Fearless Speech vs. “Hate Speech”

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2014/02/fearless-speech-vs-hate-speech.html

I usually do not pay attention to news about biblical movies. The Bible has been a subject of film for well over a century, logging in literally hundreds of titles. Although filmmakers know there is a wealth of stories to lift from the Bible, the ones that make it to the big screen are relatively few. The only difference between them lies in the progress of special effects, winding up today with computer generated images to create miracles and swell the sizes of the crowds and to add other technological icing. If you’ve seen one Ten Commandments or Ben Hur or The Robe, you’ve seen them all.
When Hollywood runs out of new takes on zombie plagues, alien invasions, capitalist conspiracies to take over the world, and catastrophic “climate changes” that dehydrate or drown the globe, there are always Red Seas to part, waters to walk on, and loaves and fishes to multiply. Jesus himself has undergone a number of make-overs during the film industry’s century-plus history, from handsome hunks preaching love on the hill to crowds of extras to a rockin’ Super Star.”
Anyone for Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson as Moses? Or as Mohammad? After all, we have Russell Crowe gallomping around as a pious but Ark-ready Noah.
A character in “House of Cards,” Secretary of State Catherine Durant, played by Jayne Atkinson, too strongly resembles former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I think that was intentional. Durant is a frumpy and dumpy white-haired Southern gal, as well, and is Frank Underwood’s policy poodle, ready to tailor her diplomatic spiel to Underwood’s. Will Hillary’s publicity agent protest the characterization? Likely not; it’s advisable not to call attention to the similarities between Hillary and Durant when a real life, alleged candidate is already having image and truth problems.
But suppose handsome George Clooney was picked to portray former president Bill Clinton in some improbable “docudrama”? Would his publicist crank out a protest? Absolutely not, not even if Bill Clinton as president were depicted espousing free market principles, siding with the Serbs, nailing bin Laden on the first try, and keeping his roaming hands off of his interns’ tushes.
But all it takes is someone’s whisper to get the ball rolling to a politically correctness-governed scandal, and the media, for lack of anything else to do, will lap it up and grow it to tabloid headline size.
For example, I chanced upon this February 17th story by Jeff Sneider from MSN:

SARAH HONIG: DEUTSCHE CHUTZPAH

Deutsche Chutzpah Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, shows signs of mild embarrassment in the wake of reports that it had consigned Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, to a list of firms deemed too “ethically questionable” for investment by the ostensibly more ethically-minded investors. Bank Hapoalim indeed featured on the list but Deutsche Bank later averred that […]

MY SAY: REMEMBERING BETTER “TIMES”

To those who complain about the NY Times but continue to subscribe I say…”get over it and stop reading it….” I did and other than a peek at the obituaries I don’t miss it…..rsk

There were exceptions in high editorial positions even during the “worst of times.”

Abraham Michael Rosenthal, who became know as “A.M.” or “Abe” to his friends was was the executive editor (1977–88) and columnist (1987–1999). His columns “On My Mind” were critical of the left and supportive of Israel. He was edged out in 1999 and wrote columns for the New York Daily News until 2004. He died in 2006.

William Safire, who died in 2009 joined the New York times in 1973 as a political columnist after a stint as President Nixon’s speechwriter. He never failed to defend Israel, especially during the Lebanon War when the media went viral with criticism. Among his many bon mots he called Hillary Clinton “a congenital liar.”

Here are his words in 2002 in a column entitled “The Israeli Choice” (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/25/opinion/the-israeli-choice.html)

I’m a shtarker. This Yiddish word, rooted in the German stark, ”strong,” is defined by the lexicographer Sol Steinmetz as ”a strong-minded person willing to wield power.”

This week, 300,000 members of Israel’s hard-line Likud Party will choose as their candidate one of two shtarkers: Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon and Foreign Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu.

The dovish Labor Party last week swung far left: its candidate, Amram Mitzna, promises to divide Jerusalem, uproot all settlers and re-offer all other concessions Yasir Arafat spurned two years ago. Likudniks scorn him as ”Yossi Beilin with a beard,” a reference to the ever-hopeful architect of the Oslo disaster.

That means that the party of the shtarkers will win the parliamentary election in January. But which shtarker will be in charge, and does it matter?

THE GREEN GULAG: DANIEL GREENFIELD ****

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
8,000 people die in the UK every year due to what is being called “Fuel Poverty”. Fuel Poverty is a trendy term for those who can’t afford to heat their home because all the solar panels and windmills, the coal bans and the wars on fracking have made it too expensive for people not to freeze to death..

The left, which never misses a chance to blame profiteering for the failure of its policies, is staging “Die-Ins” outside energy companies to protect the real “Die-Ins” that they caused. But the real “Die-Ins” don’t involve bored university students lying down on the concrete and posting the results to Tumblr. They end with the generation that saved Europe from Hitler dying in their own homes.

Rising fuel prices can in no small part be attributed to environmental mania. Energy companies are not run by saints, but neither do they have an interest in pricing their product out of the reach of ordinary people. It’s hard to sell home heat to the dead or the destitute. On the other hand environmentalists do indeed want to make it hard for ordinary to be able to afford to heat their homes. That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s their policy.

Talk of using carbon credits for “super-energy efficiency” is an admission that a movement using dead seniors as a prop is actually pushing to make energy use as expensive as possible and to reduce its use as much as possible. The “Die In” crowd isn’t for lowering energy prices, it’s for adding more taxes that will benefit their own parasitic clean energy experts.

Say what you will about energy companies, but their business plan involves selling a product. The anti-energy environmentalists want to make it as expensive as possible. The costs of their policies are not just a talking point, but a grim reality.

The family that has to choose between feeding their children or being able to drive to work and heat their home is not a talking point; they are the new Kulaks, the victims of an ideological activist policy that is killing innocent people for the Green greater good of the environment.

Stalin killed millions to industrialize the Soviet Union, the Green Left is preparing to kill millions to deindustrialize North America, Europe and Australia. It’s already doing it. While its activists are trying to peg the blame for fuel poverty fatalities on a government which is badly out of cash, it need look no further than its own activists and celebrities who preach the green life from their mansions.

Clear energy has become the new Communism, an ideological program that can never be achieved, but for which we must all strive no matter how many die all along the way. In Scotland, the perennially deranged Scottish National Party called for generating 100 percent of the country’s electricity from wind, wave and tidal power by 2020.

This plan would add 900 pounds to the average fuel bill. And that is how fuel poverty gets started.

Wales, which has the highest fuel poverty rate in the UK, is working on one of Europe’s largest wind farms and has a plan for total clean energy by 2025, if anyone is still alive and hasn’t frozen to death. Wind farms don’t tend to do too well in the cold and human beings don’t do too well without heat.

New Report Highlights Hillary Clinton’s Role in the “Preventable” Benghazi Attack That Left Four Americans Dead

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/new-report-highlights-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-preventable-benghazi-attack-that-left-four-americans-dead?f=puball New Report Highlights Hillary Clinton’s Role in the “Preventable” Benghazi Attack That Left Four Americans Dead by OPSEC TEAM February 19, 2014 A new OPSEC report combines for the first time in a single document the findings of multiple official investigations and media reports about Hillary Clinton’s role before, during and after the attack […]