A Strange Way to Say Thank You Gaza- Rockets are the Bitter Fruit of Israeli Generosity. By Deroy Murdock

White House Middle East coordinator Phillip Gordon scolded Israel on Tuesday, even as Israelis hid from Hamas rockets that plunged from the heavens like deadly hailstones.

Israel “cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely,” Gordon said in a Tel Aviv speech. “Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability.” Gordon added that Israel’s leaders “should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate.”

Gordon addressed Israel’s role in the West Bank and its relationship with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. However, Gordon just as easily could have invoked the Gaza Strip.

As if psychically predicting Gordon’s speech, Israel in August 2005 decided that it could not “maintain military control of another people indefinitely.” So it capitalized on “the opportunity to negotiate” and did something astonishing:

Israel expelled from Gaza some 9,000 Jews in 25 settlements. Those who lingered were ejected by Israeli soldiers. And then — in a major confidence-building gesture — Israel bequeathed the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, like a landlord handing a tenant a home deed. Jew-free at last, which pleased many Palestinians, Gaza’s denizens faced a golden opportunity.

“We want to build the most dynamic bank between Gibraltar and the Taj Mahal,” Gaza’s leaders could have said. Financiers from Wells Fargo to Sumitomo would have flown in and shown them how — pro bono.

“We want the deepest-thinking university in this time zone to blossom in this soil,” top Gazans could have announced. Deans and professors from Stanford to Georgetown to Oxford would have rushed there to develop curricula, erect academic buildings, and stock libraries with Earth’s most compelling books and periodicals. World-class faculty would have flocked in.

“We want the loveliest tourist spot on the eastern Mediterranean,” Gaza’s honchos could have stated. Experts from Hilton to Club Med to Carnival Cruises would have sailed in with their talents.

By now, Gaza could be developing into the Hong Kong, Berkeley, or Cancun of the Middle East. “And we, the Palestinians, built this — once Israel left,” Gazans could have said, as proud as Americans after Cornwallis and the Redcoats sailed home in defeat.

The ‘Independent’ Counsel Mirage: Don’t Hand the IRS Investigation Over To a Special Prosecutor. By Andrew C. McCarthy

I confess to being amazed that President Obama and his trusty attorney general, Eric Holder, have not mollified their detractors by appointing an “independent counsel” to investigate the IRS scandal.

“Why,” you ask, “would Obama sic a prosecutor with independence from Holder’s Justice Department on a component of the Obama administration?” The real question is: Why hasn’t he?

The disconnect here lies in the public’s perception — and, perhaps, the perception of some congressional Republicans who ought to know better — of what an “independent counsel” really is. Independence is a mirage: Obama’s critics crave an evenhanded investigation of executive lawlessness and, in the Washington fashion, they have convinced themselves that wishing can make it so. As it actually exists, however, an “independent counsel” would be tailor-made for letting the administration and the IRS dodge accountability.

Let’s talk reality. As a matter of constitutional law, there is no such thing as an independent counsel. In our system, prosecution is a plenary executive power. All federal investigations and prosecutions proceed under the authority of the president; neither the Congress nor the courts have police powers. Any prosecutor, regardless of how “independent” we’d like him to be, would have to serve at the pleasure of the president, and would report to Eric Holder.

Is the constitutional bar to true prosecutorial independence a fatal blow to the goal of structuring a legitimate investigation of executive-branch misconduct? Not necessarily. For a scrupulous administration, careful political steps could address this legal conundrum.

Let’s say you had a president and attorney general who were regarded by even the opposition party as trustworthy. They could appoint a lawyer widely respected by both major parties as a pillar of rectitude and competence. Such an attorney’s reputation might convince the public to overlook the technicality that the lawyer would answer to the AG and, ultimately, to the president. But the attorney’s reputation on its own wouldn’t suffice. This “independent” counsel’s appointment would have to be accompanied by the president’s own very convincing demonstration that he regarded the investigation as a serious matter and was cooperating earnestly — in particular, by directing his subordinates, on pain of termination, to answer all questions and disclose all relevant evidence.

Now, let’s consider the Obama administration. President “I’m not interested in photo ops” is notoriously cynical and slippery — indeed, flat-out dishonest at times. His attorney general has already been held in contempt of Congress, owing to his penchant for providing misinformation. The president has publicly prejudged the IRS scandal as bereft of a “smidgeon” of corruption. The attorney general — notwithstanding the ethical canon that lawyers must avoid even the appearance of impropriety in the administration of justice — assigned this abuse-of-power probe to Barbara Bosserman, a heavy Obama and Democratic-party campaign donor.


Obama, Translated- Whenever the president talks about himself, flip it so he’s saying the opposite.

I think I’ve stumbled onto a handy heuristic — or, if that word makes you want to smash my guitar on the Delta House wall, rule of thumb — for listening to Obama. Whenever he talks about himself, immediately flip it around so he’s saying the opposite. Think about it. “I’m not interested in photo-ops.” Boom. Translation: “I think photo-ops are really, really important. And that’s why I’m not going to have my picture taken with a bunch kids at the border.”

Now, sometimes, a literal reversal of meaning doesn’t work. But the key is to look at any statement he offers about others as an insight into his own mental state.

When Obama denounces cynicism, he’s actually being cynical. What he’s doing is expressing his frustration with people who are justifiably cynical about him. Why can’t you people fall for what I am saying!?

When he says he doesn’t care about “politics,” just problem-solving, what he’s really saying is he wants his political agenda to go unchallenged by other political agendas.

And — as I wrote about at great length here — whenever he says ideology and ideologues are a problem, what he’s actually saying is that competing ideologues and ideologies are the problem. That is, unless, you’re the sort of person who actually thinks Obama isn’t an ideologue, which is just adorable.

It’s not so much that he’s lying. Though if he were a Game of Thrones character, “Obama the Deceiver, First of His Name” would be a pretty apt formal title. No, he’s projecting. It’s an ego thing. I am fond of pointing out Obama’s insufficiently famous confession, “I actually believe my own bullsh*t.” What I like about it is that’s it’s like a verbal Escher drawing. He believes his own b.s. but by calling it b.s. he acknowledges it’s not believable. It’s like sarcastically insisting that you’re being serious. It’s earnest irony or ironic earnestness. If you take the statement too seriously, you could end up like android #1 in “I, Mudd.”

(Speaking of earnestness and deceit, am I the only one to find the White House press secretary’s name mildly amusing? Josh Earnest? “To josh” means to playfully kid with someone, “I’m just joshing ya!” Earnest means to be overly sincere and deadpan serious. The official voice of the White House is living up to both the verb and the adjective; he’s saying humorously unbelievable things in an overly serious way. He’s a poor man’s Steven Wright. Or maybe I’m overthinking things again. As Steven Wright himself said, a “conclusion is just the place where you get tired of thinking.”).

James Longstreet : Maybe DoJ Stands for Delaying of Justice.

Illinois attempt to stop corruption short-circuited by DoJ

Maybe DoJ stands for Delaying of Justice.

One more investigation designed, allegedly, to get to the bottom of the issue, has been launched by the Obama DoJ. This time, in Illinois, the bastion of Democrat games and finances, a bald-faced delaying tactic to save the machine has been put in play.

At issue is Illinois a multi million dollar defunct program of Governor Pat Quinn’s. Playing the game of naming a program / money hole by such an attractive moniker that no politician could be against it, he funded the cleverly named Neighborhood Recovery Initiative (an anti-violence program) with $54.5 million in public money. All one has to do is read the headlines in Chicago to know the program failed. Now the question is asked, where did the money go?

Even with the tilted game board in Illinois, authorities launched an investigation. But it won’t go far in tracking down the potential graft and fraud. Enter the Federal Government and Eric Holder’s DOJ. The Chicago Tribune reports,

“…the Department of Justice has requested a 90-day delay before Illinois lawmakers question seven former Quinn aides who have been subpoenaed to testify next week….What’s odd about the Justice request for state lawmakers to stand down is that it didn’t come from prosecutors, as has been customary in other investigations. Instead it came by phone to Illinois House and Senate lawyers from Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs in Washington, D.C. That’s a liaison and lobbying office, not an office that typically has interjected itself into criminal cases here.”

Once again, the Federal government dictates in the affairs of the States. Not much different than the DOJ telling Arizona it can’t deal with illegal immigrants, the DOJ now tells Illinois to “relax” their efforts to fight corruption within their own State. The suggestion for such a request is that State efforts might interfere with federal efforts. This is usually an indication of no federal effort.

The “on going” investigation excuse is a favorite of this administration. The President can’t comment on the Benghazi scandal because of the “on going” investigation. And now Illinois is to “stand down” so as not to disrupt the federal investigation of the same matter. Can not States manage their own affairs?

Will Governor Quinn now issue this statement, “There is not a smidgen of evidence.”?

The Democrats’ War on Children By Lee Cary

Central American children are pawns in the Democratic Party’s pursuit of political advantage through an open Southern border.

Gilberto Ramos is just one of their most recent victims.

The Guardian recently told Gilberto’s story:

“Gilberto Ramos wanted to leave his chilly mountain village for the United States to earn money to treat his mother’s epilepsy. His mother begged him not to go. “The better treatment would have been if he stayed,” Cipriana Juarez Diaz said in a tearful interview with the Associated Press on Tuesday. When he wouldn’t relent, she draped him with a white rosary for safe passage. A month later, his decaying body was found in the Texas desert.”

Gilberto, age 15, died a pawn in the Obama regime’s pursuit of his party’s comprehensive progressive agenda that aims to open the southern U.S. border to an unhindered influx of future Democrat voters.

The Obama regime’s official complicity in promoting the flow of unaccompanied, undocumented children entering the U.S. lacks the same degree of transparency associated with the civilian deaths in Mexico due to Eric Holder’s Fast & Furious gun-running, the White House’s involvement in the IRS Scandal, and the deaths of Americans in Benghazi.

None of the above is likely to ever be fully parsed.

But no one suggests the “border crisis” came as a surprise to the regime.

At the end of March, 2014, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement predicted it, according to an on-line Arizona Republic article entitled “Border Patrol warns more kids will die in desert.”

Editorializing under the thin guise of reporting, Arizona Republic’s Linda Valdez began her article with this spin: “This summer may answer the burning question: Just how hard are the hearts of Republicans in the U.S. House?” And she closed with: “If summer produces the increase in child deaths that the Border Patrol fears, will Republicans in the U.S. House see the suffering? Will it soften their hearts?”

Christian and Canadian Support for Israel Defies Propaganda by Christine Williams

Israel’s targets have been militants, military facilities, rocket launchers, tunnels and command centers. Israel has taken extraordinary measures to protect Palestinian civilian life.

Meanwhile, Hamas violates international law both by targeting Israel’s civilians and by using its own people as human shields — and then blaming Israel for the casualties.

The BDS movement covers up its ties with the terrorist group Hamas.

On the heels of the murder of three innocent Israeli teens, Hamas began pounding Israel with rocket fire, while Israel retaliated with defensive airstrikes on Gaza. As expected, however, Hamas and other Gaza officials — including the head of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, Raji Sourani — have accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians, while the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] announced plans for an “extraordinary ministerial meeting” to discuss “the intensifying and fierce Israeli campaign against Palestine.”

Despite the sustained and typical propaganda campaign against Israel, Canada has condemned “the brazen and indiscriminate attacks that Hamas continues to wage on Israel.” Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird repeated Canada’s unwavering position that “Canada believes that Israel has every right to defend itself from such belligerent acts of terrorism.”

Meanwhile, as many Christian Churches vote for divestment from Israel, the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem [ICEJ], with offices in 60 nations — among Israel’s thriving Christian supporters — sent mobile bomb shelters to protect residents of southern Israel.

In Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge,” its targets have been militants, military facilities, rocket launchers, tunnels and command centers. Israel has taken extraordinary measures to protect Palestinian civilian life. Despite the historically biased reporting about civilian casualties, for years Israel has made telephone calls, sent SMS messages, distributed leaflets, and fired flares to warn civilians to leave targeted buildings and sites. Even according to the New York Times, Israel has gone so far as to fire inert missiles without explosive warheads onto roofs as “warning shots” to warn Palestinians to evacuate in safety. Some defy these warnings; meanwhile, Hamas violates international law both by targeting Israel’s civilians and by using its own people as human shields — and then blaming Israel for the casualties.


There are different kinds of bombs.

Presently we are experiencing bombs falling on Israel, launched by a terrorist government whose goal is the demise of the State of Israel and the annihilation of all its Jewish citizens.

Simultaneously Israel is returning the favor, not in an effort to kill all Gazan Arabs, rather to exterminate the animals who are causing ‘Red Alert’ to be sounded, not only in Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod, but also in Beit Shemesh, Jerusalem, Haifa, Caesarea, Tel Aviv, Nes Tziona, Rishon L’Tzion, and many other places, and yes, including even Hebron. (The unconfirmed rumors are that the missile aimed at us fell in the Arab village Daharia, in the Southern Hebron Hills, killing three Arabs.)

Last night one of my granddaughters, who lives in Beit Haggai, in the southern Hebron Hills, where too there was a siren yesterday, called me. Her father (my son) was called up a few days ago in the emergency draft. In tears she whispered, “Saba, I’m afraid.”

There are major differences between our bombs and their bombs. They are aiming for Ben Gurion airport. Their primary targets are civilians.Apartment buildings. Factories. Shopping centers. Wherever. The more dead, the better. After all, that’s the goal.

Before Israel releases its bombs, the intended ‘house’ is notified. Not once, rather twice. “Get out, we are going to bomb this house.” The people inside have, not 15 seconds, but five minutes to evacuate. Then a ‘warning flare’ is released. “We are serious about this.” And only after both these warnings, is the building destroyed.

Of course, these are not random dwellings. These are the home bases of the beasts trying to destroy Israel. If the people inside take the alerts seriously, they are not injured. But lately, the Hamas terror leadership in Gaza has told its citizens to ‘ignore’ the Israeli forewarning. Not only don’t they care if their own civilians are killed. To the contrary, they prefer it. That way they have good photos to show the international media and at the UN.


The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which has systematically and deliberately launched missiles at civilians – must not be another ceasefire, but the devastation of the entire infrastructure of Hamas’ fire – logistically, operationally, financially, educationally and politically.

The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which has grown in power following each round of clashes and ceasefire – must not be an end to the current cycle of violence, but ending the cyclical pattern of violence, by destroying Hamas’ terrorist capabilities.

The goal of Israel’s war against Hamas’ terrorism – which directly impacts Israel’s confrontation with Iran, regional Islamic terrorism, Hezbollah and other enemies – must be the restoration of Israel’s posture of deterrence, which has been severely undermined by the twenty-one year-old Oslo-driven policy of engagement and containment – rather than devastating – the dramatically expanding Palestinian and Hezbollah infrastructures of hate education, terrorism, in general, and missile capabilities, in particular. Israel’s posture of deterrence has also been crippled by putting up with systematic Palestinian non-compliance, while rewarding Palestinian belligerence and terrorism with territorial, diplomatic and economic concessions; tolerating the deliberate and extensive Palestinian destruction of Temple Mount archeology; and the massive release of Palestinian arch-terrorists.

Israel’s posture of deterrence constitutes the most crucial axis of Israel’s national security in the face of the rising tide of Islamic terrorism, the Arab Tsunami and increasingly violent Muslim intolerance towards the “infidel” Christians and Jews, contending that the Middle East (as well as Spain, Portugal, Southern France, Sicily and parts of Italy’s mainland) is divinely-ordained to Muslims.

A national posture of deterrence is doubly crucial in the Middle East, the world’s leading breeding ground of terrorism, where compromise, concession, retreat and the lack of unyielding posture are perceived by the Muslim/Arab street as indecisiveness, insecurity and weakness, thus fueling further radicalism, violence, terrorism and war.


This op-ed was co-authored with Dr. Daniel Mandel, Director of the ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy and author of H.V. Evatt & the Creation of Israel (Routledge, London, 2004).

Israelis were traumatized in recent weeks by the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli youths — Eyal Yifrah, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16 — by the Hamas terrorist group, now part of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Palestinian Authority (PA) regime. Days later, an Arab Israeli teenager, Muhammad Abu Khdeir, 16, was murdered by what appears to have been a violent underworld group of Jewish Israelis. Former Jerusalem Post editor, David Horovitz, immediately wrote a tendentious article, painting an inaccurate and ugly image of Israeli society, ‘A sobering moment for complacent Israel’ (July 7), in which he contended that “the killing of Muhammed Abu Khdeir must rid us of the illusion that we enjoy a distinctive moral superiority over our neighbors … [without] a reverence for life, we have no particular right to be here at all.”

Indeed, Horovitz thinks that this admittedly horrific, bestial crime tells us something about Israelis in general that we didn’t know, or care to think, before: “We Israelis knew we had nothing in common with those Hamas killers who so callously ended the lives of three innocent Israeli teenagers; we were wrong.”

But it is David Horovitz who is wrong. First, Israel’s national existence, like that of other countries, is not conditional on a “distinctive moral superiority” — which Israel actually possesses over its enemies. Second, the way to gauge whether a society supports or reviles terrorism is to observe its reaction to it. Comparison here is instructive.

Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) has institutionally glorified terrorism against Jews as a national and religious duty. The PA honors, lauds and rewards terrorists — by naming schools andstreets after them; by calling them ‘martyrs’ and paying condolence calls on their families when they’re killed; by hiding wanted terrorists in Abbas’ presidential compound; by paying stipends to those imprisoned and pensions to the families of those deceased; and by demanding the release of jailed terrorists by Israel as precondition of further negotiations.

UK Bans Pro-Jihad Islamist Groups by Soeren Kern

“I believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. I believe that we should cut the hands off of thieves. I believe the Sharia should be implemented in Denmark. Maybe we should change the Christiansborg Palace [the Danish Parliament building] to Muslimsborg to have the flag of Islam flying over the parliament in Denmark. I think this would be very nice.” — Anjem Choudary, while in Denmark to establish Islam4dk in June 2014.

“[Choudary’s network] has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.” — Times of London.

“The cure for depression is jihad.” — Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi), Scottish jihadist.

The British government has banned three groups linked to Anjem Choudary, a Muslim hate preacher who wants to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic state.

The move comes after the groups were found to have organized jihadist recruitment meetings in which two Muslim youths from Cardiff were persuaded to fight with Islamic insurgents in Syria.

The Home Office said on June 26 that the groups Need4Khilafah, The Shariah Project and The Islamic Dawah Association are all aliases of al-Muhajiroun, a Salafi-Wahhabi extremist group that was banned in 2006 but has continued to operate ever since then by using different names.

Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “The Emigrants”) has also operated under a host of other names, including al-Ghurabaa (Arabic for “The Strangers”), The Saved Sect (aka The Savior Sect), Muslims Against Crusades, Muslim Prisoners, Islamic Path, Islam4UK, Women4Sharia and Islamic Emergency Defence, which is still operational.

Al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect were both banned in July 2006, after they organized a march through downtown London to protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Demonstrators linked to the groups waved placards reading, “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Kill those who insult Islam,” and “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way.”

Islam4UK was banned in January 2010. At the time, the group described itself as having been “established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia [in Britain].”

Muslims Against Crusades was banned in November 2011, after the group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates were to function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

All of the bans have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a group can be proscribed if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Section 1.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the “use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Announcing the latest ban, Britain’s Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said, “Terrorist organisations should not be allowed to escape proscription simply by acting under a different name.” He continued: