Obama Pleads With Gays, Vows to Be 'Champion'

Here is further evidence of the erosive attack on Biblical Christianity: President Barack Hussein Obama has vowed to be a friend of homosexual activism in changing the hearts and minds of Americans from traditional Christian views on homosexuality to the perverse acceptance of the alternate lifestyle. He made the promise to homosexual activists invited to the White House.

JRH 6/30/09

Obama Supports Leftist Prez Regardless of People’s Will

I was watching the Today Show (NBC morning version) this morning (I had to give up cable for awhile) and heard this small piece on Honduras. According the Today Show there was a coup in which the Honduran military in which the Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales was removed from Office and expelled to Costa Rica in his PJs.

The image I received from the Today Show was that another Latin American Banana Republic went from democracy to dictatorship. There was an implied condemnation from the White House to shore up this image of an unconstitutional government change in Honduras.

I received a press release from Americans for Limited Government (ALG) this morning which tells a different story.

Evidently President Rosales was attempting a Hugo Chavez Leftist President for Life by unconstitutionally changing the constitutionally ordained term limits.

Here are the details from the email:

JRH 6/29/09
*********************
Editorial: In Honduras, Freedom Restored

Email Sent by: Bill Wilson
Contact: Alex Rosenwald
Sent: June 29th, 2009
Americans for Limited Government

The story out of Honduras is that the people of that stalwart little country have now taken it into their own hands to preserve their democracy in the most courageous action since they established their constitutional republic nearly three decades ago. Just as former Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales prepared to seize full power in direct violation of the nation's Constitution, the military leadership – with the backing of the people – removed him from power.

Unfortunately, Barak Obama, after encouraging the Zelaya coup with his complicit silence, has now condemned the people's move to uphold their Constitution and preserve their freedom. And, as expected, the mainstream media has joined Mr. Obama in censuring the restoration of democracy by censoring the full story.

Yet, what actually occurred in Honduras is a case study in the survival of freedom against the most oppressive odds.

Earlier this year, in the face of strong public opposition, Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales declared that he would stage a referendum to have the country's constitutional term limits law overturned, thereby allowing him to remain indefinitely in power. The people of Honduras had adopted the single, four-year--term limit as part of their Constitution in January of 1982. Significantly, the term limits provision is one of only eight "firm articles," out of 375. By law, cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court of Honduras declared the Zelaya referendum unconstitutional, his own Liberal Party came out in strong opposition, and the public overwhelmingly opposed his power grab. Despite this, Zelaya, a leftwing politician with strong ties to Cuba's Castro and Venezuela's Chavez, scheduled the referendum for Sunday, June 28. At midnight, Wednesday, June 24, the strong-arm president gave a televised speech accusing his opposition of promoting "destabilization and chaos" by attempting to thwart his unconstitutional referendum.

As the situation in Honduras continued to deteriorate, the Zelaya's attorney general called for his ouster; his Defense Minister resigned; he fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for stating that he would refuse to send out troops to put down public protests; the chiefs of the army, navy, and air force resigned; and the country's Supreme Court ordered the nation's army and police not to support the unconstitutional referendum.

Through all of this, Barack Obama abetted the Zelaya power grab through his calculated silence. Yet, the brave people of Honduras – enduring almost unfathomable duress – stood firm in support of their Constitution and the term limits embodied in it.

Now that the will of the people has triumphed over tragedy, we believe the time has come for Mr. Obama to concede the defeat of his partner and policy, and for the U.S. media to support those who, putting principle above personal safety, have let freedom ring. At ALG news, we applaud the Freedom Fighters of neighboring Honduras, even if Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will not.

Obama signing statement on war funding bill: Left is curiously silent

The hypocrisy of President Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrats and the Left in general is showing. A blog post at American Thinker shines the light on BHO doing the very thing that he specifically criticized President GW Bush.

BHO has signed a Bill for a military budget with an executive note attached stipulating the portions he feels are unconstitutional because it interferes with the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch.

JRH 6/28/09

Ellie Defends the Left and Homosexuality

Below are a couple of comments left by Ellie (of Vox social network) concerning one of my many cross posts: “The Immorality of Homosexuality.”

Thank you for the link, I will have a look.

With all due respect, the parades are not proof of anything. It makes me sad (and a bit crazy, to be honest with you) that we liberals and secularists are painted as perverts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I, like many liberals, am pro-military, and pro-authority.

It makes me sick to see thongs in public. I don't want to see people's private parts - whether someone's gay or straight. But gays don't have a monopoly on perversion - not at all. It's the bad stereotype of gay parades that makes all sorts feel free to act like they're porn stars. My gay friends hate it even more than I do. They are perfectly proper citizens.

I'm not touching the Bible - I have no interest in reinterpreting it. I respect other's wishes, I just wish you guys would speak to us liberals before you judge us.
…

Way2K, are you kidding me? Craigslist? That is not a scientifc study.

The article says, "One study says this...and one study says that....". They are not mentioning what studies they refer to. That must be convenient to say the study is out there in the ether but to not actually reference which study it is.

Here is an example of a scientific study:

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men

And to explain why such published studies are important references, here is my favorite scientist discussing evolution vs creationism.

Thank you for listening to me rant, I can't think of a better thing than for our polarized citizens to talk to one another.

So because a person finds some statistics and posts them to a Craig's List link, the statistics are invalid? Hmm...

Besides it was only a cursory Google search that I found this link. I did not realize you were going to use the statistics as a scientific reference. Probably Googling those statistics will lead to the origination.

I do appreciate genial dialogue as opposed to the epithets that I receive for my stand with Christian morality.

Incidentally, contrary to probably most of my fellow Conservatives (and probably a significant portion of my fellow Christian Right brethren) I am not closed minded about many Slanted Left concepts. However, I do filter everything through the Bible as it is viewed via Charismatic, Pentecostal and Word of Faith views. I am also aware that many Christians both toward the Left (i.e. more relativist than Biblical) and toward the Right (intolerant Protestant traditional view points often equated with fundamentalism) would consider me archaic (Left) or heretical (Right). Nonetheless, the Bible is everything for me.

In saying that I have to say there is a good argument for both Socialism and Capitalism in the New Testament:

• Socialism – Acts 2:40-47.

• Capitalism – Matthew 13:44-52; 25:14-29.

I personally could find more of the Scripture supporting Capitalism than Socialism but the point is both concepts are in the New Testament. I also realize that theologians would not view these Scriptures in economic terms; rather the Biblical scholar or student would find the spiritual Truth that is the direct meaning. Nonetheless, the spiritual Truth may be the point; however the principle can be surmised.

There is evil in Socialism. When all the altruistic good of the collective is looked at through who decides what is the greater good for the collective, then abuse begins to occur. Hence Socialism too often leads to godless authoritarian Communism in which the one human (or ruling human group) decides the good for the many.

There is evil in Capitalism. When the individual (or the influential group of wealth) places greedy gain to the detriment of the mass of individuals then people are exploited for the benefit of a few.

The key for either the Socialist Left or the Capitalist Right to be beneficial for humanity is the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Or love humanity as God loved humanity enough to give His one and only Son, that all humanity may have the God-Kind (Zoe) life. I am ashamed to say too many Christians fall short of the Christian ideal which does include me. I do have a tendency to get steamed over social issues like homosexuality and abortion because they definitely are not in line with the Bible. I become so steamed that I sometimes fall into the ditch of harshness.

So Ellie the biggest problem I have with the Left and alternate lifestyles is the anti-Biblical Christian path they tend to take.

Ellie now I will try the “scientific” data to which you refer.

The link to the research of Dr. Simon LeVay is fascinating stuff. LeVay’s hypothalamic studies have led to the speculation of a “gay gene.” LeVay’s thinking seems to be if there is a “gay gene” than the lifestyle of homosexuality is a normal biological part of human life.

It is the old “genetics versus environment” argument with those believing homosexuality developing due to one’s social environment is a learned lifestyle and thus reversible and not normal.

As you can expect the “science” that is in the tank to validate homosexuality has been initially excited about LeVay’s research. And those scientists (although a minority) who are Christian or social traditionalists seem to be big on proving the environmental hypothesis.

When it has looked like LeVay and/or other like minded scientists was very close to identifying a “gay gene” the social traditionalists are quick to point out it has not been proven. (SA this narth.com article) Then someone woke up among the homosexual activists. If homosexual friendly LeVay indeed discovers a “gay gene” proving biology over environment, then heterosexual parents might take advantage with a little genetic social engineering to remove any possibility of a “gay gene” to exist via abortion or other methods. This would effectively bring the modern termination of homosexuals as their so-called genetic brethren (and sistren) would slowly decrease.

Of course the American Psychiatric Association admits there is no “gay gene”. Many on the Right believe this APA reversal was due to regain a better reputation of objectivity. I believe the APA reversal was due to the headaches that genetic engineering would cause for the homosexual community.

Let me end by saying that I do appreciate dialogue without profanity. My experience is that my intransient stand with the Bible irritates the Slanted Left, homosexual activists, the pro-choice crowd and other such ideologies. That is okay as long as the Left understands that their views are often offensive to me. But hey, we all live in America. We all have Constitutional Rights of Free Speech as long as it does not cause immediate harm (e.g. falsely yelling fire in crowded area).

Thanks for your time Ellie.

Iranian cleric says "rioters" should be executed

Reuters writes about an Iranian Cleric that has proclaimed publicly that the instigators of the Iran protests (which many are calling Iran’s Green Revolution with Lebanon in mind) should be executed.

The story is a report on how Iran’s Guardian Council is working to validate the election and secure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory for another Presidential term.

Once you read the Reuters article, notice that a disclaimer is used early. Reuters wants its readers to be aware that Iran controls the information that goes out to Western news agencies and reporters. I am assuming this means that the control of facts is directly from Iran. As you read the Reuters article do what former Soviet citizens used to do: read between the lines to know what the facts mean.

JRH 6/26/09 (Hat Tip: Jihad Watch)

Forget Negotiations, President Obama, Seize the Moment

Newt Gingrich pronounces a “The balls in your court, don’t loose it out of bounds” moment for President Barack Hussein Obama about the voter uprising in Iran.

JRH 6/26/09

The Other Straight Talking Lieberman

Here are the specifics to the U.N. meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Secretary-General Boon Ki-moon.

JRH 6/26/09

The Immorality of Homosexuality

Homosexuality is the perversion that the Left and alternate lifestyle advocates are trying to convince mainstream America is part of normal everyday life. In other words displaying sexual acts of perversion in public is normal as opposed to Christian morality that decries any sex act in public – homosexual or heterosexual.

In the homosexual agenda to normalize perverted sex, homosexuals have taken to the streets to perform lewd sex acts in public. If a heterosexual was caught doing such acts in public they would be jailed.

The homosexual agenda has eroded what the word “normal” is. In twisting the word “normal” decent morals in America have been eroded to make way for perverted alternate lifestyles. Thus the Left and alternate lifestyle advocates have been doing their best to proclaim that Christian ethics and morality are a chain and ball from archaic history. There is a total denial of a Creator or if there is an alternate lifestyle belief in a Creator (e.g. Christian homosexuals or Conservative homosexuals), the Creator’s Word is distorted or revised to fit the alternate lifestyle.

There is a grotesque annual parade that hits many of the major cities of America called the Folsom St. Fair Parade. These fairs and/or parades are a display of homosexual perversion in public that if legal statutes were enforced they would be illegal with jailing occurring. The name is derived from the original homosexual parade/fair in San Francisco (where else?).

I am not going into how many cities or which ones participate in this perversion and to allow occur; however an Internet friend has been keeping me update of the Folsom St. spin off in New York City. I have to admit that I have been hesitant to write on this because acts that occur in these are so horrifyingly perverted. My Internet friend (we will call him Solid Snake) has provided pictures and video that I have not been able to watch all the way through due to the disgusting nature of this street fair/parade. Amazingly, Solid Snake has pointed me toward a “mature” Youtube” posting that must have passed the censor’s mustard. If you can eschew the horrifying displays by homosexuals at this parade you can view an example of the recent New York City version of Folsom Street (oops I was going to say HERE, but I just discovered the censor caught up with Solid Snake – photo from that video courtesy of AFTAH. Well here is one more parenthetical update. Snake Dog has placed another YouTube video. If you need to see the evidence homosexual perversity, watch it. If you take my word for it, avoid watching it.).

This should be a big deal all across America. My New York City friend has been following this because the Democrats in the State of New York have been trying to validate same-sex marriage via legislation in that State. So the New York authorities have been looking the other way as these perversions occur. Imagine what will happen at these Folsom Street events in New York if same-sex marriage overtly becomes legal.

Now I have focused on New York because of where I have been getting my most recent information; however this kind of perversity occurs in nearly all kinds of homosexual parades of entertainment and activism in America. Horrifyingly it is even filtering down to America’s youth because of the erosion of morality in the nation.

One example is a gay pride “youth parade” in which teenagers simulate homosexual acts as they march down the street promoting hedonistic repulsive homosexuality. I am certain those parades are not as graphic as the Folsom Street variety, but to see near children in simulation of homosexual acts is alarming as well as disgusting.

Friends it is time to rise up against the money of homosexuals and the Secular Humanist Left. If you are a Christian, do (at least) two things. Pray in the name of Jesus for the morality of the United States of America. Then become active or support the organizations (political or citizen driven) that withstand the Homosexual Agenda and the Secular Humanist Agenda.

JRH 6/25/09 (See Also: World Net Daily. Hat Tip: Snake Dog)

The Journey of a Pakistani from a ...

Muhammad A. Khan (aka M.A. Khan) is the author of the very informative and well documented book entitled, “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery.” The book leans toward the pedantic and there are a few English language grammatical errors; however Islamic Jihad is so incredibly documented that it was leaves little room to criticize the book for the accuracy of the Islamic exposé. So do not tackle this book for reading enjoyment, rather engulf the book to educate your self on the actual nature of Islam’s past to understand its present and predict its future.

Khan is also the administrator of an awesome source website about Islam and its not so peaceful nature at Islam Watch. This website bills itself as “Telling the truth about Islam” and “Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims”.

Consider this an introduction to an essay by M.A. Khan I found on Faith Freedom International. The essay is entitled, “The Journey of a Pakistani from a Muslim to an Ex-Muslim”.

The essay is a bit of mixture of M.A. Khan biography and associated insights into Islam. It is an awesome read!

JRH 6/24/09

Americans Need to Understand Negative Aspects of Islam

Considering the Japanese style sneak attack of Islamic terrorists on 911, it is remarkable that there is not more public information being disseminated to the American public.

The lack of information is remarkable but I do understand the reasoning. The Mainstream Media and a Politically Correct (PC) U.S. government are afraid that if the negative side of Islam is disseminated to the American public that an increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes would increase. Indeed the well financed Islamic-American organizations are also a huge factor in enforcing PC thinking in America. These Islamic-American organizations gravitate toward radical Islam even though publicly they claim to represent the American mainstream Islam. To all the Muslim-Americans that claim to be moderate Muslims eschewing Radical Islam as an aberration of Islam, the existence of Islamist agenda Muslim-American organizations should be sending up red flags. Yet one rarely reads of an influential Muslim-American castigating these Islamist oriented Muslim-American organizations.

I have often read that Islamist/Salafist/Wahhabist Islam statistically only represents 10% of practicing Muslims globally. I am assuming that this statistic is representatively associated with the primary sect of Islam which is the Sunni.

The PC crowd has effectively kept Americans in the dark about the negative aspects of Islam.

An even darker knowledge is that of understanding where Shia Islam resides in the moderate/radical realm of Islam. Shia has had to be radical to survive the dislike of the majority Islamic sect of Sunnis. Thus it is very easy for Shias to radicalize even though there is a “quietist” element which developed to be non-confrontational. Nonetheless, the very nature of Shia (the party of Ali) has to do with the thought that the fourth Caliph after Mo’s death should have been the second Caliph.

Ali was a cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed. When Ali was defeated and assassinated by his rival, the closest thing to blood descent to the prophet ended. This made a significant portion of Muslims displeased. Thus this portion developed Imams as descendants of Mohammed through Ali as the true heirs of spiritual-political leaders of Islam. The majority of Islam got behind the Caliphate apart from the party of Ali. Thus Shia faired adversely accept in the land that had a traditional heritage of empire and independence. That land was Persia which is present day Iran.

Now I am fairly certain that my brief explanation of Shia would be castigated by an adherent as a weak interpretation. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the roots of Shia to get a grasp of the radical nature of Iran and its radical thinking of a global Caliphate with the Shia perspective rather than the Sunni perspective.

With this in mind I encourage you to read this Hudson Institute publication entitled, “The Paradoxes of Shiism”.

JRH 6/23/09

A Basij Mutiny?

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has an interesting take on the voting riots taking place in Iran. Since Johnson is remarkably versed in the knowledge of Islam, it would be well worth diplomats to pay attentions to his assessment.

Basically Johnson sees the unrest in Iran as a reaction of third generation of radicalized Shi’ites whose fathers and grandfathers were heroic martyrs of the Iraq-Iran war of the Eighties. Couple the radical indoctrination of a devotion to Shi’ite Islam and unemployment may be the undergirding of why Mousavi has become a symbol of change.

In my opinion that “change” is not a change of Khomeini revolutionary ideas, rather it is a change of radical Shi’ites sensing an abandonment of privilege that should be available to the descendants of the heroes of the past.

Read Johnson’s essay to discover your own take.

JRH 6/23/09

Lieberman: Jews in Judea and Samaria Not an Obstacle to Peace

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman states at a U.N. meeting that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) are not an obstacle to peace and the negotiations for Palestinian Statehood.

Lieberman is the guy who Arabs that call themselves Palestinians love to hate because of his right wing views of how Israel should handle Arabs within the Land of Israel and because of Lieberman views on Jewish Settlements in Judea and Samaria.

JRH 6/22/09

More on Anti-Letterman Campaign

This update on Letterman messing up his mouth against Governor Sarah Palin and her two daughters Bristol and Willow with sexual innuendos. Personally I doubt that Letterman will be fired; however his recent apology that was delivered in a serious tone does demonstrate when a Leftists bread-n-butter is cut off, it is amazing how the candor of his speech changes.

I know this YouTube video from Conservative News Media was dated June 18 and Letterman has made his forced apology, nonetheless it is good for Conservatives to stay on the offensive rather than reacting on the defensive. The article referred can be found here.

JRH 6/20/09

The Threat to National Security is more than GWOT

If you look at President Barack Hussein Obama’s key goal in foreign policy strategy it appears to be an appeasement doctrine. A doctrine that is self-effacing that denigrates America’s influence pertaining to global affairs. Thus BHO has been travelling the globe apologizing for America as if the USA was an evil empire.

The Obama Administration is in denial (not a river close to Cairo) about the existence of a Global War on Terror (GWOT). To give substance to the denial the Administration has labeled the GWOT as an overseas contingency.

BHO does not understand that Islam is at war with their vision of the great Satan, i.e. the United States of America. This lack of comprehension should shoot curiosity into American voters about what else pertaining to National Security that President BHO may foolishly ignore or hope that blanket American apologies will placate any other nation or terrorist NGO’s national interest (i.e. self-promoting goal counter to the welfare of America).

With that curiosity you should read Peter Brooks’ essay on the growing designs of rogue nations and rising powers are a threat to America’s National Security.

JRH 6/19/09

The end of 'defeatism'

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech June 14 which has been equated to a response to President Barack Hussein Obama’s Cairo Speech.

Netanyahu’s speech can be summed up thus - The Likud led Israel is prepared to accept the notion of a Palestinian if:

Whoever it is representing the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians agree to a demilitarized State.

This Palestinian State must recognize the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.

Palestine does not force the Jewish settlements to leave which would be within a Palestinian authority.

David Parsons of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem has written an essay about the Palestinian response to Netanyahu’s speech. Yet again all the terrorists that are the ruling elites of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians rejected Netanyahu’s offer. The message to Israel being: We the Arabs want everything we want without giving in to anything Israel’s desires for its National Security.

JRH 6/19/09
****************************************
The end of 'defeatism'

By David Parsons
18 Jun 2009
International Christian Embassy Jerusalem

Even by Palestinian standards, the swift and complete rejection of an Israeli peace overture was baffling.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had just delivered his landmark policy speech on June 14 in which he had finally come to terms with the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. This should be cause for rejoicing on the Palestinian side.

Granted, his acceptance was saddled with stiff preconditions – such a state must be demilitarized and the Palestinians must also recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. But these were quite reasonable opening demands by any objective measure. Even US President George W. Bush had set out stringent criteria for American recognition of a future Palestinian state. So why the sudden, hysterical invective from the Palestinian camp?

Within minutes of Netanyahu concluding his address at Bar-Ilan University, Saeb Erekat and the other professional complainers in the employ of the Palestinian Authority were lashing out at him in the media with personal insults and threats of a third intifada. Bibi was branded a “con-man and a liar” who had just buried the peace process alive. They mocked Netanyahu, insisting that in a thousand years he could not find a single Palestinian who would want to negotiate with him.

Even their friends in the leftist Israeli press were scratching their heads at the unusually “impulsive,” “frantic” and “petty” reactions of PA officials. After all, there was little new in Netanyahu’s stated positions. On Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security concerns – he stuck to familiar red lines that surprised no one. So the guessing game began – was it a pre-planned ambush or a spontaneous vent.

Some surmised that the PA’s brusque response stemmed from their acute disappointment that the recent pressure applied on Netanyahu by US President Barack Obama had apparently not squeezed him hard enough. They were riding high following Obama’s own historic address to the Muslim world from Cairo just ten days earlier, in which he had identified so strongly with Palestinian “suffering,” while demanding that all Israeli settlement activity must stop. Calling his administration the “friendliest in decades” to the Palestinian cause, one PA official had confided, “We can be calm; it is the Israelis who should be worried.”

So when Netanyahu deftly managed to extricate himself from the ropes in a half-hour speech that was very “Zionist” at that, the Palestinians were livid.

But while most observers were busy analyzing Netanyahu’s sober address in comparison to Obama’s lofty oratory in Cairo, the real focus should have been on contrasting his text and tone with the policy statements of his predecessor-in-office, Ehud Olmert. For herein lies the real source of Palestinian consternation.

They had grown accustomed to an Israeli leader who maintained, “We are tired of fighting. We are tired of winning.” Last summer, Olmert insisted, “Israel’s problem is that it has no borders.” He told his cabinet, "The vision of a 'Greater Israel' is over.” In a farewell interview at Rosh Hashanna last fall, Olmert conceded, “we have no choice but to… withdraw” from the West Bank. And in one of his final official comments before stepping down, Olmert went further than any Israeli leader before him in expressing “sorrow” for the “suffering” and displacement of Palestinian refugees. His critics had summed up such public rhetoric as “defeatism.”

Meanwhile in private talks with PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Olmert had offered over 97% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state and reportedly opened the door to a ‘symbolic’ return of thousands of refugees. His proposals went well beyond the generous offer of Ehud Barak at the failed Camp David summit of July 2000. Once again, the Palestinians said “No!”

Yet now, in one fell swoop, Netanyahu had cleared the air of the defeatist approach, restored Israel’s red lines, deflected American pressure, and thrown the ball back into the Palestinians’ court. It swiftly sunk in that they were indeed facing a much tougher bargainer, and in a thousand years will never get a sweeter deal out of Netanyahu than they could have wrested from other recent prime ministers.

The onus is now on Abbas and his PA colleagues to not only answer why they are unwilling to sit down for talks with Netanyahu. They must also explain why they are always the ones saying “No” to a Palestinian state whenever it is within reach.
_____________________

The writer is media director for the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem; www.icej.org.

This article was first published in the July 2009 issue of The Jerusalem Post Christian Edition.

The Middle Eastern Cold War

Daniel Pipes examines a Cold War that is currently present in the Middle East. He builds a picture using examples of the most famous Cold War that existed between the USA and the former USSR.

Since the war takes place in the Middle East has naturally given the label of the Middle Eastern Cold War.

This conflict is between one side led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the other side led by Iran with some of its more notorious clients of the rogue nation of Syria and the Shia terrorists of Hezbollah residing within the nation of Lebanon.

Now there is there the set-up. Read the Daniel Pipes' assessment.

JRH 6/17/09

Juval Aviv: America has become Complacent

A fellow The Conservative Underground (TCU) in the Obama Watch Central group has posted some information about the huge potential of future Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil. The reason I find this information important for a big part of the warning is that Americans have become complacent about being wary to look for the signs that could save their lives and the lives of other Americans.

Now the warning comes from Jewish terrorist expert Juval Aviv.

Now the TCU post is in all probability a part of a chain e-mail. As many of you should know chain e-mail are hugely unreliable as a viable source. For one thing, even if the chain e-mail is actually based on truth, the further down the chain it goes the truth becomes fractured and/or outdated.

Here is what Snopes.com says about the Juval Aviv chain e-mails that have passed around:

Origins: Juval Aviv is indeed the president of New York-based Interfor Inc. (a corporate investigations firm), he was reportedly the source for the 1984 book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team (the basis for the 2005 Steven Spielberg film Munich), he is the author of Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, and he has made predictions about imminent terrorist attacks on the United States (and the forms they might take) similar to the ones described above.

However, some critics have expressed skepticism about Aviv's background, claiming that he has grossly exaggerated his "spymaster" credentials, as the Guardian maintained in a 2006 article about the film Munich:

Our investigations show that Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an Israeli Defence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early 70s. The tale he had woven [in Vengeance] was apparently nothing more than a Walter Mitty fabrication.

We also couldn't verify the claim that Mr. Aviv predicted the July 2005 London bombings on Fox News just one week before they occurred. Although Aviv was a frequent guest on American news programs in the years after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, our search of television news transcripts did not turn up any appearances by him on such programs between 5 November 2004 and the day after the London bombings (8 July 2005).

More important, though, the above-quoted predictions Aviv made about terrorists hitting the U.S. in "six, seven, or eight cities simultaneously" sometime "within the next 90 days" are outdated, as he issued them back in July 2005. It seems safe to say from this vantage point that those predictions were not correct, as no such attacks occurred.

Last updated: 16 January 2009

I included the phrase “Last updated” to be fair to Snopes.com. It appears to me that Snopes.com only cited one source for their conclusions of “false”. That source is The Guardian. As a source The Guardian is as Left Wing as any MSM English publication can be.

If Snopes.com would have a bit more due diligence they would discover that Juval Aviv and his security business are well respected in the realm of security both privately and by the U.S. government. Hence The Guardian accusation that Aviv’s bona fides was the delusions of a Walter Mitty fantasy are questionable and more than very likely skewed to fit the Leftist appeasement agenda with Islamic terrorists such as Hamas and the terrorists operating under the PA aegis.

Here are some bona fides that are closer to reality:

Juval Aviv holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm.

Founded in 1979, Interfor, Inc. works with U.S. and foreign law firms, leading financial institutions, multinational corporations, insurers and governmental agencies in conducting investigations throughout the world. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations, security and vulnerability assessments. Interfor is, in particular, highly regarded for its investigation services in cases where assets have been fraudulently hidden offshore. Since its inception, Interfor’s asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients.

Before founding Interfor, Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/ Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s.

Consequently, for over 30 years, Aviv has worked with corporations and other entities, both domestically and internationally, on security measures for the protection of assets and personnel.

Aviv’s security experience is broad and includes high profile clients such as El Al Airlines. While working as a consultant with … (There is more FOX News 2003)

And here:

YARMOUTH, Maine--International security expert Juval Aviv will keynote Security Profiling for Survival, a conference dedicated to the use of behavior profiling and technology to protect people and assets.

Juval Aviv is currently president and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm. Before founding Interfor, Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in the late 1960s and 1970s. In 1984, a true account of one mission that he led was published in a book entitled Vengeance, by George Jonas. The book became a best seller and was later the basis for the HBO film, Sword of Gideon and Steven Spielberg's Munich.

A leading authority on terrorist networks and their inner workings, Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103-Lockerbie terrorist bombing. In addition, while working as a consultant with El Al Airlines, he conducted a survey and update of the airline's security program.

Aviv has been a speaker and panel participant for many organizations including the FBI, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee, the Internal Revenue Service, Smith Barney, Aon Insurance, INSOL and the American Bankers Association. In addition to his speaking engagements, he has also been a frequent contributor to articles and programs on U.S. preparedness relative to various forms of terrorism. He serves as a consultant on counterterrorism for the FOX News Channel and has been a frequent guest on ABC's "Nightline", CNN, CNN International, MSNBC, ESPN and The History Channel, and has been featured in numerous articles in major publications worldwide such as The Wall Street Journal Europe, The Financial Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Toronto Sun, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, and The Economist.

Aviv is the author Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, which outlines the essential tools for personally for the security and safety. He is also the author of … (There is more Security Director News 2008)

These sources from both FOX News and Security Director News simply do not match up with The Guardian assessment of Juval Aviv. I mean many of the American MSM organizations that have used Aviv as an expert are quite Leftist as well; yet Aviv was consulted by them. For me that is mud on the face of The Guardian and Snopes.com.

You can Juval Aviv interviews on YouTube on a couple of local news networks in cities such as New York City:





Well I think I have established the credibility of Juval Aviv. With that in mind, read the post on the Obama Watch Central group from TCU. If there is anything outdated, don’t sweat it. The point is Islamic terrorist are more than capable to attack in the fashion outlined.

JRH 6/16/09

Political Islam is Dangerous to the West

David Bukay has an article in the Summer 2009 edition of the Middle East Quarterly.

Bukay takes an intellectual stroll with the end game being Islam is totally incompatible with Western Society. Then Bukay turns up the burner by demonstrating that Islam is in no way compatible with the Western concept of Democracy.

Bukay even pits the differences between Islam (so-called moderate) and Islamism. Bukay points out that Islam is becoming the uniting force at least among Middle Eastern Muslims to the extent that the very old concept of Pan-Arabism is nearly a dead ideology.

Muslims are finding there heroes among the Islamists that promote an international Caliphate for Islam. The Caliphate ideal is a concept that stretches beyond the Arab Middle East. Thus Islamism is gaining footholds in place like Turkey founded after the ashes of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. Ataturk purposely founded a Turkish secular government abolish the vestiges of the Caliphate that existed in the defunct Ottoman Empire.

The largest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia. The pan-Islam ideology is awakening Indonesians who Asian rather than Arab to bump against the secular regime in Indonesia.

Bukay further notes that nations where old fashioned despots are the leadership predominantly only do so because the military backs the despot. He sites Saudi Arabia and Egypt to name a few which would have succumb to Islamism long ago if it were not for the power of military might.

Something you should think about after reading Bukay’s analysis. It has been said that the percentage of Islamists in the world represents 10% of global Islam. Let’s say that as of 2009 there are 2.4 BILLION Muslims globally. Ten percent would be 240 MILLION Islamists world wide.

Now that 240 MILLION is a huge chunk of people. Now imagine this: according to my interpretation of Dr. Bukay’s article; that would mean there 2.16 BILLION Muslims who predominantly look up to the agenda to activist Islamists.

Please read “Is the Military Bulwark against Islamism Collapsing?”

JRH 6/15/09

Transcript of Netanyahu's Speech

Prime Minister Netanyahu gave an important speech yesterday. Many look upon this speech as the Israeli response to President Barack Hussein Obama’s Cairo Speech. Thanks to a link from Atlas Shrugs I am reposting the entirety of the Prime Minister’s on For Zion’s Sake blog.

According to Pamela Geller the Netanyahu speech was a smart eloquent response to the Cairo Speech.

Read the speech and tell me what you think.

JRH 6/15/09
*************************

Transcript of Netanyahu's Speech

For Zion’s Sake
Sunday, June 14, 2009

Below is the full transcript of Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech
at the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, courtesy of the Prime Minister's Office:

Honored guests, citizens of Israel.

Peace has always been our people’s most ardent desire. Our prophets gave the world the vision of peace, we greet one another with wishes of peace, and our prayers conclude with the word peace.

We are gathered this evening in an institution named for two pioneers of peace, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and we share in their vision.

Two and half months ago, I took the oath of office as the Prime Minister of Israel. I pledged to establish a national unity government – and I did. I believed and I still believe that unity was essential for us now more than ever as we face three immense challenges – the Iranian threat, the economic crisis, and the advancement of peace.

The Iranian threat looms large before us, as was further demonstrated yesterday. The greatest danger confronting Israel, the Middle East, the entire world and human race, is the nexus between radical Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this issue with President Obama during my recent visit to Washington, and I will raise it again in my meetings next week with European leaders. For years, I have been working tirelessly to forge an international alliance to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Confronting a global economic crisis, the government acted swiftly to stabilize Israel’s economy. We passed a two year budget in the government – and the Knesset will soon approve it.

And the third challenge, so exceedingly important, is the advancement of peace. I also spoke about this with President Obama, and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.

I share the President’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region. To this end, I met with President Mubarak in Egypt, and King Abdullah in Jordan, to elicit the support of these leaders in expanding the circle of peace in our region.

I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time. I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem.

I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe.

The economic success of the Gulf States has impressed us all and it has impressed me. I call on the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here and to assist the Palestinians – and us – in spurring the economy.

Together, we can develop industrial areas that will generate thousands of jobs and create tourist sites that will attract millions of visitors eager to walk in the footsteps of history – in Nazareth and in Bethlehem, around the walls of Jericho and the walls of Jerusalem, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee and the baptismal site of the Jordan.

There is an enormous potential for archeological tourism, if we can only learn to cooperate and to develop it.

I turn to you, our Palestinian neighbors, led by the Palestinian Authority, and I say: Let’s begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.

Israel is obligated by its international commitments and expects all parties to keep their commitments.

We want to live with you in peace, as good neighbors. We want our children and your children to never again experience war: that parents, brothers and sisters will never again know the agony of losing loved ones in battle; that our children will be able to dream of a better future and realize that dream; and that together we will invest our energies in plowshares and pruning hooks, not swords and spears.

I know the face of war. I have experienced battle. I lost close friends, I lost a brother. I have seen the pain of bereaved families. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war.

If we join hands and work together for peace, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples – in the economy, agriculture, trade, tourism and education - most importantly, in providing our youth a better world in which to live, a life full of tranquility, creativity, opportunity and hope.

If the advantages of peace are so evident, we must ask ourselves why peace remains so remote, even as our hand remains outstretched to peace? Why has this conflict continued for more than sixty years?

In order to bring an end to the conflict, we must give an honest and forthright answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict?

In his speech to the first Zionist Conference in Basel, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Herzl, said about the Jewish national home “This idea is so big that we must speak of it only in the simplest terms.” Today, I will speak about the immense challenge of peace in the simplest words possible.

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution. The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel’s independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the six-day war, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the fifty years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties have brought about an end to their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict. But to our regret, this is not the case with the Palestinians. The closer we get to an agreement with them, the further they retreat and raise demands that are inconsistent with a true desire to end the conflict.

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well, we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror, by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles.

We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In 2000 and again last year, Israel proposed an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict, and twice our offers were rejected.

We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip, we uprooted tens of settlements and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes, and in response, we received a hail of missiles on our cities, towns and children.

The claim that territorial withdrawals will bring peace with the Palestinians, or at least advance peace, has up till now not stood the test of reality.

In addition to this, Hamas in the south, like Hezbollah in the north, repeatedly proclaims their commitment to “liberate” the Israeli cities of Ashkelon, Beersheba, Acre and Haifa.

Territorial withdrawals have not lessened the hatred, and to our regret, Palestinian moderates are not yet ready to say the simple words: Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and it will stay that way.

Achieving peace will require courage and candor from both sides, and not only from the Israeli side.

The Palestinian leadership must arise and say: “Enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in this land, and we are prepared to live beside you in true peace.”

I am yearning for that moment, for when Palestinian leaders say those words to our people and to their people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems between our peoples, no matter how complex they may be.

Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.

To vest this declaration with practical meaning, there must also be a clear understanding that the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel’s borders. For it is clear that any demand for resettling Palestinian refugees within Israel undermines Israel’s continued existence as the state of the Jewish people.

The Palestinian refugee problem must be solved, and it can be solved, as we ourselves proved in a similar situation. Tiny Israel successfully absorbed tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who left their homes and belongings in Arab countries.

Therefore, justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders. On this point, there is a broad national consensus. I believe that with goodwill and international investment, this humanitarian problem can be permanently resolved.

So far I have spoken about the need for Palestinians to recognize our rights. In am moment, I will speak openly about our need to recognize their rights.

But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.

The right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust - a suffering which has no parallel in human history.

There are those who say that if the Holocaust had not occurred, the state of Israel would never have been established. But I say that if the state of Israel would have been established earlier, the Holocaust would not have occured.

This tragic history of powerlessness explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense.

But our right to build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people, this is where our identity was forged.

As Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion proclaimed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “The Jewish people arose in the land of Israel and it was here that its spiritual, religious and political character was shaped. Here they attained their sovereignty, and here they bequeathed to the world their national and cultural treasures, and the most eternal of books.”

But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us.

I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society. These are the principles that guide our policy.

This policy must take into account the international situation that has recently developed. We must recognize this reality and at the same time stand firmly on those principles essential for Israel.

I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel.

Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza.

We don’t want Kassam rockets on Petach Tikva, Grad rockets on Tel Aviv, or missiles on Ben-Gurion airport. We want peace.

In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel.

It is impossible to expect us to agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without assurances that this state will be demilitarized.

On a matter so critical to the existence of Israel, we must first have our security needs addressed.

Therefore, today we ask our friends in the international community, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: Clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, and with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory – real monitoring, and not what occurs in Gaza today. And obviously, the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.


Without this, sooner or later, these territories will become another Hamastan. And that we cannot accept.

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem.
And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

Regarding the remaining important issues that will be discussed as part of the final settlement, my positions are known: Israel needs defensible borders, and Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel with continued religious freedom for all faiths.

The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public.

Unity among us is essential and will help us achieve reconciliation with our neighbors. That reconciliation must already begin by altering existing realities. I believe that a strong Palestinian economy will strengthen peace.


If the Palestinians turn toward peace – in fighting terror, in strengthening governance and the rule of law, in educating their children for peace and in stopping incitement against Israel - we will do our part in making every effort to facilitate freedom of movement and access, and to enable them to develop their economy. All of this will help us advance a peace treaty between us.

Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction.

Hamas will not even allow the Red Cross to visit our kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who has spent three years in captivity, cut off from his parents, his family and his people. We are committed to bringing him home, healthy and safe.

With a Palestinian leadership committed to peace, with the active participation of the Arab world, and the support of the United States and the international community, there is no reason why we cannot achieve a breakthrough to peace.

Our people have already proven that we can do the impossible. Over the past 61 years, while constantly defending our existence, we have performed wonders.
Our microchips are powering the world’s computers. Our medicines are treating diseases once considered incurable. Our drip irrigation is bringing arid lands back to life across the globe. And Israeli scientists are expanding the boundaries of human knowledge.

If only our neighbors would respond to our call – peace too will be in our reach.

I call on the leaders of the Arab world and on the Palestinian leadership, let us continue together on the path of Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let us realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah, who in Jerusalem 2700 years ago said: “nations shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall learn war no more.”

With God’s help, we will know no more war. We will know peace.