December 29, 2010

Difficult to read news item. Is it upside down?

By Jerome S. Kaufman

I have long heard of the "new math" confusing the kids. Maybe this is the "new reading" confusing me?

EIton John a Daddy

Palm Beach Post wire services, December 29, 2010

Sir Elton John is holding close a new tiny dancer. The piano man, 62, and husband (?), David Furnish, 48, have become parents to a 7 pound, 15-ounce boy born on Christmas Day, The news was first reported Monday night by and confirmed to The Associated Press by John's Los Angeles-based publicist Zachary Jackson.

Levon Furnish-John (another point of confusion - should it not be John-Furnish with the mother's name being first in the hyphenated nomencleture?) was born in California via a surrogate, whose identity is being protected by the new parents.

Zachary is John's first child with Furnish. They married in 2005. In a joint statement , they told "Zachary is healthy and doing well" and they are "overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this special moment."

Oh well. I have never been very good reading Hebrew right to left either so maybe this upside down reading is some sort of problem associated with my own dyslexia?

Happy New Year.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:17 PM | Comments (0)

December 26, 2010

Britain Exports Exploding Islamic Terrorists

Britain’s Exploding Exports

(While reading this, you might ask, how does this differ from our own academia and its domestic crop? Why just blame the Brits?) jsk

Weekly Standard, DEC 27, 2010

Where suicide bombers go for higher education.

If you wanted an example of a well-integrated European Muslim, you couldn’t have done better than the pre-2001 version of Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly. In Sweden in those years the Iraqi-born Abdaly played sports, went clubbing, worked as a DJ, and even had an Israeli girlfriend. But that was then; on December 11, the 28-year-old launched a suicide bomb attack in the center of Stockholm, Sweden, killing himself and injuring two others. So, what happened to Abdaly during the last decade? Unfortunately, what turned a regular Muslim adolescent into a fanatical jihadist is plain for everyone to see—it is the British educational system.

Abdaly moved to the U.K. in 2001 to study at the University of Bedfordshire in Luton, near London. A friend of Abdaly’s told London’s Daily Telegraph that once he started studying there, “everything changed . . . he had grown a beard and he was very serious. He talked about Afghanistan and religion. . . . Someone had taken advantage of him and had brainwashed him.” And so Abdaly becomes another name on the growing list of those who have passed through British schools and gone on to commit Islamist terrorist attacks. If the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the war on terror is being lost in the labs and lounges of our universities.

A report I co-authored with Hannah Stuart and Houriya Ahmed for the Centre for Social Cohesion earlier this year showed that of all Islamism-inspired terrorists convicted in British courts or responsible for suicide bombings in the U.K. between 1999 and 2009, at least 31 percent attended a British university. Among the more famous, Omar Sheikh attended the prestigious London School of Economics before he masterminded the 2002 kidnapping and beheading of Daniel Pearl. And then there’s Omar Sharif, who went to King’s College London before his 2003 suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv pub called Mike’s Place that killed 3 and wounded 50.

Furthermore, as we noted in our study, five terrorists have been senior members of a university Islamic society (ISOC). These include Waheed Zaman, part of the al Qaeda cell that aimed to set off homemade liquid bombs on transatlantic flights in 2006, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate a bomb concealed in his underpants on a flight to Detroit last Christmas Day.

It was the Abdulmutallab case that opened a window onto British academia’s culture of denial. As president of the University College London (UCL) Islamic society, Abdulmutallab was known to have organized extremist events and exhibits, one of which juxtaposed images of mujahedeen fighters against the collapse of the World Trade Center. One student who attended said that he was shocked. “It seemed to me like it was brainwashing,” he told the press, “like they were trying to indoctrinate people.”

How could Abdulmutallab’s views have escaped the school’s attention? Under pressure from the media, UCL established an internal inquiry. Not surprisingly, the investigation concluded that UCL was in no way culpable for failing to notice either Abdulmutallab’s radical beliefs or the attempts of his ISOC to influence students.

Sometimes even when the school is paying attention it seems not to matter. Consider the case of Mohammed Atif Siddique, a student that Glasgow Metropolitan College staff saw accessing terrorist websites on several occasions. According to British court documents, school officials were “reluctant to do anything for fear of some accusation of racist conduct.” In 2007, Siddique was charged with terrorism-related offenses, like providing instruction or training for the purpose of assisting, preparing for, or participating in terrorism; and distributing or circulating a terrorist publication.

Of course, the reluctance, or inability, to describe things as they truly are is the price paid for political correctness. No one would hesitate to condemn a campus culture in which students were inspired by neo-Nazis to carry out terrorist acts in the name of white supremacy. And yet the liberals and leftists who typically fill faculty and administrative positions would never dream of holding the Muslim community to the same standards. Instead, they are much more likely to invent a convenient narrative, one in which, for example, Muslim threats of violence and terrorism are really just responses—and quite understandable ones at that—to Western war-mongering.

In this view, suicide bombing is a legitimate defense of Muslim lands against the neo-imperialism of the West. The Islamists loudly denouncing British, as well as American, foreign policy, insulting our soldiers, and glorifying terrorism are just exercising their rights to freedom of speech. And by hosting clerics like Murtaza Khan, universities are admirably defending these rights—even as Khan advocates stoning women for adultery, preaches that Jews and Christians are the “enemies” of Muslims, and claims that it was the West, rather than al Qaeda, that slaughtered nearly 3,000 people on 9/11.

In the end, it is the moral bankruptcy of our academic intelligentsia that has allowed and now empowered radical clerics like Khan to operate on British campuses. At some point in the near future, another young Muslim educated in the U.K. will take what this cleric and many others say to heart. This student will try to murder as many people as possible because he thinks his religion demands it and the West deserves it. And university authorities will once again look the other way. Perhaps at some point British society will put its foot down, and complain that it’s sick of our tax money funding factories that turn young Muslims into terrorists. But in the meantime, we Brits can no longer feign surprise that our universities are churning out al Qaeda’s foot soldiers.

Robin Simcox is a research fellow at the Centre for Social Cohesion in London.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 05:36 AM | Comments (0)

December 25, 2010

George Soros - "An American Hater"


Exposing the real power behind the radical transformation of America

To conservatives, he's the evil emperor in "Star Wars" – the Empire's shadowy and malevolent puppet-master, the real power behind the widespread subversion and destruction of freedom, prosperity and hope.
But to hundreds of organizations on the political and moral left, he is literally their lifeblood, a revered leader, a godfather – almost a god, who provides good things for his children. Now, in a stunning exposé, the December issue of Whistleblower shines a thousand-watt spotlight on the "dark lord" of the left – billionaire investor George Soros.

"GEORGE SOROS AND HIS EVIL EMPIRE" illuminates the heart and soul of this mysterious leftwing transformer of societies. It reveals how he creates and financially sustains scores of influential and shockingly anti-American organizations – all dedicated to converting America into a European-style, government-controlled, socialist state.

"Soros, like Obama, is wired very differently than most of us," says WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. "He rejects and reviles most things decent Americans regard as good and sacred, and he tends to favor everything rotten: He wants to legalize drugs. He supports euthanasia. He's for socialism and opposes free-market capitalism. He’s for devaluing America's currency, telling the Financial Times last year 'an orderly decline of the dollar is actually desirable.' He supports the destruction of American sovereignty in favor of global governance. He detests conservative talk radio, Fox News and WorldNetDaily, and funds organizations that constantly attack the only free press America currently has."

In short, says Kupelian, "if it's immoral, subversive or harmful to America, Soros favors it, organizes it and funds it. If it's noble and freedom-producing, like free markets and small government, he despises it and creates organizations to undermine and ultimately destroy it. This issue of Whistleblower shines intense daylight on all of this."

Highlights of "GEORGE SOROS AND HIS EVIL EMPIRE" include:

"George Soros bets against America" by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., on how Soros attacks capitalism and makes billions on a global recession

"The emperor" by David Kupelian, describing the kind of person that can profit personally at the expense of entire nations

"The most dangerous man in the world?" by Joseph Farah, who ranks Soros above Obama and other likely "candidates"

"Soros: This is 'when my character was made'" by Art Moore, who takes readers back to the Jewish billionaire investor's chilling Nazi-occupation drama during his teen years

"MAN OF 1,000 FACES: Organizations directly funded by Soros and his Open Society Institute" – a comprehensive list and description of over 150 groups, each more subversive than the last, all financed by Soros

"How the leftwing money machine works" by Art Moore, on how the secretive Tides network "launders" donations to radical causes

"Rush Limbaugh: Soros is promoting widespread voter fraud"

"Progressives won midterms, claims Soros-funded group," which now calls on Obama to govern via executive order and ignore Congress to push his radical agenda, by Aaron Klein

"Soros' scheme for 'elite' judiciary" by Bob Unruh, on Soros' "highly coordinated, well-funded" campaign to "exclude conservative, rule-of-law judges"

"Documentary embraces leftwing terrorists" by Matthew Vadum, revealing Soros' heavy involvement in underwriting and screening subversive, anti-American films

"Group wants feds to probe talk radio" by Aaron Klein, on rising leftwing complaints cable-news networks are engaged in "hate speech"

"All the news that fits Soros's agenda" by Ed Lasky, on how three leftist billionaires conspire to control the future of journalism

"Soros, healthcare rationing and the 'Death Project'" by Jerome R. Corsi, on why Soros is such a big supporter of medical rationing

"The problem of the radical non-Jewish Jew" by Dennis Prager, on why George Soros works so hard to undermine his own people

"Soros," says WND founder and Editor Joseph Farah, "is an America hater. There's no other way to put it. He recently said only America stands in the way of globalist progress and he's going to do everything in his power to bring America to its knees." Farah adds: "Most of all, I am outraged by Soros' attempt to buy elections."

"Make no mistake," concludes Kupelian. "George Soros' goal is nothing less than to overthrow the United States of America and its Constitution. Fortunately, armed with the kind of information and insight in this issue of Whistleblower, there's real hope we can engage and defeat the forces of the atheistic left which, for some strange and ungodly reason, always seem to be offended by everything good."

Readers may order the December issue or an annual Whistleblower subscription.
If you wish to order by phone, call toll-free order line at (1-800-496-3266).

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:20 PM | Comments (0)

December 23, 2010

Kissinger - Prime Example of a Jew in Power, Anathema to the State of Israel

Kissinger's 1973 remarks on Soviet Jewry, draw swift criticism

The Jewish Press

December 17, 2010 From Combined Sources

According to newly released tapes, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told President Richard Nixon in March 1973, "The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."
Nixon responded, "I know. We can't blow up the world because of it."

Kissinger's remarks come after a meeting he and Nixon had with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in which Meir pleaded for the United States to put pressure on the Soviet Union to release its Jews.

Six months later, during the Yom Kippur War, Nixon rejected Kissinger's advice to delay an arms airlift to Israel as a means of setting the stage for an Egypt confident enough to pursue peace. Nixon, among other reasons, cited Israel's urgent need.

Nixon secretly recorded his White House conversations. After this was revealed during congressional investigations, the tapes became government property and have been released over the years in intervals.

The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants called for an apology from Kissinger, who is still consulted by Democratic and Republican administrations and by Congress on matters of state. "Henry Kissinger's comments are morally grotesque and represent a disgraceful perversion of American values," said a statement released by the organization. "He owes an apology to all victims of the Nazi Holocaust."

Elsewhere on the batch of tapes recently released by the Nixon Library, the late president repeats many of the ethnic and racial slurs that had appeared on earlier such releases: Irish are "mean" drunks, he says; Italians "don't have their heads screwed on tight"; Jews are "aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious"; and it would take blacks "500 years" to catch up with whites.

The American Jewish Committee said the revealed conversations displayed a shocking level of bigotry in the Nixon White House. "The Nixon Oval Office was clearly a place where bigotry and prejudice were normalized," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "It is deeply saddening to observe that the person elected to our nation's highest office employed such crude, vicious stereotypes in referring to a range of groups.

"That a German Jew [Kissinger] who fled the Nazis could speak of a genocidal outcome in such callous tones is truly chilling. Perhaps Kissinger felt that, as a Jew, he had to go the extra mile to prove to the president that there was no question as to where his loyalties lay . It's hard to find the right words to express the degree of our shock and revulsion at Kissinger's remarks."


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)

December 21, 2010

Oh my Gosh - Something nice actually happened to Israel and the Jews!


The Jewish Press, December 10, 2010

A few dozen members of Amish Christian communities in the US and Switzerland visited Israel last week to apologize to the Jewish people. The Ministry of Tourism announced that Bishop Ben Girod of the Amish community in Idaho, led the delegation in submitting an official apology for having rejected Israel and the Jews. The Amish are famous for shunning modem technology, yet they waived this restriction by boarding cars and an airplane in order to travel to Israel.

A declaration of apology and commitment, beautifully painted on parchment, was presented to Rabbi Rabinovitch on behalf of the entire Amish community. In the declaration, the Amish ask Israel's forgiveness "for our collective sin of pride and selfishness by ignoring the plight of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel." The document states that the Amish will, from now on, speak out strongly in support of the Jews and the Jewish State.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:37 PM | Comments (0)

December 20, 2010

START Gives Russia Tactical Edge, Help STOP It

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The Democratic Congress is trying to pull a fast one.

They are using their lame-duck majority — explicitly rejected by the voters of America — to compromise our national security by ratifying the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The treaty limits the U.S. missile defenses and the preamble suggests that we would not engage in any new military technologies to thwart nuclear weapons. It also says we cannot convert any of our rockets into interceptors and it locks in about a 10,000-unit tactical nuclear warhead edge for the Russians. It reduces strategic warheads — where there is now rough parity — but not tactical ones where Russia has a huge advantage.

Why should we be rewarding Russia by relieving them of the expense of building new missiles and defense systems? Had Reagan followed this line of liberal thinking, the Cold War would never have been won. Remember that Russia's economy is less than one-tenth the size of ours. So the best way to reduce their power is to make them divert spending into the military. That is the best way to accomplish our basic goal: to bring down a Russia increasingly focused on domination and replace it with a democratic nation that lives at peace with the world.

So, please hit the phones and let your senator know how you feel about New START. The vote on the treaty will take place soon.

Please call your senator in Washington today at 202-224-3121.

I understand several Republican and Democratic senators are still on the fence. If you live in any of these senators' states, it is particularly important to call them: 
Snowe — Maine
Collins — Maine
Brown — Mass.
McCain — Ariz.
Corker — Tenn.
Alexander — Tenn.
Isakson — Georgia
Voinovich — Ohio
Webb — Virginia
Ben Nelson — Neb.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2010

Thank Goodness! My Favorite Emetic, Larry King, Retires

The unbearable lightness of Larry King

By Jason Maoz
(Plus comment by jsk)

Jewish World Review Dec. 16, 2010 / 9 Teves, 5771

As the iconic gabber hangs up his suspenders tonight, a look back at one of his most revealing interviews --- one he almost certainly wishes never was. Or at least should: |

Larry King hosts his last edition of "Larry King Live" on CNN tonight, and we can only say Good Riddance. King built a reputation and made a fortune as the master of the soft toss interview, which was fine for doing Frank Sinatra retrospectives but made for cringe-inducing television whenever the subject at hand required a tad more seriousness.

Back in 2000, King perfectly described the airy, passionless approach he brought to his job to Tucker Carlson, a young colleague at CNN who would go on to co-host the network's "Crossfire" program. "Let me tell you something about this business," King told Carlson. "The trick is to care, but not too much. Give a [expletive] - but not really."

One of the Monitor's favorite examples of King's unparalleled insipidness is the following exchange he had in January 2002 with the famously iconoclastic comedian Bill Maher. No doubt surprisingly for those unacquainted with his views on the Middle East, Maher, whose politics generally lean left, made a case for Israel rarely heard in the mainstream media. Larry King, alas, was Larry King: a genial simpleton asking the most pedestrian questions and then abruptly - inanely - changing subjects the moment it became obvious his store of knowledge had been depleted.

King: What do you think of the Israeli situation, the Palestinian .
Maher: This again, you know, I'm like the only guy on TV who defends Israel. The media is so biased.
King: You think they're anti-Israel?
Maher: Of course they are. They don't - because they don't understand what happened in that area of the world throughout the last century. They're "occupied." That's a term that's just used on all newscasts. That territory is not occupied, OK? The term "occupied" refers to a country that used to be a country. There was no Palestinian Arab country, ever.

King: There was a Palestine, though.
Maher: Palestine. Do you know that at the 1939 World's Fair, there was a Palestinian exhibit? It was Jewish. It was a Zionist exhibit. The term Palestinian only refers to people who live in that part of the world. They are both Arab and Jew....

King: They are cousins, too.
Maher: They are cousins.... But when that land was partitioned in 1947 and the UN said, OK, fellows, you are going to have to share it. The Jews said OK, and the Arabs said, "No, we'd rather try to wipe you out." And right now, we live in a situation where the Jews could wipe out the Arabs in two seconds if they wanted. They have the means.... Do you think if the Arabs, you think if they had the atom bomb, that the state of Israel would last? How long would it last?

King: But America should try to broker something here, right?
Maher: They should. And it's not that Israel is blameless. They shouldn't be building settlements and lots of stuff. But basically, that situation is not presented in the American media.

King: Why do you think the media would be anti-Israel?
Maher: They're not anti-Israel, they just don't know what happened there. And it's a lot easier to take the side of the underdog. You know? I saw a report on the news just the other day, a Palestinian girl who said, you know, "I can't get through the checkpoint, and I only have my books, and the Israeli soldiers are so mean." Well, yeah, but that's because a lot of your brothers are blowing up their pizza parlors.

King: So you think - because for a long time, Israel and the media in the United States had a relationship like they were intertwined. Palestinians had almost no voice in American media in the '60s and '70s.
Maher: Well...
King: It changed.

Maher: It changed. It changed. And what I think people forget is that it is also the only democracy.... It's a democracy, Israel, it's the only one in that part of the world, by the way. And we've never sent a soldier to defend Israel. We've sent our troops and our planes and our bombs to defend Muslims in Bosnia and in Somalia, and we certainly freed a country called Afghanistan recently.

King: Couple of other quick things. Where is Al Gore, do you think?

To my mind, even the above could not match the insipid ass's obsequious interview of Yasser Arafat. Talk about soft ball interviews ... King addressed Arafat as a conquering hero, giving him all the deference of a Queen Elizabeth.

And ... from that point forward, King became my favorite emetic. I would turn his show on just before bedtime whenever I felt the need to unload whatever disagreeable food I had had for dinner. I imagine many of his ex-wives availed themselves of a similar technique.

Have a good week,

Jerome S. Kaufman

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:23 PM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2010

The START Treaty Must Be Opposed

NewsMax Editorial, December 16, 2010

Within days, maybe hours, the U.S. Senate will vote on ratifying the New START treaty. If approved, it will be a dangerous and capricious move that will undermine our security for years to come.

Some Senate Republicans appear ready to cave in to the strong-arm tactics the Obama administration and Sen. Harry Reid are using in their effort to ram through a lame-duck Congress one of the most sweeping nuclear treaties the United States has ever signed, a treaty that has many problems that could jeopardize America's national security.

Make no mistake about it: Limiting nuclear weapons on all sides is a worthy call. As President Ronald Reagan said, "A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." But Reagan also understood that treaties with the Russians must be made deliberatively, be fair to both sides, be verifiable, and be linked to good behavior on the Russians’ part. None of these attributes would be complied with fully if the United States signed New START today.

Indeed, many who played central roles in Reagan’s arms-control strategy that led to the end of the Cold War are warning that it would be a major mistake to sign and ratify New START. Among those with sterling conservative credentials urging Senate Republicans to oppose the unprecedented move to pass a major international treaty during a lame-duck session of Congress: former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former national security adviser William P. Clark, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense and Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, and many more.

“We already know there is galactic disagreement between what Russia and the Obama administration say the treaty portends for missile defense,” columnist Andrew C. McCarthy writes on So why the rush to ratify an agreement the meaning of which the principals already disagree on? Especially when the treaty depends on the good faith of one Vladimir Putin, who ordered Soviet tanks to roll into Georgia as recently as 18 months ago in a reckless military adventure that cost hundreds of civilian lives.

In striking a deal that Russian leaders are delighted with, President Barack Obama conveniently overlooks the fact that his “strategic partner,” Vladimir Putin, is no Mikhail Gorbachev — tragically, far from it. In fact, Putin has waved a big cudgel to get the Senate to go along with the treaty: If they don’t approve it, he threatens a new arms race and a buildup in Russian forces. And that’s the negotiating partner that the administration, desperate to counter the nuclear ambitions of Iran, has determined to be trustworthy.

When Republicans noted that the preamble of the treaty appears to hand the Russians the long-sought weapon they need to eviscerate the U.S. edge in development of a missile shield to guard against rogue nuclear attacks from Iran or elsewhere, the administration downplayed the significance of treaty language.
As Obama might say: Words matter!

When Senate Republicans offered an amendment to clarify the preamble to ensure the United States can develop missile defenses, Democrats blocked it.
A greater concern, however, is the Russian negotiators’ insistence that President Obama did in fact negotiate a de facto prohibition on further U.S. development of its missile defenses.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that the missile defense strictures are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and “legally binding.”
Understandably concerned over how such a drastic schism already could exist in the treaty’s interpretation, Republicans asked the administration to release the extensive diplomatic record of the negotiations. The administration has stonewalled that request — but insists it has nothing to hide.

Missouri’s Sen. Kit Bond, who has seen some of the documentation, is urging fellow senators to vote against the measure because he says it is virtually unverifiable. Perhaps the most serious and immediate flaw is that the treaty ignores the vast imbalance between U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear forces.
By some estimates, Russia maintains 10,000 or more of these smaller tactical nuclear warheads, which can be delivered via artillery shells, cruise missile, short-range tactical missiles, and aircraft.

The post-Cold War U.S. inventory is in the hundreds by some estimates.
Yet the treaty, which would freeze missile launchers at 1,550 for each side, willfully ignores the massive Russian advantage in tactical weapons. Despite these flaws, a host of Republican senators appear to be lining up to support a treaty that is being pushed through the Senate without proper deliberation, during a lame-duck Congress, no less.

Key senators said to favor New Start include Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John McCain of Arizona, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Anyone who wonders why there is such a headlong rush to ratify a treaty that raises grave national-security issues should contact them and demand an answer.
Other shortcomings the treaty raises include:

• Like any treaty, New START is only as solid as the inspection regime that backs it up. Critics say the verification measures in the treaty are far weaker than previous arms reduction deals.
• Russia already is widely believed to be in violation of other international accords. It failed to abide by international agreements to withdraw all of its forces from South Ossetia following the war in Georgia, and the Strategic Posture Commission has declared that Russia “is no longer in compliance” with agreements to limit deployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
• Russia has been loath to cooperate with international sanctions against Iran and has provided anti-aircraft missiles to Venezuela, a close ally of Iran.
• Also, Russia continues to engage in Soviet-style espionage against the United States. The latest example was the discovery of a massive Russian “sleeper cell” network in the United States.
• Washington Times columnist Bill Gertz recently revealed that a State Department memo extensively documents secret talks between the Russians and the administration on missile defense — despite assurances that no such deal was being discussed. McCarthy writes: “Obama not only is philosophically opposed to robust missile defense, but has actually reneged on missile-defense commitments the nation made to Poland and the Czech Republic.”
• Because the new treaty would limit launchers, it encourages the Cold War-era practice of MIRVing, that is, placing multiple warheads on a single missile. The SS-18 of that period was called a “city-buster” because each launcher contained 10 missiles that could be independently targeted to rain death on U.S. cities.
• The treaty does not constrain the quality of offensive missiles. Russia is embarking on an extensive modernization program. The administration has promised to do the same for U.S. missiles, but so far the funds have not been requested.

The greatest reason to suspect the true motivations behind the treaty is the inexplicable, headlong rush to ratify it. Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton points out that, because the administration was unable to meet its Dec. 5 deadline to implement a new inspection regime for ongoing verification, there is no way to know what the Russian military may be doing to make verification more difficult. A simple bridging agreement on verification would be adequate to maintain the current level of security until New START could receive a more thorough review by the new, incoming Congress, he writes.

The Cold War has ended, but Russia continues to maintain a state-of-the-art strategic and tactical nuclear force. This fact, coupled with the questionable fate of democracy in Russia and moves toward authoritarianism there, should give the U.S. Senate pause about signing such a far reaching arms treaty.

Newsmax strongly urges the Senate to table New START for consideration before the new Congress that sits next month. Then, ample time should be given to examine the treaty and appropriate changes made to insure it complies with the Reagan model for such treaties: fair, verifiable, reliable.
 4152 West Blue Heron Blvd., Ste. 1114 
Riviera Beach, FL 33404 USA 

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 04:13 AM | Comments (0)

December 16, 2010

Steve Emerson, Investigative Journalist - 2994 American Lives Later

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Steve Emerson spoke at Palm Beach Synagogue Monday night, December 13, 2010. Elaine F. Miller, prominent attorney and pro-Israel activist introduced Mr. Emerson:

“Mr. Emerson is recognized as a prophetic voice - one of leading authorities on Islamic Terrorism financing operations. He is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, one of the largest storehouses of archival data intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups. Emerson and his staff provide briefings to Congressional committees and law enforcement agencies, to print and electronic media nationally and internationally. Since 9/11 Emerson has testified and briefed the Congress dozens of times on terrorism financing and operational networks of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the world-wide Islamic militant spectrum. Emerson is the author or co-author of 6 books on terrorism and national security including Jihad Incorporated, American Jihad, Terrorists with PanAm 103, Secret Warriors and The American House of Saud."

Mr. Emerson briefly summarized his own introduction into the world of Islamic Terrorism. It began incidental to an assignment he was given by his employer, CNN, in Oklahoma City, way back in 1992. He stumbled upon a radical Islamic Conference of an organization called Maya, meeting at the Oklahoma City Convention Center. It was attended by thousands of people dressed in Islamic garb, robes, head scarves. Maya later became the precursor of the Islamic terror organization, Al Qaeda. Emerson learned that Maya had been staging an annual national conference in different American cities since 1971!

On the convention floor were booths with representatives from every Islamic terrorism group from around the world. They were distributing inflammatory pro-violent anti-American and anti-Israel literature and videos. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah were all represented and openly displayed their contact information right here in the United States - Tampa, Chicago, Culver City, Los Angeles, Muslim Brotherhood in San Diego. That evening a special meeting was on “Palestine” wherein they discussed killing Jews and Jihad against the US. Emerson immediately reported the event to the local police, who knew nothing about it but, proceeded to ignore Emerson’s prophetic warnings.

Emerson then brought to CNN his mountain of evidence exposing these groups and suggested they write a story and present a program on this organization. CNN refused saying it was too controversial! CNN did themselves check with the FBI who told them they had no material on such an organization!

Not much later the first bombing of the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 and was ignorantly categorized as an isolated criminal conspiracy with no suggestion of Islamic terrorism. This ignorance convinced Emerson to quit CNN, organize his own investigative group and be in position to do his own programming. His newly formed group soon determined that the Feb 26, 1993 bombing was not just a conspiracy by 17 people. It represented a much larger radical Islamic movement.

Over the years, scores of radical Islamic groups had penetrated the US using the undercover of being simply civil rights group - a ploy they still use. Emerson then presented his material to the Corp of Public Broadcasting who decided to give him seed money to go to Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West Bank of Israel and investigate the origins of these terror groups. He returned with all kinds of damning documentation of this terrorism and was able to produce his first video documentary, Jihad in America , aired by PBS in November, 1994.

(Below is the link to that video. It is still well worth seeing and unfortunately, the integration of Islamic Terrorism into the US continues unabated)

Link: >Jihad in America

And, by the way Mr. Emerson’s second video, “The Grand Deception: Jihad II should be ready for viewing February, 2011.

Because of Emerson’s work, many of the Islamic organizations in this country have had to change their names. An outstanding example is the major Hamas organization that became the benign sounding CAIR - Council of Arab Islamic Relations. Astoundingly. CAIR continues to be greeted by many of the departments of the US government. It is invited to the White House, to the Department of Justice and meets with law enforcement people as a legitimate American “civil rights” organization. It assumed its new name in 1994 and now has 34 chapters in the US - literally a perfect example of placing the fox in the chicken coop to mind the chickens.

Emerson went on to categorize the above ongoing state of affairs as the lesser of two great problems in addressing Islamic terrorism. The greater problem, to Emerson’s mind, is the insidious promotion and acceptance of Islamic fanaticism into American culture. The primary ploy is to appeal to the well indoctrinated culture of political correctness and laissez faire acceptance of individual differences into American culture. We have in addition, a widespread abandonment of religion with the adaption of secularism creating only a very gray line between good and bad, right and wrong and adopting irrational criteria to define moral equivalency.

Also recommended, by the current US administration, is the abandonment of pride in American exceptionalism and the great merits of American ingenuity and capitalism that have placed us in a position of leadership in the Western world.

A concerted attack continues to marginalize all these attributes inimitable to the tenets of radical Islam. Emerson has named this ploy, the Grand Deception wherein Islam infiltrates itself into all aspects of American culture - particularly the school system. the university campuses, the media, law enforcement and has now made great inroads into the political system itself. Any one opposing this infiltration is quickly accused of racism.

How bizarre and the ultimate hypocrisy to compare the barbarism against the individual and women particularly, in the Muslim world, that preaches the execution of those who convert to another religion, amputation of limbs. stoning of women and their killing by family members in so-called “honor killings”, etc - all barbarism that tolerates no opposition but is not judged racism by its followers.

Emerson repeatedly stated that the number one message preached to Islamists is that Christians and Jews are at war with Islam and want it destroyed. It is therefore the obligation of all Muslims to practice Jihad inexorably against the West until that world becomes a gigantic Caliphate under Muslim Sharia Law. Until this goal is reached, no Muslim is to rest.

That being their ultimate goal, what is the job of the rest of us - the intended victims? And ... when exactly do we wake up to the task at hand and stop beclouding the issue with self-destructive nonsense such as political correctness and the inane refusal to specifically identify the enemy by his proper name?

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:39 AM | Comments (0)

December 14, 2010

Jewish Ingratitude to Evangelicals

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

The Jewish Press, November 26, 2010

Every year Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews raises about $100 million dollars from mostly evangelical Christians in the United States for distribution to social welfare projects in Israel and the former Soviet Union. This is a staggering sum, making the fellowship arguably the largest foundation for Jews in need in the world.

One would think that we in the Jewish community would show immense gratitude to our Christian brothers and sisters for such love. I therefore found it extraordinary, not to mention embarrassing, to hear that there is a growing campaign among elements in the Israeli Rabbinate to discredit the organization and forbid Jewish organizations from benefiting from their funds.

The worst of all character traits in the Jewish religion is to be an ingrate. Denying the goodness that others perform on your behalf leads to a closing of the human heart.

No one wants to be taken for granted. So great is the emphasis on appreciation in our religion that our greatest prophet, Moses, is commanded by G-d not to strike the Nile River and turn it into blood in the first plague against the Egyptians because that same river had saved his life when he was a baby. Later, in plague number three, G-d will again warn Moses against smiting the dust of Egypt and turning it into lice because the dust had saved his life when he had to bury the body of a murderous Egyptian taskmaster.

Imagine that. A man who speaks to G-d face to face is told he must show thanks to water and dust. But such is the extent to which Jewish values demands gratitude.

 Over the past two decades evangelical Christians have emerged as Israel's most staunch and reliable friends. Pastors like John Hagee, my friend Pat Robertson and countless others have galvanized colossal Christian support for Israel.

Even in the worst bombings of the second Intifada, when tourism to Israel fell off a cliff, Christians still came in their millions. The same is true of stalwart Christian political support for Israel. While President Obama continues to bully Israel over apartments in Israel's undivided and eternal capital, Jerusalem, American Christians have a litmus test for their elected leaders. Don't support Israel? You're out.

 As I write these lines former President George W. Bush is enjoying a public renaissance in America with the publication of his new book, Decision Points. The President who was the best friend Israel ever had in the White House makes clear, at the beginning of his book, how he turned his life over to Jesus to be saved, and there can be no question that there is a direct link between his deep Christian faith and his love and unyielding support for Israel against those who, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seek its annihilation.

I am well aware of our immense differences with the Christian evangelical community. I would venture to say, with no intention at arrogance, that I have conducted more debates against leading Christian scholars and missionaries, like my friend Dr. Michael Brown, on the Messiahship of Jesus and the evangelical insistence that only Christians go to heaven, than any other American Rabbi over the past decade, most of which are available on YouTube. Jesus was a devout and observant Jew for every day of his life on earth. He ate kosher, honored the Sabbath, donned tefillin, insisted on the indivisible unity of G-d, and fought for the independence of the Jewish nation against brutal oppression of Rome, beliefs for which he was ultimately crucified.

It would behoove our Christian brothers and sisters to conclude that they have much more to learn about the authentic historical Jesus from Jews than any misguided attempts at converting them. Indeed, not only must these attempts be emphatically resisted by the Jewish community with overwhelming scholarship, but precisely the opposite is true. Christians must learn from the Jews to reject any deification of Jesus, which he, as a Pharisee, would have seen as the ultimate sacrilege and which is the subject of my upcoming book on the Jewish Jesus. They must follow Jesus as teacher and prophet rather than divinity.

Every human being is a child of G-d, and not just Jesus, as the Bible makes clear in Deuteronomy. 

But whatever our theological differences with our evangelical brothers, none of this negates the unparalleled kindness and friendship they show Jews and the Jewish community. To say they do this merely to convert us, or because gathering Jews to Israel will usher in the apocalypse, is to perpetrate a sacrilegious act of character assassination.

Christians support Israel out of deep love and brotherhood. And it's an act of defamation that even some Christian leaders are guilty of. I was disheartened, in a recent visit to a mega-church in North Carolina, to hear a renowned Christian scholar tell me that the only reason American evangelicals send money to Israel is because they mistakenly believe that the money is being used to proselytize Jews. Bollocks. I meet these evangelicals all the time. I have traveled with great men like Glen Megill of Rock of Africa on Christian relief missions to Zimbabwe, the poorest country on earth, and have listened as they have told me that their first commandment as Christians is to love and protect the Jewish people for no other reason other than G-d commanded it.

The man more responsible than anyone else for building this bridge between Christians and Jews is Rabbi Eckstein, a man whose efforts, with Christian support, feeds thousands of hungry Jewish children and Jewish elderly every day in Israel and abroad.

 Israel is a nation that dwells alone, with few friends and many prejudiced enemies. Rather than Rabbis and lay leaders attacking Christians as having nefarious motives for their charity, we should offer thanks and gratitude to hard-working Americans of faith who believe, as the Bible says, that through Israel all the earth is blessed.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach heads This World: The Values Network, which seeks to heal America through universal Jewish values. An international best-selling author of 24 books, his most recent work is "Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life." Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)

December 13, 2010

Recognition of a Palestinian State: Premature, Legally Invalid, and Undermines any Negotiations

Jerusalem Issue Brief Vol. 10, No. 13    9 December 2010

By Alan Baker

The acts of recognition of a Palestinian State in 1967 borders by Brazil, Argentina, and possibly other Latin American states have no significance other than as a political expression of opinion.

These acts of recognition run counter to statements by Brazil and Argentina in the United Nations Security Council in 1967 in favor of freely negotiated borders between the parties and an internationally sponsored peace negotiation process as set out in Resolution 242.

The unceasing efforts among states by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to attain recognition of unilateral  statehood within the 1967 borders and thereby bypass the accepted negotiation process, runs counter to their commitments in their agreements with Israel, as witnessed and guaranteed by members of the international community.

The hostile actions and statements of the Palestinian leadership lack bona fides and  prejudice any reasonable negotiating ambiance between parties that seek to establish peaceful relations between them, and are indicative of an utter lack of a genuine will to reach a peaceful settlement.

The reported declarations of formal recognition by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and possibly other  Latin American states of a free and independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders‰ raise  several significant issues, both political and legal, whether in the bilateral political relationship  between Israel and those states, and between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Recognition of a political entity as a state does not, in and of itself, create a state, as such  recognition  carries no definitive or substantive significance in the creation of statehood. At most, it is indicative of the political viewpoints of the recognizing states.

Establishment of statehood, on the other hand, requires a series of internationally accepted and customary criteria, as set out in the 1933
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of  States, relating to a capability of governance, permanent population, defined territory, and
capacity to enter into relations with other states. In fact, that convention specified specifically that the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.

But in the  Palestinian  context  these  criteria for statehood must be read in the context of the substantive, tailor-made requirements of the various United Nations resolutions dealing with the  settlement of the Middle-East issue, as well as the specific commitments by the Palestinians in  several still-valid agreements signed with Israel over the years.

This  factor  was  perhaps  amplified  following  a  Palestinian  attempt to declare statehood in  1988, when over 100 states gave their recognition. But clearly, this unilateral Palestinian attempt  to dictate a solution to the Israel-Palestinian issue outside  the  internationally  accepted  and sponsored  peace  negotiation  process established by the UN Security Council in Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) was never seen to be a serious factor in solving the issue.

Thus, any act of recognition of a Palestinian state, whether by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay or  anyone else, can have no validity whatsoever other than some sort of political expression. To the contrary ˆ such declarations of recognition run counter to the very resolutions to which those states are party, and to the agreements that they themselves have, over the years, endorsed and supported.

Interestingly, the present instance of the Brazilian declaration of recognition of a Palestinian state within „the 1967 borders‰ would appear to run counter to Brazil's own statement to the Security  Council during the course of its acceptance of and support for Resolution 242, in November 1967, when their representative declared:

Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an  agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has
necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon
and negotiated by the neighboring States. (S/PV.1382(OR), 22 November 1967).

In fact, a draft resolution submitted to the Emergency Session of the UN
General Assembly by eighteen Latin American states (including Brazil and
Argentina) on 30 June 1967 included a call to the parties to end the state of belligerency, to endeavor to establish conditions of coexistence  based on good neighborliness and to have recourse in all cases to the procedures for peaceful settlement indicated in the Charter of the United Nations. (A/L. 523/Rev.1 para 1(b)).

Thus, the vital and overriding principles advocated by Brazil, Argentina and
other states in 1967, endorsing boundaries being freely agreed upon, good
neighborliness, and peaceful settlement  procedures pursuant to the UN
Charter, would appear to have  been  overlooked  by  the  recent decision of the Brazilian and Argentine governments, at the behest of the Palestinian leaders, to favor unilateral Palestinian dictation of a boundary, without agreement, in violation of any notion  of good neighborliness and undermining the UN-sanctioned peaceful settlement procedures.

However, while Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay may well be undermining their
own declared principles, the Palestinian Authority leadership, in actively
lobbying for such recognition throughout the world as part of a declared and
concerted aim to achieve recognition by the United Nations of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, and acknowledgement of the 1967 lines as its border is in fact undermining the whole peace negotiation process and abusing the bona fides of the international community.

Legally speaking, the actions by Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas,
and his aide Sa'eb Erekat, in pushing to achieve this aim are in violation of the Israeli Palestinian  Interim  Agreement  of  1995, article  IX,  paragraph  5(a), according  to which:

The [Palestinian] Council will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or
permitting their  establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the
appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff, and the
exercise of diplomatic functions.

No less importantly, the Palestinian leadership is committed, in Article XXXI, para. 7, not to initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

Any activity by the Palestinian leadership, including lobbying foreign
governments for individual recognition and initiating resolutions in United
Nations organs to bring about  the unilateral establishment a state outside the negotiation process, is  a serious violation of their commitments vis-à-vis Israel. It is tantamount to bypassing the internationally accepted negotiating process, and undermining the very resolutions and agreements that serve as the  basis and foundation for the peace negotiation process.

Since the Palestinian commitments vis-à-vis Israel were witnessed and
guaranteed by central  elements of the international community, including the U.S., UN, EU, Russia, Egypt, and Jordan,  and endorsed by most other states, including Brazil and Argentina, then clearly the Palestinian lobbying activities must be condemned by those elements, and should not be encouraged by them.

This problem becomes even more complex on the background of the ongoing and concerted efforts by the Palestinian leadership to block any progress in the negotiating process through their misleading demand that Israel freeze all settlement  activity - a  demand that  has  no  basis  whatsoever  in  the  series  of agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

In addition to the above, it would appear that the Palestinian leadership
is, by its own hand, undermining and prejudicing any negotiating ambiance
or good faith between the two sides through a series of offensive actions
such as:

Hostile  statements by their chief negotiators, both vis-à-vis the internal Palestinian population and vis-à-vis the international community.

Open encouragement and initiation of legal proceedings in international as well as foreign national courts against Israeli leaders and officials, and other activities in foreign states aimed at undermining Israel's status

Attempts to utilize and abuse the international community to question the national and historical heritage of the Jewish people Daily official incitement in schools, universities, and in the Palestinian media

Clearly this activity, openly, officially, and even proudly sponsored and
supported by the  head  of  the  Palestinian  Authority,  Mahmoud  Abbas, and the head of the negotiation division of the  Authority Sa‚eb Erekat, in addition to its inherent and obvious bad taste, is utterly incompatible with any negotiating ambiance.

How, one might ask, can the Palestinian leadership expect to instill confidence in the Israeli  government  and  public  while  at  the  same time  engaging  in  a policy  of maligning Israel and its leaders, seeking to delegitimize Israel, and undermining the agreed-upon negotiating process which is aimed at achieving peace between the two peoples?

Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is former Legal Adviser to Israel's
Foreign Ministry and former Ambassador of Israel to Canada. He is a partner
in the law firm of Moshe, Bloomfield, Kobu, Baker & Co. He participated in
the negotiation and drafting of the various agreements comprising the Oslo

This Jerusalem Issue Brief is available online at:
Dore Gold, Publisher; Yaacov Amidror, ICA Chairman; Alan Baker, ICA
Director;  Mark  Ami -El, Managing  Editor.  Jerusalem  Center  for  Public
Affairs  (Registered Amuta),  13  Tel -Hai  St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel.
972-2-561-9281, Fax.  972-2-561-9112,  © Copyright.  The  opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows  of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)

December 11, 2010

As to Obama cancellation of Arab/Israel "Peace" Negotiations ...

How does Obama's Latin American Policy link with Israel


Given the US policy trajectory, it is again obvious that the only one Israel can rely on to defend its interests is Israel.

Israelis can be excused for wondering why Brazil and Argentina unexpectedly announced they recognize an independent Palestinian state with its capital city in Israel’s capital city. Israelis can be forgiven for being taken by surprise by their move and by the prospect that Uruguay, and perhaps Paraguay, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and El Salvador, will be following in their footsteps because the Israeli media have failed to report on developing trends in Latin America.

And this is not surprising. The media fail to report on almost all the developing trends impacting the world. For instance, when the Turkish government sent Hamas supporters to challenge the IDF’s maritime blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza coastline, the media were surprised that Israel’s ally Turkey had suddenly become Hamas’s ally and Israel’s enemy. Their failure to report on Turkey’s gradual transformation into an Islamic supremacist state caused the media to treat what was a culmination of a trend as a shocking new development.

The same is now happening with Latin America.
Whereas in Turkey, the media failed only to report on the significance of the singular trend of Islamization of Turkish society, the media have consistently ignored the importance for Israel of three trends that made Latin America’s embrace of the Palestinians against Israel eminently predictable.
Those trends are the rise of Hugo Chavez, the regional influence of the Venezuela-Iran alliance, and the cravenness of US foreign policy towards Latin America and the Middle East. When viewed as a whole they explain why Latin American states are lining up to support the Palestinians.

More importantly, they tell us something about how Israel should be acting.
OVER THE past decade Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has inherited Fidel Castro’s mantel as the head of the Latin American anti-American club. He has used Venezuela’s oil wealth, drug money and other illicit fortunes to draw neighboring states into his orbit and away from the US. Chavez’s circle of influence now includes Cuba and Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uruguay and Ecuador as well as Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina and Peru. Democracies like Colombia and Chile are also taking steps in Chavez’s anti-American direction.

Chavez’s choice of Iran is no fluke although it seemed like one to some when the alliance first arose around 2004. Iran’s footprint in Latin America has grown gradually. Beginning in the 1980s, Iran started using Latin America as a forward base of operations against the US and the West. It deployed Hizbullah and Revolutionary Guards operatives and other intelligence and terror assets along the largely ungoverned tri-border area between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. That staging ground in turn enabled Iran to bomb Israeli and Jewish targets in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s.

Iran’s presence on the continent allowed it to take advantage of Chavez’s consolidation of power. Since taking office in 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has developed strategic alliances with Venezuela and Nicaragua.
With Chavez’s assistance, Teheran is expanding its web of alliances throughout Latin America at the expense of the US and Israel. On the face of it, Chavez and Ahmadinejad seem like an odd couple. One is a Marxist and the other is a messianic jihadist. But on closer inspection it makes perfect sense. They share the same obsessions with hating the US and loving power. Chavez has demonstrated his commitment to maintaining power by crushing his opponents, taking control over the judiciary and media, amending the constitution and repeatedly stealing elections.

Meanwhile, the WikiLeaks sabotage campaign against the US gave us a first person account of the magnitude of Ahmadinejad’s electoral fraud. In a cable from the US Embassy in Turkmenistan dated 15 June 2009, or three days after Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian presidential elections, the embassy reported a conversation with an Iranian source regarding the true election results. The Iranian source referred to the poll as a “coup d’etat.”

The regime declared Ahmadinejad the winner with 63% of the vote. According to the Iranian source, he received less than a tenth of that amount. As the cable put it, “based on calculations from [opponent Mir Hossain] Mousavi’s campaign observers who were present at polling stations around the country and who witnessed the vote counts, Mousavi received approximately 26 million (or 61%) of the 42 million votes cast in Friday’s election, followed by Mehdi Karroubi (10-12 million)…. Ahmadinejad received ‘a maximum of 4-5 million votes,’ with the remainder going to Mohsen Rezai.”

There is no fence-sitting along the Iran-Israel divide. Latin American countries that embrace Iran always do so to the detriment of their ties with Israel. Bolivia and Venezuela cut their diplomatic ties with Israel in January 2009 after siding with Hamas in Operation Cast Lead. In comments reported on the Hudson New York website, Ricardo Udler, the president of the small Bolivian Jewish community, said there is a direct correlation between Bolivia’s growing ties with Iran and its animosity towards Israel. In his words, “Each time an Iranian official arrives in Bolivia there are negative comments against the State of Israel and soon after, the Bolivian authorities issue a communiqué against the Jewish state.”

Udler also warned that, as he put it, “there is information from international agencies that indicate that uranium from Bolivia and Venezuela is being shipped to Iran.” That was in October. With Iran it appears that if you’re in for an inch you’re in for a mile. This month we learned that Venezuela and Iran are jointly deploying intermediate range ballistic missiles in Venezuela that will be capable of targeting US cities. THERE IS no doubt that the Venezuelan-Iranian alliance and its growing force in Latin America go a long way towards explaining South America’s sudden urge to recognize “Palestine.” But there is more to the story.

The final trend that the media in Israel have failed to notice is the impact of US foreign policy in South America and the Middle East alike has had on the positions of nations like Brazil and Argentina towards Israel. During the Bush administration, US Latin America policy was an incoherent bundle of contradictions. On the one hand, the US failed to assist Chavez’s opponents overthrow him when they had a chance in 2004. The US similarly failed to support Nicaraguan democrats in their electoral fight against Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega in the 2007 elections. On the other hand, the US did foster strong alliances with Colombia and Chile.

Under the Obama administration, US Latin American policy has become more straightforward. The US has turned its back on its allies and is willing to humiliate itself in pursuit of its adversaries. In April 2009 US President Barack Obama sat through a 50-minute anti-American rant by Ortega at the Summit of the Americas. He then sought out Chavez for a photo-op. In his own address Obama distanced himself from US history, saying, “We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s attempted appeasement hasn’t done any good. Nicaragua invaded neighboring Costa Rica last month along the San Juan River. Ortega’s forces are dredging the river as part of an Iranian-sponsored project to build a canal along the Isthmus of Nicaragua that will rival the Panama Canal.
Even Obama’s ambassador in Managua admits that Ortega remains deeply hostile to the US. In a cable from February illicitly published by WikiLeaks, Ambassador Robert Callahan argued that Ortega’s charm offensive towards the US was “unlikely to portend a new, friendly Ortega with whom we can work in the long-term.”

It is not simply the US’s refusal to defend itself against the likes of Chavez that provokes the likes of Brazil’s President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva and Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to embrace Chavez and Iran. They are also responding the US’s signals towards Iran and Israel.

Obama’s policy of engaging and sanctioning Iran has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And just like the Arabs and the Europeans, the South Americans know it. There is no doubt that at least part of Lula’s reason for signing onto a nuclear deal with Ahmadinejad and Turkey’s Reccip Erdogan last spring was his certainty that the US has no intention of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. From Lula’s perspective, there is no reason to participate in the US charade of preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He might as well be on the winning side. And since Obama doesn’t mind Iran winning, Iran will win.

THE SAME rules apply for Israel. Like the Europeans, the Arabs, the Asians and everyone else, the Latin Americans have clearly noted that Obama’s only consistent foreign policy goal is his aim of forcing Israel to accept a hostile Palestinian state and surrender all the land it took control over in 1967 to the likes of PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. They see that Obama has refused to rule out the possibility of recognizing a Palestinian state even if that state is declared without a peace treaty with Israel. That is, Obama is unwilling to commit himself to not recognizing a Palestinian state that will be in a de facto state of war with Israel.

The impression that Obama is completely committed to the Palestinian cause was reinforced this week rather than weakened with the cancellation of the Netanyahu-Clinton deal regarding the banning of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The deal was to see Israel banning Jewish construction for an additional 90 days, in exchange for a US pledge not to ask for any further bans; to support Israel at the UN Security Council for a limited time against a Palestinian push to declare independence without peace; and to sell Israel an additional 20 F-35 fighter jets sometime in the future.

It came apart because Obama was unwilling to put Clinton’s commitments – meager as they are – in writing. That is, the deal fell through because Obama wouldn’t make even a minimal pledge to maintain the US’s alliance with Israel.
This policy signals to the likes of Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay that they might as well go with Chavez and Iran and turn their backs on Israel. No one will thank them if they lag behind the US in their pro-Iran, anti-Israel policies. And by moving ahead of the US, they get the credit due to those who stick their fingers in Washington’s eye.

When we understand the trends that led to Latin America’s hostile act against Israel, we realize two things. First, while Israel might have come up with a way to delay the action, it probably couldn’t have prevented it. And second, given the US policy trajectory, it is again obvious that the only one Israel can rely on to defend its interests – against Iran and the Palestinians alike – is Israel.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 07:19 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2010

The Skinny on WikiLeaks Founder, Julian Assange

Redacted from Wall Street Journal Online December 6, 2010

Whatever else WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has accomplished, he's ended the era of innocent optimism about the Web. As wiki innovator Larry Sanger put it in a message to WikiLeaks, "Speaking as Wikipedia's co-founder, I consider you enemies of the U.S.—not just the government, but the people."

The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. The outrage is that this is Mr. Assange's express intention. We can't put the Internet genie back in the bottle.

Related Videos:
What WikiLeaks Means for Cloud Services
This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to "cut the head off the snake." This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions.

Leaks will also restrict information flows within the U.S. A major cause of the 9/11 intelligence failures was that agencies were barred from sharing information. Since then, intelligence data have been shared more widely. The Obama administration now plans to tighten information flows, which could limit leaks but would be a step back to the pre-9/11 period.

Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal. The reason he launched WikiLeaks is not that he's a whistleblower—there's no wrongdoing inherent in diplomatic cables—but because he hopes to hobble the U.S., which according to his underreported philosophy can best be done if officials lose access to a free flow of information.

In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance." He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. "To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed," he writes. "Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate," he writes, and "pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result."

His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."

Berkeley blogger Aaron Bady last week posted a useful translation of these essays. He explains Mr. Assange's view this way: "While an organization structured by direct and open lines of communication will be much more vulnerable to outside penetration, the more opaque it becomes to itself (as a defense against the outside gaze), the less able it will be to 'think' as a system, to communicate with itself." Mr. Assange's idea is that with enough leaks, "the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller."

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange hopes to hobble the U.S. government. Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, "It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it's our goal to achieve a more just society." If leaks cause U.S. officials to "lock down internally and to balkanize," they will "cease to be as efficient as they were."

This worldview has precedent. Ted Kaczynski, another math-obsessed anarchist, sent bombs through the mail for almost 20 years, killing three people and injuring 23. He offered to stop in 1995 if media outlets published his Unabomber Manifesto. The 35,000-word essay, "Industrial Society and Its Future," objected to the "industrial-technological system" that causes people "to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior." He's serving a life sentence for murder.

Mr. Assange doesn't mail bombs, but his actions have life-threatening consequences. Consider the case of a 75-year-old dentist in Los Angeles, Hossein Vahedi. According to one of the confidential cables released by WikiLeaks, Dr. Vahedi, a U.S. citizen, returned to Iran in 2008 to visit his parents' graves. Authorities confiscated his passport because his sons worked as concert promoters for Persian pop singers in the U.S. who had criticized the theocracy.

The cable reported that Dr. Vahedi decided to escape by horseback over the mountains of western Iran and into Turkey. He trained by hiking the hills above Tehran. He took extra heart medication. But when he fell off his horse, he was injured and nearly froze. When he made it to Turkey, the U.S. Embassy intervened to stop him being sent back to Iran. "This is very bad for my family," Dr. Vahedi told the New York Daily News on being told about the leak of the cable naming him and describing his exploits. Tehran has a new excuse to target his relatives in Iran. "How could this be printed?"

Excellent question. It's hard being collateral damage in the world of WikiLeaks.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:27 PM | Comments (0)

December 08, 2010

Geert Wilders, Defender of Western Civilization - His Speech in Tel Aviv

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), the third-leading political party in the Netherlands.

December 5, 2010

Shalom Chaveriem,

Let me start by saying that it is with great sadness that I share your grief over the deaths of more than 40 brave Israelis who lost their lives – many while trying to save others in the great fire near Haifa. My country, the Netherlands, is amongst other countries helping to put down this fire, which is threatening the lives and property of thousands of your compatriots. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished. My thoughts are with them. Israel is an immense source of inspiration for me. When I came to your country for the first time as a teenager, I lived here for a year. I am not ashamed to stand with Israel, but proud. I am grateful to Israel. I will always defend Israel. Your country is the cradle of Western civilization. We call it the Judeo-Christian civilization with good reason.

Israel is often being treated unfairly. The world looks at the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, and many blame Israel. The UN claims that there are over 4.7 million Palestinian refugees, and many blame Israel. These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to “Palestine.” But where is Palestine? Many say Israel must solve the problems of Palestine. But is Israel guilty of the plight of the Palestinian refugees? My answer is “No.” The Arab leaders are to be blamed – and Islam is to be blamed. Let me first tell you why, and then I will tell you where Palestine can be found.

At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one – the problem of the Palestinians. Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.

In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none. So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.

Under international definitions the status of refugee or displaced person only applies to first generation refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are granted the same refugee status as their ancestors. Consequently, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees registered with the UN increased from 711,000 in 1950 to over 4.7 million in 2010. These refugees are being used as a demographic weapon against Israel.

Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel. My friends, the blame should be laid where it belongs: with the Arab world. The Jewish refugees built new lives for themselves. They did what millions of refugees have done in the course of history, including, in the 20th century, the Germans who had to leave Sudetenland and the lands east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, the Hungarians who fled Transsylvania, the Greeks who were ejected from the Aegean coast of Anatolia, the Hindus who fled the Punjab.
With each generation, the resentment of these refugees and their descendants slowly fades away. Time heals all wounds. Acceptance of the new situation is the norm.

Islam, however, conditions Muslims to hate Jews. It is a religious duty to do so. Israel must be destroyed because it is the homeland of the Jews. Influential Islamic scholars, such as Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi, who died last March, was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002? He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against – I quote – “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.” – end of quote.

Nizar Qabbani, one of the most revered poets in the Arab world, praised the madness of those who are blinded by an ideology of hatred. In his poem Ode to the Intifada, he wrote: “O mad people of Gaza, A thousand greetings to the mad. The age of political reason has long departed. So teach us madness.” Thát is the nature of the Islamic enemies confronting the Jews – sheer madness. Israel, on the other hand, is a beacon of light; it is like a Hanukkah menorah whose lights have been kindled in a region that until 1948 was engulfed by darkness.

Friends, Israel is not to blame for the situation in the Middle East. The problem is Islam’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Only last month, Fatah concluded its convention in Ramallah by declaring its blatant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The problem is also our Western leaders’ refusal to understand that Israel is the West’s canary in the coal mine: If the Jews are denied the right to live in freedom and peace, soon we will all be denied this right. If the light of Israel is extinguished, we will all face darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls. That is why we are all Israel.

But as long as the West refuses to understand how the Palestinians are used as a weapon against Israel, it will not be able to see who is truly to blame; it will not be able to see that it is not Israel’s duty to provide a Palestinian state – for the simple reason that there already is a Palestinian state and that state is Jordan.
Indeed, my friends, Jordan is Palestine. Take a look at the map of this part of the world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Both contemporary Israel and contemporary Jordan were part of the British Mandate of Palestine.

In 1922, the British partitioned Palestine into Cisjordan and Transjordan – the latter comprising 78 per cent of the territory of Palestine. The British handed that territory over to their ally, the Hashemite strongman Abdallah ibn Hussein. Abdallah was the son of the emir Hussein bin Ali, guardian of the Islamic holy city of Mecca. The Hashemites belong to the Quraish tribe – the tribe of Islam founder Muhammad. They are a foreign body in Palestine.

In 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” they began the 1948 war – which they lost.

They took revenge, however, on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan – the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria – held by the Arab forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the names of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the ridiculous term “West Bank.” A river bank of over 40 kilometers wide. I come from a country full of rivers, and there the river banks are only a few dozen meters wide.

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never in the history of the world has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950. And until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.

Must Israel trade land for peace? Should it assign Judea and Samaria to another Palestinian state – a second one, next to Jordan? My friends, let me be very clear: The conflict in the Middle East is not a conflict over territory, but rather an ideological battle. People are mistaken when they assume that giving up Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and letting the Palestinians have it, will end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In 2005, Israel sacrificed the settlements in Gaza for the sake of peace. Did it get peace?

On the contrary, because the conflict is essentially ideological, the situation worsened. Because the conflict is ideological, territorial concessions are counterproductive. Ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions. They are encouraged and emboldened by it. Ideologies must be confronted with the iron will never to give in, “never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty.” That is the lesson which the world learned from Winston Churchill when he confronted the evil ideology of nazism.

This conflict here in the Middle East is not about land and borders, but about Islamic jihadism opposing Western liberty. From the moment that Israel was founded, the Arab leaders have rejected every partition plan and every initiative for a territorial settlement. The Islamic ideology simply does not accept the concept of a Jewish state. Neither Hamas nor Fatah are willing to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland. No territorial concession on Israel’s part can ever change that.

Israel’s ideological enemies want to wipe Israel out as a nation. They simply deny the Jewish state the right to exist and to live in peace, dignity and liberty.
For the sake of its own survival and security, Israel needs defendable borders. A country that is only 15 kilometers wide is impossible to defend. That is the strategic reason why Jews need to settle Judea and Samaria. Therefore, the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria are not an impediment to peace; they are an expression of the Jewish right to exist in this land. They are tiny outposts of freedom, defying ideological forces which deny not only Israel but the entire West the right to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

Let us never forget that Islam threatens not just Israel; Islam threatens the entire world. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot protect Jerusalem. The future of the world depends on Jerusalem. If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome – and Paris, London and Washington – will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting our common civilization. When the flag of Israel no longer flies over the walls of Jerusalem, the West will no longer be free.

However, a peaceful solution must also be found for the many Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Each year, hundreds of millions of euros and dollars are spent on the Palestinian refugees in international aid.
The financial assistance, however, did not provide the refugees a new home, a place to live and build a future for their children and grandchildren. It is obvious where this place should be. It should be Palestine, just as, after the Second World War, the obvious place for the German refugees from the East to go to, was Germany. Since Jordan is Palestine, it is the duty of the Jordanian government to welcome all Palestinian refugees who voluntarily want to settle there.

Until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organizations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated – I quote – “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that – I quote – “what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond […] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.” – end of quote. By the late 1970s, however, the Arab authorities began to differentiate between Jordanians and Palestinians. What was previously considered to be treason and illegality suddenly became the propaganda line.

In March 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a candid interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw: – I quote – “Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot lay claim to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” – end of quote.

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons. First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

By arbitrarily reducing thousands of their citizens to statelessness, the Jordanian authorities want to force the Palestinians to turn their aspirations towards the establishment of another Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This decision is a great injustice committed by the Hashemite rulers of Jordan – this foreign clan which the British installed.

I am not naïve. I am not blind to the possibility that if Jordan were to be ruled by the Palestinians, this might lead to political radicalization in Jordan. However, a continuation of the present situation will most certainly lead to radicalization. We need a paradigm shift. If we keep thinking along the same lines as we have done so far, no peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem is possible without endangering the existence of Israel and disrupting the social and economic fabric in Judea and Samaria. Resettling millions of Palestinians in these small provinces is simply impossible and is not going to happen.

To the skeptics, I say: What is the alternative? Leaving the present situation as it is? No, my friends, the world must recognize that there has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the Kingdom of Jordan. Allowing all Palestinians to voluntarily settle in Jordan is a better way towards peace than the current so-called two-states-approach (in reality a three-states-approach) propagated by the United Nations, the U.S. administration, and governing elites all over the world. We only want a democratic non-violent solution for the Palestinian problem. This requires that the Palestinian people should be given the right to voluntarily settle in Jordan and freely elect their own government in Amman. If the present Hashemite King is still as popular as today, he can remain in power. That is for the people of Palestine to decide in real democratic elections.

My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine. And to the Western world I say: Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. Let us stand with Israel because the history of our civilization began here, in this land, the homeland of the Jews. Let us stand with Israel because the Jewish state needs defendable borders to secure its own survival. Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the battle for the survival of the West. We must speak the truth. The truth that Jordan is Palestine, the truth that Samaria and Judea are part of Israel, the truth that Jerusalem may not fall, the truth that Israel is the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region, the truth that Israel is the linchpin of the West.

Of course, I am just a foreign guest and should be modest. Israel is a democracy and I respect every decision which its people and government will make. But I am proud to be here and grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts and beliefs with you. Because it is here that our civilization is under attack as we speak. It is here that we, men and women of the West, must show our resolve to defend ourselves. It is here that Israel has lit the light of freedom and that Europeans and Americans must help the Israelis to keep that light shining in the darkness. For Israel’s sake and for the sake of all of us.

Toda raba… And shalom to all of you.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:35 AM | Comments (0)

December 06, 2010

Virus Alert - Public Service Warning

Subject: : Don't open any e-mail from HALLMARK....concern that it is a destructive virus. Confirmed by Snopes

Subject: Warning
Dave's brother is a very advanced programmer who does computer work for a living and has a high up status with Microsoft. He doesn't
send these if they aren't real. If he says this is for real, it for sure is. Be aware.
I checked with Norton Anti-Virus, and they are gearing up for this virus!
I checked Snopes, and it is for real. ( see below) Get this E-mail message sent around to your contacts ASAP.
You should be alert during the next few days. Do not open any message with an attachment entitled 'POSTCARD FROM HALLMARK, 'regardless of
who sent it to you. It is a virus which opens A POSTCARD IMAGE, which 'burns' the whole hard disc C of your computer.
This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send
this e-mail to all your contacts. It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it.
If you receive a mail called' POSTCARD,' even though sent to you by a friend, do not open it! Shut down your computer immediately. This
is the worst virus announced by CNN.

It has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no
repair yet for this kind of virus. This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 12:51 PM | Comments (0)

December 05, 2010

Islamists Target Christians 'Wherever They Can Reach Them'

By Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media, December 3, 2010
Redacted from Middle East Forum

In 2006, when Pope Benedict quoted history deemed unflattering to Islam, Christians around the Muslim world paid the price: anti-Christian riots ensued, churches were burned, and a nun was murdered in Somalia. That was then.
Days ago, when a Christian in Egypt was accused of dating a Muslim woman, twenty-two Christian homes were set ablaze to cries of "Allah Akbar." Countless other examples of one group of Christians in the Muslim world being "punished" in response to other Christians exist.

In fact, the recent carnage in Baghdad, wherein Islamists stormed a church during mass, killing over fifty Christian worshippers, was a "response" to Egypt's Coptic Christian church, which Islamists accuse of kidnapping and torturing Muslim women to convert to Christianity (even if the well documented reality in Egypt is that Muslims regularly kidnap and force Christian women to convert to Islam).

More so, the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists who perpetrated the Baghdad church massacre have further threatened Christians around the world:
All Christian centres, organisations and institutions, leaders and followers, are legitimate targets for the mujahedeen (holy warriors) wherever they can reach them… Let these idolaters [Christians of the world], and at their forefront, the hallucinating tyrant of the Vatican [Pope Benedict], know that the killing sword will not be lifted from the necks of their followers until they declare their innocence from what the dog of the Egyptian Church is doing.

Of course, the clause "wherever they can reach them" is an indicator that it is the Islamic world's Christians who will especially be targeted — since they are most easily reached. This phenomenon — attacking one set of Christians, or non-Muslims in general, in response to another — has roots in Islamic law. The Pact of Omar, a foundational text for Islam's treatment of dhimmis (i.e., non-Muslims who refused to convert after their lands were seized by Islam) makes this clear.

The consequences of breaking any of the debilitating and humiliating conditions Christians were made to accept in order to be granted a degree of surety by the Muslim state — including things like giving up their seats to Muslims, as a show of "respect" — were clear: "If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition [that is, they become viewed as "unprotected" infidels, and thus exposed to the same treatment, including slavery, rapine, and death.]."

Moreover, the actions of the individual affect the entire group — hence the "hostage" aspect (everyone is under threat to ensure that everyone behaves). As Mark Durie points out, "Even a breach by a single individual dhimmi could result in jihad being enacted against the whole community. Muslim jurists have made this principle explicit, for example, the Yemeni jurist al-Murtada wrote that 'The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them break it…' and the Moroccan al-Maghili taught 'The fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them'" (The Third Choice, p.160)
This notion, that the actions of one affect all, plays out regularly in Egypt. According to Bishop Kyrillos, "every time there is a rumor of a relationship between a Coptic man and a Muslim girl [which is forbidden under Islamic law], the whole Coptic community has to pay the price: 'It happened in Kom Ahmar (Farshout) where 86 Coptic-owned properties were torched, in Nag Hammadi we were killed and on top of that, they torched 43 homes and shops and now in Al-Nawahed village just because a girl and a boy are walking beside each other in the street, the whole place is destroyed."

Worse, as the world continues to shrink, the Muslim world's indigenous Christians become conflated with their free co-religionists in the West: perceptions of the latter affect the treatment of the former; race or geography is no longer important; shared religion makes them all liable for one another. A dhimmi is a dhimmi is a dhimmi.

For example, aside from the Baghdad church massacre, Iraq's Christians have long been targeted "over their religious ties with the West … Christians specifically were targeted by Church bombings and assassination attempts owing to a perceived association with the aims and intentions of the occupying forces." Little wonder more than half of Iraq's Christian population has emigrated from the country since the U.S. toppled Saddam's regime.

Historical precedents to this phenomenon are aplenty. Whereas the Copts today are cited as the reason behind the massacre of Iraqi Christians, nearly a millennium ago, Copts were massacred when their western coreligionists — the Crusaders — made inroads into Islam's domains. Again, the logic was clear: we will punish these Christians, because we can, in response to those Christians.

It should be noted that this approach applies to all non-Muslim groups — Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. — living amidst Muslim majorities. Yet, because Christians are the most visible infidel minority in the Islamic world, most modern examples relate to them. The Copts are especially targeted because they comprise the largest Christian bloc in the Middle East. (Centuries before the Muslim conquests, Egypt was a bedrock of Christianity, and Alexandria arguably equal to Rome in authority. The result is, after centuries of persecution, there is still a viable Christian presence in Egypt — much to the Islamists' chagrin.)

Treating non-Muslim minorities as hostages can even have international consequences. According to Jewish writer Vera Saeedpour, the Turkish government pressured Israel's policies, including by threatening "the lives and livelihood of the 18,000 Jews" in Turkey:

In the Spring of 1982 when Jews scheduled an International Conference on Genocide in Tel Aviv, they invited Armenians to participate. Ankara protested. The Israeli Government moved swiftly to get organizers to cancel insisting that the conference as planned would threaten "the humanitarian interest of Jews." The New York Times explained what "humanitarian interest" meant. Organizers were told by Israeli officials that Turkey meant to sever diplomatic relations and had threatened "the lives and livelihood of the 18,000 Jews" in the country. (NYT 6.3.82 and 6.4.82)

To drive home the message, Ankara even sent a delegation of Jews from Istanbul who warned that they could be in jeopardy if the conference included Armenians. Chairman Elie Wlesel was first quoted as saying, "I will not discriminate against the Armenians, I will not humiliate them." Later, citing threats to the lives of Jews in Turkey, he resigned.

All this is a reminder that yet another aspect of Islamic doctrine and history — to be added to jihad, taqiyya, wala wa bara, etc. — is alive and well in the 21st century. Treating one set of non-Muslims as hostages, to be abused as a form of retaliation to their coreligionists — far or near, singly or collectively — is just another tactic to assume leverage against the infidel.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

To subscribe to the Middle East Forum mailing lists, go to

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

December 04, 2010


By Charles Krauthammer

The Palm Beach Post and National Review Online
November 28, 2010

It’s a lame-duck session. Time is running out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak, and, with five weeks to go, no one knows what tax they’ll be paying on everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates expire Jan. 1. And. what is the president demanding that Congress pass as “a top priority”? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio address? Ratification of his New START treaty.

Good grief. Even among national-security concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with general uselessness being the norm.The reason is obvious. The problem is never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the weapon. That’s why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes, while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.

In Soviet days, arms control at least could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and therapeutic effect in the age of “the balance of terror.” But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.

President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world’s rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret. Just last week we found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium-enrichment facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them — against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.

Moreover, Obama’s idea that the great powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S. arsenal?

Obama’s New START treaty, like the rest, is 90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic. One difficulty is that it restricts the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. But because some of these are dual-use, our ability to deliver long-range conventional weapons, a major U.S. strategic advantage, is constrained.

The second problem is the recurrence of language in the treaty preamble linking offensive to defensive nuclear weaponry. We have a huge lead over the rest of the world in anti-missile defenses. Ever since the Reagan days, the Russians have been determined to undo this advantage. The New START treaty affirms the “interrelationship” between offense and defense. And Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has insisted that “the unchangeability of circumstances” — translation: no major advances in U.S. anti-missile deployment — is a condition of the entire treaty.

The worst thing about this treaty, however, is that it is simply a distraction. It gives the illusion of doing something about nuclear danger by addressing a non-problem, Russia, while doing nothing about the real problem — Iran and North Korea.

The utter irrelevance of New START to nuclear safety was dramatically underscored last week by the revelation of that North Korean uranium-enrichment plant, built with such sophistication that it left the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory “stunned.” It could become the ultimate proliferation factory. Pyongyang is already a serial proliferator. It has nothing else to sell. Iran, Syria, and al-Qaeda have the money to buy.

Iran’s Islamic Republic lives to bring down the Great Satan. North Korea, nuclear-armed and in a succession crisis, has just shelled South Korean territory for the first time since the Korean armistice. Obama peddling New START is the guy looking for his wallet under the lamppost because that’s where the light is good — even though he lost the wallet on the other side of town.

Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 the Washington Post Writers Group. 

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 06:26 PM | Comments (0)

December 03, 2010

Ann Coulter mercilessly correlates WikiLeaks fiasco with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

From her web page at Human Events

Bradley Manning: Poster Boy For 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

by Ann Coulter


The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks' continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America's national security interests, and the Democrats' fanatical determination to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We've heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved. I'll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning. According to Bradley's online chats, he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!" According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.

I'm not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute "telling" under "don't ask, don't tell." Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army's "don't ask, don't tell" dragnet? What constitutes being "openly" gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter? Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I've seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he's wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley's court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a "Wizard of Oz"-themed gazebo. "Are you going to Bradley's court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!" Maybe there's a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they're right.

The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called "the "Magnificent Five": Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB. The only one who wasn't gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.

The Magnificent Five's American compatriot Michael Straight was -- ironically -- bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there's David Brock. So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as "the Homintern." (I would have called it the "Gay G.B.")

Bradley's friends told the Times they suspected "his desperation for acceptance -- or delusions of grandeur" may have prompted his document dump. Let's check our "Gay Profile at a Glance" and ... let's see ... desperate for acceptance ... delusions of grandeur ... yep, they're both on the gay subset list! Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans -- and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning. Couldn't they just work for JetBlue?

America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an "awkward place" psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute. Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens. For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let's talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in "an awkward place." Any discussion of "don't ask, don't tell" should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:47 AM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2010

Broken Link fixed


Broken link to Russian video now fixed.


Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 08:06 PM | Comments (0)

Educational Video - Russian Navy Tutorial featuring Somalian Pirates


(Not for the faint of heart)

This videotape shows Russian Navy commandos on a Somalian pirate ship shortly after the pirates had captured a Russian oil tanker.  The Euro Union navy that patrols these waters would not interfere because they feared there could be casualties.

All explanations are in Russian with a single exception of when a wounded pirate says something in English and the Russian soldier says "This  is not a fishing boat.".  All conversations between the commandos are in Russian. If you don't understand Russian, the pictures speak for themselves.

The soldiers freed their compatriots and the tanker. The Russian Navy Commandos moved the pirates back to their own (pirate) ship, searched the pirate ship for weapons and explosives and then they left the ship and exploded it with all remaining pirates hand-cuffed to it.

The commandos sank the pirate ship along with the pirates and without any court proceedings, lawyers etc.  That is, they used the anti-piracy laws of the 18th and 19th centuries where the captain of the rescuing ship has the right to decide what to do with the pirates.  Usually, they were hung.

I would hazard a guess that from now on, Russian ships will not be targets for Somalian pirates - unlike those of the rest of the pusillanimous, confused world.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 03:33 PM | Comments (0)