Al Awlaki is gone but his Jihadists are multiplying

Dr. Walid Phares

Imam Anwar al Awlaki held two important positions in the cobweb of international Jihadi terror. First, he was one of the emerging younger leaders of al Qaeda after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Out of Yemen, from which his family originates, he had built a network of recruits capable of performing missions in the Arabian Peninsula, but also communicating with the Shabab of Somalia and many cells inside the West. His reach in recruitment was as far as Jihadists have been indoctrinated. The Nigerian Abdelmutalib, known as the Christmas day bomber in the US, was also connected to the Yemeni-based cleric. In a sense, al Awlaki was one of the most effective al Qaeda international officers. His loss will undoubtedly be felt –at least for a while - within the ranks of the network. But his other position is even more important to Americans. The New Mexico-born Jihadist had established a web of American citizens, indoctrinated and incited to strike against US national security. Shazad, the terrorist who tried to blow up a car in Times Square, and Major Nidal Hassan, who massacred more than a dozen military in Ft Hood, are just two sinister examples of the American Jihadi network linked to al Awlaki. His writings in American English, his speeches and his savvy knowledge of American culture and politics made him in reality the “emir” of US citizens who followed the Jihadi ideology. Thus, his killing is in fact a strike at the head of the most dangerous network operating inside American borders, not just internationally. From that perspective, the “coalition against terror” has scored a point in its war with al Qaeda. But, although this could be coined as a major tactical victory, it is not a strategic one.

As I made the case with Osama Bin Laden’s elimination, the US is not at war with a mafia of criminals who would be impressed with the elimination of the capo. The Jihadists who have already been indoctrinated won’t be deterred by the missiles or bullets that took the lives of their emirs or commanders. In fact, just the opposite will occur. The “martyrdom” (al Istishaad) of these al Qaeda leaders will be viewed from the prism of the ideology that transformed their universe. Osama and Anwar are now seen as floating in the Jenna (heaven) while the Jihadi mission will rest upon the shoulders of the next wave, and on and on. Western-minded people, or non-Jihadi individuals in the Arab world, understand the concept of deterrence. The Jihadists, Salafists or Khomeinists, are brought up to feed from the martyrdom of their leaders and brothers in arms and take strength from that, so that they don't react in fear.

The reason behind this clone-like phenomenon is ideology, which is in fact the center of al Qaeda, not its leaders. The ideology was created by Jihadism, not the other way around. When a product of this ideologic doctrine is eliminated, this doesn’t affect the factory; it will keep producing more, and will use their eliminations to mobilize further.

There is not now, and won’t be, any victory in the War on Terror (or the war with the Jihadists) unless there is a victory in the War of Ideas, which means that the ideology producing and inspiring the terrorists and would-be terrorists has to be identified and responded to. Naturally, the best parties to engage in this counter campaign are the societies where it has been breeding, in the Greater Middle East where there are the anti-Jihadists, civil societies and secular forces.

Unfortunately the current Administration and the bureaucracy of the past Administration did just the opposite. Instead of identifying the Jihadi ideology, they covered up for it. And instead of partnering with the secular and democratic forces in the Arab Spring, Washington today is flirting with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hence, while our intelligence and military are successful in their part of the war by eliminating the war lords of Jihadism, our foreign policy and domestic policies are allowing the Jihadists, with their Islamist ideological roots, to grow. Therefore the killing of al Awlaki is a small victory in an ocean of defeat.

The immediate question in mind is: who is next. Remember that al Awlaki operated within the US openly, as he even was invited to lecture at the Pentagon. Major Hassan, too, delivered lectures within our defense establishment. Also, In the past decade, a prominent member of an Islamist lobby group, Ismael Royer, was part of a terror training network in Virginia. The list is long. So the undeniable outlook for the future is quantitative: al Awlaki is gone but his Jihadists have been multiplying.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr Walid Phares is the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad and The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East. He is a Professor of Global Strategies in Washington DC. He advises members of the US Congress and the European Parliament.

The Idea of the "Fair Share"

Frank Salvato


We’re hearing an awful lot about the “wealthy” paying “their fair share” where taxes are concerned. Pres. Obama and his Progressive and liberal Democrat brethren have perfectly coordinated their talking points to affect a campaign of undefined and reckless class warfare against the productive class, doing so for the sole purpose of political gain. Expectedly, Mr. Obama presents a Janus face: denying out of one mouth that he is utilizing class warfare; demonizing the producers out of the other.

In announcing his new, but all too familiar, deficit reduction plan on September 19th, Mr. Obama said:

“This is not class warfare, it is math...All I'm saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes...We can't just cut our way out of this hole... It is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share...We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. We can't afford them when we are running these big deficits... Middle class taxpayers shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that...” Of course, an honest man would admit that the federal government is spending way, way, way beyond its means. An honest man would admit that the federal government has gone far, far, far beyond its constitutional mandate in providing special interest programs that would be better suited for private sector benevolence organizations. An honest man would acknowledge the fact – the fact – that the federal government, now hijacked by the political correctness of Progressivism, has ventured into social engineering via its “social justice” campaign and departed, to a great degree, from the vision of federal government established by our Founders and Framers.

But, that would be an honest man and honest men. We, here today, are dealing with opportunistic politicians, whose primary goals are to retain power (and by any means possible) and to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

Which brings me back the points I want to address: What is anyone’s “fair share” of taxes when our tax code is not only a progressive tax code (oh, the irony), but rife with special interest exemptions, limitations and write-offs? Who decides what constitutes someone’s “fair share”? And for that matter, who defines who is “wealthy” or “middle class” or “working class” or “poor”?

In reality, determining someone’s “fair share” tax burden should be a simple matter. First one determines a percentage at which any American should be taxed. Then that amount should be adjusted for basic necessities and those who exist below an agreed upon poverty line. Then that percentage should be applied to all Americans...period. This is about as fair as it gets. Ten percent of an income is ten percent of an income, regardless of whether that income is $32,000, $150,000, $500,000 or $1,000,000,000. This approach is known as the Flat Tax approach, which would completely replace the tax system as we know it. Undeniably, it treats everyone equally. It is blind to success or failure, race, gender, religion and political affiliation, among other things.

Then there is the notion of scrapping the current tax system and establishing a system based on consumption. As we are a consumption-based society, this seems the most beneficial system where gleaning government funding is concerned. The idea is to eliminate payroll tax deductions and, instead, assess a consumption tax – or national sales tax – on everything that is sold. For argument’s sake, let’s say a 20 percent national sales tax was assessed on everything that we buy, minus a stipend for basic necessities and those below the poverty line. Regardless of what is purchased – or who was purchasing it – 20 percent would go to the federal government. If someone who makes $32,000 a year buys a television, 20 percent goes to Uncle Sam. If a billionaire decides to buy a yacht, 20 percent goes to the feds. Each is taxed an established percentage on his or her purchases. Everyone is treated equitably.

The consumption tax is an attractive alternative to the special interest manipulated progressive tax system in that one doesn’t need to be a US citizen to pay into the system. People who are here illegally – as well as those doing business in the United States, those traveling across America on tourist visas or those here on the infamous student visas, they all pay into the system, thus, we have more people than just the citizenry paying into the system. It brings a twist to the issue of illegal immigration, but that’s another topic.

Here, from an actuarial novice, are two more equitable ways than the special interest friendly progressive tax system to assess taxation in the United States; two ways to more equitably determine a “fair share,” where taxation in the United States is concerned.

But, when one removes the ability for politicians to manipulate the status quo for their political benefactors, especially where finances are concerned; when the system is purged of procedures and loopholes that allow for the legislated manipulation of finances for special interest groups, well, the inside the beltway establishment – on both sides of the aisle – simply cannot have that.

As Andrew C. McCarthy writes in The National Review:

“What I’d like to home in on is the single number the president and his diminishing ranks studiously ignore – the ‘x’ in the equation that never quite gets a value assigned. ‘Fair share’ – what is it?

“Want to make a cable-news Democratic party-strategist squirm? Ask her what she means by the ‘fair share’ that must be paid by the rich. (No point further tarrying over what she means by ‘the rich,’ since we already know they are billionaires and millionaires who jump about in corporate jets while somehow making only $200,000 a year.) In response to the ‘fair share’ question, you will hear how Bush single-handedly destroyed the economy. You will hear about the diabolical Republican plan to desert the elderly, starve the young, and exploit everyone in between. You will hear a vague concession that ‘the rich’ must be allowed to keep some semblance of their wealth – enough, at least, to keep them in the game of ‘paying it forward’ to future generations of government wards. But what you won’t hear is a number.

“This week, I had the pleasure of watching the Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney expertly press the Obama Left’s glib evaders on the subject. How much is a ‘fair share,’ he doggedly inquired? A quarter? A third? Should the rich have to split their take 50-50 with Leviathan? Or is their success such a blight on social justice that the government (and the Teamsters, and the teachers’ unions, and the basket-case blue states) should get something much closer to all of it?

“No answer. They cannot answer it.”

When one takes into consideration that an estimated 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all (they are subject to states taxes, sales taxes etc., a degree of taxation much less than the federal income tax) the issue of determining “fair share” is aggravated to a new level.

According to a 2010 report by the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan Washington DC research organization:

“About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.”

And a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax indicates that:

“In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17.”

Then there is the matter of the wealthy and super wealthy paying a graduated amount of taxes, both in personal income tax, as small business and corporation owners and in capital gains taxes.

Via a 2010 report by the Associated Press:

“It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners – households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 – paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

“The bottom 40 percent, on average, makes a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“‘We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,’ said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.”

Yet, with all of these points taken into consideration, we have a president and the leaders of the Progressive faction of the Democrat Party insisting that “we can't just cut our way out of this hole” and that “it is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share”; we have Progressive elitists at the reins of power who are seeking to divide the electorate into so-called “haves” and “have nots,” simply for political gain and to the detriment to the country.

How, with a straight face, can Mr. Obama and his Progressive spendthrifts deny the fact that they are executing a class warfare propaganda campaign against not only the wealthiest among us, but the moderately successful, given their claim that anyone amassing an income in excess of $200,00 annually is “wealthy.” There is a gigantic gulf between a small business owner who makes $200,000 a year and Warren Buffett or Jeffery Immelt.

Atlas is shrugging...and he is disgusted.

It is time to ask, “Who is John Galt?”

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.

Islam’s History of Forced Conversions

Raymond Ibrahim

Finding and connecting similar patterns of behavior throughout Islamic history is one of the most objective ways of determining whether something is or is not part of Muslim civilization.

Consider the issue of forced conversion in Islam, a phenomenon that has a long history with ample precedents. Indeed, from its inception, most of those who embraced Islam did so under duress, beginning with the Ridda wars and during the age of conquests, and to escape dhimmi status. This is a simple fact.

Yet, when one examines today’s cases of forced conversions with those from centuries past, identical patterns emerge, demonstrating great continuity. Consider:

Days ago in Pakistan, two Christian men were severely beaten with iron rods and left for dead by a group of Muslims, simply because they refused to convert to Islam. According to Compass Direct News, they were returning from a church service when they were accosted by six Muslims. After they discovered they were Christian, the Muslims: hen started questioning them about their faith and later tried to force them to recite the Kalma [Islamic conversion creed, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”] and become Muslims, telling them that this was the only way they could live peacefully in the city. They also offered monetary incentives and “protection” to Ishfaq and Naeem [the Christians], but the two refused to renounce Christianity.

“After cajoling the two Christians for some time,” the Muslims pretended to go away, only to ram their car into the Christians: “The Muslims [then] got out of the car armed with iron rods and attacked Ishfaq and Naeem, shouting that they should either recite the Kalma or be prepared to die…severely beating[ing] the two Christians, fracturing Ishfaq Munawar’s jaw and breaking five teeth, and seriously injuring Masih…. [T]he two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them.”

Contrast this contemporary account with the following anecdote from some 500 years past (excerpted from Witnesses for Christ, pgs.62-64):

In the year 1522, two Christian brothers in Ottoman Egypt were denounced by local Muslims “mostly out of jealousy and envy”; so the emir arrested them and “began flattering them and asking questions about their faith.” The brothers made it clear that they were firm adherents of Christianity. “The Muslims in the audience became enraged with the brothers when they heard their answers, and they began screaming and demanding they must become Muslims.” The brothers responded by refusing to “deny the faith we received from our forefathers, but we will remain unshaken and very firm in it until the end.”

The Muslim judge deciding their case told the Christian brothers that if they simply said the Kalma and embraced Islam, they “would be given many honors and much glory”; otherwise, they would die. At that point, the brothers’ mother came to support them, but “when the Muslims in court noticed her, they fell upon her, tore her clothing, and gave her a thorough beating.”

After rebuking them for their savagery, the brothers reaffirmed that they would never deny Christianity for Islam, adding “behold our necks, do what you wish, but do it quickly.”

Hearing this, one of the Muslims in the audience became so angry that he took out a knife and stabbed Kyrmidoles [one brother] in the chest, while someone else kicked him as hard as possible, and another dropped a large stone on his head. Finally, they plucked out his eyes. Thus Kyrmidoles died. As for Gabriel [his brother] they threw him to the ground and one of the soldiers severed his right shoulder and then proceeded and cut off his head.

Now, consider the near identical patterns in the two accounts, separated by half a millennium:

The Muslims first begin by talking to the Christians about their religion, suggesting they convert to Islam.
Failing to persuade the Christians, the Muslims proceed to “cajole” and offer “monetary incentives and protection” (in the modern case) and “flatter” and offer “many honors and much glory” (in the historic case). All that the Christians need do is speak some words, the Kalma, and become Muslim.
When the Christians still refuse, the Muslims fly into a savage rage, beating and torturing their victims to death (in the modern case, the Muslims assumed they had killed their victims).

Considering the Ottoman Empire and contemporary Pakistan are separated by culture, language, and some 500 years, how does one explain these identical patterns? What binds them together?

Only Islam—Islam empowered, Islam in charge; Muslim majorities governing, and thus abusing their non-Muslim minority. A fact of life, past and present.

Related: Don’t miss Christian Adams at the Tatler, “Iranian Execution of Christian Convert Would Follow Islamic Law.”
(Thumbnail on homepage and illustration above assembled from multiple Shutterstock.com images.)
Raymond Ibrahim, an Islam specialist and author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. To receive his articles, sign up on his mailing list.

Comment sent to PM:Adi

And maybe they will if they survive longer than this week.

I’m not very familiar with the Shariah law, and even less with the mad mullahs interpretation of it, but there are a few rules regarding apostasy:

1- Apostates are to be given three days to repent and return to Islam. If (s)he refuses, (s)he is immediately killed. All Sharia books agree unanimously on this point. (Hanafi law in general, Shafi’i law f1.3, Hanbali law (from Al Mughni), Maliki law and Codified Islamic law).

2- It is obligatory for the caliph to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

3- There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)

4- Testimony of apostates is not admissible.

5- An apostate does not inherit from Muslim parents.

6- Marriage of an apostate is immediately dissolved if the spouse is and remains Muslim.

So if his sons do not disown their father they will be probably executed as well when they will reach maturity (on the other hand Iran has a long established track of executing juveniles). Same with his wife – will rule #6 will apply?

I’m afraid this execution is actually more than one.

See for yourself:

http://hurryupharry.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/yousef-nadarkhani351.jpg

COP: Valerie Jarrett: Purpose of Government to Give You a Job – It’s a World Vision for the Obama Administration

Maggie

Note: This short piece plus the video tells you everything you need to know in order to understand Obama's intentional policies that are currently tearing down our freedoms, economy, social fabric and climate to raise families as independent responsible people.

Valerie Jarrett, the luminary of the Chicago Olympic land scam, and known as “the other side of Barack’s brain,” says the purpose of Government is to provide you with a job so that you can take care of your family, and it is a world vision as well. We can’t take care of our own country under Obama’s administration, so what does a “world vision” have to do with jobs in America? See the video below. Here’s a reminder, from the opening lines of a previous post, of how Valerie Jarrett operates, while being so deeply concerned about the less fortunate among us:click here to view

How do you take a housing facility, known as a “preservation for affordable housing,” bearing a $12 million mortgage, designate it for demolition, sell it to the city of Chicago for $1,000.00 and then receive $1 million from a leftist foundation in preparation for the – coming Olympics – which are not coming! Only the “other side of Barack Obama’s brain,” Valerie Jarrett could bring about these miraculous events.

You’ll remember how Barack, Michelle and Jarrett scampered off to Chicago to win the Olympics for the U.S. back in the early days of his reign. It was most unusual to have a president and his staff advocate for the winning Olympic contract, but they did, and Rio walked away with it. The administration and Jarrett had a lot at stake.

Comment: Time for honesty among all Americans. The "change" Obama et al. meant was a fundamental shift in the entire social-economic fabric of America. The "changes" are intentional and consistent with what a few privileged people believe they know what is best for America. They are the audacious ones, ironic is it not given the subtitle of Obama's book. The pundits who state he is ignorant, poor leader etc are incorrect-he is doing precisely what he set out to do.The arrogance of Obama and his sub-set group of policy makers is transcended only by the ignorance of those who fell into his oratory skills-ability to read from a teleprompter. Our system and way of life was not perfect, is not perfect and yet millions of people around the world not only wish for our freedoms, they fight and die for the possibility of having said freedoms. They flock to the USA. Our standard of life was the highest in the history of the world-not any more thanks to shifting socialistic manuvers. I listen to some of my academic friends bitch (oh should i have written complain?) how life is not fair, how their work place and salary is not what it should be. Thus the justification for "starting over". These people "work" 9 months, have to actually teach 9-12 hours a week, have full health,pension, dental etc benefits paid (for many it is for life) have 2-3 months of time to spend as they choose-not a bad life eh?

Most of us 40 and above were able through hard work, personal responsibility and a belief in ourselves, that we could accomplish on our own, created a darn nice life for ourselves and our families. We even identified areas of improvement and worked diligently on making things right for as many as we could.Where inequities owere found, we did our best to make amends. For goodness sake we have the richest "poor" people in the world. It is simply outrageous for those who want to tear down or tear apart our social fabric and I for one want my grand children to have the same experiences I had. This will not happen if we follow the Obama's, Jarett's ,Soros' of the world.

Will Abbas Allow Hamas To Fool Him Again?

Khaled Abu Toameh
September 30, 2011

Hamas's approval of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's statehood bid at the United Nations has been mistakenly interpreted by some Westerners as a sign of the Islamist movement's "pragmatism" and its readiness to accept a two-state solution.

Hamas had initially condemned Abbas's decision to apply for membership in the UN of a Palestinian state "only" on the pre-1967 lines. Hamas argued that a Palestinian state should replace Israel, and not live alongside the Jewish state.

Some Hamas leaders even described Abbas's statehood bid as a "mirage," and warned Palestinians against being deluded by the move. Later, however, senior Hamas officials publicly welcomed Abbas's speech at the UN and praised him for not making concessions on the "main principles" of the Palestinian people, including the "right of return" for refugees to their original homes inside Israel, and act that would demographically overwhelm Israel with Muslims, who woukd cancel out its Jewish majority.

These Hamas officials said that while they supported the establishment of a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, this did not mean that they would recognize Israel's right to exist.

In other words, Hamas is saying, "Give us a Palestinian state now so that we can use it as a launching pad for 'liberating all of Palestine'" -- from "The [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea," as the late Palestinian Minister of Jerusalem Affairs, Faisal Husseini, presented the plan.

Hamas leaders, including its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, have always said that they would be willing to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem but without recognizing Israel. This has been Hamas's official line for the past two decades.

In addition, Hamas has repeatedly offered a long-term truce, or cease-fire, to Israel. These announcements by Hamas have led some Westerners to assume that the Islamist movement has softened its policy, and is prepared to abandon the path of terror.

This offer, hoiwever, does not mean that Hamas has decided to renounce terror and violence.

Rather, Hamas is saying, "Because I am now weak and cannot destroy you yet, give me a break so that I can gain enough strength to destroy you in the future."

One cannot say that Abbas is among the naïve people who believe that Hamas has changed, or would ever do so. On the contrary, Abbas and his Fatah faction know better than anyone that Hamas is not to be trusted at all.

Abbas paid a heavy price for believing Hamas. In the summer of 2007, Hamas threw Abbas's Palestinian Authority out of the Gaza Strio after he had formed a Unity government with the Islamist mvement. Back then, Hamas stabbed Abbas in the back whenj its forces seized full control of the Gaza Strip and expelled Abbas and his loyalistsand him from the area.

After forming a Unity government with the Islamist movement, in the summer of 2007 Since then Abbas has been cooperating with Israel in the battle against Hamas in the West Bank. Through security coordination with Israel, Annas has managed to crush Hamas's political and military infrastructure in the West Bank.

It is this security coordination with Israel that is keeping Hamas from extending its control beyond the Gaza Strip.

In light of this, it is hard to understand why Abbas has just decided to resume "unity" talks with Hamas. Earlier this week, Abbas dispatched his senior aide, Azzam al-Ahmed, to talk to Hamas representatives about the establishment of a joint Fatah-Hamas government.

It is interesting that Abbas decided to resume the "unity" talks with Hamas just at a time when Hamas has reaffirmed its refusal either to abandon terror or to recognize Israel's right to exist. If Abbas thinks that Hamas will ever change its ideology, he is mistaken.

Abbas probably thinks that it is safer being with Hamas than siding with the US and the West.

Hamas, in fact, deserves credit for being so honest and straightforward about its ideology and goals.

By joining forces with Hamas once again, Abbas would be repeating the same mistake he made in the past. A unity government with Hamas will only improve Hamas's chances of taking over any new Palestinian state.

Jordan is Palestine: Arieh Eldad’s Two-State Solution

Mark Tapson

With a petition for Palestinian statehood presented before the United Nations last week, the issue of the disputed right to the land of Israel seems to many to be on the verge of an historic, if unsatisfying and controversial, resolution. But Dr. Arieh Eldad, a Member of Knesset and chairman of the Jewish nationalist Hatikva party, insists that the root of the issue is not territorial, and thus any peace plan based on the concept of dividing the land is destined for failure.

In his pamphlet titled simply “Jordan is Palestine,” Eldad writes

Dividing the land of Israel west of the Jordan into two states – Israel and a Palestinian state – has become the only political plan accepted for international and domestic (Israeli) discourse. This, despite dozens of failures in trying to implement it during the past ninety years. Every failed attempt has been accompanied by bloody conflict and/or war. Recently Eldad – also chief medical officer and senior commander of the Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps and a Brigadier-General in the IDF (Reserves) – expressed his iconoclastic opinions in a speech at Temple Ner Maarav in Encino, northwest of Los Angeles. Also entitled “Jordan is Palestine,” his presentation put forth what he calls the “simple truth” that the Jews, and not the Arabs, have an historic right to the land of Israel. “I’m all for ending the occupation,” he said. “We must end the occupation. Of course, I’m referring to the Muslim occupation of the land of Israel, starting in the seventh century.”

So yes, there is certainly a territorial component to the problem, Eldad acknowledges. But, he explained, falling back on a medical analogy that reflects his profession, “We have misdiagnosed the conflict. It is a religious war. It’s a clash of ideologies. It’s not a territorial conflict.”
Eldad gives an example of this clash of ideologies in a FrontPage Magazine contribution entitled “A Story of How Deep the Palestinians Have Sunk into the Moral Abyss.” A surgeon specializing in the treatment of burn victims, Eldad was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank in Jerusalem, the largest skin bank in the world, which stores skin for everyday needs as well as for wartime or mass casualty situations. He relates the true story of a Palestinian woman given medical attention there after her own family burned her for some transgression of “honor”:

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

In his presentation last week he offered another example of the religious root of the conflict. Many thousands of Palestinian teachers, he said, work in the education system of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees),

and the only thing [the students] learn is to hate the United States, to hate Israel. If you open a math book of the fourth grade of a Palestinian school, you learn that “if a shahid, a martyr, on a bus can kill fifteen Jews, how many Jews can be killed by three martyrs on a train?” This is the kind of mathematics they learn in school.

Eldad’s solution?

Any alternative plan should be based on the fact that the Palestinians have their own state already in Jordan, a kingdom – in which the Palestinians are at least 75% of the residents – created after the British Mandatory land of Israel was divided into two. The plan should focus on resolving the regional solution by settling the Arab refugees in Jordan and other Arab countries that absorbed Palestinian refugees after the War of Independence in 1948…

Israel would exercise sovereignty over all territory west of the Jordan, receive exclusive authority over security issues in all areas of sovereignty, since Israel could never accept the existence of an army from another country west of the Jordan, with airspace sovereignty and full control of external borders…

The Plan “Jordan is Palestine” is the only approach that can handle conflict without endangering the very existence of the State of Israel.

There are four major elements of his plan: 1) recognition of Jordan as a Palestinian country; 2) the closure of UNRWA and the creation of a plan for the settlement of Arab refugees in Jordan, under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has a track record of successfully resettling tens of millions of refugees around the world; 3) Israeli and international guarantees of a continued Hashemite rule in Jordan, and 4) the application of Israeli law in Judea and Samaria.

If we remember that the main driving force of the Arabs in this conflict is Islam, the Jordan River border will not solve the conflict. But this plan will create a national state for Palestinians, who will be able to fulfill at least some national desires, and it will be a state whose very existence does not endanger Israel. The Jordan border will establish a clearly defensible border.

In addition to offering these recommendations, Eldad also pulled no punches last week when offering his opinion of Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. Eldad says that after Netanyahu’s humiliating treatment at the hands of Obama earlier this year, in which the President simply left the Prime Minister to mull over his demands while Obama abandoned him for dinner, Netanyahu exhibited exactly the same characteristics as a soldier afflicted with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Eldad decried Netanyahu’s willingness to bend under “extreme pressure” from the White House; he challenged him to answer the unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood with unilateral annexation of Judea and Samaria.

This is typical of Eldad’s bold, politically incorrect assertions. A year ago he called for the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comparing him to Hitler. And unlike other politicians, Eldad does not sugarcoat the future. Because the Israeli-Arab conflict is religious and not territorial, he claims, there will not be peace in the Middle East. “I don’t promise peace. I promise containment of the conflict.”

Arab Nomads, not Palestinians

Nurit Greenger

The Arabs, calling themselves Palestinians, are in fact nomads, as for drifters and migrants.

They have drifted and migrated into the land of Israel, mainly during the Ottoman Empire when it was occupying, abusing and neglecting the land. Then also during the British Mandate when the pro-Arabism British Mandate authorities, fervently encouraged the Arabs to pour into the land so that they will outnumber the damn Jew, whose arrival to the land the British were curtailing by their White Paper immigration restrictions decree.
De facto, these Arabs chose to leave their homelands, where they were citizens, to live as nomads in no-man's occupied land.
When, in 1947 Israel declared her independence, Arabs, within her armistice lines, known as the Green Lines, acquired Israel citizenship.
However, the Arabs who remained to live in Israel's legal territories, which she lost to the Jordan and Egypt in Israel's War of Independence, remained orphans of citizenship.

The Arabs who then lived in the terrorist enclave Gaza Strip found themselves on the Egyptian side of the cessation of hostilities. The Israel-Egypt Armistice Agreement of February 24, 1949 established the separation line between the Egyptian and Israeli forces, and established what became the present boundary between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Both sides declared that the boundary was not to be an international border. The southern border with Egypt continued to be the international border which had been drawn in 1906, between the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire.

One must keep in mind that the Arab population of the Gaza Strip had been greatly augmented by an influx of Arabs who fled from the land of Israel before and during the 1948 war. Egypt did not offer the Arabs living in the Gaza Strip citizenship, rather issued to them All-Palestine passports. From the end of 1949, these Arabs received aid from UNRWA. The government was accused of being little more than a façade for Egyptian control, with negligible independent funding or influence. It subsequently moved to Cairo and was dissolved in 1959, by decree of Gamal Abdul Nasser, the dictator of Egypt.
Egypt continued to occupy the Gaza Strip until 1967, except for four months of Israeli occupation during the 1956 Suez Crisis war. Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip, but instead treated it as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor.

From 1967 and until 1994, the Gaza Strip remained under Israeli military administration. During that period the military was responsible for the maintenance of civil facilities and services. In May 1994, following the Palestinian-Israeli agreements known as the Oslo Accords, a phased transfer of governmental authority to the Arabs [a/k/a Palestinians] took place. Much of the Strip, except for the Jewish communities blocs and military areas, came under the Arabs' control. The Oslo Accords gave birth to the Palestinian Authority (PA), led by Yasser Arafat, who chose Gaza City as the PA first provincial headquarters. In September 1995, Israel and the PLO signed a second "peace agreement," extending the Arabs' authority to most of what they named West Bank towns. The agreement also established an elected 88-member Palestinian National Council, which held its inaugural session in Gaza in March 1996. In 2005, Israel, in an unprecedented and notorious unilateral act, dismantled is Gush Katif, its total presence in the Gaza Strip. Since 2006, the Arabs living in Gaza are ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas and are heavily funded by UNRWA and foreign contribution, but are still nomads, or are the citizens of a terrorist organization enclave that is on the West's terrorists list and one of the most dangerous terrorist organization.
The Arabs who, then lived in what is known as the West Bank, ended up under Jordanian control. The name West Bank was coined by the Jordanians after the territory, conquered by Jordan's Arab Legion in the 1948 war, was annexed to Transjordan, forming, in 1949–50, the new Kingdom of Jordan. The term was chosen to differentiate the "West bank of the River Jordan", namely the newly annexed territory, from the "East Bank" of this river, namely Transjordan. Until that point, the area was generally known by the historic names of its two regions – Judea and Samaria, the term used by Israel today. This annexation was illegal and Jordan's claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Pakistan.

For 400 years, the area, now known as Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank, was under the Ottoman Empire rule as part of the province of Syria. At the 1920 San Remo Conference, the victorious Allied powers of WWI, Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the USA as an observer, allocated the area to the British Mandate of Palestine. Following World War II, the United Nations passed the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Future Government Of Palestine, which suggested to establish a two-state solution – Jewish and Arab - within Palestine. The Resolution designated the territory described as Samaria and Judea, a/k/a "West Bank," as part of the proposed Arab state. But following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, this area was captured by Transjordan which, in 1949 was renamed Jordan.

From 1948 until 1967, the area, then named "West Bank," was under the Jordanian rule. Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988, ceding its territorial claims to the PLO and wit it stripped the West Bank Arabs of their Jordanian citizenship.

In the 1967 Six Day War, the West Bank was returned to its legal owner, the state of Israel. With the exception of "east" Jerusalem and the former Israeli-Jordanian no man's land, Judea and Samaria, a/k/a West Bank was not annexed by Israel, rather remained under Israeli military control. The Arabs living in Judea and Samaria remained nomads.

At the time, when the Palestinian Authority (PA) rule of the Gaza Strip and West Bank was under the leadership of Arafat, it suffered from serious mismanagement and corruption scandals. Today, the PA, with its headquarter in Ramallah, is mismanaged and corrupt as well. Leopards do not change their spots.

In conclusion, the Arabs, living in Gaza and West Bank are nomads. Their homelands Arab countries, from where their fathers, or grandfathers, wander into the land of Israel, will not allow them to return home.

The land of Judea and Samaria is legally the land of the state of Israel and Israel is not occupying it. The sooner Israel finally annexes this land and puts it under her rule the better. More so, there is no real room for another Arab state to be established on this land and to end up terrorizing and threatening Israel's existence.
I have no solution for the Arabs living in the Gaza Strip, as their genocidal terrorist ruler, Hamas, wants nothing else but to obliterate Israel. Hamas is at war with Israel; best is an outright war, in which Israel must bring Hamas to a total defeat and end its rule in the Gaza Strip. Then Israel will see to help the Arabs living there to have a better life.

As for the Arabs living on the land in Judea and Samaria, I offer three solutions:
These Arabs can go live elsewhere, better yet, in Jordan, which is the official Palestine state, or,
They go along with what the author, Sari Nusseibeh, suggests in his book, 'What Is a Palestinian State Worth?' - http://www.amazon.com/What-Palestinian-State-Worth-Nusseibeh/dp/0674048733, which the Mandate for Palestine decreed as well, "I propose that Israel officially annex Judea and Samaria [he calls it the "occupied territories] and that the Arabs [he calls Palestinians] in enlarged Israel agree that the state remains Jewish, in return for being granted all the civil, though not political rights, of citizens," or,
They take on the Swiss cantons method. The name canton is derived from the French Language word canton, meaning corner or district.

Israel must formally annex the entire Judea and Samaria territories. Once this is accomplished, Israel needs to commence negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) on matters pertaining to local and regional sovereignty, based on the Swiss Canton model. In Switzerland there are 26 cantons, all are member states of the federal state of Switzerland. In Israel's case, the Arabs will live in several cantons under the Democratic state of Israel rule based on the local and regional sovereignty agreement.
I have deliberately omitted the name Palestinians. Reason being, back in the late 1990's the Arabs adopted a new tactic. They decided to stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn their terror war into a struggle for human rights, which they knew will have the West see them as victims and then Westerns will be eating out of their hands. The name "Palestinians" came as part of this grand scheme; this name came about as a political tool and part of the war the Arabs declared on, first the Jews who lived in the Land of Israel before Israel became a sovereign state, and then on Israel since 1948. This war is still ongoing and sadly, Israel has not got its full independence yet.

The only way Israel will finally have independence is for the Arabs to end all their hostilities and agree to live in peace with Israel based on agreement that will keep Israel a safe and secure Jewish State, as suggested above, or Israel must simply get rid of these Arab enemy cancer in her midst.
---
קובץ: אין פלסטינים, רק ערבים; לגיטימציה של הפלסטינים שוללת את הלגיטימיות של מדינת ישראל.
ערבים נוודים, לא פלסטינים
ספטמבר 29, 2011 – א' תשרי 5772
נורית גרינגר
הערבים המכנים את עצמם פלסטינים, הם למעשה נוודים ומהגרים.
הם באו בזרם הגירה לארץ ישראל, בעיקר בתקופת האימפריה העות'מאנית, כאשר היא היתה הכובש, המתעולל והמהזניח של הארץ. וגם בתקופת המנדט הבריטי, כאשר שלטונות המנדט הבריטי הפרו-ערבים, עודדו בלהט את הערבים לזרום לארץ, כך שמספרם יהיה גדול יותר מהיהודים הארורים, שאת עלייתם לארץ הבריטים קיצצו על ידי צו ההגירה המגביל שלהם - הניר הלבן.
דה פקטו, הערבים האלה בחרו לעזוב ארצות מוצאם, שם הם היו אזרחים, ולחיות כמו נוודים בארץ כבושה ומופקרת.
כאשר, בשנת 1947 ישראל הכריזה על עצמאותה, הערבים, בתוך קווי שביתת הנשק שלה, המכונים הקו הירוק, קיבלו אזרחות ישראלית.
לעומת זאת, הערבים שנשארו לחיות בשטחים החוקיים של ישראל, שאותם היא איבדה לירדן ומצרים במלחמת העצמאות של ישראל, נותרו יתומים מאזרחות.
הערבים אשר חיו אז במובלעת הטרור, ברצועת עזה, מצאו את עצמם בצד המצרי של הפסקת פעולות האיבה. הסכם שביתת הנשק בין ישראל למצרים של 24 פבואר 1949 ביסס את קו ההפרדה בין הכוחות המצריים והישראלים, ויצר את מה שהפך להיות הגבול הנוכחי בין רצועת עזה לבין ישראל.
שני הצדדים הצהירו כי הגבול לא יהיה גבול בינלאומי. הגבול הדרומי עם מצרים המשיך להיות הגבול הבינלאומי אשר נמשך בשנת 1906, בין האימפריה העות'מאנית לבין האימפריה הבריטית.
צריך לזכור כי האוכלוסייה הערבית של רצועת עזה גדלה מירבית על ידי זרם של ערבים שברחו מארץ ישראל לפני ובמהלך מלחמת 1948. מצרים לא הציעה לערבים שהתגוררו ברצועת עזה אזרחות, אלא הציאה להם דרכון של 'כל-פלסטין'. מסוף שנת 1949, הערבים הללו קיבלו סיוע מאונר"א. הממשלה הואשמה שהיתה לא יותר מאשר חזית לשליטה מצרית, חסרת מימון עצמאי או השפעה. לאחר מכן היא עברה לקהיר ופורקה בשנת 1959, על ידי צוו של שליט מצרים, גמאל עבד אל נאצר.
מצרים המשיכה לשלוט ברצועת עזה עד 1967, למעט ארבעה חודשים של הכיבוש הישראלי במהלך מלחמת משבר סואץ בשנת 1956. מצרים מעולם לא סיפחה את רצועת עזה, במקום זה, התייחסה אליה כשטח מבוקר שנוהל באמצעות מושל צבאי.
משנת 1967 ועד 1994, רצועת עזה נותרה תחת ממשל צבאי ישראלי. במשך תקופה זאת הצבא היה אחראי לתחזוקת המתקנים האזרחיים והשירותים. במאי 1994, בעקבות ההסכמים הפלסטינים-ישראלים, הידועים כהסכמי אוסלו, העברה מדורגת של רשות שלטון לערבים, המכונים פלסטינים, התקיימה. חלק גדול מהרצועה, למעט גושי היישובים היהודיים ושטחים צבאיים, עברו לשליטת הערבים. הסכמי אוסלו הולידו את הרשות הפלסטינית (רש"פ) בראשה עמד יאסר ערפאת, שבחר בעיר עזה כמטהו המחוזי הראשון. בספטמבר 1995, ישראל ואש"ף חתמו על "הסכם השלום" שני שהרחיב את הסמכות של הערבים לרוב הערים באיזור שלו הם קראו הגדה המערבית. ההסכם גם הקים את חבר המועצה הלאומית הפלסטינית עם 88 חברים נבחרים אשר ניהל את מושב הפתיחה שלו בעזה במרץ 1996. בשנת 2005, ישראל, במהלך חד צדדי חסר תקדים ולשמצה, פירקה הוא גוש קטיף, את כל הנוכחות של ישראל ברצועת עזה. מאז 2006, הערבים שחיים בעזה נשלטים על ידי ארגון הטרור חמאס וממומנים בכבדות על ידי אונר"א ותרומות של זרים. אך הם עדיין נוודים, או אזרחי מובלעת ארגון טרור שנמצא בראש רשימת המערב של אירגוני מחבלי הטרור המסוכנים ביותר.
הערבים שחיו אז, במה שמכונה הגדה המערבית, בסופו של דבר נשארו בשליטת ירדן. השם הגדה המערבית נטבע על ידי הירדנים לאחר שהשטח, שנכבש על ידי הלגיון הערבי הירדני במלחמת 1948, סופח לעבר-הירדן, ויצר בשנת 1949-1950, את הממלכה החדשה של ירדן. המונח נבחר כדי להבדיל את "הגדה המערבית של נהר הירדן", כלומר השטח החדש שסופח, מ-"הגדה המזרחית" של הנהר הזה, כלומר עבר הירדן. עד אז, האזור היה ידוע בדרך כלל בשמות של שני החלקים ההיסטוריים שלו - יהודה ושומרון, השמות שבהם משתמשת כיום ישראל. הסיפוח היה בלתי חוקי וטענתה של ירדן מעולם לא הוכרה רשמית על ידי הקהילה הבינלאומית, למעט בריטניה ופקיסטאן.
במשך 400 שנים, האזור, הידוע כיום בשם יהודה ושומרון, וגם ידוע בשם הגדה המערבית, היה תחת שלטון האימפריה העות'מאנית כחלק מהפרובינציה של סוריה. בשנת 1920 בועידת סן רמו, המעצמות המנצחות של מלחמת העולם הראשונה, בריטניה, צרפת, איטליה, יפן וארצות הברית כמשקיף, הקצו את השטח למנדט הבריטי של פלסטין. בעקבות מלחמת העולם השנייה, האו"ם קיבל את החלטת העצרת הכללית של האו"ם, החלטה 181 [2], על העתיד של ממשלת פלסטין, אשר הציע להקים פתרון של שתי מדינות - יהודית וערבית - בתוך פלסטין. ההחלטה הקצתה את השטח המתואר, שומרון ויהודה, גם ידוע כגדה המערבית, כחלק מן המדינה הערבית המוצעת. אבל בעקבות המלחמה בין ישראל ומדינות ערב 1948, איזור זה נכבש על ידי עבר-הירדן, אשר, בשנת 1949 שונה לשם ירדן.
משנת 1948 עד 1967, האזור, שאז היה ידוע בשם "הגדה המערבית", היה תחת שלטון ירדן. ירדן לא וויתרה רשמית על תביעתה לאזור עד 1988, כשהעבירה את תביעותיה הטריטוריאליות לאש"ף ועם כך הפשיטה את תושבי הגדה הערבים מאזרחותם הירדנית.
במלחמת ששת הימים ב-1967, הגדה המערבית הוחזרה לבעליה החוקיים, מדינת ישראל. למעט "מזרח" ירושלים ושטח ההפקר הישראלי-ירדני, יהודה ושומרון-הגדה המערבית לא סופחו לישראל, אלא נשארו תחת שליטה צבאית ישראלית. הערבים המתגוררים ביהודה ושומרון נשארו נוודים.
השלטון של הרשות הפלסטינית (רש"פ), תחת הנהגתו של ערפאת, ברצועת עזה והגדה המערבית סבל מניהול כושל רציני ופרשיות שחיתות. כיום, הרשות הפלסטינית, עם עם המטה שלה ברמאללה, הוא כושל ומושחת גם כן. נמרין לא משנים את חברבורותיהם.
לסיכום, לערבים, המתגוררים בעזה ובגדה הם נוודים. מדינות מוצאם הערביות, משם אבותיהם, או סביהם, נדדו לארץ ישראל, לא מאפשרות להם לחזור הביתה.
ארץ יהודה ושומרון היא כדין הארץ של מדינת ישראל, וישראל לא כובשת אותה. כמה שיותר מהר ישראל תספח, סוף סוף, את השטח הזה ותשים אותו תחת שלטונה זה יהיה טוב יותר. ועוד, אין מקום אמיתי למדינה ערבית נוספת, שתוקם על קרקע זו, שבסופו של דבר תשתמש באמצאי טרור ותאיים על קיומה של ישראל.
אין לי שום פתרון לערבים המתגוררים ברצועת עזה, כי השליט הטרוריסטי הרצחני-שואתי שלהם, חמאס, לא רוצה שום דבר אחר, אלא להשמיד ישראל. החמאס נמצא במלחמה עם ישראל; הטוב ביותר הוא מלחמה עד הסוף, בה ישראל חייבת להביס את החמאס, תבוסה מוחלטת ולשים סוף לשלטונו ברצועת עזה. ואז ישראל תראה איך לעזור לערבים החיים שם שיהיו להם חיים טובים יותר.
באשר לערבים החיים בשטחים מסוימים ביהודה ושומרון, אני מציעה שלושה פתרונות:
ערבים אלה יכולים לעבור לחיות במקום אחר, הטוב ביותר, בירדן, שהיא המדינה הפלסטינית הרשמית, או,
ללכת בעקבות המחבר, סרי נוסייבה, המציע בספרו, 'מהו שוויה של המדינה הפלסטינית'
http://www.amazon.com/What-Palestinian-State-Worth-Nusseibeh/dp/0674048733
אשר המנדט על פלסטין גם גוזר, "אני מציע שישראל תספח, רשמית, את יהודה ושומרון [שהוא מכנה אותם השטחים הכבושים] וכי הערבים [שהוא מכנה הפלסטינים] בישראל המוגדלת יסכימו כי המדינה תשאר יהודית, תמורת הענקת כל זכויות האזרח, אם כי לא זכויות פוליטיות, של אזרחים," או,
שיקחו את שיטת הקנטונים של שווייץ. השם קנטון נגזר מהמילה הצרפתית קנטון, כלומר פינה או מחוז.
ישראל חייבת רשמית לספח את כל שטחי יהודה ושומרון. ברגע שזה יעשה, ישראל צריכה להתחיל במו"מ עם הרשות הפלסטינית (רש"פ) בעניינים הנוגעים לריבונות מקומית ואזורית, המבוססת על מודל הקנטון השוויצרי. בשווייץ ישנם 26 קנטונים, כולם חברים במדינה הפדרלית של שוויץ. במקרה של ישראל, הערבים יחיו בכמה קנטונים תחת השלטון של המדינה הדמוקרטית, ישראל, המבוסס על ההסכם הריבוני המקומי והאזורי.
במכוון השמטתי את השם 'פלסטינים'. הסיבה לכך, שבסוף שנות ה-90 הערבים אימצו טקטיקה חדשה. הם החליטו להפסיק לדבר על השמדת ישראל ובמקום זאת להפוך את מלחמת הטרור שלהם למאבק למען זכויות האדם, אשר הם ידעו שהמערב יראה בהם כקורבנות ואז אנשי המערב יאכלו מהידיים שלהם. השם "פלסטינים" הומצא במסגרת של תכנית גדולה יותר. שם זה בא ככלי פוליטי וחלק מהמלחמה שהערבים הכריזו תחילה על היהודים שחיו בארץ ישראל לפני שישראל הפכה למדינה ריבונית, ולאחר מכן על ישראל מאז 1948. המלחמה הזאת עדיין מתמשכת ובעצב אפשר לומר שישראל עדיין לא קיבלה עצמאות מלאה.
הדרך היחידה שבה לישראל תהיה סוף סוף עצמאות היא, שהערבים ישימו קץ לכל מעשי האיבה שלהם ויסכימו לחיות בשלום עם ישראל על בסיס הסכם שיאפר לישראל להיות מדינה יהודית, בטוחה ומוגנת, כפי שהוצע לעיל, או שישראל צריכה פשוט להיפטר מהאויב הערבי הסרטני הזה שנמצא בתוכה.

Mullen's Mulling is Carter-esque Moment

Diana West

Robert Conquest, pre-eminent historian of the genocides, purges and terrors of the Soviet Union, has long contemplated the blinders the West wears so as not to look at the millions of dead bodies for which the gigantically Evil Empire was responsible.

"Why people didn't, and still don't, understand the communist regimes has to do with their concentration on reputable, or reputable-sounding, phenomena," Conquest wrote in a 2005 essay. "This is what amounts to an attempt to tame the data or, perhaps more correctly, a mental or psychological bent toward blocking the real essentials, the real meaning." In only rare instances is this block ever exposed. One memorable example came when Jimmy Carter announced to the world that the December 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan "has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are than anything they have done in the previous time I've been in office." Since this was the president of the United States talking, not Little Bo Peep, such laughable naivete -- evidence of taming the data, or blocking reality -- was subject to ridicule, even at the time.

After all, what could be dramatically opinion-changing about the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, given that it simply repeated familiar historical patterns of Soviet behavior? But such was the mental or psychological bent that compelled Carter, on meeting the regime's ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin, to say: "I've heard great things about you and your service in Washington. I hope to have a great relationship with you and also with Mr. Leonid Brezhnev."

It was great, all right -- at least until Carter finally got the message that Brezhnev was lying to his face, via the detente-era "hot line." Boo hoo: He couldn't trust the Soviet dictator anymore.

Such gullibility has long outlasted the Soviet Union, of course. Indeed, a similar story has been unfolding in official Washington as Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly declared his disappointment with Pakistan's actions in support of jihad terrorism in Afghanistan as "part of their national strategy." Just as Carter took three years to admit what the Soviets were up to, so Mullen has taken three years to face any facts about Pakistan. And that's after no fewer than 27 visits to Islamabad since 2008.

"Each time I go, I learn more," a chastened Mullen told The Wall Street Journal. "But one of the things I learn more is I have a lot more to learn."

He should have stayed home. Maybe then Mullen could have perused a variety of sources documenting official Pakistani policies of complicity with terror networks in Afghanistan and India. As Joint Chiefs chairman, Mullen didn't have to wait for WikiLeaks to release the October 2009 cable from then-U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, in which she stated that "no amount of money" could convince the Pakistani government to stop supporting Taliban and other jihad groups. Then again, maybe, as Conquest might say, he just preferred "taming the data."

Mullen told a Pakistani military audience in December 2009 he wasn't interested in dwelling on the past: "I am here to write a history for the future. It is really my intent ... to build a future that re-establishes that trust." That's one way to concentrate on "reputable-sounding phenomena" and deny pesky facts.

Such concentration requires ignoring the available record, such as a June 2010 study from the London School of Economics, which found that support for Taliban in Afghanistan was "official policy" of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's CIA. The report further maintained that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met with captured Taliban leaders to assure them of the Pakistan government's "full support."

"I've gone into this with my eyes wide open," Mullen said of Pakistan two weeks after Osama bin Laden was killed and Pakistan was reported to be sharing U.S. stealth helicopter technology with the Chinese. "Trust isn't going to be re-established overnight."

Then when? In a sudden but overdue revelation reminiscent of the 39th president's, Mullen has now, according to the Journal, "concluded that the partnership approach he long had championed had fallen short and would be difficult to revive."

"I have been Pakistan's best friend," Mullen lamented. "What does it say when I am at that point? What does it say about where we are?"

It says that Uncle Sucker's policy -- trust Pakistan but forget about verifying anything -- has been downright Carter-esque.

Fatah's Abbas Zaki And Elmer Fudd: Separated At Birth?

Daled Amos

You don't see the resemblance?
Read on.

This may come as a surprise to some, but Fatah wants to destroy Israel

That's right.
Don't believe me?

Fatah Central Committee Member Abbas Zaki Calls Netanyahu and Obama "Scumbags" and Says: "The Greater Goal Cannot Be Accomplished in One Go"

Following are excerpts from an interview with Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah Central Committee, which aired on the Al-Jazeera network on September 23, 2011. Abbas Zaki: The settlement should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President [Abbas] understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go.

If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.

[...]

Who is nervous, upset, and angry now? Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Obama... All those scumbags. Why even get into this? We should be happy to see Israel upset.

[...]

If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... C'mon, it's too difficult. It's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself. [emphasis added]

See the resemblance now?

Don't worry, Zaki--we won't tell a soul.

Why Most of The Mass Media Can't Report Honestly on Israel—Or Other Middle East Issues

[Before we start, let me mention that you might enjoy my article, "What Jews Should Know about Christians," a revised Jerusalem Post column, available at: http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-jews-should-know-about-christians.html]

By Barry Rubin

Underlying any other factor regarding attitudes toward Israel in the Media-University-Government (MUG) complex is the programmatic and ideological problem faced in honestly understanding and explaining Israel’s behavior.

To report truthfully would require comprehending and communicating the following two paragraphs:

–Most Israelis believe, on the basis of their experience during the 1990s’ Oslo era and with the “peace process” generally, that Palestinian leaders cannot and will not make peace, and that most Arabs and Muslims still want to destroy Israel. As a result, they explain, past Israeli concessions have made Israel’s situation worse, risks to show that Israel wants peace have not persuaded onlookers, withdrawals from territory have only led to that territory being used to launch attacks on Israel. –In justifying their stance, Israelis cite the extremism of Iran; the advances of Hamas and Hizballah; the growing radicalism and Islamist influence in the Egyptian revolution, and other such factors. In addition, they worry that the Obama Administration policy is undermining Israel and enabling a growing extremism in the region. This is a prevailing viewpoint across the political spectrum.

I could have chosen to make additional points but this shows the main factors. Since the Israeli argument is so cogent and backed by facts and observable realities, it would be dangerously persuasive to those who actually get to hear it.

Instead, the muggers of MUG must insist:

–Peace would be easily and quickly obtained if not for Israel’s policies.

–Settlements and not Arab/Muslim positions are the factor preventing peace, even though it could be pointed out that if the Palestinians made peace all the settlements on their territory would be removed.

–If Israel only had a different government the peace process would rapidly advance.

–Obama and his supporters want to save Israel in spite of itself and they, not Israel’ own leadership, knows what’s best for the country.

–Israelis “know” that Obama is right which is why public opinion polls, statements, and evidence to the contrary is suppressed or spun away. American Jews can support anti-Israel policies in the firm belief that they are really “pro-Israel” policies.

–They have only replaced demonizing the “other” with romanticizing the “other.” Never underestimate the importance of ignorance or of its common form—believing that other people think and act just like themselves. The “great experts” really know very little about the issues. (I could give you a long and amusing list on that point.)

–It is far more pleasant to believe that conflict can be made to disappear, hatreds quenched. If they are all our fault than we can easily fix them.

(No sooner did I write this that up pops a great example of the genre! It’s all Israel’s fault, Netanyahu never showed he wanted peace, blah, blah, blah.)

Or, in short, “Why do they hate us?” because we’ve behaved so badly but we can fix it by behaving properly.

Consequently, the systematic misrepresentation isn’t because these people are mean or that they hate Israel as such (well, actually, a lot of academics but relatively few journalists or government officials do) but because their worldview and political line–including 100 percent support for Obama–requires it.

Equally, their systematic view that revolutionary Islamism isn’t a real threat but just a marginal movement of those who misunderstand Islam and want to hijack it, requires it. Equally, their systematic view that to portray certain peoples as hardline, intransigent, “irrational,” etc., is a form of racism and Islamophobia.

I constantly receive letters from Iranians, Turks, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Syrians about their despair at losing their country, being oppressed, or seeing so much bloodshed in their struggle for democracy and to avoid being crushed by Islamist or radical nationalist dictatorships.

Genuinely moderate Muslims in the West have similar complaints and experiences. One case that typifies many is of a courageous man who is shunned by the politicians, virtually barred from the two mosques in his small city, and sees those who threaten him being praised in the media and feted by local politicians.

These people often have similar symptoms. They are depressed, often closed to tears, deeply frustrated and bewildered. What makes their lot even more bitter is the lack of sympathy for the Western MUG that praises their enemies (and all of ours) at the same time. They, too, are victims of the same syndrome that Israel suffers from.

One of the worst things in life is for someone to wake up and discover he’s been supporting evil. Indeed, not only an evil in the abstract but forces and ideas that threaten his own freedom and happiness. A lot of people in the West have already woken up but many more need to do so.

Islamizing the Curriculum in Georgia

Pamela Geller

Many of us have been calling out and exposing the destructive propaganda war that is being waged in our nation's classrooms. Time and time again, we find extensive lessons on Islam in the public schools, extolling Islamic misogyny and waxing poetic on sharia and the brutal oppression of non-Muslims and apostates.

Last week, we found that schools across Georgia were Islamizing the curriculum by selling misogyny to children. They were using a lesson plan that glorifies the cloth coffin that Muslims dress women in, as well as polygamy:

My name is Ahlima and I live in Saudi Arabia. ... Perhaps two differences Westerners would notice are that women here do not drive cars and they wear abuyah. An abuyah is a loose-fitting black cloth that covers a woman from head to toe. I like wearing the abuyah since it is very comfortable, and I am protected from blowing sand. ... I have seen pictures of women in the West and find their dress to be horribly immodest. ... Women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for. ... I feel very fortunate that we have the Sharia.

A parent, Hal Medlin, complained: "I thought this was absurd. [The teacher] was trying to compare Islamic rules of dress and how they compared to school uniforms, which I thought was a stretch. The principal and the [superintendent] agreed with me ... but they wouldn't agree with my premise that it put Islam in a positive light because of the [statements]." Of course it put Islam in a positive light. This is not education; this is proselytizing. Bear in mind that these letters are fictitious -- propaganda created to soft sell misogyny. It is time our children were taught about the 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations, and enslavements. And the systematic dehumanization of women: honor killings, clitorectomies, and so much more. Where is the caning? Where is the prohibition of women leaving the house without a male family member? Where is the prohibition of women driving?

This document was hosted on a public school district's official website. When we called attention to it, the lesson was quickly pulled and scrubbed from the web. But I have screenshots of everything, because I knew that as soon as I exposed this dawah (Islamic proselytizing), the school official quislings would scrub this material. And they did -- so they know that what they are promoting is wrong.

We are watching the situation closely. We found more ugly lessons. And the school is copping a plea to local media.

Laura Armstrong, a columnist for the Marietta (Georgia) Daily Journal, informed me that Hal Medlin is in Cobb County, a northern suburb of Atlanta, while the lesson plan was on the website of Henry County, a southern suburb of Atlanta. So this lesson is or was being used in at least two of the most populous suburban counties in Georgia.

Then there was another incident at another school in Georgia just last week. Armstrong wrote me:

According to parents, a coach from a nearby high school, a Muslim American, was invited to at least one class to talk about his trip to Mecca. A parent complained to the principal and a school board member with no result. The excuse is "we're studying the culture of the Middle East." But the visitor/lecturer is an American high school coach. His culture is obviously American. So the argument that it's a "cultural study" and not a religious study holds no water. He was obviously there in the public school classroom to promote and teach about his religion.

This is dawah, a religious mandate in Islam. It is proselytizing. If this is happening in any way in your schools, do not sit idly by. As I describe in my new book, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance, you must take action. For this is a concerted effort, as I explain in the book. Islamic supremacist groups have for quite some time consulted with public-school textbook publishers and made sure that material presented on Islam is heavily slanted, even to the point of proselytizing. Combine that with the anti-Western multiculturalist bias of the publishers themselves, and the result is a large number of public-school textbooks that denigrate Judeo-Christian Western civilization and portray Islam in a glowingly positive light.

Serious pushback is required. Do it. What parents need to do every time the school gives a Muslim, or an imam, an opportunity for dawah is demand that the same accommodation be made for a priest, a rabbi, a Hindu holy man. This must be the knee-jerk reaction. A priest should be invited to speak about his trip to the Vatican and the beauty of Christianity; a Rabbi should discuss his life-changing experience at the Kotel, and how Judaism is the mother of monotheism.

Schools do not want to become religious battlegrounds, but they put themselves in that position when they allow themselves to be used in this way. You are the freedom cop on the beat in your neighborhood. Where you see freedom threatened, fight back. You must shine the light on this indoctrination and raise a ruckus. If we don't fight for freedom, we will surely lose it.

Pamela Geller is the publisher of AtlasShrugs.com and the author of Stop the Islamization of America (WND Books).

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/islamizing_the_curriculum_in_georgia.html at September 29, 2011 - 01:25:14 PM CDT

Politicizing Energy Independence

Suktan Knish

Three years after energy independence and alternative energy measures had bipartisan support under the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has not only succeeded in politicizing alternative energy until it became a divisive issue, but with the Solyndra scandal, it may have also tarred the entire alternative energy field with another Enron.

The problem was always one of goals. For environmentalists alternative energy was never really about independence, it was about austerity and rationing for the good of the earth. The last thing that people who believe that there are already too many people on the planet driving cars, buying consumer goods and otherwise despoiling the virgin paradise of what was once a lovely desert or wetlands, want is cheap energy. If there was a car that ran on water, they would be the first to outlaw it. If solar panels provided cheap and plentiful energy, there would be protests against them every day. Environmentalists know that austerity and rationing are not popular words, even if you dress them up as carbon footprints and cap and trade. And they will use any conceivable argument to ram their agenda through, but they are not loyal to anything but their core austerity rationing manifesto. Their goal is expensive sustainable energy. If it isn't sustainable, than it had damn well better be expensive.

Upset about gas prices? Hop across the pond where the cost of a gallon of gas hit about 8 bucks in March. Americans cry havoc when the cost of a gallon of gas hits 4 bucks. Now try doubling that.

In 2000/2001 when petrol prices rose by 50 percent or so, there were fuel protests by truck drivers and farmers. Yet the UK has its own oil and pumps a million barrels of oil per day. Compare that to the US with a population more than three times the size, which pumped a mere 2 million barrels of oil last year.

Both US and UK oil production have drastically declined. In 1999 the UK pumped 6 million barrels of oil per day (yet the price per gallon would still have made any US driver reach for a shotgun) and at the same time the US was pumping 6 million barrels per day. Today we can barely manage a third of that and the UK is down to a sixth of its production capacity a decade ago.

The UK is closer to matching its production to its population than we are but its gas prices are twice our own. But then over 60 percent of the price of petrol is made up of taxes. And if we keep raising taxes on gas, then we could have 8 dollar a gallon gas too.

That brings us to the second part of the problem. Governments also benefit from expensive energy. Add on more taxes and there's more pork. Then you can subsidize alternative energy programs that aren't meant to work, but are meant to provide more pork for the well connected. That way the boys at the top get them coming and going.

The environmentalists like this arrangement because they profit and impose rationing. The government likes it because it profits and energy price hikes just means the price of everything goes up, which to politicians who think that the marketplace will yield infinite amounts of money if they just regulate it the right way, means that tax revenues will keep going up. The only people who lose are well... the people.

And yet the environmentalists have a point. Even if we brought up oil production to its peak, we couldn't match domestic demand. We would need to hit 20 million barrels of oil per day and we have never even come close to hitting that number. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, but even if we could meet 90 percent of our domestic demand, we would still be participating in a global oil market which primarily benefits the people trying to kill us or the people who sell them weapons.

7 of the 10 top oil exporting countries are at war with us, directly or indirectly. 8 hate us and 9 are likely to require military intervention or fight us in a war, directly or indirectly. Every war that we have fought in the last twenty years has been either against or on behalf of an oil exporting nation-- directly or indirectly.

Count up the cost of the Gulf War and the War on Terror and add it to how much you're paying at the pump. Of course that trillion dollars plus is chump change compared to the current deficit, but it's very much part of the bottom line. Add on foreign aid, bases in the Middle East and a lot of incidentals and we're already paying a lot more than eight dollars per gallon.

That's not counting burgeoning oil conflicts like another war between the UK and Argentina, or between Turkey, Greece and Israel, or China and the Philippines and Vietnam. Not to mention Canada and Russia. All three of which could drag us into a naval war that we're poorly prepared for against at least two world powers.

And yet the alternative of Chinese tax subsidized low quality wind farms and solar panels marked up by tax subsidized companies and dumped at tax subsidized rates into the power grid looks pretty bad too. Not least because all we did was shift from funding one enemy with our energy consumption to funding another enemy-- at a much lower rate of energy efficiency.

The problem with this kind of energy independence is that it isn't independent and it doesn't yield much energy. But the people behind it aren't interested in either one. They don't care if we're energy independent and they don't care about the energy yield.

The hijacking of energy independence by people for whom it's an aspect of an environmental crusade, a trendy fetish or a way to make some quick money at taxpayer expense has been devastating. And while the Bush Administration is not exempt, the Obama Administration is the absolute worst offender.

For the rationers, energy independence is a convenient word to drop at the right time. But their determination to keep energy prices high sends us right back into the global oil market with less and less domestic production to call our own.

Our economy runs on the cost of transportation, the more dependent we are on oil exports, the easier it is for even Middle Eastern events that we are not involved in to send oil prices higher, which ends up sending the price of goods and services higher.

The environmental movement is the biggest indirect funder of "conflict oil" and the conflict oil keeps creating new conflicts. Whether it's Russian maneuvers in the Arctic, Turkish threats to Greece or Chinese threats to the Philippines, or the Islamist overthrow of Arab regimes over bread prices caused by ethanol subsidies-- there are many ways in which the body counts of conflict oil keeps growing.

The Obama Administration's crackdown on domestic oil production combined with its politicization and porkitization of alternative energy has turned it into a trendy fetish with no bipartisan support. But the problem isn't going away and neither is the need for pursing alternative energy to untether us from a global oil market which forces us into new wars and funds terror aimed at us.

For the moment oil shale production could allow us to get some breathing room while we make a serious effort to move beyond it. Combined with nuclear power we could have enough energy production to restore a serious measure of prosperity. And all the while keep exploring forms of alternative energy, developing the technologies until they're ready to meet our needs. Like space based solar.

The rationers are against this kind of approach because it's sensible. And the Obama Administration echoes the rationer war cries and convoluted arguments that promise tons of green jobs and energy independence if we just keep lowering domestic oil production, reject oil shale imports from Canada and pass tighter EPA regulations that will eventually give us that 8 dollar a gallon gas complete with 20 percent unemployment.

And that is where the debate must be, between the rationers and the open energy consensus. The rationers have nothing to offer except global warming scare tactics, misery for us and pork for them. Their vision of 8 dollar a gallon gas, local produce that no one but them can afford and one child families would mean the end of the middle class and the end of the United States. And that is exactly what they want.

The environmental movement, like the rest of socialism, is aimed at killing the economic and political independence created by a rising middle-class through free enterprise. And its net result has made the world a more polluted and more violent place.

For the last three years they have politicized energy independence and alternative energy, and made it far less appealing. It's time to take it back from them.

Obamacare's Soaring Price Tag

Mike Brownfield

September 29, 2011

On January 21, 2009, Barack Obama stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and, in his inaugural address, pledged to America that he would “wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” What he did wield, of course, was a 2,000-page bill known as Obamacare. More than a year on, we now know that health care costs are soaring, and the President’s signature legislation is to blame.

Most Americans know that medicine is getting more expensive, but a new survey puts a shocking sticker price on the rapid increase. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that between 2010 and 2011, family premiums increased by 9 percent and for individual premiums by 8 percent. According to the survey, “The average premium for single coverage in 2011 is $452 per month or $5,429 per year … The average premium for family coverage is $1,256 per month or $15,073 per year.” What’s driving those costs? In large part, Obamacare. According to Kaiser Family Foundation CEO Drew Altman, the President’s health care legislation was responsible for approximately 20 percent of the increase in premiums. Heritage’s Kathryn Nix explains what parts of Obamacare are to blame:

Provisions of the law that have already gone into effect are driving up the cost of premiums, including requiring insurance plans to cover children up the age of 26 on their parents’ policies and requiring government-approved preventive care measures to be covered with zero cost sharing by all plans.

The bad news is that Americans can expect costs to go even higher. For starters, the full force of the law won’t even kick in until 2014–in other words, there’s an onslaught ahead. And even without Obamacare, premiums are skyrocketing and hitting small businesses. Just imagine what the future will hold. Nix warns that “already-enacted provisions are just the beginning,” and just next week, the Institute of Medicine will release its recommendations on what should and should not be covered under Obamacare’s “essential health benefits” package. What could be the result? Even larger premium hikes than we’ve already seen.

With the cost of health care growing so tremendously over the past decade (for families, 31 percent higher premiums today than in 2006, 113 percent higher than in 2001), one might think that the news media would begin to ask whether the very law responsible for even higher costs ought to stand. That question, though, is not being asked, and the issue of Obamacare’s contribution to increased costs is not being examined.

Fortunately, the very basis of Obamacare will face ultimate legal examination. Yesterday, the National Federation of Independent Business filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit’s decision that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation. Twenty-six states, too, have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court, filing a petition for certiorari. Likewise, the Department of Justice yesterday asked the Court to review the lower court finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Washington Post reports that a decision will likely come next summer.

While America waits for a decision from the Supreme Court, Obamacare’s damage continues unabated. Families, individuals, and businesses are paying higher costs for health care. New regulations are exacting a heavy toll on job growth. And there are more regulations to come. The good news is that Obamacare is not the only option–real reforms can reduce health care costs for all Americans. And that change can come with repealing Obamacare, offering consumers more choices of coverage and full ownership of that coverage, and giving states greater latitude to experiment and innovate with health care programs, as Heritage proposes in its Saving the American Dream plan.

America’s health care system is already unaffordable, and Obamacare only makes it worse. Fortunately, there are conservative alternatives to the President’s flawed plan.

Quick Hits:

The FBI has arrested a 26-year-old physics graduate and model hobbyist from Massachusetts for planning to attack the Pentagon and Capitol using a remote-controlled aircraft filled with plastic explosives.
Germany has approved the expansion of a fund to bail out heavily indebted European countries. Six of 17 euro zone countries still need to pass the agreement.
A cache of weapons from the botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation have been discovered in El Paso. Forty firearms were being stored for transfer to Mexico.
Forces from Libya’s interim government captured the airport in Sirte, dictator Muammar Qadhafi’s hometown. It’s one of his last two remaining bastions of support.
There’s more good news in the fight against illegal immigration at the state level. A federal judge has upheld part of Alabama’s immigration law. Read more about it on Foundry.org.

Comment: This is expected-part of the plan-drive up private insurance costs to the point they opt to turn to obamasnare-oldest trick in the books and you are falling for it-good giref.

The Defense Contractors of Islam

Daniel Greenfield

One of the more peculiar twists in the caliphate’s tale is that a sizable amount of the funding for Islamic propaganda aimed at Americans comes from Muslim-owned defense contractors.

Sabtech Industries recently made the news when it lost its security clearance after some suspicious donations to Muslim charities cost its president, Rahim Sabadia, his security clearance. Sabtech’s work on upgrading the Navy’s AEGIS system on warships put it at the nerve center of one of the most important defense technologies in the United States. The real question, though, is not how Rahim Sabadia lost his security clearance, but how he got it in the first place. Sabadia was foreign born and had close ties to Pakistan as a member of (COPA) the Council of Pakistan-American Affairs. After being stopped on his return trip from Turkey, he used his favorite congressman to introduce a bill allowing people with their names on no fly lists to have them removed.

Through the Sabadia Family Foundation, Rahim was a major funder of CAIR to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars and also sits on the board of the One Nation Foundation, which exists to promote the confusingly dual proposition that Muslims are persecuted in America and that they are loyal Americans.

The One Nation Foundation board includes Saudi Arabia’s Hisham Alireza, who is also on the board of trustees of the extremist Zaytuna College, and Hamza Yusuf Hanson, the founding director of Zaytuna College.

Hanson, aka the “Mufti of California,” had called Judaism a “racist religion” and two days before the Muslim attacks of September 11 was quoted as saying, “This country unfortunately has a great, a great tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall.”

The One Nation Foundation board includes the wife of Sohaib Abbasi​, another Pakistani Muslim tech millionaire CEO. During Obama’s fundraising tour in California, one of the mansions he stopped by was the Abbasi home, before going on to describe Americans in Pennsylvania as bitter people clinging to their Bibles and guns.

Abbasi’s Informatica has handled defense contracts, though they are not its bread and butter. The Abbasis also funded the “Sohaib and Sara Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies” at Stanford University​. And the Sabadia Family Foundation funds Islamic propaganda films broadcast on public television.

When PBS aired, “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet,” featuring none other than Al-Qaeda’s man in Yemen, Anwar Al-Awlaki​, and Daisy Khan, wife of the former Ground Zero mosque imam, part of the funding for the propaganda broadcast, which has been turned into a lesson plan for classrooms, came from the Sabadia Family Foundation.

Another funder was Hisham Alireza’s company, Xenel, aka Arabian Bulk Trade Limited. Xenel is run by the Saudi Alireza clan, which has been tied to the Bin Ladens and a bank that was accused of funding Al Qaeda​.

And funding also came from the El-Hibri Foundation. The El-Hibris have played an even more vital role in the defense industry than Sabadia. While Sabadia had access to AEGIS– the El-Hibris have access to the most destructive non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction in the country.

Through a complicated series of buyouts and takeovers, the El-Hibris’ Emergent Bio-Solutions controls the anthrax vaccine and stands as our defense against bio-warfare. Documents from the company, which was then known as BioPort, have found their way into the hands of Pakistani nuclear scientists in Afghanistan. There has been further speculation that anthrax samples may have even found their way into the hands of terrorists.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in 2001, Senator Tim Hutchinson said that BioPort was “costing the American taxpayer millions and millions of dollars and jeopardizing the safety of our troops who we’re not able to provide that anthrax vaccination.”

Like the Abbasis, Fuad El-Hibri was an Obama donor and his aunt, Azizah El-Hibri, was appointed to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, despite her own radical views.

But meanwhile, the El-Hibri Foundation was providing grants to Unity Productions Foundation, begun by Safi Qureshey, another Pakistani computer company CEO.

Unity Productions Foundation is behind a long list of Islamic propaganda films, including the aforementioned “Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet,” as well as “Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain,” which received a splashy premiere at the Virginia Military Institute featuring Muslim Brotherhood speakers after the ROTC foreign language and education program was turned over into the hands of the UAE.

Another UPF film, “Prince Among Slaves,” was previously exposed at FrontPage Magazine as a fraud for attempting to turn a racist Muslim prince into a role model for African-Americans. UPF was also responsible for such shameless propaganda pieces as “Talking Through Walls: How the Struggle to Build a Mosque Unites a Community” and “On a Wing and a Prayer: An American Muslim Learns to Fly.”

UPF’s movies were stocked with radical clerics like Anwar Al-Awlaki, Zaid Shakir and the aforementioned Hamza Yusuf Hanson, many of whom spoke off-screen of making war against America. UPF and the El-Hibri Foundation also turned Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito’s propaganda tract into a documentary, “What a Billion Muslims Really Think.”

If the government was concerned that the head of a company whose work was so dangerous that National Guard sentries were called in to protect Emergent’s facilities, was financing documentaries featuring clerics who openly called for the destruction of America, it wasn’t obvious. Unlike Rahim Sabadia, Fuad El-Hibri and his company have continued flying under the radar.

The defense contractors of Islam have not only wormed their way deep into the national security infrastructure, often under false pretenses, but then, after sucking up taxpayer money through defense contracts, they have turned around and used that money to fund Muslim groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and propaganda films featuring some of the same Islamic clerics whose disciples are trying to murder American soldiers on and off the battlefield.

Lenin famously said that the capitalists would sell him the rope with which he would hang them, but we’re not selling the rope anymore. Instead we’re buying it. And the next time you read about two dollar screws at the Pentagon, it just might be our enemies who provided it.

Ya’alon: No Negotiations with this PA Leadership

Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon in a Rosh Hashanah interview: Facing this PA leadership there are no prospects for peace.
By Elad Benari, Canada
First Publish: 9/29/2011

Israel’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Ya’alon, gave a special interview to Arutz Sheva on Wednesday for Rosh Hashanah. During the interview Ya’alon summed up last week’s events in the United Nations and said that Israel should not conduct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority as long as its current leadership remains the same. Arutz Sheva: One can summarize the events at the UN and say that you are quite satisfied with Netanyahu’s speech.

Ya’alon: We’re satisfied not just with Netanyahu’s speech but also by the Palestinians’ failure to make their unilateral move. The Palestinians have been consistently avoiding negotiations since the dawn of Zionism. It was seen in Arafat’s response to Barak’s offer in 2000, it was seen when Abbas avoided Olmert’s offer in 2008, and now Abbas is avoiding negotiations by going to the United Nations unilaterally. We are also satisfied by the fact that all these threats and scenarios of a tsunami, international isolation and an intifada did not come true, and the move appears to be a failure.

Is it indeed a failure? They are going to the Security Council and promoting it there. We’re relying on an American veto. It’s not exactly a failure.

Unfortunately in the United Nations, with us being the only Jewish state alongside 22 Arab countries and more than 50 Muslim countries, there is no place to look for justice, and yet the Palestinians have no majority in the Security Council to pass their application. There is an important American stance here which is going to veto, a stance which, by the way, was changed due to Israel’s actions, and now the U.S. is in the same position as us, that the unilateral move is unacceptable and will bring about a second Hamastan. We need to see Obama’s speech as a significant process of change since he took office.

How much will we have to pay politically for this embrace? We already heard Netanyahu saying in the United States that he is willing to talk about freezing construction.

We talk about entering negotiations without preconditions and say that we are ready to talk about everything, but the fundamental questions we raised were answered with a resounding ‘no,’ for example of a future consent, not a condition for beginning negotiations, to recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, and we were told that it will never happen. So what can we talk about? Abbas is asking what will happen with the Arabs of 1948 and what will happen with the ‘right of return.’ Barak revealed the face of Arafat, Olmert revealed the face of Abbas even though he and Livni claim that the process was stopped because of the elections, which is a lie. With our demand for recognition we exposed Abbas’ true face and we did it without it even costing us a political price.

As someone who knows the PA’s internal dialogue very well, do you believe that there is one PA leader who could accept this demand and stay alive?

If that’s the situation then we would be better off not to ignore it or sweep it under the rug. It has been my contention ever since I was head of Military Intelligence in 1995, when I realized that even in Oslo they did not recognize Israel’s right to exist within borders of any kind, and that the entire move was meant to be a Trojan horse that will allow them to enter ‘Palestine’. It is good that the people of Israel know this and not fool themselves. One of the worst things that happened to us is that we adopted their narrative and we covered up the fact that never have they had a leadership that was willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

So this demand for recognition is only to expose their faces? It’s not a real requirement for negotiations?

This is a genuine and basic demand, because without it any agreement we sign would be just another stage in the conflict. People ask why we did not demand this from the Egyptians and the Jordanians and the answer is simple: because they have no claim on Sheikh Munis, Haifa, Akko and Ashkelon. In contrast, the Palestinians view Israeli Arabs as being part of them so they are not prepared to see a return to 1949 armistice lines as an end to the conflict.

Do you believe that there is some sort of outline of an agreement that ensures the Palestinian state will be demilitarized and that Hamas would not take over it the next day?

We’re not there yet, because of their lack of willingness to recognize us. After all, in his speech Abbas denied the connection of the Jews to their land. He spoke only of the Muslim and Christian connection to Israel. He argues that there is no Jewish nation. Does anyone think we can sign an agreement with them when their young generation is brought up according to such perceptions?

It appears from what you are saying that you do not really believe there are any prospects to these negotiations.

In this situation facing this leadership there definitely are no prospects, and it’s better that all of us know this. It’s important that an Israeli majority that recognizes reality take shape, without illusions of peace now or disengagement. When we are united, the world opinion will be with us.

The left and the world say that the Netanyahu government has a credibility problem. Maybe they’re right, because here you are proving how little chance such negotiations have and yet you’re still talking about the vision of two states.

We say that we do not want to rule over them. They have political independence and we are ready to strengthen it in those areas for which they are responsible, but if they do not respect our right to exist, why should we start talking with them about territory? We are ready to have them conduct their lives in their area of autonomy.

And given all this, when will the Likud government fulfill its nationalist platform and finally build after so many years in Judea and Samaria?

Because of the sensitivity of the situation which we received, of political processes that previous governments conducted, we have been cautious. We had to accept commitments of previous governments, including a commitment not to establish new Jewish communities, but insisted on continuing construction. So there are periods of sensitivity but construction continues and the number of residents in Judea and Samaria is growing.

Before the events at the UN there was talk of the possibility of annexing Judea and Samaria as a response to the PA’s move. Is it feasible?

There is no doubt that the Palestinians going to the UN is a gross violation of the Oslo Accords. We held discussions about the possibilities that lie in our hands in response to this move. We are considering our options. We will hold discussions with the Prime Minister about both the Quartet’s offer as well as the Palestinian move on and make our decisions.

As a member of the ministerial team on Migron, do you know what exactly happened that night of the destruction, and why?

It was clear that the three homes were built without permits. Minister Begin and I were in talks with the residents of the community about some ways to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, we were surprised with a move that was decided by the defense minister. The issue is being clarified among the ministers and the prime minister and the defense minister. I hope that lessons can be learned from that incident, too.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, and I wish to take this opportunity to wish you and all the people of Israel a Shana Tova, a good new year.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Rosh Hashanah in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)