How dare Mike Huckabee say that!!!!

While being interviewed on Breitbart News Satuday, on July 25, 2015, probable Presidential candidate (he’s made no formal announcement yet) and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee dropped a news bomb. He said that, with this horrible Iran deal, US president Obama “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven” (Robert Wilde, “Huckabee: Obama Marching Israelis to ‘Door of Oven’”, breitbart. com, July 25, 2015).

That ‘oven’, of course, refers to the crematoria of the Nazi concentration camps of app 1935-45, where 6 million Jews were murdered and then incinerated like so much trash simply because they were Jews. Huckabee’s comment suggested that the Iran deal was so bad it was tantamount to marching Israel to its death.

Why would anyone suggest that? Well, for one thing, Iran has made no secret of its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Iranians won’t stop chanting, ‘Death to Israel’. In the middle of the negotiations, Iran declared that it has a Divine mission to destroy the Jewish state (David Daoud, “Top Khamenei Advisor: We Have Divine Permission to Destroy Israel”, The Algemeiner, May 12, 2015). Therefore, any US-driven deal that could help Iran get a nuclear weapon—or help fund more terror activity--could indeed be considered enabling Iran to kill Jews.

The world doesn’t want to hear such an inconvenient truth.  MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski was so shocked when she first heard the ‘oven’ comment she couldn’t respond (Louis Dore, “Mike Huckabee's Holocaust comments have almost everyone in America lost for words”, i100independent, July 28, 2015). Jon Stewart was left speechless (Lauren O’Neil, “Jon Stewart is literally speechless over Mike Huckabee's Holocaust comments”, cbcnews, July 28, 2015). Republican presidential aspirant Jeb Bush rebuked Huckabee (Jonathan Martin, “Jeb Bush Scolds Mike Huckabee for Holocaust Comment”, New York Times, July 27, 2015). President Obama called the remark ‘outrageous…ridiculous if it weren’t so sad’ (“Obama attacks Mike Huckabee over Israel 'oven' remarks”, BBCNews, July 27, 2015). 

Politically correct America found the Huckabee comment to be extraordinarily offensive. Huckabee’s openness had violated the public gospel: he’d spoken the unspeakable. He’d suggested that the leader of the free world was facilitating the ultimate Nazi dream of annihilating the Jewish nation.

Was Huckabee wrong to make such a connection? The answer is, no-- and yes.

He certainly wasn’t wrong about Iran’s plans for Israel (“Would Iran use the bomb?”, iranintelligence, no date). Israel represents the infidel. According to Iranian religious leaders, the most important task of life is to confront the infidel and prepare the world to receive the Islamic messiah, the twelfth imam (ibid). The Jews in particular need to be fought against "and forced to surrender to prepare the way for the coming of the Hidden Imam" (ibid).

He wasn’t wrong to suggest that Iran’s goal is the Nazi goal (Lee Morgan, “'Kill all Jews and annihilate Israel!' Iran's Ayatollah lays out legal and religious justification for attack”, dailymail, February  8, 2012). This ‘deal’ was never about peace (Ezequiel Doiny, “The Iranian nuclear program and the Final Solution”, Jewish Press, July 30, 2015). It’s about carrying out a modern version of the Nazi’s anti-Jewish vision (“Iranian Military Chief: We Must Annihilate Israel”, Arutz Sheva, March 31, 2015; and, “Netanyahu’s response to nuke deal: It will fuel Iran’s efforts to destroy Israel”, Times of Israel, July 14, 2015).

Huckabee certainly wasn’t wrong about Obama’s attitudes towards Israel (Tova Dvorin, “Diplomat: Obama Seeking 'Revenge' on Netanyahu”, Arutz Sheva, March 24, 2015; and Ben Shapiro, “A Complete Timeline of Obama’s Anti-Israel Hatred”, breitbart, March 20, 2015). He wasn’t wrong to suggest that Obama’s worldview is closer to a supremacist Iran than the democratic Israel (“Obama and Iran”, discoverthenetworks.org, no date; and “Netanyahu voices outrage that nuclear talks go on while Iran vows to destroy Israel”, Arutz Sheva, April 1, 2015).

Huckabee's problem was, he’d let the proverbial anti-Jewish cat out of the proverbial bag. He’d declared, ‘the emperor has no clothes’; that is, he’d announced what everyone knows: this deal advances the Iranian plot to annihilate Israel—and this deal is a script that has Obama’s fingerprints all over it.

There’s nothing more politically incorrect than to embarrass the leader of the free world, especially one who embraces such anti-Jewish machinations. It doesn’t matter if Huckabee’s words ring true. What matters is, he revealed what should have remained hidden—that, through this ‘historic’ deal, the West would tighten the noose around the Jews’ neck. That noose hasn’t been this tight since Nazi Germany. If everyone had kept quiet, the Jews--so eager to self-delude—would have convinced themselves yet again that the noose was a necklace.

The Jews had done that in the 1930’s with the Nazis—deluded themselves into accepting Nazi policy. They’d already begun to do it again in the 21^st century—with the so-called ‘two-state solution’.  Many Jews were ready to do it here with Iran.

The new Final Solution had been proceeding smoothly. The attacks at the UN, the unrelenting pressure from the EU, the inroads made by dozens of anti-Israel NGO’s, the Arab drive for another state, the attacks of the Obama administration—and now the promise of a nuclear Iran: the pressure was perfect, the results satisfactory, the progress undeniable.

The Jews were on the run, their ‘homeland’ feeling the heat of hate. Then, Huckabee opened his big mouth. He made the grand connection: Iran-Obama-the ovens.

How dare he do that!!!

 

 

Jewish women who may be role models for today’s Jewish woman

Ronn Torossian has compiled an intriguing list of Jewish women (“The Top 10 Living Jewish Women Role Models”, The Algemeiner, July 23, 2015). You might want to take a look at it.

Yes, I’ve left off some names. I’ve also made some changes to his essay, to fit my format. Still, consider these women. See if you can tell what values Torossian feels are important.

Sheryl Sandberg: The Chief Operating Officer of Facebook has been credited by Forbes Magazine as having “overhauled Facebook and helped make it the most popular social network in cyberspace.” Forty-five years old, she has spoken of the importance of Judaism in her life. Her best-selling book “Lean In” made her a household name and helped her to further earn the respect of women world-wide, as she detailed a balanced life -with tremendous professional success and a loving family. Recently, with the sudden death of her husband Dave Goldberg, Sandberg mourned her loss very publicly. She spoke of the importance of sitting shiva, and of the power of the shloshim period, the 30-day mourning period after the burial of a close relative. This woman showed the power of strength even in pain – her resilience and strength of character are inspiring.

 

Ayelet Shaked: Israel’s Minister of Justice is only 39 years old, and has quickly proven herself to be a valiant woman making a difference for the Jewish State. She’s hard-working, eloquent, and fights for what she believes is right. A secular leader of a religious party, her heritage is an amalgamation of Ashkenazi and Sephardic lineage. A charismatic leader, she rightfully pronounces “that public diplomacy is the new battlefield and that money and resources must be invested to repulse the wave of incitement and lies spread about [Israel] around the world. The battlefield of public diplomacy is far more important today to the existence of the State of Israel than a tank battalion or an Apache squadron.” 

 

Miriam Adelson: Miri Adelson is a medical doctor, businesswoman, and philanthropist who owns 26.9% of Las Vegas Sands, one of the largest gaming companies in the world. The life – and business – partner of Billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the native-born Israeli comes from modest beginnings – and continues to work daily conducting research and working with patients on medical issues. The Adelsons are the most prevalent Jewish philanthropists in the world, funding important causes like Yad Vashem, Birthright, and Ariel University. This is an intense, strong, committed, ideological woman.

 

Miriam Peretz: She became a household name in Israel through tragedy – two of her sons were killed protecting Israel in the Israel Defense Forces. Displaying strength, faith, and courage, she spoke to the nation with passion and charisma about dedication to G-d and to the Jewish people. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “We are amazed by the mother’s strength, Miriam, the mother of the sons. The entire nation draws strength from her courage.” Today, Ms. Peretz speaks often on Israel’s behalf all over the world.

 

Nitsana Darshan Leitner: As founder of the Israel Law Center, Nitsana has long fought for terror victims worldwide. Inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center, her lawsuits on behalf of terror victims have taken on terrorists anywhere who would harm Jews and Israel. This lady fights in both the court of law and the court of public opinion to see that terrorists are not rewarded, but held accountable. Ms. Darshan Leitner has won billions in judgments against terror states and organizations in courts worldwide.

 

Miriam Levinger:  The native New Yorker led a group of women and children to reclaim the Jewish community of Hebron in 1979, one of the holiest cities in Judaism, where the Cave of the Patriarchs is located. She’s a registered nurse, who has helped lead this community, together with her husband Moshe Levinger (who passed away earlier this year). This city marks the roots of Jewish existence.

 

Ruth Lichtenstein:  Ms. Lichtenstein is the very strong female publisher of the ultra-Orthodox newspaper Hamodia; it is the largest Jewish daily news venue in the world. She is a Jerusalem-born educator and a prominent Holocaust historian. Her non-profit, Project Witness, is a leader in Holocaust curriculum for schools worldwide. Ms. Lichtenstein is a pillar of faith in Judaism and her book “Witness to History” offers a remarkable, unique country-by-country history of the Holocaust. A Haredi leader, she commands respect, and epitomizes compassion, faith, and absolute dignity.

Torossian offers three honourable mentions:

- Cherna Moskowitz of The Irving & Cherna Moskowitz Foundation. The Moskowitz family are pioneers committed to ensuring that Jerusalem remains Jewish. They have devoted their lives to ensuring the safety and security of Israel.

- Rachelle Fraenkel, whose son was kidnapped and murdered in June 2014. The Jerusalem Post said, she “remains, a symbol of the period of unprecedented social unity, prayer and faith, a period that carried on into the rocket-racked days of Operation Protective Edge.”

- Daniella Weiss, who since the 1970s has served as a leader of the settlement movement, ensuring Jews can live freely throughout the land of Israel. She was Mayor of Kedumim for many years, helped establish a number of communities, and with charisma, charm, and chutzpah, has long raised a voice of moral consciousness for Jewish pioneers in Israel.

 Make up your own list. Which living Jewish women would you include? Torossian felt that his list contained women who had strong Jewish values.

Who would you name?

Of course, you should read the original article. Take a look at his complete list.

What’s wrong with the Iran deal

US president Obama has signed a nuclear agreement with Iran (July 14, 2015). He loves it. He says it will make the world safer. He says it will block every pathway to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Others disagree. They say this deal is flawed. They say these flaws are serious.

Here’s a review of some of those flaws.

In the beginning, some 13 years ago, the ‘deal’ was supposed to be based on a straight trade-off: America (and its partners) would end nuclear-related sanctions when Iran ended its domestic nuclear program (Robert Satloff, “What's Really Wrong with the Iran Nuclear Deal”, New York Daily News, July 14, 2015). But that didn’t happen. What happened was, the US started to retreat:

One: the US conceded to Iran the right to have its own nuclear reactors--but not to enrich nuclear fuel (Satloff). Then, the US conceded to Iran the right to enrich but under strict limitations (Satloff). Then, the US conceded to Iran that the strict limitations on enrichment would expire at a certain point in the future (Satloff).

Two: the ‘inspections’ which have been set up to verify that Iran is complying with the agreement aren’t exactly ‘inspections’. For example, the agreement concedes to Iran a 24 day delay should Iran object to an inspection. While it certainly may take more than 24 days to scrub clean a massive underground enrichment facility, there is nonetheless a lot of illicit activity that Iran can hide with 24 days’ notice (Satloff).

In addition, the world’s most competent inspectors, the Americans, will be banned from Iran (Sara Malm, “US inspectors will be banned from all Iranian nuclear sites under controversial deal amid warnings 'only American experts can tell if they are cheating'”, dailymail, July 17, 2015). The US conceded to this even as some claim that only the Americans can be trusted to verify accurately that Iran is in compliance (Adam Kredo, “Iran Bans U.S. Inspectors from All Nuclear Sites”, Washington Free Beacon, July 16, 2015).

This is ironic. The US led the negotiations. But the US is the only country among the negotiators banned from inspections (Kredo). Given the reputation of the American inspectors, what might their banning suggest?

Then, there’s the public behaviour of the Obama administration regarding inspections. In April, 2015, deputy National Security advisor Ben Rhodes declared there would be ‘anytime, anywhere inspections’ in Iran—because that’s how we’ll know the Iranians remain honest (Shoshana Weissmann, “Ben Rhodes Misled About 'Anywhere, Anytime' Inspections of Iran's Nuclear Program”, The Weekly Standard,” July 15, 2015 ).That now turns out to be false. Yes, the administration did spread what now turns out to be a ‘rumour’ that Iran compliance would be verified by ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspections; but when the agreement came out, there was no such provision (Daniel Greenfield, “Obama "We'll Have 24/7 Access to Iran's nukes", Obama Adviser, "We Never Said That", FrontPageMag, July 14, 2015). As Greenfield said about this rumour/denial: “You can trust these guys [the Obama administration] on the Iran deal-- Almost as much as you can trust Iran” (ibid).

Inspections will not be all-inclusive. Inspectors will not have access to Iran’s military sites. A top advisor to the Ayatollah Khamenei has recently reiterated that all inspectors will be banned from all military sites (“Iran vows to bar international inspectors from military sites”, Times of Israel, July 5, 2015). Since the development of a nuclear weapon will at some point be intimately linked to ‘a military site’, banning inspectors from such sites doesn’t bode well for the ‘verification’ promise the US says is built into the agreement.

Three: the agreement renders irrelevant any attempt to punish violations. You see, there appears to be only one penalty for any infraction, big or small -- taking Iran to the UN Security Council for the "snapback" of international sanctions (Satloff). That is like saying that for any crime-- misdemeanor or felony--the punishment is the death penalty (Satloff). In the real world, that means there will be no punishments for anything less than a ‘capital crime’ (Satloff).

Four: the ‘snapback’ provision has been gutted. Let's say that the UN Security Council orders the re-imposition of sanctions. It appears from the agreement that all contracts signed by Iran up until that point are grandfathered in (Satloff; emphasis mine). They’re immune from sanctions (Satloff). That means one can expect a stampede of state-to-state and private sector contracts -- some real, many hypothetical -- all designed to shield Iran from the impact of a possible re-imposition of sanctions, thereby weakening the impact of the punishment (Satloff).

Five: the agreement says that, should sanctions be re-imposed, Iran will have the right to free itself immediately from all commitments and restrictions under the deal (Satloff). In other words, a violation would have to be really, really significant for the Security Council to blow up the entire agreement in order to re-impose sanctions (Satloff). That effectively gives Iran a free pass on all manner of small to mid-level violations (Satloff). This ‘bailout’ provision makes the 24-day notice (above) important: 24 days could be enough time to scrub a major violation down to a mid-level violation, or lower.

Six: secret agreements. There are two kinds of secret agreements in this deal (Eli Lake and Josh Rogin, “Congress Alarmed by Iran Pact's Secret Understandings”, Bloomberg View, July 26, 2015)--those secrets that are known to Congress but not to the US public; and those secrets not known to Congress or the public (Lake, Rogin).

There are at least six secret agreements known to Congress that deal with the more ambiguous parts of the agreement (Lake, Rogin). They hide from prying eyes exactly how those ‘more ambiguous’ provisions actually work. These documents also explain the commitments other countries have to provide Iran with research and development assistance on its nuclear program (Lake, Rogin). These agreements include protecting Iran from attack and sabotage, a concept most interpret as a protection against the one nation most likely to attack Iran--Israel.

Why would the world want to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from attack? Does it protect anyone else’s facilities in this way? Given the fact that this deal allows Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon (after a maximum of ten years), why protect Iran at all when Iran continues to chant, ‘Death to Israel, Death to America’? Wouldn’t a threat of an attack be a great motivation to Iran to comply in a fully transparent manner, so as to prove that its nuclear work is as truly non-military as it claims?

There are at least two additional secret agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran (Lake, Rogin) which are hidden from both Congress and the public (Lake, Rogin). These agreements are particularly important because they deal directly with the inspection of Iran’s nuclear program. They address the question of whether the IAEA would be able to inspect the Parchin military complex, and how the IAEA and Iran would resolve concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program (Lake, Rogin). While the US State Department dismisses concerns over these secret agreements with the statement that these agreements simply cover ‘standard procedures for technical aspects of inspections’, one Republican Senator said it was his understanding that one of these secret agreements allowed Iran to take its own environmental samples at Parchin (Lake, Rogin). Another Senator compared this particular arrangement to the NFL allowing athletes suspected of taking steroids to mail in their own urine samples (Lake, Rogin).

To allow the Iranians to collect their own samples is absurd (Fred Fleitz, “What Kerry and Obama Tried to Keep from Congress and the Public: Iran Will Collect Its Own Samples for the IAEA”, National Review, July 24, 2015).  It goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples (ibid). As Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) said, “Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, “Don’t worry, we’re going to be watching over their shoulder and we’re going to put in place verification[s] that are absolutely bullet proof”? We’re going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is absolutely ludicrous” (ibid).

US Secretary of State John Kerry, when questioned about these secret agreements didn’t answer questions satisfactorily. Kerry told a hearing he hadn’t seen the secret documents. That prompted one Senator to say that Kerry had essentially told them, ‘the Ayatollah knows what’s in the deal but we don’t’ (Lake, Rogin). This suggests that the US has wilfully blinded itself to details it’d rather not know about.

That’s a serious red flag. It’s enough to cut the heart out the deal.

Seven: the deal doesn’t guarantee that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. It just delays it by a maximum of ten years (Caroline Glick, “How and Why to Kill the Iran Deal”, RealClearPolitics, July 24, 2015). In the Islamic war to conquer, ten years is nothing.

Worse yet, the original plan for this deal was that no sanctions would be lifted until Iran revealed what progress it had already made in its nuclear program. Iran steadfastly refuses to comply with this requirement. Therefore, no one knows how close Iran has gotten to a bomb, nor—as things currently stand—will anyone ever know. Given the number of centrifuges this deal will leave intact, experts believe that the exact time Iran needs to get a bomb isn’t 10 years; most estimates suggest that Iran needs something like 7 months to 3 years to get a bomb.

Eight: Iran can wait for its bomb because this agreement means that more than 100 billion dollars of frozen Iranian assets will be released to Iran. Iran is the world’s biggest supporter of terror. If Iran wants to cause havoc in the Middle East and across the world, it doesn’t need an atom bomb. It can do almost as much damage much sooner with 100 billion dollars of new money for its terror proxies.

There’s much that’s wrong with this deal. There are many other flaws. You’ve seen only some of them here.

Altogether, the flaws emasculate the deal. As someone has already said, these flaws create a hole big enough to drive a truck-bomb through.

Remember: Obama said this deal will make the world safer. If we’re supposed to be safer, what is Iran’s Supreme leader doing (after the deal was signed) expressing in a speech such hostility towards the US that members of his audience begin to chant, ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ (Arnold Ahlert, “Iran Still Chanting 'Death to America'”, frontpagemag, July 22, 2015)?

Where do you think that’s going to lead?

Obama’s legacy: deliver Israel and the world to Islam

US President Hussein Obama has a goal for his Presidency. He seeks a signature accomplishment, one that will be remembered long after he leaves office.  He seeks a legacy.

He’s tried multiple times to create that legacy. But so far, he’s failed every time.

For example, he created a national healthcare plan called, ‘’Obamacare’. But it’s not as cheap as promised. It’s not as comprehensive as promised. It’s not as all-inclusive as promised.

He tried ‘freedom’ in the Middle East by promoting the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. That failed.

He tried peace in the Middle East by hyping a ‘two-state’ solution between the so-called ‘Palestinians’ and Israel based upon 1949 borders for Israel. It failed.

Now, He’s completed a nuclear deal with Iran. He’s selling this deal as a ‘once-in-a-lifetime chance’ to bring stability to the Middle East (Victor Beatle, “Obama: Iran Deal ‘Once-in-a-Lifetime’ Chance”, voa, April 6, 2015). He calls this deal, ‘historic’ (George Jahn and Mattew Lee, “Obama heralds historic Iran nuclear deal”, The Globe and Mail, July 14, 2015). He claims it will make the world safer (Dave Boyer, “Obama says Iran nuke deal will make world safer while Iranians chant ‘death to America’”, Washington Times, July 28, 2015).

His critics don’t agree. They say it won’t make the world safer. It’ll make the world more dangerous (Tom Wilson, “There was a credible alternative to the Iran deal. Obama just chose to ignore it”, The Spectator, July 20, 2015).

They say the deal will give Iran more than 100 billion dollars to spread its terror (Jeff Jacoby, “Iran can buy a lot of terror with $100 billion”, Boston Globe, July 26, 2015). They claim it contains secret agreements that will allow Iran to cheat (Eli Lake and Josh Rogin, “Congress Alarmed by Iran Pact's Secret Understandings”, BloombergView, July 26, 2015).

Obama doesn’t care what his critics say.  He’s happy because, you see, he has a plan.

It’s a two-in-one plan: he will become the man who will spread Islam to the West as no one before him; he will be the man who delivers Israel to Islam (James Lewis, “Obama's Next Move is to Gang up on Israel”, The American Thinker, July 21, 2015).

He will use Iran to do it. Through Iran, he will squeeze the Middle East (Robert Fisk, “Iran nuclear deal: America has taken Iran's side – to the fury of Israel and Saudi Arabia”, independentvoices, July 15, 2015). Through Iran, he will squeeze Israel (Keyan Milanian, “Iran nuclear deal threatens Israel's existence, Benjamin Netanyahu tells President Obama”, express, April 3, 2015). Through Iran, he will squeeze the world (Mark Dubowitz, “Path to disaster: Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran puts the world’s safety at risk”, qz. com, April 3, 2015).

We saw a hint of the Israel-squeeze last week. We learned that the Iran deal doesn’t shut down the Iran nuclear program. It protects that program (Patrick Goodenough, “Deal Would Help Iran Defend Its Nuclear Facilities Against 'Sabotage'”, cnsnews, July 20, 2015). The agreement includes a provision which commits the international community to help Iran protect itself against both sabotage and physical attack (Goodenough, ibid). While no specific country was named in the provision as the potential aggressor, the one country most likely to attack Iran’s nuclear program is Israel.

The US makes sure this deal protects Iran. For Obama, that’s not just anti-Israel. It’s profoundly pro-Iran, pro-Islam and anti-West.

Also last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry raised Israel from by-stander to target.  First, he said any Israeli attack against Iran’s program would be a ‘huge mistake’ (David Rutz, “Kerry: Unilateral Action by Israel Against Iran Would Be ‘Enormous Mistake,’ Could Give Regime ‘Reason’ For Pursuing Nuclear Weapons”, Washington Free Beacon, July 24, 2015).

Then he said, if Congress rejected the deal, Israel would suffer (Adam Kredo, “Kerry: Israel Will Be ‘Blamed’ If Congress Rejects Iran Deal”, Washington Free Beacon, July 24, 2015).

His not-so-subtle message was that if this deal failed, the blame will be placed on Israel. The US would see to it.

The Iran deal is a watershed event. It shows the United States of America embracing an anti-West, Islamic Jew-hating dream. 

Obama uses his position and power to embolden that dream. Archimedes once said he could move the world with a lever. For Hussein Obama, Iran is that lever.

Obama gives Iran a pathway to a nuclear weapon (American Thinker, above, ibid). He gives Iran billions to fund an Islamic foreign policy based on conquest and Jew-hate. He protects Islamic Iran from the Jewish Israel. With this deal, he even allows the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guards to operate in the EU (Benjamin Weinthal, “Analysis: Europe to drop sanctions on Iranian terrorists and entities”, Jerusalem Post, July 25, 2015).

Hussein Obama comes out of the closet. He believes in Iran. He believes in an Islamic ‘Palestine’ which will erase the Jewish Israel from the world map. He believes in the supremacy of Islam.

Through Iran, Obama will move the world. His legacy strategy is a terrorist’s dream (American Thinker, ibid). He will deliver Israel and the world to Islam.

Will he succeed? Stay tuned.

The sword of Tisha B’Av cuts both ways

The Jewish Day called, Tisha B’Av (the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av) commemorates Jewish national tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people. It’s the day when, more than 3,300 years ago, the Jewish ‘spies’ came back from a scouting mission to Israel, to report what they saw to Moshe and the Jewish nation. They reported Israel couldn’t be conquered. They said the land devours its inhabitants.

They failed to believe HaShem’s Promises. They rejected those Promises.

On that day, upon hearing that report, the Jewish nation cried. They didn’t trust HaShem’s Promises. They wailed. They mourned. They’d never be able to enter the land!

As a result of that false mourning that long-ago day, the ninth of Av has been forever marked with tragedy.

On the ninth of Av, the first Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Jewish blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem.

On the ninth of Av more than 600 years later, the second Holy Temple was destroyed. More Jewish blood ran in the streets of Jerusalem.

On the ninth of Av, Jews went into an exile that lasted more than 1,900 years, until 1947 and the birth of modern Israel.

On the ninth of Av, we mourn those—and other—Jewish tragedies. But those tragedies contain an embedded lesson for those who would destroy Israel today. You see, Tisha B’Av isn’t just a story about Jews. It’s also about non-Jews who, after all, perpetrated the Tisha B’Av tragedies. It’s a story of what happens when any nation rejects, scorns and defiles HaShem.  

In 2015, Tisha B’Av falls on Sunday, July 26th. On this day, Jews everywhere read Kinot, the poetry of Tisha B’Av’s mourning. The words of the Kinot may have been written originally to describe the destruction of the two Jewish Holy Temples and the fate of Jews during that destructon. But these words also describe the modern reality of Arabs in the Middle East who seek to bring a modern Tisha B’Av to modern Israel. The Kinot describes the current fate of Jew-hating Arabs:

-They unsheathe their swords against their own camp.

-They make war upon themselves. They destroy the gates of their own ramparts. Their tents fill with (their own) blood.

-Their leaders prophesy phantoms and deceits. They replace good with evil.

-They are cursed. Their vineyards wither into dust (as Israel blossoms).

-Their lawlessness leads to their own devastation.

-Their wells run dry. Their rains turn to dust.

-Instead of blessings, their land turns to iron.

-They are cursed. They know only despair. They wreak havoc among their own multitudes.

-They have no peace. Their city is a graveyard. They hurl their children into the abyss. Their evil consumes them.

-They destroy their own judges.

-Their counsel is a perversion. Their crookedness leads them to bitter waters.

-Their glory is ruined by the carnage of their sword.

-In their land, there is no peace.

The fate of Jew-hating Arabs has been foretold with their own words: destruction, fire, flames of hate. They have spoken it. Now those words pour down upon them, not the Jews.

Look around the Middle East. All that you read above is real—for Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza and most parts of the Palestinian Authority.

Haven’t you wondered why the desertification of the Middle East which everyone laments doesn’t come to Israel? Haven’t you wondered why the prosperity and accomplishment you see in Israel doesn’t occur among Arabs who curse Israel and the Jews?

The answer is simple: he who curses the Jews is cursed. You see that all over the Arab Middle East.

Tisha B’Av is a day of tragedy. But that tragedy cuts two ways. It punished Jews who rejected HaShem. But it will also punish those who seek to destroy HaShem by destroying the two things in this world He loves most—the Jewish people and the Jewish Israel.

The Tisha B’Av tragedy is a warning. It warns that, if you seek to destroy the Jewish nation, you will yourself be destroyed in the same manner you plot against Israel.

What today’s current events teach us is how that promise of punishment unfolds in real time: those who curse Israel will not just be cursed themselves. Their curses will pour down upon their own people.

Those who hate Jews hate their own multitudes. Those who would exterminate Jews exterminate their own people. Those who would behead, rape and enslave Jews, behead, rape and enslave their own kind.

The curse cuts twice. The one who curses Jews is the one who will be cursed. The one who would destroy Jews will destroy himself.

The G-d of Israel has a Story for you. It’s the Story of the Final Jewish Redemption. You don’t see how today’s growing Jew-hate will play a part in that Story?

Stay tuned.

‘Palestinians’ bully India at UN

Those who promote the ‘Palestinian cause’ speak of peace and justice. The cause of the ‘Palestinian’ people is the call for peace. It is the call for ‘justice’. Apparently, there can be nothing more Christian than the ‘Palestinian Cause’.

How do those who seek justice and peace behave? Is their behaviour consistent with a ‘peace and justice’ worldview?

For answers to these questions, look at the UN. At the UN, the world’s biggest democratic country is India. Traditionally, it’s been a staunch, dependable supporter of the ‘Palestinian’ Cause. With virtually every UN vote regarding Israel and Israeli actions, India has voted against Israel every time (Vijeta Uniyal, “Is India dumping the ‘Palestinian Cause’?”, Legal Insurrection, July 23, 2015). India’s support for the ‘Palestinians’ has been so predictable it’s been informally (and warmly) referred to as an ‘Arab state’ (ibid).

India isn’t an Arab state. It isn’t a Muslim state.

But something has happened. First, Indian elections in 2014 swept out the country’s ruling party from office (ibid). Then, second, India stopped being predictably anti-Israel at the UN (ibid).

It’s not certain what’s happened. But three things appear to be clear. First, Israel and India have been developing an increasingly close relationship (ibid). By 2013, India had become Israel’s 10^th largest trade partner (Ohad Cohen, “Israel & India Economic Ties: Growth & Potential”, Times of Israel, July 14, 2015). In 2014, Israel and India began talks to establish cooperation between Indian and Israeli companies (“Specialized teams are discussing the establishment of a joint fund”, Economic News, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 16, 2014). One goal for this fund is to help assist Israeli developers and industrialists to deepen their penetration into the Indian market (ibid).

Such agreements reflect a growing friendship between Israel and India. Today, the Foreign Trade Administration in the Israeli Ministry of Economy has established multiple trade offices in India (Times of Israel, ibid).  The number of Israeli trade officials in India makes India Israel’s third largest overseas trade delegation worldwide (ibid).

The sense of cooperation and mutual understanding between India and Israel grows. India and Israel are now discussing a Free Trade Agreement (Sachin Parashar, “India, Israel to restart free trade agreement talks”, The Times of India, February 1, 2015). It’s expected that a Free Trade Agreement will double India-Israel trade (ibid). If that happens, and other countries don’t double their own trade with Israel, India could leap-frog into 2^nd place on the list of Israel’s top-ten trade partners (“Top Israel’s trade partners—world’s richest countries”, worldsrichestcountries. com,  2014).

Second, thousands of Indians are ‘slaughtered’ each year by Islamic extremists (Legal Insurrection, ibid). Indian officials are not insensitive to these killings (Legal Insurrection, ibid).

Third, India’s behaviour at the UN this year has turned towards Israel. For example, India didn’t support a recent anti-Israel vote at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). On July 3^rd, 2015, the UNHRC voted on a Report that accused Israel of war crimes in the 2014 Gaza-Israel war (ibid). India abstained (ibid).

India abstained again on July 20^th, when Israel lost a bid at the UN to deny a Hamas NGO accreditation at the UN (“India again abstains in Israel-related UN vote”, the Namo Patrika, July 21, 2015). In June, 2015, India had abstained at a smaller UN body that accredits NGOs. Israel had been unsuccessful in that smaller body to deny accreditation to that Hamas-related NGO. India had not voted against Israel.

If you’re counting, that adds up to 3 Indian abstentions in two months. Those abstentions did not go unnoticed.

In its own right, these abstentions are newsworthy. The predictable India hadn’t been predictable.

But what’s even more newsworthy is the Palestinian envoy’s response: it threatened India.

The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) UN envoy issued a veiled warning to India because of those abstentions (Legal Insurrection, ibid). The PA wasn’t going to let those abstentions pass without comment. It conveyed to India the threat that a pro-Israel stand at the UN could cost India a coveted permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)-–something India has wanted for decades (ibid).

It’s one thing for the ‘Palestinians’ to express disappointment over India’s abstentions. It’s also one thing to express anger over it. That’s legitimate. But threatening India? Blackmail?

‘Palestine’ isn’t yet a full Member State at the UN. It still needs a favourable vote from the UN to become a State. That it should threaten the world’s largest democracy reveals how comfortable the ‘Palestinians’ are with their UN prospects. Such a threat also suggests that the ‘Palestinians’ do indeed expect not only a seat at the UN, but a seat of power and influence. The threat shows the PA isn’t shy about throwing its weight around before it officially enters the UN.

The fact that the threat has become public knowledge suggests that India isn’t too pleased to be treated this way by a non-State observer at the UN.

The PA’s behaviour at the UN teaches us a lesson. It’s a very simple lesson: the ‘Palestinian Cause’ has nothing to do with freedom, justice or peace. It has everything to do with taking over.

You should remember that the next time you choose to defend the ‘Palestinian Cause’--or condemn Israel.

The PA: it’s where injustice begins and where just behaviour is ignored.

The anti-BDS Movement in America just changed

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a ‘Palestinian Cause’-based movement that aims to destroy Israel (Dan Diker, “Unmasking BDS: Radical Roots, Extremist Ends”, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, no date). It does this by seeking a perverted ‘justice’ for ‘Palestinians’--a ‘people’ which never existed.

‘Palestinian’ ‘justice’ is perverted because it isn’t based on fairness. It isn’t based of equality. It isn’t based on ‘the absence of prejudice’. It’s based upon Jew-hate. It demands that the sovereign Jewish Israel be erased in order to create in its stead an Islamic ‘Palestine’.

BDS isn’t justice. It’s part of the war to destroy Israel.

One BDS supporter, Ahmed Moor, is a Palestinian-American author and campaigner. He’s written: “I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential. I believe that the ultimate success of the BDS movement will be coincident with the ultimate success of the Palestinian enfranchisement and equal rights movement. In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown….This belief grows directly from the conviction that nothing resembling the ‘two-state solution’ will ever come into being. Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself” (ibid).

If you don’t believe that BDS seeks to ‘upend’ Israel itself, read through the website, Palestinian Media Watch. There, you’ll see how the Palestinian Authority (the rulers of the ‘Palestinian people’) uses its media, clergy, social programs, Facebook page and education system to promote this goal.

BDS is about destruction, not justice or equality. It’s an evil cloaked in ‘justice’ wrapped in hate.

It’s active on college campuses all across America. It poisons the minds of your children—and then attacks them for being Jewish. Its protests promote the hatred of Israel. Its advocates provoke anti-Semitic incidents against Jews.

One example of BDS hate in action got reported recently by a ‘Palestinian’, Bassam Eid, who had travelled to South Africa to talk about ‘peace’. In a speech at the University of Johannesburg, he criticized BDS. He has written that as soon as he had criticized BDS, “my talk was disrupted by students wearing BDS and other radical T-shirts. They interrupted me and did not allow me to continue speaking, and in the end the event had to be abandoned. As a campaigner for peace and human rights activist, I am used to hostile reactions from those who disagree with my standpoint. However, even in my own country, I have never witnessed the kind of raw hatred and sheer unreasoning aggression that confronted me on this occasion (Bassam Eid, “The Palestinian case against BDS,” The Third Narrative, June 25, 2015).

BDS advocates marinate in a hateful stew of twisted emotion—and there aren’t a lot of anti-BDS players to fight that twisted emotion. At least, that’s what a google-search suggests.

But those who would resist BDS are beginning to stand up. They’re beginning to make a difference. For example, we know that both state governments and Congress have begun to act against BDS. Anti-BDS activists in four states and the US Congress have succeeded in having legislatures pass anti-BDS Resolutions. Anti-BDS activists in a total of 34 states and 6 counties in the US have also begun to push for more anti-BDS Resolutions (“pjtn congratulates New York State Assembly and Pennsylvania House of Representatives on passing anti-BDS Resolutions”, ptjn .org, June 29, 2015).

This is a major advancement in the anti-BDS fight. Of course, you should note that a ‘Resolution’ passed by a legislative body is a non-binding vote. It simply promotes a ‘state-of-the-legislature’ opinion about an issue. It doesn’t actually do anything.

What would make a more effective anti-BDS statement would be laws passed by legislative bodies. But so far, no legislative body has done that—until now.

On July 23, 2015, the 99^th General Assembly of the State of Illinois passed Public Act 99-0128. This Public Act amends the Illinois State Pension Code. According to this amendment,  the Illinois State Pension is henceforth prohibited from doing any transactions with companies that boycott Israel. As defined by this amendment, ‘Boycott Israel’ refers to companies that are “engaging in actions that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or otherwise limit commercial relations with the State of Israel or companies based in the State of Israel or in territories controlled by the State of Israel” (ibid).

This anti-BDS prohibition applies to publicly traded securities, mutual funds and ‘private market funds’ that are not publicly traded (ibid).  

Beginning January 1, 2016, the Illinois Investment Policy board must actively seek to identify companies that boycott Israel. That board must retain “an independent research firm to identify” companies that boycott Israel (ibid). If, after proper notification to the companies affected, those companies continue to boycott Israel, the Investment Policy board will divest those companies from the Illinois Pension account (ibid).

Illinois is the first state to pass a law to boycott companies that boycott Israel. Will the passage of the Illinois anti-BDS law be the game-changer that destroys BDS in America?

Stay tuned.

 

Beware: Obama is the anti-Churchill

In March 2015, US President Hussein Obama called for Iran to release three US citizens held hostage by Iranian officials (Emma Hinchliffe, “Obama calls for release of Americans held in Iran”, USAToday, March 20, 2015). One of the hostages has been held for three years. In addition, a fourth US citizen was (and is still) considered ‘missing’ in Iran. Obama also called on Iran to help find him.

That call for release occurred during nuclear talks with Iran. But the call was not linked to the talks. It was simply a plea for mercy during the Persian New Year celebration which was taking place at that time.

A couple of weeks later, after officials announced that the talks would continue after a March 30, 2015 deadline, US TV personality Montel Williams criticized Obama. Williams had been trying to secure the release of one of the hostages. He couldn’t believe the Obama administration would pursue a deal with Iran without bringing home these US citizens (“Fiery  Montel: How Dare We Make a Deal With Iran While Americans Are Still Held?!”, FoxNewsInsider, April 3, 2015). Williams said that Obama had just announced that his ‘deal’ with Iran had satisfied the United States' ‘core objectives’. But Williams’ reaction to that was, how could Obama do that while these Americans remained imprisoned? (ibid).

Although US Secretary of State John Kerry had declared that ‘conversations are continuing on the release of American prisoners’ (ibid), Williams didn’t believe that, either. He said that, based on his personal interactions with the US State department, he had ‘no idea what Kerry meant with that statement’ (ibid). Williams added that the State Department had told him he was ‘pompous’ for speaking out about this issue.

He seemed particularly upset that Kerry hadn’t even called the family of the hostage he (Williams) was concerned about. No one at State would tell the family what was happening.

Two months later, a couple of US Congressman announced that the White House should link the success of the Iran negotiations to the fate of the Americans who remained in Iran (Felicia Schwartz, “Lawmakers: Americans Held In Iran Complicate Nuclear Talks”, Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2015). Their attitude was, there should be no agreement, period, until the hostages were released (ibid).

The State department said negotiators had raised this issue in every round of nuclear negotiations, but “those discussions aren’t working” (ibid). One inference from this assertion was, the US simply wasn’t persuasive enough to move the Iranians on this point. A second inference was, the US simply wasn’t all that interested in hostages while it focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

We learned more about the true US position on these captives last week, after the agreement with Iran was completed. During a post-deal news conference, Obama was asked how he could celebrate the deal while abandoning hostages who were imprisoned and reportedly tortured  (Brian Hayes, “After Leaving American Hostages to Rot in Iran, Obama Just Did the UNTHINKABLE”, TopRightNews, July 18, 2015). Obama answered the question by suggesting that  the US had deliberately not tied the nuclear negotiations to the Americans’ release (ibid). That linkage, he suggested,  might have hurt or killed the nuclear deal.

That wasn’t the end of the story. After abandoning the hostages, the US ‘did the unthinkable’ (ibid). Obama ordered the release of a top Iranian scientist who had been arrested in California (in 2011) for attempting to acquire equipment for Iran’s military nuclear program (ibid). The US explanation for this release was that a series of prisoner releases had been done through ‘secret back-channel’ talks that had begun long before. These prison-release talks had, the US claimed, led to the current nuclear negotiations.

That suggested that prisoner/hostage releases were in fact connected to the nuclear talks.  Brian Hayes (above) wrote, “I thought Obama said any talk of releasing our hostages would kill the deal. But his ‘negotiators’” had instead arranged the release of their prisoners [emphasis his]” (ibid).

Hayes couldn’t believe this had happened. He felt Obama had betrayed America (ibid).  

Of course, the US suggested that these secret talks were about “a series of prisoner releases by both sides” (ibid). But no one has stepped forward to identify any Americans who had benefitted from this arrangement.

The only prisoners connected to these ‘back-channel’ talks to be released were Iranians held by the US.

A week after the ‘agreement’ was announced, Obama gave a speech at a Pittsburgh, Pa. convention for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) (Andrew Husband, “Obama Demands Release of Detained Americans While Defending Iran Deal”, mediaite, July 21, 2015).  Obama said, “We are not going to relent until we bring home our American who are unjustly detained in Iran” (ibid).

Such post-deal determination rings hollow. During the talks, Obama had a bargaining position against Iran. Iran wanted a deal. It wanted its frozen 100+billion dollars.

But Obama hadn’t been relentless about the hostages at that time. He’d caved in. Becoming relentless now seemed pointless.  

Hussein Obama fails to help America. He fails to help Americans.

He will not stand strong in the face of America’s enemies. He will not fight to defend his country.

He’s no Churchill. He’s the anti-Churchill. He helps the enemy.

If you’re thinking about making aliyah, do it now. America will betray your trust.

US hostages in Iran, Obama and packing for Israel

In March 2015, US President Hussein Obama called for Iran to release three US citizens held hostage by Iranian officials (Emma Hinchliffe, “Obama calls for release of Americans held in Iran”, USAToday, March 20, 2015). One of the hostages has been held for three years. In addition, a fourth US citizen was (and is still) considered ‘missing’ in Iran. Obama also called on Iran to help find him.

That call for release occurred during nuclear talks with Iran. But the call wasn’t linked to the talks. It was simply a plea for mercy as a way for Iran to honor the Persian New Year celebration which was taking place at that time.

A couple of weeks later, however, after negotiations officials announced that the talks would continue after a March 30, 2015 deadline, US TV personality Montel Williams, who had been trying to secure the release of one of the hostages, severely criticized the Obama administration for contemplating signing a deal with Iran without bringing home these US citizens (“Fiery  Montel: How Dare We Make a Deal With Iran While Americans Are Still Held?!”, FoxNewsInsider, April 3, 2015). Williams said that Obama had just announced that his ‘deal’ with Iran had satisfied the United States' ‘core objectives’. But Williams’ reaction to that was, how could Obama do that while these Americans remained imprisoned? (ibid).

US Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, had declared that ‘conversations are continuing on the release of American prisoners’ (ibid). But, Williams added, based on his personal interactions with the US State department, he had ‘no idea what Kerry meant with that statement’ (ibid).

He said the State Department had told him he was ‘pompous’ for speaking out about this issue.

He seemed particularly upset that Kerry hadn’t even called the family of the hostage he (Williams) was concerned about to tell them what was happening. His comments suggested that he believed the State Department wasn’t doing anything for this hostage; he suggested Kerry lying.

Two months later, a couple of US Congressman announced that the White House should link the success of the Iran negotiations to the fate of the Americans who remained in Iran (Felicia Schwartz, “Lawmakers: Americans Held In Iran Complicate Nuclear Talks”, Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2015). Their attitude was, there should be no agreement, period, until the hostages were released (ibid).

The State department said negotiators had raised this issue in every round of nuclear negotiations, but “those discussions aren’t working” (ibid). One inference from this assertion was, the US simply wasn’t persuasive enough to move the Iranians on this point. A second inference was, the US simply wasn’t interested in hostages while it focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

We learned more about the true US position on these captives after the July 14-15, 2015 agreement was completed. During a post-deal news conference, Obama was asked how he could celebrate the deal while abandoning hostages who were imprisoned and reportedly tortured  (Brian Hayes, “After Leaving American Hostages to Rot in Iran, Obama Just Did the UNTHINKABLE”, TopRightNews, July 18, 2015). Obama justified his neglect of the captive Americans by suggesting that the US had deliberately not tied the nuclear negotiations to the Americans’ release (ibid). The US didn’t do that because, he said, Iran would then have seen the hostages as a chance to get ‘additional concessions from the Americans’ (ibid).

That’s an interesting statement. It suggests that the US had no courage whatsoever in these negotiations. It was afraid of Iran.

But that wasn’t the end of the story. After abandoning the hostages, the US ‘did the unthinkable’ (ibid). Obama ordered the release of a top Iranian scientist who had been arrested in California (in 2011) for attempting to acquire equipment for Iran’s military nuclear program (ibid). The US explanation for this release was that a series of prisoner releases had been done through ‘secret back-channel’ talks that had begun long before. These talks had led to the current nuclear negotiations.

That suggested that prisoner/hostage releases were in fact connected to the nuclear talks.  Brian Hayes (above) wrote, “I thought Obama said any talk of releasing our hostages would kill the deal. But his ‘negotiators’” had instead arranged the release of their prisoners [emphasis his]” (ibid).

Hayes couldn’t believe this had happened. He felt Obama had betrayed America (ibid).  

Of course, the US suggested that these secret talks were about “a series of prisoner releases by both sides” (ibid). But no one has stepped forward to identify any Americans who had benefitted from this arrangement.

The only prisoners connected to these ‘back-channel’ talks to be released were Iranians held by the US.

A week after the ‘agreement’ was announced, Obama gave a speech at a Pittsburgh, Pa. Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Convention (Andrew Husband, “Obama Demands Release of Detained Americans While Defending Iran Deal”, mediaite, July 21, 2015).  Obama said, “We are not going to relent until we bring home our American who are unjustly detained in Iran” (ibid).

Such post-deal determination rings hollow. During the talks, Obama had a bargaining position against Iran. Iran wanted a deal. It wanted its frozen 100+billion dollars.

But Obama hadn’t been relentless about the hostages. He’d caved in. Becoming relentless now seemed irrelevant.  

Hussein Obama fails to help America. He fails to help Americans. He helps Iran.

He’s the anti-Churchill. America—and these four Americans—will suffer.

If you’re thinking about making aliyah, do it now. America will betray your trust.

The time has come to pick up, pack up and leave.

Obama’s Iran deal: reason for aliyah

US President Hussein Obama wants you to embrace his Iran deal. He’s so determined to get that embrace, he’s gone on the offensive.

First, he sent his Vice President, Joe Biden, to talk to ‘the Jews’ (Ron Kampeas, “The campaign for (and against) the Iran deal gets personal”, Times of Israel, July 22, 2015). Biden had an ‘intimate’ phone call this past week with about a thousand Jewish leaders to implore them to support the ‘deal’ (ibid).

Obama also sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to America’s talk shows. He wanted Kerry to defend the ‘deal’. Kerry did that. During that defense, he characterized the criticism of the deal by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as one of the dumbest criticisms he’d ever heard in his life (ibid).

Then, Obama himself went on the road—to Pittsburgh, Pa. He gave a speech there. He denounced those who oppose the deal. He called those people the same ‘chest-beaters’ who had advocated for war with Iraq in 2003 when it was believed—apparently falsely—that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (“Obama denounces ‘chest beating’ against Iran accord”, Times of Israel, July 21, 2015). He called this deal a victory of diplomacy over war (ibid).  He said it would save American troops from dying in a fruitless war with Iran (Kampeas, ibid).

Is that why Obama completed this deal—to save the lives of American troops? If so, he’s a fool—or worse.

Iran is eager to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Why does Iran need such missiles to kill American troops in war? ICBMs generally aren’t designed to be a battle-field weapon.

ICBMs have a different application. They’re a weapon designed to help fulfil the chant, ‘Death to America’. Note that ‘America’ is not ‘US troops’. It’s you.

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand this distinction. But it appears to be a distinction Obama fails to grasp—or chooses to ignore.

His deal appeases an enemy who chants, ‘Death to America’.  He says his deal has been done to save American troops. Perhaps that’s true. But his deal also endangers America.  

To save American troops, Obama will, as a consequence of this ‘deal’, release more than 100 billion dollars of frozen assets to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. He does that knowing that the US has open borders in its Southwest.

That’s a problem for America because open borders are an open invitation for terrorists to sneak (or, rather, walk freely) into America carrying whatever they wish to bring with them. 100 billion dollars can buy a lot of back-pack-size C4 explosives. It can buy a lot of untraceable mayhem to be exploded in small-town America all across America’s South, South-West and mid-West.

For that matter, why would a travelling terrorist newly arrived in America from a border-crossing want to stop only in the South, South-West or mid-West? Once inside America, he could use his explosives anywhere.

100+ billion dollars can go a long way. It can fund a lot of terror.

John Kerry thinks that Netanyahu’s criticism of this deal is one of the dumbest things he’s ever heard in his life. That criticism says more about Kerry than it does about Netanyahu.

It says that Kerry chooses to attack Netanyahu ad hominum. That means he attacks the person, not the criticism.

Ad hominum is an interesting device. It’s used to attack a person’s character, usually when one cannot attack that person’s argument. It attempts to dismiss another’s argument based on an irrelevant point.

If the Netanyahu criticism has no basis in fact—and is therefore invalid--why resort to such fallacious reasoning?  Netanyahu’s intelligence has nothing to do with how good or bad the Iran deal is.

Obama, Biden and Kerry are on the same team. That team isn’t honest. It doesn’t use honest reasoning. It’s created a dishonest deal.

That doesn’t help America. It helps America’s enemies.

If you’re a Jew in America, your government is about to release frozen assets to Iran. That release is part of this ‘deal’. Those released assets represent a 100+ billion dollar windfall for the Iranian terror regime.

Since that terror regime is profoundly anti-American and anti-Semitic, that windfall threatens you. If your American leaders so deliberately fund such terror, you no longer live in a safe place.

If you’re an American Jew, here’s a piece of advice: make aliyah. Do it now--before it’s too late.

 

 

 

 

Iran deal: Obama’s transformational ‘change’

US President Hussein Obama has good news. When he ran for President in 2008, he ran with a message of transformational ‘change’ (John Perazzo, “Barack Obama, the Socialist”, frontpagemag, September 5, 2012). Now, through his brain-child, the Iran nuclear deal, he will bring that ‘change’ to the world.

For Iran, Obama utters ten declarations. Each is designed to assure the world that it now holds the killer lion by the tail: Iran has been contained. We are all better off.

But these ten declarations weren’t made to make us better off. They were made to announce that the world has been changed.

First, Obama said this deal will make the world a safer place (Keith Laing, “Obama: Iran deal 'will make America and the world safer'”, thehill, July 18, 2015).

Second, this deal will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (ibid).

Third, this deal gave us every one of our ‘bottom lines’ (“Full text: Obama’s news conference on the Iran nuclear deal”, Washington Post, July 15, 2015).  

Fourth, this deal is the only alternative to war with Iran (ibid).

Fifth, this deal makes certain that Iran will not cheat because it won’t be able to cheat. The inspection regimen the deal imposes will be too strict for Iran to cheat (“Iran nuclear deal will make America and world safer: Barack Obama”, The Economic Times, July 18, 2015).  

Sixth, this deal “represents a powerful display of American leadership and diplomacy” (“Full text: Obama’s news conference”, Washington Post, ibid).

Seventh, this deal resolves a major problem with Iran to our advantage (Paul Koring, “Obama defends Iran nuclear deal as chance to make world safer”, The Globe and Mail, July 15, 2015).

Eighth, this deal cuts off “every single one of Iran's pathways to a nuclear program” (ibid).

Ninth, without this deal, the world risks even more war in the Middle East; and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs (ibid).

Tenth, the multilateral arms embargo on Iran will remain in place for an additional five years, and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years (ibid).

The US President is proud of these ten declarations. He wants you to share his sense of pride.

Unfortunately for us, none of these declarations is true. Unfortunately for Obama, few nations within spitting distance of Iran (who are not already Iranian proxies) buy any of this pride, joy and sense of accomplishment. Instead, they run in the opposite direction.

Israel condemns the deal in the harshest of terms. Even before the official announcement was made about the deal, Israel ‘came out swinging’ (Paul Goldman and F. Brinley Bruton, “Iran nuclear deal: Israel condemns agreement as ‘bad mistake’”, msnbc, July 14, 2014). This deal means Iran will have a sure path to nuclear weapons, Israel said… Iran will get a jackpot, a cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars, which will enable it to continue to pursue its aggression and terror in the region and in the world…Iran  wants to destroy nations and peoples (ibid).

The Saudis also condemned the deal (Jack Moore, “Saudi Arabian society unites to attack Iran deal”, Newsweek, July 15, 2105). One Saudi official, speaking of Iran, said, “We have learned as Iran's neighbours in the last 40 years that goodwill only led us to harvest sour grapes" (ibid). One Saudi newspaper ran a cartoon of the ‘deal’ that showed the US and Iran essentially conspiring together to wreak havoc in the Middle East (ibid).

For its part, India’s leadership welcomed the deal—but its military establishment wasn’t buying it (Vijeta Uniyal, “Iran Deal: Obama Just Sold Out an Ally, and It's Not Israel”, gatestoneinstitute, July 20, 2015). What India’s defense officials are buying, however, is more military equipment (ibid).

As a result of this deal, Pakistan could become important. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons industry has been secretly financed for decades by Saudi Arabia (ibid). In return, the Saudis might seek—and receive--an ‘off the shelf’ nuclear weapon from Pakistan in order to offset Iran’s capability (ibid).

Nuclear proliferation in a region dominated by Islam makes India nervous. India is not a Muslim country. It’s simply a country surrounded (mostly) by Islam.

The Saudis aren’t the only regional Sunni Arab nation looking to protect itself from the Shiite Iran. Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates are also Sunni-dominated states.

Shiite Iran threatens them all.

Sunni Arab nations have consistently looked to the US for help. But under Obama the US has been steadily losing credibility in the Middle East. More than a year-and-a-half ago, it was obvious that American Foreign policy for the Middle East had taken a ‘turn for the worse’ (Jonathan Spyer, “Confidence Game: Losing American Support, the Gulf States Scramble”, The Tower, January 2014, issue 10). Long-time Sunni Arab allies found themselves facing an Iranian (Shiite) menace alone (ibid). These Arab allies now have (in private) given up on the US.

The US abandons Sunni Arab states in the Persian Gulf region (ibid). The US empowers an aggressive Shiite Iran.

The US doesn’t want to grab the tail of the lion. With this deal, the US frees the lion completely.

Through the power of one Hussein Obama, the Middle East could now be dominated by the world’s leading supporter of state-sponsored terrorism. That state sponsor of terrorism professes a desire to destroy both the ‘little Satan’ (Israel) and the ‘big Satan’ (USA). That state sponsor of terrorism wants to dominate Islam. That state sponsor of terrorism will now have more than 100 billion dollars of once-frozen cash released through the terms of this agreement—to do as it pleases.

Hussein Obama has indeed created a transformational ‘change’. He has transformed Iran.

How do you think that’s going to work out?