The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler

Labels: » » »
The Holocaust was Caused by the Church, not Just Hitler

The Christians were against the practise of Judaism and tried to convert the Jews. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Hitler's foundations were laid in the 4th century, and still stand.

Ted Belman, Israpundit

The Holocaust didn’t occur because of Hitler but because of the Church. Hitler merely built upon the policies of the Church and drove them to their logical conclusion.

Of course I am familiar with the idea that but for Christianity, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened, but wasn’t fully aware of the debt owed by Hitler to precedents set by the Church for the details of his policies, including the final solution.

R. Hilberg’s classic The Destruction of European Jews provides the link. Hiberg begins his introduction with these words:

1) The German destruction of the European Jews was a tour de force; the Jewish collapse under the German assault was a manifestation of failure. Both of these phenomena were the final product of an earlier age.

2) Anti-Jewish policies and anti-Jewish actions did not have their beginning in 1933. For many centuries, and in many countries, the Jews have been victims of destructive action. What was the object of these activities? What were the aims of those who persisted in anti-Jewish deeds? Throughout Western history, three consecutive policies have been applied against Jewry in its dispersion.

The policies referred to included 1) conversion, 2) expulsion and 3) extermination. The first and second were often accompanied by the threat of execution; all of which were sanctioned by the Church.

Hilberg explains:

1) The first anti-Jewish policy started in the fourth century after Christ in Rome. In the early 300’s, during the reign of Constantine, the Christian Church gained power in Rome, and Christianity became the state religion. From this period, the state carried out Church policy. For the next twelve centuries, the Catholic Church prescribed the measures that were to be taken with respect to the Jews. Unlike the pre-Christian Romans, who claimed no monopoly on religion and faith, the Christian Church insisted upon acceptance of Christian doctrine.

2) For an understanding of Christian policy toward Jewry, it is essential to realize that the Church pursued conversion not so much for the sake of aggrandizing its power (the Jews have always been few in number), but because of the conviction that it was the duty of true believers to save unbelievers from the doom of eternal hellfire. Zealousness in the pursuit of conversion was an indication of the depth of faith. The Christian religion was not one of many religions, like other religions. It was the true religion, the only religion. Those who were not in its fold were either ignorant or in error.
The Jews could not accept Christianity.

The same might be said of Islam, though it allowed Jews and Christians, “peoples of the book”, to be dhimmis and pay a tax, Jizya”, for the privilege. The Church also imposed a similar tax on Jews.

1) In the very early stages of the Christian faith, many Jews regarded Christians as members of a Jewish sect. The first Christians, after all, still observed the Jewish law. They had merely added a few non-essential practices, such as baptism, to their religious life. But this view was changed abruptly when Christ was elevated to godhood. The Jews have only one G-d. That G-d is indivisible. He is a jealous G-d and admits of no other G-ds. He is not Christ, and Christ is not He. Christianity and Judaism have since been irreconcilable. An acceptance of Christianity has since signified an abandonment of Judaism.

2) With patience and persistence, the Church attempted to convert obstinate Jewry, and for twelve hundred years, the theological argument was fought without interruption. The Jews were not convinced. Gradually the Church began to back its words with force. The Papacy did not permit pressure to be put on individual Jews; Rome never permitted forceful conversions.

3) However, the clergy did use pressure on the whole. Step by step, but with ever widening effect, the Church adopted “defensive” measures against its passive victims. Christians were “protected” from the “harmful” consequences of intercourse with Jews by rigid laws against intermarriage, by prohibitions of discussions about religious issues, by laws against domicile in common abodes. The Church “protected” its Christians from the “harmful” Jewish teachings by burning the Talmud and by barring Jews from public office.

And yet it is the Jews who are always attacked for their separateness.

1) The clergy was not sure of its success – hence the widespread practice, in the Middle Ages, of identifying proselytes as former Jews, hence the inquisition of new Christians suspected of heresy, hence the issuance in Spain of certificates of “purity” (limpieza) signifying purely Christian ancestry, and the specification of half new Christians, quarter new Christians, one-eighth new Christians, etc.

Hitler’s racial purity laws found their antecedent and precedent in these laws. And so did his order that Jews identify themselves by wearing a yellow Star of David.

Efforts to convert the Jews were spectacularly unsucessful, even aided by all the restrictions placed on the Jews.

1) Too much had been invested in twelve hundred years of conversion policy. Too little had been gained. From the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries, the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, Bohemia and Italy were presented with ultimatums which gave them no choice but one: conversion or expulsion.
In 1542 Martin Luther rejected the authority of Rome and started the Lutheran Church. He, too, hated the Jews. He and others who broke away from Rome became known as Protestants. There followed hundreds of years of war between Catholics and Protestants.

At the end of the Eighteenth Century, the French Revolution took place, a by-product of which was the liberation of the French Jews, who thereafter enjoyed equal rights. The armies of the revolution, headed by Napoleon, spread the values of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” to the east, including in Germany and Italy. With the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the Bourbons in France kept the liberating legislation, but the monarchs in Germany and Italy cancelled it. Nevertheless, Jews embraced the belief, after a taste of liberation, that full equality was the inevitable corollary of the emerging secular-political order throughout Europe. In Germany, Reform Judaism was founded and in Russia and Poland, Jews flocked to the Communist banner.

But many segments of society remained deeply anti-Semitic, leaving many Jews to conclude that the promise of “liberte, fraternite and egalite” was a pipe dream even though the society was now secular. And so was born the the movement for the Auto-Emancipation of the Jews, which became known as Zionism. Jews had to reconstitute themselves as a nation in their own land.

In Christian Europe, the Jews had only to convert to be accepted. The Christians were against the practise of Judaism. In secular Europe, the Jews themselves were rejected as a race. Thus, conversion was not open to them. But expulsion or emigration was still available. Thus millions of Jews the Pale of Settlement beginning in 1880 emigrated well into the nineteen thirties. Hitler searched in vain for a country to which to expel Germany’s Jews, but no one wanted them. In 1942 he instituted the final solution, extermination.

R. Hiberg in his masterful study, argues:

1) If we analyze that singular massive upheaval, we discover that most of what happened in those 12 years, 1933 to 1945, had already happened before. The Nazi destruction process did not come out of a void, it was the culmination of a cyclical trend beginning in the Fourth Century in Rome.

During the conversion era, the Church said, “you have no right to live among us as Jews”. Then in the segregation/expulsion process, “you have no right to live among us” and finally in the extermination process, “you have no right to live”.

1) These progressively more drastic goals brought in their wake a slow and steady growth of anti Jewish action and anti-Jewish thinking…. The German Nazis then, did not discard the past, they built upon it. They did not begin a development, they completed it. In the deep recesses of anti-Jewish history we shall find many of the administrative and psychological tools with which the Nazis implemented their destruction process. In the hollows of the past we shall also discover the roots of the characteristic Jewish response to an outside attack.

To better understand this statement, Hilberg presents a table of Canonical Law restricting the Jews beginning in the Fourth Century opposite which he places similar Nazi measures.

Then writes:

1) No summation of Canonical Law can be as revealing as a description of the Rome ghetto, maintained by the Papal State until the occupation of the city by the Royal Italian Army in 1870. A German journalist who visited the city in its closing days, published such an account:

2) “To rent any house or business establishment outside the ghetto boundaries, the Jews needed the permission of Cardinal Vicar. Acquisition of real estate outside the ghetto was prohibited. Trade or industrial products or goods were prohibited. Higher schooling was prohibited.. The professions of lawyer, druggist, notary, painter and architect were prohibited. A Jew could be a doctor provided he confined his practice to Jewish patients. No Jew could hold office. Jews were required to pay taxes like everyone else and, in addition, the following: 1) A yearly stipend for the upkeep of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization, 

2) A yearly sum of 5250 lira for Casa Pia for missionary work among Jews, 3) A yearly sum of 5250 lira to the Cloister of the Converted for the same purpose. In return the Papal State expended a yearly sum of 1500 lira for welfare work. But no state money was paid for education or the care of the sick.”
Hiberg also provided a table of Pre-Nazi and Nazi Anti-Jewish Measures. As can be seen, the destructive process was at work in Germany long before the Nazis came to power.

But all this in no way is meant to excuse Hitler.

After the Holocaust, the manifestations of anti-Semitism became very subdued. It was not "cool" to express such feelings in any way. Unfortunately, the haters began expressing the anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism. These expression are now commonplace and the hatred of Israel is growing exponentially. As a result, the movement to exterminate Israel has become very strong.

But we Jews will survive that too.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12905#.USbX8FrwLbw

Scientists trace the boozing gene: Taste for drink 'originated 10million years ago in common ancestor of humans and chimps'

Labels: » » » » »
now explain the Irish?
Here's to those who came before us... Scientists have traced the ability to metabolise alcohol back to a gene first found in the common ancestor humans share with gorillas and chimpanzees(DailyMail.co.uk)The boozing gene can be traced back 10million years to the common ancestor humans share with chimpanzees and gorillas, new research claims.
It is believed these ancient forebears were the first to pick up fruits fermenting on the ground after they developed a lifestyle away from the trees.
Individuals able to stomach the boozy fruit would have survived better in this new environment than those who could not, programming the ability into their descendants' genetic codes.


Here's to those who came before us... Scientists have traced the ability to metabolise alcohol back to a gene first found in the common ancestor humans share with gorillas and chimpanzees
The theory could explain why humans, chimps and gorillas are able to digest alcohol, while our tree-dwelling cousins like orangutans cannot.
Chemist Steven Benner of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida, came to the conclusion after he 'resurrected' the alcohol-metabolising enzymes of extinct primates.
By estimating the enzymes’ genetic code, they rebuilt them in the lab and then analysed how they worked to understand how they have changed over time.
Biochemist Romas Kazlauskas of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told Science News: 'It’s like a courtroom re-enactment.
'Benner can re-enact what happened in evolution.'
To break down alcohol in the body, modern humans rely on an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase 4, or ADH4, which is found throughout the aesophagus, stomach and intestines.
However, not all ADH4s are the same, meaning some species of primate can effectively metabolise ethanol while others are unable to.
To understand why, researchers mapped the DNA sequences that make up ADH4 in 27 species of modern primate on a primate family tree to infer how the enzyme looked at points on the tree where branches separated.
Their findings showed most primate ancestors would have been unable to metabolise alcohol, but at the branching point leading to gorillas, chimps and humans the enzyme emerged as a powerful alcohol digester.
This enzyme was nearly 50 times more efficient at digesting alcohol than earlier versions, Dr Benner reported. That made it nearly capable or breaking down the alcohol found in modern alcoholic drinks.

Lightweights: The findings could explain why tree-dwelling primates like orang-utans (pictured) are less able to metabolise alcohol, since fruits are less likely to ferment while still hanging on a branch
Lightweights: The findings could explain why tree-dwelling primates like orang-utans (pictured) are less able to metabolise alcohol, since fruits are less likely to ferment while still hanging on a branch
He concluded that it must have been the result of the early primate's descent from the trees where it came across fruits lying on the ground.
If these fruits had damaged skins, yeast could have invaded them and fermented their sugars, turning them into ethanol.
Any primates unable to digest the fermented fruits would have died before passing on their genes, but those who could would have passed the boozing gene on to their offspring.
Dr Benner believes his findings could explain why land-loving primates like humans and gorillas can metabolise alcohol, but tree dwellers like orangutans, which rarely encounter fermented fruit, cannot.
He presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on Friday.

Purim's Beauty Myth

Labels: » » » » » » » »
What did you think of the question posed at the bottom of the article?
(Forward By Johnna Kaplan)Esther saved the Jewish people because, so they say, she was smart and brave. When she learned of the genocidal plot of Haman, the vizier to her husband, King Ahasueres of Persia, she revealed that she was a Jew and pleaded for her people to be spared.
Esther’s daring act of approaching the king, confessing her nationality, and requesting the Jews be saved from certain death underpins the story of Purim. But as relatable as the holiday’s heroine is meant to be, few of us would get the opportunity to act as she did. Ahasuerus had chosen Esther above all of the other girls in his harem; to put it plainly, she was able to save the Jewish people because she was the hottest woman in the room.
But the story of Purim isn’t the only reason I’ve been thinking about Jewish women, beauty and the pressure to look a certain way.
First, I read this Jewcy piece by Emily Shire (who also writes for the Sisterhood) about how Jewish girls and women have a particular preoccupation with thinness. I had never thought of the issue that way, possibly because, unlike Shire, I grew up in a town where Jews, though hardly invisible, were not the majority. In my experience, (natural) beauty and (effortless) skinniness were expected of all girls equally, as were good grades, athleticism and flawless hair.
My mom was similarly unsure about the premise, though when I read her a sentence about Jewish women being especially devoted to the diet beverage Tab, she said excitedly, “Ooh! I remember Tab!” I tried to recall whether, in my youth, Jewish girls I knew cared more about being thin than the others. I wasn’t sure.
But now, as an adult, I think perhaps we do. The other day a friend mentioned that an acquaintance, a Jewish-Hispanic woman, had “married a white dude; her kids look totally white.” I cynically said, essentially, “good for her, because Jewish guys don’t want us anyway unless we’re size zero.” My friend replied, “Exactly,” and added that the Jewish men she knew preferred “Asian girls with big boobs — another white elephant.” It’s important to clarify that my friend is a) long-married and b) neither Jewish nor Asian. Jewish women are now expected to be thinner (read: prettier) than the competition, to the point where even outside observers notice it.
While pondering this rather depressing state of affairs, I noticed Purim on my calendar, preceded by the minor fast day of Ta’anit Esther. Esther fasted for three days before approaching Ahasuerus. How many pounds, I wondered, could one lose doing that? Because if I was requesting a stay of execution for my entire community based on my attractiveness, I’d want to look as good (read: thin) as possible when doing it.
Esther is not the only Biblical woman who relied on her looks to help defeat enemies of the Jews. Judith got close enough to decapitate Holofernes because he desired her, and though it isn’t explicitly stated, it’s hard for me to believe Yael lured Sisera into her tent simply by promising him a drink. Of course, plenty of other ancient women might have had the guts to wield tent pegs against their foes; we only hear about the ones who got the opportunity.
These days, hopefully, it’s different, but for much of history a Jewish woman could only change the world by being noticed. Even today, you don’t get plucked from obscurity for your personality. The idea that looks can bring salvation runs through the Jewish female experience. If you can catch the eye of the King or even flirt with the Nazi officer, maybe you’ll change his mind. Maybe you’ll live.
I suppose every little tribe under ancient Persian rule had their would-be Esther, who hoped the king would repay her presence in his harem by lending support to her cause. But not all cultures would approve of such things. So I wonder if the celebration of women who do good by means of their beauty is particularly Jewish. I wonder if some relic of it hangs on to this day, and is expressed in the pressure to be prettier, to be thinner, to be the one who might get noticed and save us after all.
I find the "Forward" disturbing more times than not, but what struck me as odd is that the article did realize that a females sexiness is a trait that is encouraged by Judaism in a way that a man's sexiness is not... this I agree with... but I found it odd that the Forward somehow seems to think this character is unique to Judaism or at the very least is something unusual. I can't think of any culture that does not share this character. It was almost like the writer reached a conclusion she didn't like and then concluded that Jews like beautuiful women because we are inferior and then concluded that other cultures are not like this... which is a very odd conclusion. Is this the source of the Forwards progressive readers self hate and Anti-Semitism? Do feminist Jews really believe that gender traits are something that is made by Jewish law and not something that occurs naturally? I find it hard to refute the idea that feminism is in fact self hatred. I am very glad this liberal self hater allowed us a window into her warped soul.

#WashingtonState: Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of #Gun Owners’ Homes.

Labels: » » » » » » » » » » » »

Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes.
(WesternJournalism).
Lawmakers in Washington State have accidentally written a bill permitting police to invade private homes for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” guns and accessories, such as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

According to Senate Bill 5737, introduced on February 13th by Democrat State Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, and Kline, no one may possess an “assault weapon” or the combination of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle capable of using a detachable magazine AND any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.
Happily, however, you ARE allowed to possess an UNLOADED assault weapon “…for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency of the state.” (Pg. 6)
Naturally, the statute would NOT apply to police, members of law enforcement in the state, or to federal authorities; in short, the oft-referred to “only ones.” That is, the only ones, the political ruling class tells us, who can be trusted with firearms. However, if one happens to own an “assault weapon” prior to the effective date of the legislation, he may keep it IF he agrees to “safely and securely store the assault weapon.” And by the way, “THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY MAY, NO MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE…” Not surprisingly, safe and secure storage is not defined in the bill. (Pg. 7) Also not surprisingly, this language was quickly deleted from the bill immediately upon lawmakers learning of the public outrage their little foray into dictatorship had spawned.
Yet, in order to provide cover for the bill’s sponsors and fellow liberals, duplicitous “journalist” Danny Westneat is hoping to sell Washington gun owners on the laughable story that the whole thing was just an unfortunate mistake! According to Westneat, one of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Adam Kline “…did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.” Naturally, ALL prospective laws should be written without paying much attention to what’s in them! And the PRIME sponsor, Democrat Ed Murray, admitted that the language was “probably unconstitutional.” “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” allowed the munificent liberal.
PROBABLY unconstitutional? Here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
And by the way, MR. Murray, how were your “only ones” to know which homes to enter and search? Could it be that mandatory, statewide gun registration was to become the next in your series of “common sense” gun laws?
But even with the Orwellian language now removed, SB 5737 is an affront to the God-given rights of the American people. After all, the bill still states that, should one inherit an “assault weapon,” he must either dispose of it by allowing law enforcement to confiscate it or permanently disable it. It is government literally authorizing the theft or destruction of personal property. Anyone who objects will be subject to one year in prison.
As for the claim by the bill’s authors that it was a mistake, a misstep?It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do. They gave away what their plan is.” The truth is, “it’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.”Read the full story here.

LeChaim: #Rubio And #Netanyahu Bump #Water Bottles In #Israel

Labels: » » »

HT: Twitchy
Cool and Refreshing

'Palestinian Authority' increasing violence ahead of Obama visit

Labels: »
Khaled Abu Toameh reports that the 'Palestinian Authority' is orchestrating an increase in violence ahead of President Obama's visit in the hope that it will cause Obama to extract concessions from Israel (as if he needs any incentive to do that).
Although the Palestinian Authority probably does not want an all-out confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis at this stage, some Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah believe that a "mini-intifada" would serve the Palestinians' interests, especially on the eve of Obama's visit.
The officials hope that scenes of daily clashes between Israeli soldiers and Palestinians in the West Bank will prompt Obama to exert pressure on the Israeli government to make far-reaching concessions to the Palestinian Authority.
This is why the Palestinian Authority leadership has been encouraging its constituents lately to wage a "popular intifada" against Israel, each time finding another excuse to initiate confrontations between Palestinians and Israel.
Now the Palestinian Authority is using the issue of Palestinian prisoners who are on hunger strike in Israeli prisons as an excuse to call for street protests and clashes with the Israel Defense Forces.
In recent days, dozens of Palestinian protesters have been injured in clashes with IDF soldiers in various parts of the West Bank. The protests are being held in solidarity with four hunger-strikers.
Before that, the Palestinian Authority used the issue of settlements as an accuse to call for widespread protests in the West Bank.
Before that, the Palestinian Authority leadership encouraged Palestinians to protest against Israeli "plans" to destroy the Aqsa Mosque and replace it with the Third Temple.
By encouraging a "popular intifada," the Palestinian Authority leadership is hoping to bring the Palestinian issue back to the top of the agenda of the US Administration and Israel.
The 'Palestinians' are also considering encouraging demonstrations against Obama while he is here in order to increase the pressure. In the meantime, with Obama arriving just a few days before Passover, Jews are likely to be too preoccupied to demonstrate en masse against Obama (Passover is one of two Jewish holidays nearly every Israeli Jew celebrates, even if they are totally secular the rest of the year).
Read the whole thing
Think of Obama as the Pharaoh this year... Remember what the prophet Jeremiah said about getting in league with Egypt

Scott Brown denies drunk tweeting Bqhatevwr

Labels:
Btw I reblogged this from Jessica on my Samsung Gallaxy Camera.
Pretty good... right?
Bqhatevwr
Scott Brown denies drunk tweeting 'Bqhatevwr' - Washington Times
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. blames pocket-dialing for his late-night, and later deleted, tweet in January.
“Anyone ever hear of pocket tweet, pocket dial?” Brown asked, during an interview with FOX 25 Tuesday. “I mean it was pretty simple. I have an iPhone 5. If anyone has iPhone 5, the keys are small. It’s very, very sensitive.”
The senator gained Twitter amusement after his infamous “Bqhatevwr” tweet that later became a hashtag and trended worldwide. Brown had also tweeted “whatever” at several followers, The Washington Examiner reports.
“Ayla was teaching me how to get on Facebook and Twitter, and there were some areas I didn’t really understand,” he added. “So after her concert, we were here in the living room and responded to a couple of people and then put it in my pocket.”
“I rarely drink,” he said. “The last time I was ever drunk was my bachelor party; that was 28 years ago, 27 years ago? So I guess no one ever pocket dialed or tweeted before.”

Report: #Hagel Said #Israel Headed Toward #Apartheid, #Netanyahu a ‘Radical’

Labels: » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
(Report: Hagel Said Israel Headed Toward Apartheid, Netanyahu a ‘Radical’ | Washington Free Beacon)
BY:
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Time for some more research into what really happened here

Gandhi Championed Right to Bear Arms

Labels: » »
(Kushagra Aniket)
At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the president counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the Indian freedom struggle.
Today it is often argued that a large part of the purpose behind the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—is unjustified or irrelevant. But this argument is strikingly similar to the one advanced by the British colonialists who presented themselves as the redeemers of their colonial dominions and claimed that their rule was the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. History tells us that they were wrong.
It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right of free people because despite constitutional provisions and non-violent methods of protest, it sometimes becomes necessary to resist tyranny with force. He made it a part of his program first in South Africa and later in India—both under British rule.
During World War I, Gandhi called for a repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in the strongest of words: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
...In the light of the Indian experience with guns, it is also important to note that the right to bear arms has been associated with struggles for independence from tyrannical rule around the world. This constitutional right not only has enormous practical significance for self-defense but it also performs a profoundly symbolic function of reflecting the tenacity and resilience that go into the formation of a strong and free citizenry.

To #CBS' #BobSimon, Israelis deserve to be blown up if #settlements are built

Labels: » » » »
(EOZ)(h/t O)Of course, he wouldn't characterize it this way, but how else can you explain this bizarre linkage he suggests?
The $270 million the U.S. has provided Israel to help build Iron Dome is in addition to the three billion dollars Israel gets annually from the U.S. in military aid. Palestinians complain that while all this U.S. support is being given to Israel, the Israeli government has repeatedly defied U.S. policy and approved the construction of new settlement blocks in the West Bank.
Bob Simon: The Americans have already given $270 million dollars.
Ehud Barak: More than this, I believe, along the, yeah.
Bob Simon: And they're promising just the Iron Dome another $660 million--
Ehud Barak: Yeah. Yeah. $680-- probably $211 might be given in the coming fiscal year.
Bob Simon: While the Americans are helping you so much in your defense. Israel goes on building settlements, which is exactly what the Americans don't want. How does that work, when you're asking America for help and doing exactly what the Americans don't want you to do?
....How does it work? I mean, right now, Israel has just announced the building of a gigantic settlement project. This is at the same time that the Americans are providing the money for Israel's most important defense system.
So if Israel builds settlements, Simon is saying, then the US should no longer help fund Iron Dome to save Israeli lives from rocket attacks. Israelis in Ashkelon must die because the Knesset allows Jews to build houses in their historic homeland.
Summary: (sabril) Do commentators like Bob Simon ask similar questions about US aid to or support for Egypt? To the Palestinian Authority? To the United Nations? To Turkey? (jzaik) ...Who controls whom here. Simon is saying that the Americans are paying israelis. Bill maher is saying we're controlled by the israelis. (singingt) how valuable is Israeli technology to the US?

#Hagel was brought to #Rutgers by #Khameni supporter

Labels: » » » » » »

Last week, (Carl) reported on a 2007 Chuck Hagel speech at Rutgers University in whose question and answer session Hagel stated that the US State Department is controlled by Israel. It turns out that there's another interesting story about that speech: Hagel was brought to Rutgers by supporters of Ayatollah Ali Khameni's Iranian dictatorship.
A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the ian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.
Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller.
Iran’s Guardian Council cleared Amirahmadi to run for the presidency in 2013. Approval of the regime is required before candidates’ names can appear on the ballot. To be approved, candidates must be Shia, male, and committed to the Islamic revolution.
...
A press release in 2007 noted that the “Rutgers Center for Middle Eastern Studies” — Amirahmadi’s campus group – ”is hosting the senator’s visit to the university.”
Amirahmadi’s CV discloses that he has received financial support from the Alavi Foundation, a wealthy organization that the U.S. government has called “a front for the government of Iran.”
And IRS records provided to TheDC by FoundationSearch.com show that between 2003 and 2008, Rutgers University received $688,000 from the same foundation.
The New York Post reported in 2009 that the Alavi Foundation contributed $100,000 towards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University.
“We found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation,” Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, told the Post in 2009.
Read the whole thing. Hagel is like a gift that keeps on giving with one thing after another being uncovered. And yet... not one Democrat has said he (or she) would vote against him. What will it take to wake these people up as to who Hagel is? What is sufficient to be termed a smoking gun?

Schumer’s Silence

Labels: » »
As a New Yorker I sure hope Schumer will at least bring our state some pork in return... It ain't kosher, but I'd at least like to know I got dinner before I was f***ed in the ass
(NYSUN) It’s too soon to say whether Senator Hagel will ultimately be confirmed when the Senate gets back from its vacation. It’s not too soon to suggest that the big loser in this affair looks increasingly likely to be Senator Schumer. He has long cast himself as a guardian on the Jewish front in our vast array of national interests. This was pointed out in a column by John Podhoretz that was issued Friday in the New York Post. It casts in sharp relief the fact that the senator crumpled in the case of Mr. Hagel.
Crumpling is a pattern with Mr. Schumer. We remember watching him in the mid-1990s, when he was in the House and the issue of Jerusalem came to a head. There came a moment when the Congress was going to mark the point by insisting that the American embassy in Israel, situated at Tel Aviv, be moved to Israel’s capital city. It was a favorite issue of Senator Moynihan, who once visited the offices of the Jewish Forward newspaper voicing indignation over a State Department telephone directory that had a listing for Jerusalem as not being in Israel.
The Democrats were being put on the spot by the Republicans, who had swept to power in both houses of Congress and were, at the prodding of Senator Dole, agitating to make an issue of Jerusalem. Mr. Schumer was among those boasting that the Democrats and the Clinton administration were finally going to fix the situation. At the 11th hour, however, the Democrats watered down the Jerusalem Embassy Act, proposing an escape hatch in the form of a waiver by which the president could evade the requirement to move the embassy.
It was, as we recall it, Dianne Feinstein who first advanced this dodge, which was promptly used by President Clinton. Senator Schumer stood silent. It wasn’t a party problem. President George W. Bush and President Obama also used the waiver, and Mr. Schumer stood silent then, too. The result is that although the act of 1995 set a goal of moving the embassy by 1999, we are coming up on a generation since the law was passed and the embassy hasn’t been moved. What reason is there to think that Mr. Schumer might have gone to the mat this time?
Mr. Schumer started cheering on the Republican opposition when Mr. Hagel was first advanced as a potential defense nominee. The minute we heard of Mr. Schumer’s bravado, we made a bet that he would reverse himself. It’s not a bet on which we got rich, and we’d have rather lost it. The fact, in any event, is that Mr. Schumer has been put to shame on his own boast by such stronger senators as Lindsey Graham and James Inhofe. New York’s senior senator could regain his reputation in a fell swoop were he to stand up on what he knows in his heart to be a tragic error by Mr. Obama. It’s unlikely, though we’d be happy to be proven wrong.

US tax dollars also funding #radical Leftist #Israeli #NGO's like #Keshev and #BTselem

Labels: » » » »
(Carl)And you thought that it was only European governments that were using taxpayer money to fund radical Israeli NGO's. No. It turns out that the United States of Obama is also funding radical Leftist NGO's in Israel. This is Caroline Glick.
According to the report, in accordance with the NGO Transparency Law which requires NGOs to report on donations received from foreign governments, three Israeli NGOs received funding from the US.
Keshev, a radical leftist "media watchdog" group run by some of Israel's most outspoken, and radical journalists and writers received NIS 492,452 in direct aid from the US government. To understand how subversive Keshev is, it suffices to note that they criticized the Israeli media for rushing to judgment about Fatah's unity deal with Hamas. That is, the group the US supports believes we should not criticize Fatah for joining forces with a genocidal jihadist movement committed to the obliteration of Israel that is in cahoots with the Iranians.
Through Catholic Relief Services,the US also gave NIS 220,304 to the anti-Israel pressure group B'Tselem. The money was used to fund B'Tselem's video project. B'tselem's video project involves the distribution of video cameras to Palestinians to film snuff films that portry Israelis as aggressive bullies who seek to harm the Palestinians for no reason.
Numerous examples have already been reported of how those film clips have falsely portrayed events.
Finally, the US government donated NIS 15,474 through the Foundation for Middle East Peace to the far left internet outlet Social TV. To a certain degree, Social TV can be -- and has been -- portrayed as the anti-Zionist answer to Latma, the Hebrew-language media criticism site that I run. But Latma is wholly funded by private contributors and foundations.
It would have never occurred to me to ask a foreign government to fund the project. It never would have occurred to me to ask a foreign government to get into the media watchdog game in Israel. But then, from reading the report it is clear that the aim of the US government is not, in fact to help Israeli media outlets do a better job reporting on events. Rather, the report indicates that the US government has decided to use radical Israeli NGOs to wage political warfare in Israel. The aim of this campaign is to convince the public that Israel is to blame for the absence of peace with our neighbors.
Dishonest. Benghazi spin is just the surface. Weapons and public relations going to terrorists. What is really going on is hostility. America and Israel are at each other's throats. This is a cold war.

Smelling Chuck Hagel

Labels: » » » »
Image courtesy DavidDuke.com
My grandparents emigrated from Russia to the US before the revolution. They were the type that divided things, and people, into Good For The Jews or Bad For The Jews. They were wary people, who understood that a Jew always had to be careful, even in America. They could smell antisemitism, and they believed that a Jew could not count on the authorities, or on his non-Jewish neighbors if the worse happened. I was close to them, closer than to my Americanized parents, and I became this kind of Jew as well.
Most younger American Jews do not display this heightened awareness, this almost paranoid (but not unreasonable) consciousness of their Jewish marginality, as Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street explained to a NY Times reporter several years ago:
The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. [J Street director Jeremy] Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”
That notion is not baffling to me and certainly wouldn’t have been to my grandparents.
My alarm bells went off when the President chose Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. I am not especially worried by officials of our government, even presidents, who are not particularly friendly to Israel. As Hagel himself said, they are American senators, or congressmen, or cabinet members, not Israelis. The trouble is that this guy — like another Obama nominee for an important post, Chas Freeman — is way over on the hostile side.
Hagel’s problem with Israel is so consistent over time and over issues, that it’s hard to believe it is wholly rational. The most recent example is his 2007 statement (which he says he “can’t recall making”) that “the State Department was becoming an adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.”
The assertion that the State Department — that bureau which fought tooth and nail to prevent Harry Truman from recognizing the Jewish state, which does not believe that any part of Jerusalem belongs to Israel, and which maintains a US Embassy to ‘Palestine’ in the capital of Israel (which it doesn’t recognize) — is dominated by Israel, is beyond ludicrous. So why did he make it?
This statement is ‘ZOG’ (Zionist Occupation Government) stuff, an expression of one of the central anti-Jewish myths, that of a shadowy Jewish conspiracy pulling the strings that control our government. It fits with Hagel’s use of the phrase ‘Jewish lobby’, and his suggestion that the lobby “intimidates” US officials.
Hagel’s supporters are pushing this theme to the max. Stephen Walt wrote,
…if the lobby takes Hagel down, it will provide even more evidence of its power, and the extent to which supine support for Israel has become a litmus test for high office in America. [my emphasis]
Ah, the powerful lobby! Ask M J Rosenberg:
The onslaught is unprecedented. Never before has virtually the entire organized Jewish community combined to stop a presidential cabinet appointment because it deems the potential nominee insufficiently devoted to Israel. …
The onslaught against Hagel is unique however because the reason for it is not merely that he opposes the rush to war with Iran and favors negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The reason is because he dared to refer to the existence of the Israel lobby. He said this in 2008 in an interview with former State Department official, Aaron Miller.
“The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,” but as he put it, “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator.”
That quote will likely doom Hagel’s candidacy because, if there is one institution that is considered untouchable, it is the Israel lobby and its power. [my emphasis]
Their theme is that “The Lobby” will “punish” Hagel and Obama for their disrespect. The same point is made by Patrick Slattery on (yes) DavidDuke.com:
AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represent the official command center of organized American Jewry, have come out beating their chests over his public acknowledgement of the existence of the 800-pound gorilla of a “Jewish lobby.” On the other hand, “liberal” Zionists like Thomas Freidman and Peter Beirnart are defending Hagel, perhaps because nothing can draw public attention to the power of an 800-pound gorilla more than the gorilla ripping to pieces a respected public figure in broad daylight. [my emphasis]
All this diverts attention from other important questions about Hagel, like “is he competent to run the massive enterprise that is the Defense Department?” and, given his opposition to both economic sanctions and the use of force, “what does putting Hagel is in the chain of command of the US armed forces tell Iran about our resolve to stop them from getting nuclear weapons?” That may be the idea.
But that’s the business of our Senate, most of which unfortunately follows the President like a lapdog. As for me, I’m just a Zhid from a village in the Ukraine who knows when something, or someone, stinks.

Iran confiscates Buddha statues from shops

Labels: »
Iran confiscates Buddha statues from shops
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Buddha statues have joined Barbie dolls and characters from "The Simpsons" TV cartoon as banned items in the conservative Muslim nation.
Authorities are confiscating Buddha statues from shops in the Iranian capital, Tehran, to stop the promotion of Buddhism in the country, according to a report Sunday in the independent Arman daily.
Iran has long fought against items, such as Barbie toys, to defuse Western influence, but this appears to be the first time that Iranian authorities are showing an opposition to symbols from the East.
The newspaper quoted Saeed Jaberi Ansari, an official for the protection of Iran's cultural heritage, as calling the Buddha statues symbols of "cultural invasion." He said authorities will not permit a specific belief to be promoted through such items. Ansari did not say how many Buddhas had been seized, but that the "cleansing" would continue.
More...

Benghazi attacking militias return

Labels: »

Doc's Talk: Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
Libya militia linked to US attack returns to Benghazi
REUTERS
LAST UPDATED: 02/17/2013

BENGHAZI - An Islamist militia linked to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and kicked out of the city by locals is back openly manning checkpoints and building up support promising much-needed security.

Heavily bearded youths from Ansar al-Sharia control the western entrance into Libya's second biggest metropolis, patrol a hospital and check cars and trucks passing through another checkpoint in the south.

Witnesses say the group's members were at the scene of the Sept. 11 attack that killed the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans - though Ansar al-Sharia denied any involvement.

Days after the assault, outraged residents drove the group out of its bases in the city in a "Rescue Benghazi" protest.

The group's highly visible return, five months on, underlines the complex security situation on the ground two years after the start of the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi.

Saudi Prince #Alwaleed Refocusing Investments Toward Middle East

Labels:
The article linked below from Bloomberg is about Alwaleed’s decision to sell off his jumbo jet, but the bigger story embedded here is his decision to refocus his fortune back home in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, which almost certainly means Shariah-compliance…
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Al Saud, the world’s 15th-richest person, sold his Airbus A380 jet plane in the past four months…The 57-year-old, who bought the plane in 2007, used the proceeds from the sale to expand his investments in Saudi Arabia and the greater Middle East…
The chairman of Riyadh-based Kingdom Holding has a net worth of $29 billion…Alwaleed’s fortune has surged $8.5 billion since April 2012 as Kingdom shares have almost doubled in value.
Alwaleed has built much of his fortune investing in companies such as Apple Inc. and News Corp. In the past several years, the billionaire said he has been reallocating his portfolio in favor of the Middle East. He has more than $1.3 billion invested in public and private equities in the region…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/alwaleed-sells-airbus-a380-to-invest-in-middle-east-firms.html
they know America will compete in the energy sector. This is not because America is a bad investment... this is because INVESTING in AMERICA now hurts his base.

#GunControl? 3D Printer Projects - #Gun Parts - AR Bullet Magazine

Labels: » » » » » »
Gun PartsDefDist has created a 3D-printed 30-round AR magazine, ExtremeTech reported. The magazine was printed out on an Objet Connex26 using transparent VeroClear printing material in order to show the magazine’s round count and feeding action. DefDist noted that the final printed product wasn’t perfect, as “practically every component” had to be shaved at least once. The team managed one trial that shot about five rounds before failure — not so bad for a first run.(Image)(pcmag.com)
of course we will be told that gun control is something that will be enforceable... the bad guys wouldn't download anything from the internet... would they?

Muslims Decapitate Cat in Sweden, Boast on Internet (pic)

Labels:
via Islam v. Europe
serveimage
This happened in Sweden.
The Muslims’ names are believed to be Hamza Tchaki, Youssef Ben Ali, Kuorbam Uomama and Firas Mani, all Tunisian.
Source: Alerta Digital
meow!

Bill #Maher Takes On #GOP Opposition To #Hagel Over Israel: ‘The #Israelis Are Controlling Our Government’

Labels: » »
Bill Maher tonight took on the GOP opposition to Chuck Hagel becoming the next defense secretary with the particular sticking point that he has made some controversial remarks about Israeli influence on the U.S. government. Maher argued the fact that this is causing such outrage only proves that the Israeli government does have undue influence on the United States.
RELATED: SNL’s Cut Cold Open Savages Republicans For Their Excessive Praise Of Israel At Chuck Hagel Hearings
Maher was, firstly, stunned that the Republicans are working this hard to fight the nomination of a member of thir own party. The Daily Caller’s Jamie Weinstein explained that they are still trying to vet Hagel before the final vote. Maher couldn’t understand what they find “suspicious about him,” asking “he’s a right-wing Republican and that’s not good enough?”
Weinstein told Maher that there are more comments by Hagel being unearthed, one of which features a remark by Hagel that the State Department is run by the Israeli government. Maher stated that this is a matter of fact.
“Based on every statement I’ve heard from every Republican in the last two years, the Israelis are controlling our government.”
Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

—–
Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac
...but it doesn't seem like Israelis are controlling the media. Right Bill Maher? What is pulling the talking head strings... hmmm... probably the same people that financed Matt Damon's films

“Sex under the burqa” #NaomiWolf to join #AlJazeera

Labels: » »
Politico
Wolf, a “radical feminist”, Al Goracle, a hysterical global warming shyster, and  Qatar’s jihad propaganda TV in bed with al Qaeda? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Wolf has written columns for Al Jazeera and the  extreme left Guardian in the past.
Her hypocrisy is breathtaking:
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”
Here a sample of Naomi’s brainfarts:

Naomi Wolf, the author and activist, is in early-stage talks with the global news network Al Jazeera, POLITICO has learned.
Wolf, who currently writes a column for The Guardian, confirmed the news late Thursday night but stressed that the talks were in the earliest stages and that no job offer was on the table.
“It’s extremely informal and very, very preliminary,” she told POLITICO.
Wolf is in a non-exclusive employment with the Guardian and has written columns for Al Jazeera and other news outlets in the past. She and The Guardian recently agreed that she would scale back her column duties — from weekly to monthly — due to her thesis obligations at Oxford, where she is a graduate student. (The Huffington Post reported earlier today that she would be ending her weekly column duties, but did not specify the terms of the new arrangement.)
“Naomi will be a contributor to the Guardian, and write as her other commitments allow,” a Guardian spokesperson told POLITICO.
A spokesman with Al Jazeera did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the talks, which is understandable given the late hour.
Al Jazeera, a Qatari-owned news network, bought Current TV from Al Gore earlier this yearin an effort to expand its reach in the American market. Al Jazeera plans to announce the launch of an American-based network, called Al Jazeera America, later this year and has set about on a hiring spree to bulk up American-based staff. Wolf would be its first high-profile hire.
In addition to her columns, Wolf is an author of books including “The Beautiful Myth,” a best-seller that established her as a spokeswoman for third-wave feminism, and “Vagina: A New Biography,” published in 2012.
Wolf described her relationship with The Guardian in glowing terms: “It’s wonderful,” she said. “I love The Guardian and Al Jazeera English. I think they’re both doing some of the best journalism out there. It’s notable and kind of sad that non-U.S. based news sites are able to run pieces of mine that don’t as easily find a home in American publications.”
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”
This post has been updated.

The Terrifying Mindset of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Labels: » »
Joseph Curl
Her words are already long gone from the daily flow; in fact, they never really resonated at all, were all but ignored by the mainstream media, and were characterized more as a feisty in-your-face comeback than what they truly were.
And what they truly were was horrifying — but at the same time a deep insight into the Democratic mindset, as well as a peek at what may be coming in 2016.
Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton finally appeared to answer questions before two congressional panels on exactly what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

That day, the consulate was overrun by heavily armed terrorists, some with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, others with high-powered assault weapons. They swept past the almost nonexistent security, killed the U.S. ambassador and set the building on fire. They followed when dozens of Americans fled to a more-heavily fortified annex nearby, but U.S. forces did nothing during the next 10 hours and three more were killed, including two Navy SEALs.
For weeks, the White House and top administration officials said the assault was merely a protest turned violent: The angry mass had gathered to protest a short video posted on YouTube that Muslims reportedly found offensive. It was, they said, spontaneous, and it was, they said, all about that video.
The hearing last week was a fact-finding mission: Lawmakers charged with oversight of the State Department gathered to ask the secretary of state — for the first time — what went wrong, and to find out, if possible, the cause of the deadly blunder. More, they wanted to hear from the secretary herself just why the administration had said for so long that a video caused an impromptu protest that led to the death of the U.S. ambassador.
Asked during a Senate hearing why they had given out faulty information for so long, Mrs. Clinton grew angry and, with her voice rising, her hands flailing, said: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?!”
And that, in a nutshell, sums up the frightening Democratic mindset. The administration had buried the matter for months in an internal investigation: No one from the White House to the State Department would comment on what happened, turning away queries with the simple: “It’s under investigation.” And they weren’t about to start explaining now.
Remember, the story had changed completely just hours before another congressional hearing months earlier. State Department officials, speaking with anonymity, had scrambled to hold a hastily-arranged conference call with reporters to say, in essence, “Oh, turns out it was terrorists, not just protesters, who attacked in Benghazi. And oh, nothing to do with any video.” That call came just before officials planned to tell a completely new story, but this time to lawmakers, where — as Mrs. Clinton learned after her husband’s affair with a White House intern — lying under oath is a felony.
So, lawmakers still wanted to know why the administration dispatched aides to the Sunday talk shows right after the deadly attack to say it was the culmination of a spontaneous attack over a video. Later, Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would say that they were merely offering up the best information at the time, but as information dribbed and drabbed out over the following months, it turned out that no one in the intelligence community ever said the attack was spontaneous or caused by a video posted on YouTube nearly six months earlier.
But Mrs. Clinton made clear at the hearing that she didn’t have to answer to anyone — certainly not elected lawmakers, let alone the American people. “What difference does it make?!” she bellowed. Now, this hearing was in fact a hearing intended to find out why the administration said the attack came after an impromptu protest over a video. Senators made clear in the days preceded the hearing that they planned to ask just that, get the answer to that most pressing unanswered question.
“You know, to be clear,” the secretary explained, as if to children, “it is, from my perspective, less important today, looking backwards, as to why these militants decided they did it [sic], than to find them and bring them to justice.”
So, from her perspective, there doesn’t need to be any investigation into why the administration said what it said. It’s like a child breaking a lamp, lying about it to his parents, and then saying, “Look, we could go on and on about who said what about breaking the lamp, but fixing the lamp now is really all that’s important — let’s move on.”
And that is terrifying. The secretary of state said simply, “The ends justify the means.” The Obama administration had lied about what happened in Benghazi to help secure a second term for the president, buried the murder of Americans in a private investigation, then, when finally questioned, said, “What difference does it make!?” what we said way back then.
The tactic is, of course, how Democrats operate. They feel that what they are doing is morally superior; thus, however they can achieve their goals is above question or reproach. In fact, in this case, they can lie about it — bald-faced — and then dismiss lawmakers’ questions with an indignant huff.
It is, as we know, exactly how the Clintons operate. Bill Clinton lied for weeks and months over his sexual dalliance with an intern only a few years older than his daughter — even under oath — and Democrats decried the probe as a witch hunt. Remember when Mrs. Clinton made $100,000 through spurious cattle futures contracts? Of course not: By the time it all came around, the Clintons said, “Oh, that old stuff?” Or the time the Clintons announced they had suddenly found papers demanded by investigators for years? And don’t even ask about Vincent W. Foster Jr.

This is what’s coming in 2016. A politician running for president who need not answer questions from anyone. And that truly is horrifying.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com.
cunt

Work place violence? When a foreign indoctrinated #Muslim does what his religion tells him to do.

Labels: » »
Members of Congress Demand Obama Classify Ft. Hood Attack an ‘Act of Terrorism’
creeping
It was jihad. By a soldier of allah (SoA).
Fort Hood Shootings

via Members of Congress Demand Obama Administration Classify Ft. Hood Attack an ‘Act of Terrorism’ – ABC News.
In the wake of an ABC News story detailing claims by victims of the Fort Hood shooting that they have been neglected by the military and ‘betrayed’ by President Obama, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress demanding that the Obama administration classify the attack as a terrorist act and provide full benefits to the victims and their families.

“It is time for the administration to recognize the Fort Hood shooting for what it is—an act of terrorism,” wrote Rep. Michael McCaul, R.-Texas, in a letter cosigned by Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Virginia. “To date, the Department of Defense and the Army classify this attack [as] ‘workplace violence,’ despite mountains of evidence [that] clearly proves the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terror.”
The letter recommends that members of Congress view the ABC News report, “which highlights the broken promises made to the victims of that attack by the Obama Administration. The video contains never-seen-before footage of the terrorist attack and moving interviews with several of the survivors.”
“As this news piece makes clear,” wrote McCaul and Wolf, “the result of this inexcusable [workplace violence] classification … is that victims and their families have not received the same recognition or medical and financial benefits as those wounded or killed in war.”
On Tuesday, Rep. Wolf took to the floor of the House to urge members to watch the ABC News report, and said Ft. Hood was “clearly a terrorist attack.”
“While the Obama administration has designated the attack that killed all those people as workplace violence, the survivors cannot get assistance,” said Wolf. “Secretary of Defense Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey, Attorney General Holder and the President of the United States have failed, failed the people and continue to fail the people that were wounded and killed, and their families at Fort Hood.”
More: Congressman Reintroduces Bill to Help Ft. Hood Shooting Victims
The Congressman whose district includes Ft. Hood is reintroducing a bill that will help victims of the 2009 shooting at the Texas Army base receive full benefits and make them eligible for the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent.
“Shortly after the shooting, I introduced The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act, which would award both military and civilian casualties of the Fort Hood attack combatant status,” said Rep. John Carter, R.-Texas. “It became clear early on that the Obama administration was reluctant to officially refer to the November 5, 2009 attack on Fort Hood as a ‘terrorist attack.’”
Carter announced the reintroduction of the bill in the wake of an ABC News investigation detailing claims by victims that they have been neglected by the military. In a report that aired on “World News with Diane Sawyer” and “Nightline,” former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said she felt “betrayed” by President Obama and that he broke a promise to make sure the victims would be well taken care of.
WATCH Exclusive Video of Fort Hood’s Aftermath
READ the Fort Hood Victims’ Lawsuit

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Translate