Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 22, 2010













Tuesday, September 21, 2010


A "skit" from one of Red Skelton's 1969 T.V. shows... WOW.....just think about it, he said this on his T.V. show in 1969 & had no clue his words would ever come to fruition. SAD, isn't it? What a wonderful and worthwhile clip to watch and share with all your friends and acquaintances!

This is one that needs to be passed on to everyone. The goal is 2,500,000 viewers. It should be 300 million.

A "skit" from one of Red Skelton's 1969 T.V. shows... WOW.....just think about it, he said this on his T.V. show in 1969 & had no clue his words would ever come to fruition. S A D, isn't it? What a wonderful and worthwhile clip to watch and share with all your friends and acquaintances!

This is one that needs to be passed on to everyone. The goal is 2,500,000 viewers. It should be 300 million.


Amnesty International Official Calls Israel a ‘Scum State’

August 26, 2010 3:40 P.M.
By Benjamin Weinthal

On Monday the head of Finland’s branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson, termed Israel a “scum state.” Writing in his blog, which appears on the Web site of Iltalehti, one of Finland’s largest newspapers, he based his characterization of Israel on his “own visit[s], which occurred during the 1970s and for the last time in the 1990s.” Johansson further justified his rhetoric toward Israel because he has previously invoked strong language against former Pres. George Bush on Finnish TV. He called Mr. Bush “the biggest executioner in the Western Hemisphere.”

Turning Israel and the United States into whipping boys is hardly new territory among human-rights NGOs, but now a high-level official of AI has exposed his pathological obsession with rejecting Western democratic values. His biological language mirrors that of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who calls Israel a “cancer” that needs to be “removed.”

Once Johansson was caught with both hands deep in the anti-Semitic cookie jar, he offered the defense that “I am writing those [blogs] in my capacity as a private person, not as an Amnesty official.” However, on Iltalehti’s Web site, his title as “director of the Finnish branch of Amnesty International” appears above his blog.

Human-rights organizations such as the London-based Amnesty International and the U.S. Human Rights Watch have long developed a cottage industry of playing down repression of human rights in the Islamic world while devoting the bulk of their resources, energies, and personnel to soft targets such as Israel’s democracy. All of this helps to explain why Gita Sahgal, the former head of Amnesty International’s gender unit, deemed Amnesty’s leadership to be plagued by “ideological bankruptcy” and “misogyny.” Sahgal criticized Amnesty for giving a platform to Moazzam Begg, a leading advocate of the Taliban in the United Kingdom and former Guantánamo Bay prisoner. Sahgal was dismissed this past year for blowing the whistle on Amnesty’s alliance with radical Islam and haters of women.

It is a world beyond madness: Human rights animated by anti-Semitism and Taliban slaughterers of women.
—Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

© National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved



JERUSALEM – If Israel and the Palestinian Authority fail to reach an agreement within the next year, the Obama administration could support a United Nations resolution that would unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, senior PA officials told WND.

The officials were speaking ahead of a major summit that starts today in Washington to launch direct talks between Israel and the PA. The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan will also take part in the summit.

Sources in both the PA and Israel told WND the Obama administration did not impose any preconditions for the summit, a move that is somewhat out of character for the U.S. president. It was Obama who urged Israel to halt all Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem as a precondition for indirect negotiations last November.

Under intense pressure, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu froze Jewish West Bank construction for 10 months, a moratorium set to expire at the end of September.

PA officials told WND they received an American pledge against any new Jewish construction into the foreseeable future in the West Bank or eastern sections of Jerusalem, excluding what are known as the three main settlement blocs – Gush Etzion, Maale Adumin and Ariel.

The PA officials said the U.S. has been negotiating the borders of a future Palestinian state that would see Israel eventually withdraw from most of the West Bank and some areas of eastern Jerusalem with the exception of the three blocs.

While the PA does not believe it will see an actual Palestinian state within a year, it expects in that time it will take over many more neighborhoods in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem that are normally controlled on the ground by Israel. The PA said the expectation is based on pledges by the Obama administration.

Still, both Israeli leaders and PA officials told WND that following today's summit they do not expect any major momentum toward a future Palestinian state until after November's midterm elections. Officials on both sides believe Obama sees a heavy-handed approach toward Israeli-Palestinian talks as a potential liability in the run-up to the elections.

Netanyahu is headed to today's summit with the knowledge that if talks are not ultimately fruitful, Obama could back the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state outside the framework of coordination with Israel.

The threat to create a Palestinian state using a U.N. vote is not new. Last year, Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and member of the Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee, told WND in an interview that the PA "reached an understanding with important elements within the administration" to possibly bring to the U.N. Security Council a resolution to unilaterally create a Palestinian state. Asked to which "elements" he was referring, Qurei would only say they were from the Obama administration.

Despite widespread assumptions the U.S. would veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution, PA officials told WND the Obama administration did not threaten to veto their conceptual unilateral resolution. "The U.S. has a history of never before vetoing any U.N. move to create a new state," a PA negotiator pointed out.

Today's summit will begin with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosting one-to-one discussions with Netanyahu, PA President Mahmoud Abbas, the foreign ministers of Jordan and Egypt, and Tony Blair, envoy of the 'Quartet' of Middle East peace negotiators – the United Nations, the U.S., the European Union and Russia. Later, speeches will be delivered by the Middle East leaders as well as by Obama.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Jews killed where Obama demanded removal of checkpoints
Anti-terror barriers credited with stopping scores of attacks

Posted: August 31, 2010
5:20 pm Eastern

Officially, Hamas took responsibility for the terror attack, in which gunmen opened fire at point-blank range on a car carrying the four Israeli civilians. By Aaron Klein

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he delivers his speech during his party's meeting for the upcoming Jewish New Year in Tel Aviv August 30, 2010. Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are expected to meet U.S. President Barack Obama ahead of the launch of Mideast talks on September 2nd. REUTERS/Nir Elias (ISRAEL - Tags: POLITICS)

JERUSALEM – Today's deadly terror attack that killed four people took place on a road where the Israeli government removed staffed anti-terror checkpoints in line with requests from the Obama administration, WND has learned.

As President Obama was preparing for a Washington summit with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Palestinian terrorists today carried out a shooting attack, killing two Jewish men and two women, one of whom was pregnant.

The attack took place in the West Bank just south of the entrance to Kiryat Arba, near the historic biblical city of Hebron.

Israeli security officials say the terrorist shooting was a coordinated ambush.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, confirmed to WND his group was behind the attack. Abu-Ubaida, a spokesman for Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, stated today's shooting was "a link in a chain-series of attacks - some have been executed, and others will follow."

The attack took place in the same general area where a gunman opened fire on an Israeli police vehicle just outside Hebron in June. A police officer was killed and two others were wounded in that shooting attack. Israeli security officials say the shooting was a planned ambush similar to today's attack.

Both incidents took place on Route 60, a West Bank road used by Israeli and Palestinian drivers and patrolled by Israel.

In the last year, the Israeli government removed 19 staffed checkpoints in the West Bank. At least 15 of the removed barriers are in the vicinity of Hebron.

A spokeperson for the Israel Defense Forces confirmed to WND that in the last year and a half, all roadblocks have been removed from Route 60. The checkpoints were dismantled in line with demands from the Palestinian Authority that were passed on to Israel by the Obama administration.

George Mitchell, the White House envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically requested that Israel remove roadblocks and checkpoints as a confidence-building gesture to restart talks with the PA, Israeli officials told WND.

Anti-terror roadblocks and checkpoints impede Palestinian movement, but have been credited with stopping scores of attacks.

Michael Ben-Ari, a Knesset member from Israel's National Union party, slammed the dismantlement of the checkpoints. "The writing was on the wall. Opening roadblocks encourages terror and gives a free hand to terrorists," he said.

Preliminary police reports here show the gunmen today approached the Israeli vehicle and shot the victims multiple times at point-blank range.

The Magen David Adom ambulance authority reported the victims were two men ages 25 and 40 and two women, also ages 25 and 40, one of whom was pregnant. The victims were all residents of Beit Hagai, a Jewish community in the southern Hebron Hills.

Paramedic Guy Ronen described the shooting scene to the Jerusalem Post: "When we arrived on the scene, all four doors of the car were open and four bodies were strewn on the road. We saw that the vital organs had been struck by a very large number of bullets, and that there was no chance of saving their lives."

"It was a very difficult scene. We had learned to forget scenes like this in recent years," Ronen added.

State Department spokesman Philip Crowley, meanwhile, commented on the terrorist attack, stating: "We are cognizant that there could be external events that can have an impact on the environment. We also are cognizant that there may well be actors in the region who are deliberately making these kinds of attacks in order to try to sabotage the process."

The attack occurred just before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plane landed in Washington, where the Israeli leader is set to begin direct negotiations with PA President Mahmoud Abbas. The negotiations are aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

Members of Netanyahu's entourage said the prime minister was briefed on the events and that he instructed Israel's security agencies to prepare for the possibility of further attacks aimed at disrupting the Washington summit.


Shariah a danger to U.S., security pros say
Bill Gertz - The Washington Times, September 14th, 2010

A panel of national security experts who worked under Republican and Democratic presidents is urging the Obama administration to abandon its stance that Islam is not linked to terrorism, arguing that radical Muslims are using Islamic law to subvert the United States.

In a report set for release today, the panel states that “it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam's authentic moderates and reformers.”

The study group, sponsored by the conservative-oriented Center for Security Policy, says in its report that proponents of advancing Islamic law mark the “crucial fault line” in Islam's internal divisions separating truly moderate Muslims, like the late Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, from the large portion of the world's 1 billion Muslims who advocate imposing what they call Shariah law throughout the world.

Mr. Wahid, who died in December, is a widely respected Muslim visionary who promoted pluralism in Indonesia, which has the world's largest population of Muslims.

According to the report, proponents of Shariah are “Muslim supremacists” waging “civilization jihad” along with the Islamist terrorists engaged in violent jihad, like al Qaeda.

The 19-member study group was led by retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration, and retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, Defense Intelligence Agency director from 1988 to 1991.

Included in the team of former defense, law enforcement and intelligence officials were Clinton administration CIA Director R. James Woolsey and Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, a career counterterrorism prosecutor during the Clinton administration.

Frank Gaffney, director of the Center for Security Policy, said the Obama administration's policy is based on an incorrect assumption. The Team B report seeks to expose flaws in anti-terror programs, including the policy of not referring to al Qaeda and similar groups as “Islamist” to avoid offending Muslims, he said.

“What if it turns out that some of the people the Obama administration has been embracing are actually promoting the same totalitarian ideology and seditious agenda as al Qaeda, only they're doing it from White House Iftar dinners?” said Mr. Gaffney, referring to the daily meal eaten by Muslims to break their fast during Ramadan.

The group of experts was modeled after the official CIA Team B, whose 1976 contrary analysis said U.S. intelligence assessments had underestimated Soviet nuclear forces. That Team B report led to the military buildup under the Reagan administration.

John Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for counterterrorism, told The Washington Times in June that he disagrees that “there is an Islamic dimension to terrorism.”

The administration's policy of not using the word Islam and its derivatives to describe today's fundamentalist terrorists is aimed at “not according these individuals any religious legitimacy,” he said.

A White House spokesman could not be reached for comment on the report or the administration's policy on political Islam.

Mr. Gaffney said the report concludes that U.S. government programs aimed at reaching out to Muslim groups that promote Shariah law “is not political correctness, it's submission.”

The administration's failure to understand the Islamist nature of the terrorist threat is “inviting more violent jihad against this country,” Mr. Gaffney said.

The report calls for a campaign against radical Islamists following the model used against communist ideology and activities during the Cold War, including infiltrating foreign-supported jihad groups by the FBI and other aggressive security measures.

“Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls Shariah,” the report says.

“Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of Shariah as a 'religious' code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere — economic, social, military, legal and political.”

The Team B report calls for developing a counterstrategy to Islamist ideology, but notes that understanding the nature of the enemy is a critical first step.

“That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at some point, catch up to the benign fable,” the report says. “Empowering the condign elements of Islam requires a candid assessment, which acknowledges the strength of Shariah — just as defeat of 20th century totalitarian ideologies required an acknowledgment of, and respect for, their malevolent capabilities.”

The Shariah system is “totalitarian” and incompatible with the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of democratic lawmaking, freedom of conscience, individual liberty and freedom of expression, including the right to analyze and criticize Shariah law, the report states.

The report cites the 1991 document from the Muslim Brotherhood in North America describing a covert process of Islamic “settlement” in the United States. The plan is to carry out a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated,” the document stated.

The Egyptian-origin Muslim Brotherhood is the most important entity promoting Islamic supremacism, the report says.

Republican and Democratic administrations failed to understand the ideological nature of the terrorist enemy, the report says, including its ultimate goal of reinstating a totalitarian Islamic caliphate with Shariah imposed globally.



Harvard is the epicenter of neosocialist globalism in the US, and traditional
Americanism, including the tenets of Constitutional republicanism, is wholly
reviled. Just as America is hated, so are Israel and the whole Judeao-
Christian values paradigm. This is the graduate school Andrew Romanoff
graduated from.


Harvard is the epicenter of neosocialist globalism in the US, and traditional
Americanism, including the tenets of Constitutional republicanism, is wholly
reviled. Just as America is hated, so are Israel and the whole Judeao-
Christian values paradigm. This is the graduate school Andrew Romanoff
graduated from.

As a person who is pro-Israel, pro-2nd Amendment, and pro-American Harvard is not the school choice for me.

Harvard is the oldest university in the USA and has the largest endowment. Yet, their agenda is questionable.

Yes, they are the #1 which is why it is so troubling that their agenda is of world government, and their teachings are anti-American.

I had a life long friend who was a professor of biology there, so I spent a lot of time "inside". Someday in person, I can tell you some of the stories of who is educating our children at the highest level

Remember, John Harvard founded it as a divinity school. He is certainly rolling over in his grave.

Harvard is the #1 rated university in the USA. Go Teva!


All warfare is based on deception...Sun Tzu


The "Two State Solution": Reality or Delusion?

Arnold Soloway - Aug 03, 2010

Study Paper August 2010

The “Two State Solution”: Reality or Delusion?
(A 10 minute primer)

By Arnold M. Soloway

Six Questions:

1. Who wants a “Two State Solution”?
2. How would it serve America’s interests?
3. Do Jews have any right to a state in Palestine?
4. What is the “Strategy of Stages”?
5. Should Jerusalem again be divided?
6. President Obama, The “Two State Solution” and Israel?

Center for Near East Policy Research

The “Two-State Solution”: Reality or Delusion?

Following the U.S. lead, the near universal consensus appears to be that the Arab-Israel conflict can be resolved only by the establishment of a Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza, providing a “Two-State Solution”. But this approach ignores current realities and relevant history. The “Two-State Solution”, as proposed, inevitably would constitute an unwarranted threat to vital American national security interests and to Israel’s survival, a danger manifestly detrimental to U.S. credibility and its security interests in a true and lasting Arab-Israel peace.

Given current realties, while Israel is the lone bastion for democracy and human rights in the Middle East, there is little doubt that a new Palestinian Arab state would ally itself with and become a client of despotisms like Iran and Syria, and other forces hostile to America. Also by exporting terrorism, Jordan’s survival would be put in peril and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states would be threatened. This would make the region more combustible than it already is – hardly in U.S. or Israel’s interest.

Briefly: Israel’s Legitimacy

In 1922, following the Allied victory in World War I, the organized international community of the time, the League of Nations, with the special concurrence of the U.S. (not a member), established the Palestine Mandate as a matter of binding international law, based on the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine”. It intended to establish “a National Home for the Jewish people”, specifically including all the territory of what later became Jordan and Israel, explicitly designated for “close settlement by Jews on the land” of Palestine. (The league similarly established French mandates for territories that became Syria and Lebanon, and another British mandate for Mesopotamia-Iraq.)

In 1923, however, for her own imperial interests, and without prior approval of the International Mandate Commission, Britain cut off 78% of the original Mandate territory to establish the Arab Emirate of Trans Jordan and installed as Emir a World War I ally, Abdullah, whose forces had been expelled from Arabia by the Wahabi Saudis. Abdullah, with some 2,000 Hashemite troops, took control of the territory in Palestine where Jews were expelled and no longer permitted to live. The territory for the Jewish national home in Palestine was thus reduced to a mere 22% of the original Mandate. The Jews who peopled that 22% of the Mandate were known as “Palestinians”.

In 1937, concerned by escalating Arab violence, the British created the Peel Commission to investigate the Palestine problem. The Peel Commission subsequently called for further subdivision of the remaining 22% of the original Mandate territory into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, as “a chance for ultimate peace”. The Arabs emphatically rejected the two state proposal.

In 1946, with British support, Abdullah converted the Emirate of Trans-Jordan into the Kingdom of Jordan, an Arab state within the Palestine Mandate, with himself as King. (“Palestine and Jordan were both under British Mandate, but as my grandfather pointed out in his memoirs, they were hardly separate countries. Trans-Jordan being to the east of the river Jordan, formed in a sense, the interior of Palestine.” [King Hussein Jordan, Uneasy Lies the Head, New York, 1962, p.118])

In 1947, after Britain surrendered its Mandate as a “sacred trust” to the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, calling for partition of the remaining 22% of the Palestine Mandate. This “Two-State Solution” provided for a second Arab state in Palestine (Jordan being the first). Although disappointed by the small portion of territory it would receive, the U.N. proposal was accepted by the Jews as “Israelis”. It was forcefully rejected by the Arabs.

In 1948, five Arab armies undertook an avowed “War of Extermination” against the nascent Jewish State. To world-wide surprise, the Arabs were defeated. Under the subsequent armistice agreement when combat ceased, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled Gaza as “belligerent occupiers”.

During the nineteen years in which those territories were under complete Arab control, there was no agitation or effort to establish a Palestinian state.

In 1967, after again defeating Arab armies in a war of self-defense and gaining control of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, Israel offered to return territory it had won in exchange for peace agreements with its neighbors. The Arab League responded with their Khartoum Resolution: “No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel.” Once again, no “Two-State Solution”. But to enhance their appeal to Western public opinion, the Arabs of Mandate Palestine waived their traditional self-identification as “Arabs”, members of the Arab Nation, and for the first time took on the name “Palestinians”.

In 1974, the nine-year old P.L.O., at its Twelfth National Convention, adopted “The Strategy of Stages”. This was designed to create an impression of “moderation” – primarily for Western consumption – by agreeing to set up a Palestinian Arab state in any West Bank and Gaza territory vacated by Israel as Stage I, without recognizing the State of Israel. Stage II, was to be resumption and intensification of the “armed struggle” from the greatly enhanced power base, which would ensure the destruction of Israel and allow Arabs to take the rest of Palestine in Stage III. The “Two-State Solution” would advance the PLO’s Strategy of Stages for the destruction of Israel.

Oslo’s Aftermath

Despite these facts, in 1993, the Oslo Accords were signed by Arafat of the P.L.O. and Prime Minister Rabin of Israel at the White House, supposedly to allow for the development and growth of mutual trust and respect - leading to the establishment of a Palestinian State. (Afterwards, Arafat speaking to his own people reaffirmed the P.L.O. commitment to the “Strategy of Stages” for Israel’s destruction, and equated the Oslo Accords with Mohammed’s Treaty of Hudabya with the Koreish tribe, which the Prophet maintained for two years – until his forces grew strong enough to crush the Koreish.)

The Israeli government, driven by its intense desire for “peace”, and trusting that Arafat would honor his commitment to eliminate Palestinian terrorism and anti-Israel hate indoctrination, placed significant territory under P.L.O. control and without consideration of vital security issues gave arms to it’s “Police”. However, rather than moderating the Palestinians (PLO and Hamas alike), the Oslo Accords produced an unprecedented level of hate-education, resulting in an unprecedented wave of anti-Israeli Palestinian terrorism, a gross violation of Palestinian commitments made to Israel and to the U.S.

Oslo may have led to a Palestinian state in a “Two-State Solution”, but Arafat rejected the Two-State option. Instead, he launched the first bloody “Intifada” and intensified vitriolic anti-Israel hate indoctrination in programs that continue to this day. The “Hate Jews and Israel” mantra, heard every day in their Mosques and media, resonates powerfully among the Palestinian Arabs, unwitting recipients of gross historical revisionism. It is especially aimed at the young, even in programs designed for early school age children.

In 2000, with no regard for this very dismal experience, President Clinton joined by Ehud Barak, then Israel’s Prime Minister, offered to Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs a sovereign state with 97% of the West Bank and Gaza, its capital in East Jerusalem and large sums of money in compensation to Palestinian refugees. Arafat again rejected a “Two State Solution” and responded with the “Second Intifada”, including the bloodiest sustained terrorist attacks in Israel’s history. Nevertheless, the international politicos, led by the Obama administration, still focus almost exclusively on a “Two-State Solution”. They ignore the fact that over a period of more than seven decades at least five distinct international diplomatic initiatives for such a “solution” would have created a Palestinian state. All those initiatives were rejected by the Arabs who simply would not accept the concept of two states, Arab and Jewish, “living side-by-side in peace”. From those repeated rejections and close study of current Arab attitudes and aspirations, it is abundantly clear that their goal is a single Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Critical Realities

Quite apart from intrinsically contradictory fundamental issues that would beset any Arab-Israel negotiations for a “Two-State Solution”, there is another basic problem. The Arabs are divided in two hostile camps. Fatah (P.L.O.) controls territory in the West Bank while Hamas maintains control of Gaza which it seized by force from Fatah.

The hostility between Fatah and Hamas encompasses a range of important political and theological differences. But they share the same ultimate goal: the destruction of the State of Israel. In both the P.L.O.-Fatah and Hamas covenants that goal is specific, clearly stated, and glorifies “armed struggle” – all having been substantiated by both terrorist actions and repeated declarations.

Following Yasser Arafat’s death, Abu Mazen, the P.L.O.’s second-in-command, who, at Arafat’s side, was directly involved in many deadly terrorist acts over the years, now has the title of “Chairman Abbas”. He has taken over command of Palestinian Arab governance (P.L.A.) and has attempted to transform his and the P.L.O.’s image by adopting a mask of moderation to gain favor in the U.S. and the West. Unlike Arafat, he speaks dresses and acts in a more “Western” fashion. This has allowed current U.S. policy–makers to ignore his terrorist past, to portray him now as a “moderate”, and to accept him as a partner in the pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace through a “Two-State Solution”. These political policy-makers also evade reference to the fact that despite Abbas’ supposed “moderation”, as Arafat’s First Deputy he instituted hate-education in the Palestinian Authority in 1994, and has sustained hate-education as Arafat’s successor. His “Strategy of Stages” and the articles in the P.L.O. covenant specifically calling for Israel’s destruction by “armed struggle” remain unchanged. In addition, Abbas and the P.L.O. still will not even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist; they insist on the expulsions of all Jews from half of Jerusalem and territories the Arabs lost in the 1967 war, and they claim “the right of return” for millions of Arabs to a reduced Israel within its 1967 armistice lines, which in itself would mean the end of the Jewish national home.

The ultimate Abbas-P.L.O. goal remains the same as Arafat’s: the elimination of the Jewish State. Seeing the true face of Fatah, what can be expected of the even more extreme Hamas? Unequivocally committed to Israel’s destruction and still continuing terrorist actions, a “transformation” is hardly credible. Nevertheless, Hamas is being pursued avidly by U.S. ex-officials and public figures implicitly representing the Obama administration, urging reconciliation of Hamas and Fatah, so that they can appear as a single Palestinian entity for negotiations with Israel. Presumably for humanitarian aid, but in part at least to encourage that reconciliation, on June 9, 2010 President Obama granted $400,000,000 to be shared by Fatah and Hamas. How the total sum is to be divided and who will control its actual disposition was not disclosed. However, with Hamas now receiving significant support and arms from Iran and Syria, “reconciliation” of Fatah and Hamas, at best would be a very temporary affair, but it would open the door for increased U.S. pressure on Israel to make further “concessions” toward the “Two-State Solution”.

The Obama administration argues the extreme urgency of achieving this end so as to gain support from the Arab states in our conflict with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Certainly we want any intelligence and support we can gain from the Arab states, but long experience demonstrates that the factor that really determines the policies and actions of Arab leaders concerns threats to their survival in power. Domestic, regional, and global factors impact inter-Arab, Arab-Western and Arab-Israel relations much more than the Palestinian issues despite their often impassioned rhetoric.

During Israel’s armed conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and later with Hamas in Gaza, the Arab outcry against Israel was largely muted and during the 2009 Gaza War Arab countries rejected the call for an emergency session of Arab leaders on behalf of Gaza; a number of Arab regimes are increasingly apprehensive about domestic challenges from forces like Hamas; the “Two-State Solution” is viewed as a threat by Jordan and others because it would endow Hamas with greater regional influence and power. Certainly Arab hostility toward Israel persists, but because the Arab-Israel conflict in Palestine is not their most vital concern today, the support we want to gain from the Arab leaders depends less than ever on the degree of pressure the U.S. puts on Israel and more on their assessment of who will prevail.

Obviously, that critical assessment will be profoundly influenced by Iran’s prospective emergence as a nuclear power. The Arab states know that Israel poses no existential threat to them, while Egypt, Jordan, the Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states do fear the prospect that a nuclear-armed Iran could pose an existential threat to them.

“The world’s most open secret is that the Arab countries of the Middle East fear a nuclear Iran as much, and perhaps more, than Israel does…the comments this week by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al-Otaiba are worth noting…asked if he wanted the U.S. to stop the Iranian bomb program by force”, he answered: ‘Absolutely, absolutely. I think we are at risk of an Iranian nuclear program far more than you are at risk’. Mr. Otaiba’s other comments leave no doubt what he and most Arab officials think about the prospect of a nuclear revolutionary Shiite state. They desperately want someone, and that means the U.S. or Israel, to stop it, using force if need be.”

The Arab states that are inclined to offer U.S. intelligence and other support recognize tacitly that Israel today constitutes a force for stability in the region and may be their best hope for security against a hegemonistic Iran, particularly as they witness the lack of American resolve to face the challenge of Iran.

Jerusalem: Forgotten History?

The “Two-State” proposal invariably contains a divided Jerusalem. The Arabs will accept a portion of Jerusalem for their state as a tactical component in their Strategy of Stages, but aware of what that portends and the fact that “East Jerusalem” contains the Jewish quarter of the Old City with the “Western Wall” of the sacred Temple, Israel could not yield to such a “solution”

Three Thousand years ago, King David made Jerusalem his capital and Jews have aspired to live in Jerusalem ever since.

In 135 A.D., the Roman emperor Hadrian crushed the Jewish revolt and created the “Aelia Capitlina” including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Bethel, in which Jews were forbidden to live for about six centuries. But after that epoch, a determined remnant returned to Jerusalem. Through centuries of harsh, chaotic, perilous conditions- attacks and invasions by hostile neighbors; intermittent, desultory Muslin dominion; the Crusades; Ottoman Turkish rule – Jews persevered and more came home to Jerusalem.

Since the 1840’s, Jews have comprised the largest single group of Jerusalem’s inhabitants. Moreover, since the 1880’s, Jews have been a majority of its population. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any nation other than ancient and modern Israel. (The Temple Mount, where King Solomon and later Herod built the Jewish Temples of biblical time, later became the site of two major mosques.)

Jerusalem has long been a city of people from diverse backgrounds. There were fairly distinct Jewish, Arab, Christian and other neighborhoods, but in all its history the city was never divided – until the Jordanian occupation in 1948.

In the 19 years (1948-1967) when the area was totally under Jordanian control, no major political or religious leaders from another Muslim country bothered to visit or pray in the Jerusalem Mosques.
Jerusalem always has played the central role in Jewish religious and political life. The “Western Wall” was part of the Jewish Temple built more than 2,000 years ago. Jerusalem has been an integral feature in daily Jewish prayer, and when Jews pray anywhere in the world, they still face Jerusalem. (Muslims face Mecca.) To the Jewish people, “Jerusalem” is a synonym for all of Israel, their ancestral homeland.

“During Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, the Jordanian Arab Legion invaded eastern Jerusalem, occupied the Old City, and expelled all its Jews – many from families that had lived in the city for centuries. ‘As they left’, the acclaimed historian Sir Martin Gilbert later wrote in his book, Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century, ‘they could see columns of smoke rising from the quarter behind them’ …the looting and burning of Jewish property was in full swing.

“For the next nineteen years, eastern Jerusalem was barred to Jews, brutally divided from the western part of the city with barbed wire and military fortifications. Dozens of Jewish holy places, including synagogues hundreds of years old, were desecrated or destroyed. Gravestones from the ancient Mount of Olives cemetery were uprooted by the Jordanian army and used to pave latrines. Jerusalem’s most sacred Jewish shrine, the Western Wall, became a slum. It wasn’t until 1967, after Jordan was routed in the Six-Day War, that Jerusalem was reunited under Israeli sovereignty and religious freedom restored to all. Israelis have vowed ever since that Jerusalem would never again be divided.

“Only from 1948-1967 – during the Jordanian occupation – was the eastern part of Israel’s capital ‘Arab territory’. Palestinians have no more claim to sovereignty there than Russia does in formerly occupied Eastern Berlin.”
U.S. Policy

Bi-Partisan Congressional Resolutions repeatedly have affirmed the conviction that “Jerusalem should remain an undivided city and recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.” In 1990, Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, the House of Representatives concurring:

“(1) Acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel;

(2) Strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected.”

In 1992, Senate Consecutive Resolution 113, with the House of Representatives concurring:

“(1) Congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the Twenty-Fifth anniversary of the reunification of the historic city:

(2) Strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as they have been by Israel during the past Twenty-Five years; and

(3) Calls on the President and Secretary of State to issue an unequivocal statement in support of these principles.”

In 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act, S.1322, was passed. Among it’s cosponsors: Joseph Biden, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, Strom Thurmond, Bob Dole. It was termed a “Statement of the Policy of the United States”:

“(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel.”

In 2007, Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State, issued a paper stating: “Hillary Clinton believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish State, with defensive borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned”.

In 2008, Barak Obama stated: “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”. But the very next day, Obama explained that he actually supported dividing Jerusalem, and said: “The point we were simply making is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the 1967 War, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent”.

What, if anything, does a “cohesive and coherent” divided Jerusalem really mean? The point is that in his push for a “Two-State Solution”, even before any Arab-Israel negotiations, President Obama unilaterally rejected the idea that Jerusalem should remain undivided.

The New Paradigm

President Obama’s publicly stated position on Jerusalem logically concentrates attention on other positions and actions he has taken that ominously diminish the U.S.-Israel relationship: His eloquent Cairo apology to and effusive praise for the Muslim world, while implicitly criticizing Israel; his very deferential attitude in various encounters with Arab leaders, contrasted with the utter disdain and disrespect he publicly showed Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu; his repeated acerbic demands on Israel alone, while courting terrorists that Israel must contend with every day. President Obama also seems to ignore the grim prospect that the “Two-State Solution” would effectively advance the P.L.O.’s “Strategy of Stages” for the destruction of Israel.

Most disconcerting: President Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran has proven an abject failure; all the U.N. and U.S. sanctions will not bring Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weaponry, leaving us dependent on “containment”. But it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to contain a nuclear-powered Iran, the dominant power in the Middle East with growing influence beyond. And from its past experience of simply ignoring successive U.N. resolutions and U.S. opprobrium with no hurtful reprisal, it will have no real fear of a U.S. or international community response to any of its future actions.

The portents of a nuclear Iran are obvious, ominous, and far-reaching. Israel, the “Little Satan” has been targeted for prompt annihilation, but the repeatedly announced threat goes beyond the Middle East, by one means or another to extend its lethal reach to the “Big Satan”, the U.S.

Although giving occasional rhetorical assurance that “the American-Israel bond is unbreakable”, judged by his actions, President Obama has shown little concern for the existential threat to Israel from a nuclear-powered Iran and how that would affect our own security interests. Rather, he has warned Israel against taking preventive defensive action to thwart Iran. But permitting Iran to go nuclear and pandering to terrorists and their state sponsors, while disavowing America’s exceptional commitment to protect and advance freedom in the world, is strategically and morally unacceptable.

Taken together, these negative perceptions are troubling to all who are concerned about our own security and future as well as that of Israel. They lead to a most disturbing conclusion. Despite a long, mutually beneficial relationship, and the rhetorical assurances, Israel’s security and survival appear less important to President Obama than his ardent cultivation of Arab-Muslim favor.

This paradigm is perceived in the Middle East and in other regions as yet another sign of America’s wavering resolve and abandonment of its historic role as a powerful moral and strategic force. That perception emboldens not just Israel’s enemies, but our own: Iran and the formidable network of radical Islamist terrorists who have declared war on us to advance their own theocratic and political ambitions.

These unpleasant realities challenge the sanctimonious pretensions of the “Two State Solution”. They signal the dangers inherent in attempts at a quick, simple “fix”. In our own security interest, the realities instead call for a renewed, resolute American commitment to strategic and moral leadership in the war against Islamist terrorism and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. This still is the best hope for essential stability, and ultimately a true and lasting peace in that much troubled region and the world at large.

America can and must do better.

1. Israel’s Legitimacy in Law and History, Center for Near East Policy Research, 1990
2. The Wall Street Journal, July 8, 2010
3. “Jerusalem – One City Undivided”, The Boston Globe, July 22, 2009
4. Outpost, May 2010


The Sword & Shield to Stop the Islamization of America

God’s Gift of Unalienable Rights & Article VI of the Constitution:
By Publius Huldah , CFP

This is an encouraging paper, because it explains the moral and constitutional justifications to stop the islamization of our country.

We face a grave threat – the Muslims are infiltrating our country and taking over. We seem powerless to resist: Our governments won’t acknowledge the threat; we are told Muslims have “constitutional rights” to come here, proselytize everywhere, build mosques, and implement shariah in their communities and in the public square; and our governments are letting them do it.

The Muslims seek to replace our Constitution with shariah – their totalitarian political, economic, military, social & legal system – with the goal of incorporating our Country into a global Islamic caliphate.

They are making progress in islamicizing our Country because we are not resisting.

And the dreadful message we are getting from all sources is that our Constitution renders us powerless to resist islamization.

But read on, and I will show you how our Constitution & Declaration of Independence – properly understood – actually give our federal, State & local governments justification and authority to stop the islamization of our Country. Once we understand two things, it becomes clear what we may – and must – do:

One : Islam is not a “religion” in the sense we understand religion. Islam is about TOTAL POWER. It is a system which controls every aspect of the lives of those who have the misfortune to be subjected to it. It masquerades as a religion, but once we understand that it is just another totalitarian system – like soviet communism, we can deal with it and defeat it.

Once in place, Islam is enforced with stone-age barbarism. It masquerades as a religion to recruit gullible fools who become suicide bombers, and to provide “cover” for officials in the Western countries who, indoctrinated with the Lies of multiculturalism & political correctness, look for an excuse to do nothing.

Two : We must understand Our Founding Principles – these are our Sword & Shield – that (1) Rights come from God alone, (2) Muslims do not have the right to divest us of our Rights, and (3) the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights God gave us.

Now let us learn more of our Sword and Shield.

1. Let us first consider Our Rights. What are our rights, and where do they come from? The Constitution? The First Ten Amendments? NO! The Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …

Those words are golden: Our Rights come from God Who Created the Universe; and the purpose of civil government is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

* God gave us many Rights: Life! Liberty! Pursuit of Happiness!
* To work and enjoy the fruits of our own labors. To earn, inherit and keep private property.
* To demand that the civil authorities obey the Law – and to hold them accountable when they don’t.
* To have a civil government which protects our God given rights, protects us from invasion and criminals, but gives fair trials to accused persons.
* Equal treatment under the law: Courts are not to favor the rich, or the poor, or males or females.
* God means for us to enjoy life! Healthy food , wine and strong drink (in moderation); attractive dress for women, the marriage relation between man & woman, prosperity, and liberty!

As long as we obey the criminal laws (don’t murder, steal, bear false witness, and the like), we have the right to be left alone.

Liberty is the rule in God’s Model for civil government. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Leviticus 25:10 – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

2. Do Muslims respect the rights God gave us?

Life? Theirs is a culture of death: murder, honor killings & suicide bombers.

Liberty? Theirs is a culture where women are slaves and prisoners, little girls toys for old men, and conversion to Christianity a capital offense.

Pursuit of Happiness? Theirs is a culture of torture & sadism. Young Muslim girls in America who talked to non-Muslim boys were shot to death by their father in the back seat of his taxicab. Wife-beating is commonplace. Women who don’t cover their hair are lashed. Women are mutilated and maimed on the faces and even in their private places.

Freedom of Speech? Theirs is a culture where criticizing Islam leads to a terrible death.

You can go down the list: For every Right God gave us, the Muslims take it away.

Let’s look at just one God-given right: The Right to a fair trial:

Bearing false witness is condemned. (The Ten Commandments);
The evidence of two or more witnesses is required to prove a case (Deut 19:15 & Matthew 18:16);
Public trials are required (Exodus 18:13); &
Judges are required to be fair, impartial, & without favoritism. (Deut. 1:16-17).

Do Muslims respect this God-given right to a fair trial? NO! In Iran, judges in “morals” cases (adultery) are allowed to make their own subjective determinations that a person is guilty even in the absence of any evidence!

Do Muslims have the “right” to impose in this Country a shariah system which takes away the rights GOD gave us? No! God did not give Muslims the “right” to take away from us, the rights He gave us!
3. We are told Muslims have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here. But is that what the First Amendment says? No! Let’s read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn’t grant any rights to anybody! All it does is prohibit CONGRESS from making laws about religion, speech, the press, or assembly!

So Muslims do not have a “First Amendment right” to build mosques, proselytize, and implement shariah here.

4. Not only do Muslims claim the “right” to impose shariah in the Muslim communities springing up throughout our Country, they also claim the “right” to impose shariah law in the public square: They demand shariah compliant financial institutions, foot baths in public places, that wine, sausages, and the like be banned from their presence, that they be allowed to shut down public streets for “prayers”, etc.
Do Muslims have the “right” to apply their law here? No! Art. VI, clause 2 of Our Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

OUR Constitution and laws authorized by OUR Constitution are the supreme law of this land – and anything to the contrary must fall. It violates Our Constitution for Muslims to practice shariah here! Muslims who thus seek to overthrow Our Constitution and replace it with shariah are guilty of criminal sedition. The federal government has the duty to prosecute them for sedition – or deport them.

5. Can the federal or state or local governments properly extend to Muslims a “right” to build mosques & proselytize here? No! Because The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us. Muslims seek to take away our God-given Rights. Civil government is supposed to protect us from those who seek to divest us of our Rights.

We must insist that our federal, State, and local governments STOP the islamization of Our Country. We must insist that they live up to the one legitimate purpose of civil government: to protect our GOD-given rights.

6. WE are a Christian Country based on Judeo – Christian principles. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not require us to permit Muslims to take Our Country over and destroy Our principles and impose their barbaric totalitarian system on us.

The Declaration of Independence recognizes God as Creator, supreme Judge and Regulator of the World, and as our Divine Protector.

Article VII of Our Constitution, just above the signatures, recognizes the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It says,

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven …

7. So! Let us summarize the above three Principles:

(1) Our Rights come from God – they predate & preexist the constitution. our constitution doesn’t give “rights” to anybody. so muslims don’t have “constitutional rights” to come here, build mosques, proselytize, and impose shariah.

(2) all the Evidence shows that Muslims take away from People the Rights God gave them. Since Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure the Rights GOD gave us, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from islamization.

(3) Article VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution – the “Supremacy clause” – makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice shariah law ANYWHERE in Our Country.

8. The Center for Security Policy recently issued a scholarly (but readable) report: “Shariah: The Threat to America” . Important suggested policy changes are listed on pages 141-144. Tell your tea party groups! Take delegations to your local, state, and federal representatives and tell them about it. Most of them are weak & ignorant, so you must educate them and demand that they do their job and defend your community from islamization.

9. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders lists ten steps western countries must take to stop the islamization of their countries. All ten steps are mandated by our Declaration of Independence, and consistent with our Constitution:

(1) Stop cultural relativism: We must formalize the Idea that we have one dominant culture that is based on Judaism & Christianity [Wilders adds “humanism”].
(2) Stop pretending that Islam is a religion.
(3) Show the true face of fundamentalist Islam. It is a brutal totalitarian ideology.
(4) Stop all immigration from Muslim countries. For Muslims who are already citizens, tell them that if they adhere to our values and our Constitution, they may stay as equals. But if they deviate, we will expel them.
(5) Outlaw shariah and deport practitioners.
(6) Require Muslims to sign legally binding pledge of integration and allegiance.
(7) Stop building mosques.
(8) Seek reciprocity with Saudi Arabia for western churches & synagogues.
(9) Close all Islamic schools – they are fascist institutions teaching hate.
(10) Remove our current weak leaders.

It is time to boldly stand up for Our God, OUR Declaration of Independence, and Our Constitution, and say, “No!” to those who are taking over Our Country. It is time to use Our God-given unalienable Rights and Our Constitution as the Sword & Shield they are meant to be. We can and must use these to defeat Islamization. PH

Europe's Jew at Risk

Modernity Starts Here - Tunisia

by Asaf Romirowsky

Middle East Times

August 19, 2008

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has argued for years that the solution to Islamism/radical Islam is moderate Islam. But the question is still, who are these moderates and where can they be found. As Pipes states, "Islamism [is] a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari'a)."

Using this definition, moderation requires rejection of jihad to impose Muslim rule and the rejection of suicide terrorism. No more second-class citizenship for non-Muslims. No more death penalty for adultery or "honor" killings of women. And No more death sentences for blasphemy or apostasy.

Ultimately, it means embracing the same modernity that Jews and Christians have adopted whereby there is no contradiction between being an observant individual on the one hand and living in a modern society on the other. The headlines from Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and a host of other places suggest this moderation is simply not feasible, and that Islam at its most basic and aggressive always wins.

I recently traveled to Tunisia to explore this small and beautiful country located in the heart of North Africa between Algeria and Libya. Tunisia has quietly and successfully developed in recent years an environment of co-existence amongst Jews, Christians, and Muslims where modernity serves as a common denominator and religion does not get in the way of one's day-to-day life. Tunisia is hardly perfect but its political stability, Western-Arab synthesis, and economic vision could serve as a paradigm for other Middle Eastern states.

As Oussama Romdhani the director general of the Tunisian External Communication Agency told me, "Cultural and religious tolerance is part of Tunisia's patrimony. The display of religious harmony that one witnesses on the Ghriba celebrations is possible because of Tunisia's social history and because the changes and reforms introduced in Tunisia especially during the last two decades have anchored the values of tolerance and acceptance of religious and cultural differences."

The Tunisian people are warm, friendly and educated as well as open to the West. The 10 million citizens of Tunisia today show a great appreciation of the centuries of Phoenician, Roman, Jewish, Arabic and European influences that still impact their culture.

Tunisia was rated by the World Economic Forum as the most competitive economy in Africa, and is known for its low level of poverty, high rate of literacy and the number of opportunities available to women.

But critics also contend that it is a place where the political leadership controls the press and routinely jails opponents.

Many of my one-on-one conversations with academics and others involved world politics, American foreign policy in the Middle East as well as the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic.

What I found interesting is that Tunisians, like Europeans, are proud of their Jews and their Jewish heritage but hate Israelis, who are perceived as the embodiment of evil.

However, this animosity does not prevent Tunisia from seeing its model of co-existence as a mechanism for helping establish peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

One obvious reason Tunisians differentiate between Jews and Israelis is the proximity to France. Another issue is the Tunisian position on the problem Europe faces as a whole with new Muslim immigrants, who despise the Jewish state because of the Palestinians' situation.

Europe is seeing a slow but steady growth in anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism which is spreading back to its Muslim neighbors, themselves no strangers to Koranic anti-Semitism.

There has not been such a level of concern, anxiety, even depression, among European Jews since 1945. One reason for this is the loose official definition of anti-Semitism in places like Germany where, until it prompts an act of violence, there are enough legal loopholes to allow perpetrators to avoid consequences.

Robert Wistrich, a historian of anti-Semitism, notes, "Europe cannot fight anti-Semitism if it appeases terrorists or blackens Israel's name. We need to insist that a linkage exists between blind Palestinophilia, being soft on terror and jihad, defaming Israel, and the current wave of anti-Semitic violence."

Tunisia has indeed had its share of anti-Semitism and Islamist activity. In April 2002 an al-Qaida homicide bomber drove a truckload of propane up to al-Ghriba, the oldest synagogue in North Africa. Nineteen people, mostly German tourists, were slaughtered.

Historically, anti-Semitism/anti-Israelism rose in the wake of the Six-Day War, but it was former Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba (1903-2000) who acted precipitously to quell such violence and ensure Jewish safety.

Bourguiba was known for being a shrewd politician who often preferred to outmaneuver adversaries like French officials and Islamic conservatives rather than confront them. His tactics became known in the Paris press as Bourguibism, and they helped him retain his position as Tunisia's leader after the rulers of other Muslim nations -- the shah of Iran, the king of Libya, strongmen in Syria and Iraq -- were overthrown. When Tunisia became independent it was Bourguiba who worked for women's rights and pushed through a "personal status code" that ran counter to traditional Muslim jurisprudence and custom in enhancing women's rights.

Years of study in Paris during the 1920s had imbued Bourguiba with a blueprint of logical and Western thought, and during his three decades as president he found it only logical to advocate restraint toward Israel, even after the Israeli victory in the 1967 war, when other Arab leaders were demanding revenge.

In addition, he also called on the Arab/Muslim world to face the fact that Israel is a reality that had to be acknowledged and worked with.

This realism had political consequences; in a backdoor conversation with Nasser in 1965 Nasser commended Bourguiba for his statement about Israel then publicly denounced it. And thanks to the way Nasser ridiculed Tunisia they severed diplomatic ties in 1966.

Some months before the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Bourguiba called for a "just and lasting peace," citing Israel's right "not to be exterminated and thrown into the sea." But in 1973 as in 1967, he sent a token military force to show his support for the Arab side.

When the Palestine Liberation Organization left West Beirut in 1982 after the Israeli invasion, despite many misgivings he took them in. And approximately, 1,100 active PLO members arrived by sea at Bizerte to a tumultuous welcome. The chief greeter was Bourguiba waving from the dock and allowing the PLO to set up shop in Tunis.

Fast-forward to 1987, and one of the quietest coup d'états in all history, when Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali took power. Ben Ali had been prime minister and intelligence chief under Bourguiba. And given Bourguiba's poor health in 1987 the transition was remarkably unremarkable.

Under Ben Ali the leaders in Tunis have adopted a tough stance on separation of religion and state. Enforcement of the constitutional prohibition on political parties formed along religious lines is swift and silent, as are crackdowns on individuals suspected of the slightest inclination of advancing Islamic political movements. This helps explain why men with Islamist-style beards are a rarity in Tunisia. The authorities firmly quelled the leading Islamist organization, An-Nahda ("Renaissance" in Arabic) Movement, under the leadership of the renowned exegete Rashid al-Ghannushi.

All of this has engendered much support for Ben Ali and Bourguiba for moving Tunisia in the direction of moderation and modernity in a region that is constantly threatened by Islamism and instability.

And this is indeed the impression I got as I traveled throughout the country that is that Tunisians are happy with their lifestyles and are not looking to carry their religion on a flag in the name of an ideology.

However, maintaining this balance is dependent on Tunisia promoting its model in addition to Algeria and Libya seeing Tunisia as a gateway for modernity. Then if we can successfully replicate this practice of religion there is a chance that we will see change.

Without a doubt anyone concerned about the future of Islam should be harnessing Tunisia's pro-Western sentiments.

This hidden treasure in the Muslim world was illustrated to me by my friend Jerry Sorkin a Philadelphia based entrepreneur with many years of experience in Tunisia.

He described to me his first visit to Tunisia 25 years ago saying: "I got into a taxi, the driver instinctively put on the meter, drove within the lanes and upon my paying the fare, gave me my change and thanked me. I knew I was experiencing something I had never experienced in my many prior visits to many other countries in the Middle East and North Africa! This was the first of what has been a perpetual stream of dichotomies I have witnessed and experienced in Tunisia that has allowed me to say that Tunisia breaks the image that most people in the West have of the Arab and Muslim world. We in the West, particularly our present administration, should look to Tunisia as a country that, while far from perfect, can be a wonderful bridge between Americans and the Arab and Muslim world and whose many achievements within the socio-economic realm can be the barometer to which other countries in the region can aspire."

The above truly highlights what Tunisia has to offer and what we should be embracing. As the next U.S. president looks on the one hand to win the war on terror and on the other to find those moderate Muslims who can and will speak out against radical Islam, Tunisia could help. It could deliver individuals desperately needed in the public eye to show that the Islamists are not the majority.

Asaf Romirowsky, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum, is manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.


Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:58pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Muslim center planned near the site of the World Trade Center attack could qualify for tax-free financing, a spokesman for City Comptroller John Liu said on Friday, and Liu is willing to consider approving the public subsidy.

The Democratic comptroller's spokesman, Scott Sieber, said Liu supported the project. The center has sparked an intense debate over U.S. religious freedoms and the sanctity of the Trade Center site, where nearly 3,000 perished in the September 11, 2001 attack.
"If it turns out to be financially feasible and if they can demonstrate an ability to pay off the bonds and comply with the laws concerning tax-exempt financing, we'd certainly consider it," Sieber told Reuters. Spokesmen for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor David Paterson and the Islamic center and were not immediately available.

The proposed center, two blocks from the Trade Center site in lower Manhattan, has caused a split between people who lost relatives and friends in the attack, as well as conservative politicians, and those who support the project. Among those who support it are the mayor, civic and religious groups, and some families of victims.

The mosque's backers hope to raise a total of $70 million in tax-exempt debt to build the center, according to the New York Times. Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately. The bonds could be issued through a local development corporation created for this purpose, experts said. The Islamic center would have to repay the bonds, which likely would be less expensive than taxable debt.
New York City's Industrial Development Authority could not issue debt for the center because the state civic facilities law, which governed this type of financing for non-profits, was allowed to expire about two years ago.

(Reporting by Joan Gralla; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Rauf Tied to Founder of 9/11 Mosque

Laura: I’m sick of conservatives conceding that those behind the ground zero islamic supremacist mosque have the RIGHT to build it and then proceed to plead with them to be sensitive by not building it. This is a weak and pathetic approach. First of all it is a wasted effort because these stealth jihadis have no sensitivity toward the feelings of infidels and will not be persuaded. Secondly, if they are tied to terror groups or regimes then they DO NOT have the legal right to build it and indeed they ARE tied to terrorists. So therefore the ground zero mosque can and should be legally stopped. And this is the aggressive approach opponents must take. Americans need to understand that mosques are not benign houses of worship as in other religions, but places where incitement to hatred and violence and recruitement of jihadis takes place.

Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah

The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.

Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.

Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.

The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.

Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.

The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however.

Barzinji personally authorized the development of Dar al-Hijrah, according to Fairfax County, Va., property records obtained by investigative journalist Paul Sperry, author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

Records also show the North American Islamic Trust, a recently named unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history, holds the deed to the radical mosque. Barzinji is listed as a NAIT trustee on the document, and his signature appears on the deed.

In November 2008, Barzinji personally chaired a meeting at IIIT’s Herndon headquarters to launch an abridged edition of Rauf’s book, “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America,” in which he calls for the establishment of a parallel system of justice in America run by Islamic jurists. Barzinji’s brother’s printing company published the digest.


Worth Passing On!

This is happening now!

Sad, especially if you are inclined to 'help' people...

> While driving on a rural end of the roadway on Thursday morning, I saw an infant car seat on the side of the road with a blanket draped over it. For whatever reason, I did not stop, even though I had all kinds of thoughts running through my head. But when I got to my destination, I called the Police and they were going to check it out. But, this is what the Police advised even before they went out there to check....

> "There are several things to be aware of ... gangs and thieves are now plotting different ways to get a person (mostly women)to stop their vehicle and get out of the car.

> "There is a gang initiation reported by the local Police where gangs are placing a car seat by the road...with a fake baby in it...waiting for a woman, of course, to stop and check on the abandoned baby.

> "Note that the location of this car seat is usually beside a wooded or
> grassy (field) area and the person -- woman -- will be dragged into
> the woods, beaten and raped, and usually left for dead. If it's a man,
> they're usually beaten and robbed and maybe left for dead, too.






Please talk to your loved ones about this. This is a new tactic used.
Please be safe.


Is Israel More Isolated than Ever?

by Prof. Efraim Inbar

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 114, September 14, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Israel is not nearly as diplomatically isolated as its critics from within and without would have us believe; thus, Israeli diplomacy and security policies should not be dictated by panic over such “isolation.” By ascribing exaggerated importance to the Palestinian issue, and by inflating assessments of Israel’s isolation, the Israeli (and Diaspora Jewish) left advocate an urgent deal with the Palestinians, at a heavy Israeli price. A calmer, more realistic assessment of Israel’s situation – attempted below – calms unwarranted fears and can help lead to sober positions on issues of war and peace.


Many Israelis feel that Israel is once more alone and that the Jewish state is increasingly isolated in the international community. An August 2010 poll shows that on the question of Israel's current status in the international arena, a majority of the Jewish public thinks Israel is moderately or completely isolated (54%), compared to 46% who say it is not isolated. A similar poll among Diaspora Jews would likely reveal an even more acute feeling of isolation, because as a minority Diaspora Jews are more exposed to anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attitudes. Taking into consideration the many examples of the negative media coverage of Israel, such feelings in Israel and in the Diaspora are understandable. Indeed, the infamous Goldstone Report and the “Gaza flotilla” incident, among other events, provide ample evidence of a hostile international climate regarding Israel.

Moreover, the Israeli left argues vocally that the continuation of the conflict with the Palestinians exacts a heavy price from Israel; that Israel is becoming an isolated and less legitimate political entity. Yet, this claim reflects a distorted view of reality. The hard left is influenced primarily by its reference groups – the Western left and its radical offshoots. Ascribing exaggerated importance to the Palestinian issue, and to Israel’s isolation, they advocate an urgent deal with the Palestinians at a heavy Israeli price.

The partisans on the left are wrong. A closer look at Israel’s interactions with many states in the world in which real power resides, and with international organizations (not nearly as powerful), explains why. A calm and careful review of the situation provides a more nuanced and much less pessimistic picture.

Wider Israeli diplomatic presence

Take the number of states that have diplomatic relations with Israel. This measure clearly shows an improvement in Israel’s international status, particularly since 1973. Then, with the energy crisis, the power of the Arab world was at its zenith. Subsequently, Israel experienced an avalanche of severed diplomatic relations. This has drastically changed, particularly after 1991, when an increasing number of states decided to establish and/or upgrade diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. For example, all states within the Soviet orbit, in former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, as well as most African and Asian states opted for diplomatic relations. Significantly, rising powers such as China and India, and pivotal states such as Russia, Turkey, and Nigeria decided to have full diplomatic relations with Israel, which have been maintained ever since.

Generally, states facing the challenges of terrorism and/or radical Islam, mostly a post-1991 phenomenon, seek cooperation with Israel. The Jewish state has much to offer in the area of intelligence and tactical and doctrinal counter-terrorism. Because of the growing Islamist threat, the number of states seeking security relations with the Jewish state is on the rise. There are many countries that fall into this category, and the Israeli-Palestinian intractable conflict hardly deters them from useful interactions with Israel.

Improved relations with Muslim states

Significantly, relations with the Muslim world have improved. Israel has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Israel has oscillating informal dealings with several Arab states in the Gulf and in the Maghreb. Most of the Arab world adheres to the Arab League Peace Initiative. While this peace plan is not reasonable from an Israeli perspective (it is a take it or leave it proposal), the Arabs are talking peace, not war, and imply a de facto recognition of Israel – a historic change in their position. The Arab economic boycott has largely evaporated. It is the Iranian nuclear threat that puts any differences with Israel over the Palestinian issue on a side burner.

Israel also has cordial and fruitful relations with Muslim states that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Israeli presence is well felt in states such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Muslim identity of these populations and their elites does not hinder relations with Jerusalem in areas important to their national interests. Their sensitivity to the imagined or real misfortunes of the Palestinians is very low.

The US and rising powers

Similarly, diplomatic ties with the most important country in the world, the US, have greatly improved since 1973 and the strategic relationship is still very strong, despite the misguided Middle Eastern policies of the Barack Obama administration. For the past four decades, the level of American public support for Israel has remained remarkably stable (about 65%). This translates, of course, into congressional support. Israel is still popular in the US primarily because of how it is perceived and not because of the Jewish lobby. We have recently seen President Obama bow to this popular sentiment and adopt a friendlier posture toward the Israeli government of Binyamin Netanyahu.

A high level of friendship toward Israel and the Jewish people characterizes the two most populous and dynamic states on the world scene – India and China – rising powers in every sense of the word. Both are old civilizations that have not been burdened by anti-Semitic baggage, like Europe. They treat the Jewish State with reverence as they see in it a similar old civilization that has had remarkable achievements. Most Asian countries, even if they vote against Israel in international forums, have a similar attitude. Likewise, countries on the Pacific Rim, an area that has gained international significance, are usually pro-Israel. South Korea and Australia are prime examples. Sub-Saharan African countries also contain very pro-Israel circles for a variety of reasons.

European attitudes

"Old Europe" is indeed a different planet on this matter. Its naïve strategic culture, where there is no threat perception and the use of force is seen as anachronistic, makes Israel a difficult case to swallow. This is reinforced by latent traditional anti-Semitism that singles out the Jews as responsible for the problems of the world. Belgium, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden, in particular, display anti-Israeli positions bordering on anti-Semitism. Fortunately, none are core European states. Some European universities have become unpleasant places for Israelis, and a large portion of the European intelligentsia is intuitively anti-Israel, even denying Israel’s right to exist. It is also true that much of the elite European media is hysterically biased against Israel.

At the same time France, Germany, and Italy (the power centers of the European Union) are ruled nowadays by leaders that have a soft spot for Israel. Influential pockets of strong pro-Israeli sentiment are still present in all Western European states. Some even view Israel’s struggle as a vanguard of their own beleaguered Western civilization, threatened by moral relativism and Islamic fanaticism. The growing fears of Muslim immigration in the Old Continent provide an important corrective on the prism of Israel.

Then there’s the expansion of the European Union that has worked in Israel’s favor. "New Europe," the Eastern European states, is very different from the Western part of Europe. Its strategic culture is dominated by a historic threat perception from Russia; as a result, it is more understanding of the dilemmas associated with the necessary use of force by Israel. So is small Finland.

Little evidence of growing Israeli isolation

Generally, most states are not ready to have their relations with Jerusalem held hostage by the vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. We can also detect the beginning of weariness with the Arab-Israeli conflict and an attitude reminiscent of “a plague on both your houses.” Some have even begun to realize that the Palestinians have a stake in not ending the conflict and in propagating the victim image to continue to get financial support from gullible Western donors.

Most international forums remain rabidly anti-Israel and Israel continues to be singled out as the culprit of a variety of “sins.” But as no real change has taken place in the anti-Israel arena in past decades, it is difficult to conclude that Israel’s position has worsened in such international organizations. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the UN rescinded the 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution terming Zionism – the Jewish national movement – racist. This year Israel was also accepted into the exclusive club of the OECD, which is a significant diplomatic feat. The OECD brings together the 33 most developed countries in the world that are committed to democracy and the market economy.

A growing and real problem for Israel is the phenomenon of “lawfare,” whereby anti-Israel groups exploit the legal system of Western states to criminalize Israel and Israeli government officials in these states and in international forums. Several states have been sensitized to this issue and have taken legislative actions to remedy the situation. This is particularly true of states operating military forces beyond their borders, such as the US, UK, or France, which could one day face similar challenges. Another growing challenge to Israel's legitimacy comes from NGOs that single out Israel for alleged human rights abuses. The real impact this has on Israel's international status is not yet clear.

Isolation in the international community, the literature shows, is more often than not connected to the international power configuration. Obviously, normative considerations have little impact on the decision making of the authoritarian states that deplore the human rights “abuses” of Israel. Indeed, the growing weakness of the US, particularly since the advent of President Obama, has exposed its small ally, Israel to somewhat harder times.

Nevertheless, taking into account that Israel cannot benefit from an association with a big international bloc, such as the developing countries or the Muslim bloc, or with regional blocs such as Latin America, Europe, or Asia, Israel is doing quite well on the international scene. Moreover, the world has shown that it can live with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for many years.


Jews are historically conditioned to sense isolation and de-legitimization. Already in the Bible, the prophet Balaam called the Jewish nation “a people that dwells alone.” Today, according to a recent poll, 56% of the Israeli Jewish public believes that "the whole world is against us." Yet, a larger majority (77%) thinks it makes no difference what Israel does and how far it may go on the Palestinian issue; the world will continue to be very critical of it. While the Jewish prism on international relations could amplify this sense of isolation, the realistic outlook on international relations can prevent unwarranted fears and lead to a balanced Israeli position on issues of war and peace.

Efraim Inbar is professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.

Ban Criticism of Islam?


Will America Ban Criticism of Islam?


Posted: 14 Sep 2010 08:14 PM PDT
In 1935 Sinclair Lewis wrote It Can't Happen Here, a novel about the rise of tyranny in America, whose message was that it indeed can happen here. Just to remind us that in fact it "can happen here", Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer used the occasion of his appearance on noted legal forum, Good Morning America, to suggest that there may not be any First Amendment protection for burning the Koran.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Breyer's statement was every bit as flippant and ignorant of the Constitution and even previous Supreme Court decisions as you would expect from a Clinton appointee.

To begin with, Breyer misstated what Holmes had said and what he had meant. In Schenk vs United States, Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." The key word here is "falsely". Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there really is a fire, is a warning. Shouting it when there is no fire, is a malicious attempt to start a panic. Holmes used the metaphor to argue that freedom of speech was contextual, so that some speech which presented a clear and present danger in a time of war could be banned. An Anti-War argument during peacetime might be legal, but illegal in wartime.

Breyer is relying on a widely discredited decision from almost a century ago, and taking it completely out of context. It's as if Breyer had decided to pluck Dred Scott vs Sanford, a decision made closer to the time of Schenk vs United States, than to our time, and used it to argue that companies don't need to pay non-citizen workers anymore. No Supreme Court has actually banned political speech on the grounds that Holmes did in a very long time.

What Breyer is proposing smacks of an attempt to reintroduce WW1 security measures back into law, measures that were widely considered illegal even at the time, and that next to slavery and prohibition, represent low points in American jurisprudence. The same liberal civil rights activists who warned us that the Patriot Act was scary and totalitarian, will of course have nothing to say about Breyer's flirtation with laws that make the Patriot Act seem like Woodstock.

Am I exaggerating? No. We are talking about laws that prohibited derogatory or disloyal speech toward the government. Laws under which a filmmaker who directed a movie about the Revolutionary War was imprisoned on charges of making German propaganda since the British were our allies. We're talking about laws which extended into monitoring people's speech in their own homes. Theodore Roosevelt denounces those laws as "unpatriotic and servile" and "morally treasonable to the American public". That quote was widely circulated by Democrats, in opposition to the Patriot Act, who are now silent when Breyer flirts with using those laws themselves as precedents for censoring speech that offends Muslims.

Breyer is even more misguided, as Schenk vs United States was at least a case in which the defendant's free speech arguably incited people to commit the illegal act, of dodging the draft. Burning the Koran does not incite people to commit any illegal acts.

Here we can clearly see the true perversity of Justice Breyer's misapplication of the Schenk case. Schenk urged likeminded people to resist the draft. Refusing to serve was itself illegal, Schenk was encouraging sympathizers to commit an illegal act who would engage in the "stampede" and lead to the "danger" which justified criminalizing Schenk's speech. But who exactly is going to "stampede" in Breyer's Koran burning scenario?

Either Breyer has to argue that burning the Koran will encourage violent assaults on Muslims, an argument that would essentially criminalize all criticism of Islam. Or he has to argue that burning the Koran will result in a backlash of Muslim violence. The latter is easier to prove, but sets an equally disturbing precedent, as it would criminally any speech that could lead Muslims to "stampede through the crowded theater". A disturbing component of this argument, is that it would hold non-Muslims criminally responsible for Muslim violence.

For example a man walking through a Muslim neighborhood wearing a provocative t-shirt, who is set upon and stabbed by a Muslim, could be charged with inciting the very violence that he was a victim of. Under Felony-Murder laws, people have been charged with the murder of members of their group by law enforcement officers. Since a hate crime is considered a felony, and people have been charged with felony hate crimes for mere arguments, it would essentially become possible to charge people with the murder of one of their group by a Muslim, if they are found guilty of provoking the Muslim.

However under the relevant Supreme Court precedents on political speech, the real test is not "fire in a crowded theater", but the "imminent lawless action" of Brandenburg vs Ohio. The majority opinion there stated that; "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In other words burning the Koran is fully legal. Telling a crowd, "Let's go burn down that mosque" would not be. Specifically, speech can only be criminalized when it actually calls for an illegal act. A test that is obviously not met by the Koran burning.

But Justice Breyer is aware of this. His comments on Good Morning America, ominously call for the Constitutionality of Koran burning to "be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully". What Breyer is really doing, is questioning the Brandenburg test, and talking about reopening the criminalization of free speech. His neutral language might go over most people's heads, but what he is actually doing is telling state lawmakers to go ahead and criminalize burning the Koran, and then arrest someone for doing it, run the case through the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court.

Breyer has given the go ahead to state lawmakers and law enforcement to begin harassing Koran burners to see if it holds up. His real message is, "Go and get em, boys".

And the Supreme Court decision might not be what people expect. In 2003, on Virginia vs Black, the Supreme Court ruled by a wide margin that state laws could criminalize burning the cross, so long as it was done in order to intimidate. The rationalized hinged on the KKK's long history of intimidating African-Americans, but the door had been opened to censoring some speech based on content and context. That the decision was bad should have been obvious when the lone African-American justice on the court dissented from it.

This was a shift from a much more widely publicized and controversial, yet extremely narrow decision in 1989 on Texas vs Johnson, on flag burning. There the Court had found by a 5 to 4 margin that flag burning was protected speech. In 2003, the decision however was quite different, and while it did not approve of a ban on cross burning in general, it did approve of a ban on cross burning, if done in order to intimidate. And the safest bet for getting laws against Koran burning approved is to piggyback it on the precedent set by Virginia vs Black. Fraudulent claims about Islamophobia would be used to argue that burning the Koran serves the same function as cross-burning.

In 2003, justices Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer ruled in favor of a cross burning if done to intimidate. If Sotomayor and Elaine Kagan joined them on a Koran burning case today, then the court will have a 5 to 4 majority in favor of state laws outlawing burning the Koran. Considering Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor's well known contempt for the Constitution, it leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. A thin thread on which to hang the First Amendment.

This however is not even the worst case scenario. Because Breyer might be proposing to open an even bigger pandora's box, than that.

Of course Breyer might just be stupid, as well as a snake. In the recent McDonald vs Chicago case, he actually wrote a dissent asking, "When is a gun semi-automatic". During the review of the 2000 election, Breyer actually told a Republican lawyer, "whether we win -- whether your side, the side you're supporting wins or loses", an excessively and inappropriately candid admission for a Supreme Court justice to make. He defended his interest in introducing foreign laws into the United States by saying, "I can read what I want". It is also quite possible that Breyer thought his audience was dumb and needed a metaphor that is as populist as it is problematic, even if he had to misstate it.

But there is another uglier possibility, which is that Breyer meant exactly what he said. That he wasn't satisfied to just propose applying Virginia vs Black to burning the Koran, but that he actually wanted to revisit Holmes' original standard. There is also a war on today, but where during WW1 speech sympathetic to the enemy was criminalized, this time speech hostile to the enemy would be criminalized.

Tatiana Soskin

The argument would be used that burning the Koran endangers the lives of US soldiers and incites terrorist attacks against America. Terrorists would then be able to define the limits of free speech for Americans. And anything that might make Muslims angry, would be off limits.

The idea that a country would criminalize speech that the enemy doesn't like seems absurd on the face of it, yet Muslims receive that protection in Europe and even Israel. For example, Israel's left wing judiciary sentenced Tatiana Soskin, a woman who drew a picture of Mohammed as a pig to 2 years in jail back in the 90's. At the time, the Clinton Administration's spokesman, Nicholas Burns condemned her as "sick or evil" and said that "she deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam".

The significance of this is that back in 1997, the Clinton Administration's policy was already to encourage treating any mockery of Islam as a crime. Things have only gotten worse since then. Two of the people who publicly burned the Koran, including Derek Fenton at Ground Zero, have already been fired. Fenton was fired by NJ Transit, a state public corporation, which effectively means that punitive government action has already been taken against a Koran burner. How far it will go, will depend on the public's willingness to stand up for the United States Constitution and our civil rights, in the face of a totalitarian ideology and the politicians eager to kowtow to it.

It's easy to dismiss the idea of Koran burning as a crime as one of those things that "can't happen here", but in fact it can happen here. And I hope that this examination has shown people just how close it really is to happening here.