This Week In Israel - Jan 12, 2010
 A conservative Commentary on events in israel
Cold Spells, Soldiers, Saints and What''s Gooin'' On?!

We are getting lots of input on both the US and Israel front this week. And the wingnuts in DC and Copenhagen are telling everyone the deep freeze is a result of global warming. This only proves that money buys people but can’t buy brains!

Hope you are warm and cozy wherever you find yourself. We are traveling again this week. Used to be I loved travel. The adventure, the new sights, the different people. I guess I’m getting old. A great book and a recliner beside a real wood fire sure sounds good to me.

My sister sent this to us this week.

The gist of it is awesome, but I want to add, in fairness, a comment about this generation of soldiers. I’ve had the pleasure to know some of them, and they have the same backbone, fighting spirit and patriotism that we have all had who wore the uniform. God bless our soldiers, past, present and future!

Ernie


1/12/2010 - God Bless the Troops - of all ages

He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.

And 'tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew where of he spoke.

But we'll hear his tales no longer,
For ol' Bob has passed away,
And the world's a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.

He won't be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.


He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won't note his passing,
'Tho a Soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.


Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Some jerk who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?

The politician's stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.

While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.


It's so easy to forget them,
For it is so many times
That our Bobs and Jims and Johnnys,
Went to battle, but we know,

It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.


Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?

Or would you want a Soldier--
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end.

He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.


For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier's part
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor
While he's here to hear the praise,
Then at least let's give him homage
At the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Author unknown

Thanks, Mary.

 

2010 ELECTIONS

What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States?

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America 's largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, " C'mon that will never happen in America ."

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama's first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in two of the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO's of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, "C'mon that will never happen in America ."

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, "Cmon that will never happen in America ."

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama's $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, "Cmon that will never happen in America ."

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agent s to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan . That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government.. That some of our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, "Cmon that will never happen in America ."

6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America ."

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America 's past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela 's strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America .

Would you have said, "C’mon that will never happen in America ."

8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new "Fairness Doctrine." That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, "Cmon that will never happen in America ."

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that does not require the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama's Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, "C’mon that will never happen in America ."

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.

Would you say, "C'mon, that will never happen in America ."

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran . (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know - I know what you will say. That will never happen in America .

Hopefully you realize the significance of taking the census away from the Commerce Department and placing it under the White House, where Acorn has been given broad authority to manage it.

If we don't do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2010 and 2012, may God have mercy on our souls.

(Thanks, Laura)

 

Subject: WEATHER REPORT...................
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at
Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers
all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions
report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees
29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf
stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by
moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many
points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals
and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals
of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north,
are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few
years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and
make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The
Washington Post. Amazing what we are led to believe.
(Thanks, Bob)

 

DON’T LOOK NOW BUT THE KOOK FACTOR IS ON THE RISE!

US police: Man threatening Jews taken off flight

Police arrest Florida airline passenger Mansor Mohammad Asad who witnesses say proclaimed 'I want to kill all the Jews'
Associated Press

A Florida airline passenger who witnesses say proclaimed "I want to kill all the Jews" before police forced him off a Detroit-bound plane has been arrested.

Miami-Dade police said in a statement Thursday that 43-year-old Mansor Mohammad Asad of Toledo, Ohio, faces several charges including disorderly conduct.

Police say a taxiing Northwest Airlines flight was turned around at Miami International Airport late Wednesday. Witnesses told authorities Asad was loud, disruptive and claimed to be Palestinian. They believed he was sometimes speaking Arabic.

The Transportation Security Administration says three of his companions were taken off the plane and questioned. The plane departed after a search.

A phone number for Asad rang unanswered. Police didn't return a message. (YNETNEWS.COM)

BUT DON’T LET’S PROFILE ANYONE!

ITALY HAS A FEW ISLAMISTS TOO!

The article by Reuters goes to great length to NOT mention that the racial group that is rioting are Arabs. Political correctness is part of Reuters’ creed.

Immigrants riot in Italy amid racial unrest

08 Jan 2010

By Ilario Filippone

ROSARNO, Italy, Jan 8 (Reuters) - Clashes between immigrants and locals in a southern Italian town entered a second day on Friday, with the government rushing extra police to try to stem one of the worst episodes of racial unrest in years.

The violence inflamed a long-running political debate on immigration, with the interior minister saying years of excessive "tolerance" were behind the violence, and the opposition accusing the government of fuelling xenophobia. …

"WE ARE NOT ANIMALS"

Earlier, about 2,000 immigrants demonstrated against what they said was racist treatment by many locals. Some shouted "we are not animals" and carried signs reading "Italians here are racist". …

Hundreds of local residents gathered outside the town hall on Friday evening, many of them asking that the government intervene against the immigrants.

"They are the ones who should be afraid now, they should go away," one resident told Sky Italia television. …

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE60716O.htm

 

MAYBE THE WORLD IS AWAKENING

When you watch the public comments by politicians of any stripe you can often determine which way the winds are blowing.

According to what PM Netanyahu said in a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem this week, we determined that he believes even the Obama government may be coming to the realization that the Arabs are not the warm-hearted fellows the Dems usually take them to be.

In other words, Bibi is calling Abbas’ bluff. You cannot teach your little children that it is all right to murder Israelis and still try to convince the world you are the wounded party and that you just want peace.

I hasten to add that “peace” to the Arabs is the codeword for the eradication of every Jew in Israel.

 

PM: Israel will react strongly to verbal and physical attacks

Jan. 10, 2010
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday opened the weekly cabinet meeting with a warning for terrorists and those who incite to violence against Israel, vowing to respond decisively and strongly to any attack.

Twenty rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel from Gaza this past week, Netanyahu told the cabinet ministers.

The IAF immediately reacted by attacking rocket manufacturing plants and tunnels "used by Iran to smuggle missiles and rockets into the Strip," the premier said, reiterating that Israel would continue to react swiftly and mightily to the firing of rockets into its territory.

The cabinet meeting centered on the frozen Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, with the prime minister sending a resounding message to Palestinian Authority leaders and accusing them of failing to prevent incitement in their territory.

"However, it is not just missiles and rockets that jeopardize our security and drive peace further away. Words too can be dangerous," Netanyahu said. "Incitement continues in schools under the jurisdiction of the PA and in its official media networks ... This is not the way to make peace."

Netanyahu stressed that doing away with incitement was necessary for the two peoples to achieve true peace. He explained that the glorification of female terrorist Dalal al-Maghrabi, one of the perpetrators of the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre in which 38 Israeli civilians were killed, could only serve to incite to more violence.

Calling the killers of Rabbi Meir Chai shahids also constitutes an expression of support for terrorism by PA leaders, the prime minister said.

"Peace is achieved by education for reconciliation, by encouraging good neighborly relations and promoting mutual respect," he concluded.

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339440559&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

GENERAL SAMIA ECHOED OUR OWN WORDS FROM LAST WEEK’S COLUMN. “ANOTHER WAR WITH HAMAS IS PRACTICALLY INEVITABLE.” HOW CAN THERE NOT BE AS LONG AS IRAN CONTINUES TO PUMP MONEY, MILITARY TRAINING AND WEAPONRY INTO GAZA?

'Another war with Hamas is inevitable'

Jan. 10, 2010
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

Just over a year after IDF Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip, former OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yom Tov Samia on Sunday predicted that another war with Hamas was practically inevitable and would take place in the near future.

"We are before another round in Gaza," Samia told Army Radio in an interview. "I am very skeptical about the possibility that Hamas will suddenly surrender or change its ways without being hit much more seriously than it was during Cast Lead."

Israel must carry out "a more focused strike with long-lasting results" the former commander said, and advised that the in the next war, the army should take control of certain areas in Gaza so that Hamas understands its own actions have lead to this loss.

"We must create a situation in which Hamas runs out of oxygen," Samia told the radio station.

Samia went on to say that Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas the Fatah movement have virtually no supporters in the Gaza Strip. They are "certainly very weak or almost nonexistent in the Strip. For Abu Mazen (Abbas), the best chance at returning to power is taking a serious, significant and critical step that would drive Hamas out of power," Samia said.

Samia's remarks came days after OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant warned on Wednesday that the quiet in Israel's South may be temporary. …

For the rest of this article you can go to:

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339441025&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

ISRAEL IS THE EXPERT AT PROTECTING ITS FLYING TRAVELERS

For years we have discussed many aspects of Israel’s airport and aircraft security. For a while it was the rude, almost brutal attitude displayed by the security personnel at Ben Gurion, and to a lesser degree El Al’s people in US airports.

Then a few years ago there was an overhaul in the way travelers are treated. We applaud that, and note that Israel did not relax their scrutiny, they just say “Please and thank you,” now.

The recent attempts to blow aircraft out of the skies (fortunately inept attempts) have seemed to awaken some Americans (and a few others) to the fact that TSA and indeed even Homeland Security are pathetic in many ways.

HOMELAND SECURITY?

When President Bush initiated the Department of Homeland Security I cringed. It served only to add an additional layer of bureaucracy, was led by people we felt were both naïve and far too political for the most part.

The current “Big Sis” is the poster girl for political correctness, and reflects the fact that our Commander in Chief is so out of touch he cannot utter the word “terrorist.” Homeland, the Attorney General and the White House insist on treating civilian combatants the same as one would treat a shop lifter. Let them “lawyer up,” give them the same rights (or more) than US citizens and give them show trials. It is sickening and dangerous!

 

HOROVITZ

This week the Editor of the J-Post, David Horovitz, a very bright man, commented on some facts of life that the whole world should recognize. I urge you to read the whole piece.

 

Editor's Notes: Welcome to Israel

Jan. 7, 2010
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

At the turn of this new decade, Western leaders are being forced to grapple urgently with just one aspect of the Islamist threat that Israel routinely faces - terror in the skies. And suddenly, briefly, we are the admired exemplars...

Surely, there's been an oversight. Check the list again. Are you certain that Israel's not on it?

In the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, Britain, America and numerous other countries have recognized an escalated threat of terror in the skies, and have begun radically intensifying their efforts to prevent their citizens being blown up during international air travel.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pushed forward the introduction of sophisticated full-body scanners at British airports. The Netherlands and Canada are following suit. And the United States has introduced enhanced screening procedures for everybody traveling from or through states that sponsor terrorism or are otherwise considered a particular risk, with the list of offenders comprising Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

But where is Israel on that register of states? Why aren't our nationals being given the extra-stringent treatment?

Don't be ridiculous, you say. Everybody knows that the Israelis don't go around blowing up airplanes. Everybody knows that the Israelis work assiduously to prevent terrorism, not to carry it out. Everybody knows that Israelis are a responsible people, a people who can demonstrably be trusted even with nuclear weapons, a people who love life, a people who try to avoid killing civilians even as they protect themselves from constant attack.

Oh really? That's not what we usually hear - not from the world's statesmen and diplomats and columnists and activists. Didn't a European Union survey of ordinary, law-abiding Europeans establish just six years ago that we pose a greater menace to world peace than Iran or North Korea? Aren't we the global villain whose military and political chiefs so threaten world harmony as to warrant arrest when they touch down on hallowed European soil? Wasn't an IDF delegation just forced to cancel a visit to the UK, hosted by the British army, because the British legal system deemed its members not partners in the struggle against terrorism, but offenders whose very presence in the UK constituted grounds for potential war-crimes prosecution? Aren't we the people who respond so disproportionately to attack as to have forfeited our international rights to self-defense? Aren't we the land of the trigger-happy aggressors?

Then why, in this era of air terror and heightened fear of attack, wouldn't Israel be at the very top of that list of nations that require particular attention? Why on earth would our people be given a body scan-free ride in and out of the terrified airports of the civilized world?

Wait, it gets more implausible. Not only are Israelis not being pulled out of the crowds of passengers for special security treatment, along with the Iranians, the Saudis, the Pakistanis and the Syrians, but the countries that want to keep themselves safe from terrorism are turning to us for help and advice. How can this be? The worried security apparatuses of the threatened West are looking to Israel, rogue Israel, pariah Israel, Goldstone-branded war-criminal-state Israel, for help in thwarting terror in the skies?

Can it truly be that our air-safety methods - the methods of a nation that has been vilified for its disproportionate response to Islamist terror; the methods of a nation that has been castigated by the most august international legal bodies and in the most elevated global diplomatic forums for building a physical barrier against terrorism in the West Bank and for attacking and blockading the Hamas terror-state of Gaza; the methods of a nation whose national airline is being threatened with an ouster from South Africa because of the ostensible racism of its passenger profiling policies - are now being extolled as the last word in effective anti-terror strategy?

INDEED, IT is so. On TV broadcasts and radio shows, and in newspaper editorials and analysis pieces, it is Israel that is being hailed for the peerless security regimen at its airports. It is our security apparatuses that are cited as the exemplars. And we get to hear sober security consultants worldwide explaining, gently but firmly to civil liberties watchdog groups, that, no, the Israeli-style methods now being contemplated overseas are not discriminatory, just realistic.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and their allegedly populist counterparts are being criticized by the experts for still not facing up to the Islamist threat with the wisdom of the Israelis. They're being slammed for trying to win plaudits by throwing money at the problem rather than tackling it at the root. They're being derided for wasting immense amounts of money and untold hours of blameless travelers' time by lumping in every innocent passenger from what is deemed a danger country along with the genuine threats, and thereby reducing the prospects of thwarting those true threats effectively.

Even the full-body scanners Brown has ordered for Britain, we hear now, likely wouldn't have exposed the explosives Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had sewn into his underpants. The $150,000 state of the art "millimeter wave" scanner is pretty effective at spotting metal, it turns out, but no good at all with chemicals and light plastics. And what's the point, we hear the security analysts object, of the new US airport focus on passengers from those 14 suspect states - forcing these baffled Libyan toddlers and those nonplussed elderly Cuban grandmothers through that enhanced security screening - when al-Qaida can all too easily recruit, indeed has recruited, impressionable nationals from non-danger states, even Europeans, to send on its murder missions?

And so, reeling at the surrealism of it all, we watch talking heads in TV interviews, using the tones of patronizing academics addressing some very dull students, hammering home the point: You've got to do it the Israeli way. You just can't scan and triple-check everybody and shouldn't try to. You'll make air travel impossible and create massive lines at airports which would obviate the necessity for terrorists to get on board; they could just shoot up the airports. You have to use intelligence - intelligence in gathering information on potential threats, and intelligence in applying security measures at check-in.

Again and again in this new upside-down world where we, implausibly, are suddenly the smart guys, the mantra runs: Look at the Israelis. Their main international airport was shot up by the Japanese Red Army. Their planes were hijacked by Palestinian terror groups. And they wised up.

Protect your airports with outer rings of security, the global experts urge - like the Israelis do. Put air marshals on board your planes - like the Israelis do. Profile your passengers - like the Israelis do. And no, that's not racism, it's pragmatism. Yes, the Israelis emphatically do focus on Muslims; there's no denying the truism that while all Muslims are certainly not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims. But ethnic origin is only one of the factors that rings the Hebrew alarms.

Israel's security apparatus, the experts point out in their newly tolerated admiration, looks at a host of other factors which, understandably, it doesn't talk too much about in public. But if you examine the way Anne Murphy was intercepted at Heathrow Airport in 1986, some have astutely pointed out, you start to get the idea. Here was a naïve pregnant Irish woman who had no idea that the bag her Jordanian fiancé had so kindly given her, to carry her personal belongings for their holiday in Israel, contained a false bottom filled with Semtex plastic explosives. She hadn't the faintest notion that, in the service of his Syrian state-intelligence paymasters, Nezar Hindawi was sending her and their unborn child to their deaths. And neither, until she reached El Al security, did Israeli intelligence.

But Murphy was traveling alone on a ticket that had been purchased only shortly before the flight. That would immediately have raised some red flags. The most rudimentary questioning would then have established that her Arab boyfriend had told her he was flying out separately and would meet her there. And from that point on, there was no way that Murphy and her incendiary bag were going any further without the most stringent checking and rechecking. The result: A bomb-plot foiled and hundreds of innocent lives saved. That's the way you safeguard air travel. The intelligent way. The Israeli way.

Flash forward 23 years. Abdulmutallab had purchased his ticket to the US with cash - a reported $2,831 to be precise, at the KLM office in Ghana, from where he traveled to Nigeria, the Netherlands and on toward the destination he intended to prevent his 288 fellow passengers and crew from reaching, Detroit. He had provided no contact address. He was traveling with no luggage. And it was a one-way ticket. Would Israeli-style security procedures have thwarted him long before he got near a plane, even without helpful warnings from his father and intercepted "chatter" about al-Qaida sending a Nigerian to blow up a flight heading into the US? I rather think so.

THE DEMONIZERS of Israel need not get too worried just yet. Unless, heaven forbid, Abdulmutallab's successors - and they are out there - get their explosives mix right and manage to bring down a plane in the near future, the panic will subside, and the identification with Israel's terror-threatened norm will recede. Until the next time.

The horrified recognition among Western leaders that the states that sponsor and encourage and harbor Islamist terrorism are truly potent enemies, and the realization that the enemy of those enemies, Israel, is their friend - those truths will again become obscured.

America, even America, still hasn't quite grasped that this isn't a crisis that will be solved by better airport policing, but rather another skirmish in the ongoing, defining battle of the free world against the graduates of an Islamist educational production line that teaches a religious imperative to kill and be killed. Or, more accurately, America has chosen to forget what the true stakes are, for it used to acknowledge that it was engaged in a "war on terror."

For now, the threatened international community is focused on air-terrorism. Mercifully, it isn't generally required to deal with all the other manifestations of Islamist aggression that relentlessly confront Israel - the murderous cross-border infiltrations, the missile attacks, the massive arms build-ups, the nuclear drives, and the gang attacks on our very legitimacy led by Muslim nations in legal and diplomatic forums. And so, spared the need to address those threats, all those wise and eloquent delegates to those august international bodies will resume their icy rejection of Israel's explanations for the other self-defense measures it takes, away from its airports, and we will again come to reoccupy our more familiar seat in the dock. The Israel-demonizing manipulators of the British legal system, coordinating with the Iran-sponsored terrorists of Hamas, will again prevent IDF officers from meeting with their British counterparts in the common cause of thwarting aggression and terrorism.

But for a few weeks at the turn of this new decade, Western nations, finding themselves exposed and vulnerable to Islamist terrorism, and discovering that the measures they thought would prove sufficient after 9/11 are inadequate, have been required to grapple with just one aspect of the terror-threat reality Israel has been enduring for decades. And they have realized - with the distortions and misrepresentations of what Israel does to protect itself briefly pushed aside by simple concern for their own citizens - that what they really need to do is, well, what the Israelis do.

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339425681&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

THE EVIL PARTY AND THE STUPID PARTY

For some time now I have railed against Hannity, Limbaugh and others who refuse to admit that the leadership of the Republican Party are as inept as the Democrats. Not as “evil” granted, but in their ignorant behaviour, the results are often the same.

Have you noticed the horrible silence by all but James Inhoff and Sarah Palin, for the most part?

Finally someone is joining the chorus:

 

January 07, 2010
Still the Stupid Party
Do Republicans really deserve to win big in 2010?

By Kevin Williamson

Guy Benson’s recent report about a lifelong New Jersey Democrat who already is so fed up with Obama-Pelosi-Reid shenanigans that she pulled the lever for Chris Christie is one pebble in the avalanche of opinion holding that Republicans are due for a big year in 2010. Maybe the Republican optimists are right: I’m no good at electoral prognosticating, so I’ll defer here to the psephological gurus. I don’t know whether the Republicans will win big in the next couple of elections. But I am sure that they have not convinced me they deserve to. Former senator Alan Simpson’s famous description of our two-party system — the Evil Party vs. the Stupid Party — remains appallingly apt: The Democrats’ cynical enthusiasm for implicating all American taxpayers in the absolute evil of abortion suggests that the Evil Party is still living up to its billing, evilly engaged in the evil business. Are the Republicans still the Stupid Party?

(NRO.com)

 

-----------------------------

YEMEN, HOME OF THE ORIGINAL BIN LADEN

Yes, Yemen, the little nation that is as poor as a rug rat, that was the scene of the Cole attack, is the home nation of Osama’s father. He left there for Saudi Arabia where he made his billions(?), including refurbishing the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and even owned a home in the eastern part of that city for a while. (It’s true. I’m still working on a photo of the house.)

Now it looks like Yemen will join the “Evil Empire” – oh, strike that! It was the last President who was so crazy as to believe we were at war with Islamic terrorists. This one thinks there is an Arab crime wave going on. Go figger.

 

Here is an update that should help you keep score:

Arab World: Battleground Yemen

Jan. 7, 2010
JONATHAN SPYER , THE JERUSALEM POST

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday described the current situation in Yemen as "a threat to regional stability and even to global stability." She was referring to the fact that Yemen is the latest failed state to become a haven for elements of the Sunni global jihad. Like Afghanistan and Sudan before it, Yemen is becoming a key regional base for al-Qaida.

Unlike in the other two countries, in Yemen this has come about not because of an agreement reached between the jihadis and the authorities; rather, the inability of the Yemeni authorities to impose their rule throughout their country, coupled with the close proximity of Yemen to Saudi Arabia - a key target for al-Qaida - has made the country a tempting prospect for the terrorists.

Al-Qaida is not the only major problem facing Yemen. In fact, it could be argued that the country manages to encapsulate in acute form the three main causes of political turmoil in the Middle East: a dictatorial government, vulnerability to Iranian subversion through local jihadis and the presence and activity of the Sunni global jihad.

Last January, the hitherto little-heard-of Yemeni franchise of al-Qaida merged with the Saudi franchise to form the so-called "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" (AQAP). The Saudi jihadis were facing an increasingly effective counterterror campaign by the Saudi authorities, and therefore decided to shift focus to lightly-governed Yemen, where proper security fails to extend much beyond the capital city of San'a.

Through its organizing of the failed attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, AQAP has now entered the major leagues of the global jihad. Fears of an imminent second strike led to temporary closure of the US, British and French embassies in San'a over the last week.

YEMEN IS currently host to no less than three separate insurgencies. Each resembles one another in that they are being conducted by forces committed to some form of political Islam. There, however, the similarities end.

Probably the most politically and militarily significant of the three Islamist insurgencies is that of the Houthi rebels in the Saada district in the north. The Zaidi Shi'ite rebels of the al-Houthi clan have been engaged in an insurgency against the Yemeni authorities since 2004. Quelling the uprising has proved quite beyond the capabilities of the government of Ali Abdalla Saleh.

In the past few months, the Shi'ite Houthis have extended their activities across the border to Saudi Arabia. Their close proximity to the Saudi border makes them a useful tool for Iran to pressure Riyadh. Responding to rebel attacks in November, the Saudis struck back with aircraft and helicopter gunships, killing around 40 Houthis. Regardless, Iran is sending regular arms shipments to the Houthis, continuing to stoke the flames of the rebellion. The real possibility of further deterioration remains.

The second insurgency faced by the hapless Yemeni regime is a separatist campaign in the south. Yemen was only reunified in 1990, and has since suffered a brief civil war in 1994. The separatist insurgency, led by Islamist tribal leader Tareq al-Fadhli, again grew in intensity during 2009, with a number of stormy demonstrations and armed confrontations leading to deaths on both sides.

As if fighting insurgencies on two separate fronts was not enough, Yemen is also being hit hard by economic woes. The country's steadily depleting oil reserves are unable to generate sufficient income for the government to maintain the tribal patronage system on which it depends. Gas exports are failing to make up the shortfall. And Yemen's water supplies are also dwindling.

Like a parasite that spots, enters and exploits a weakening body, AQAP has now added its own particular brand of Islamist insurgency to this volatile situation.

The close proximity of Yemen to Saudi Arabia and to international shipping lanes makes the country's instability a factor which the US and the West cannot afford to ignore.

This, however, raises a dilemma. The regime of President Ali Saleh is autocratic, inefficient and largely ineffectual. Its economic policies have failed to develop the country, leaving the regime sitting precariously on top of a boiling cauldron of poverty, illiteracy, extremism and discontent. To remain on its perch, the regime is now asking for ever larger contributions of US funding and assistance to counter the terror.

Since Yemen's government rules in name only in large parts of the country, increasing the US commitment to combating al-Qaida in the country raises the possibility of US ground forces in Yemen. President Barack Obama can ill afford yet another Middle East war, with its inevitable cost in American lives. Yet he also cannot afford to stand back and allow Yemen to play the role for al-Qaida that Afghanistan played in the late 1990s.

There are no simple answers. Washington may prefer to adopt the counterterror tactic of helping the Yemenis strike al-Qaida sites from the air, to avoid the sight of US soldiers deployed in a country so close to the Muslim holy city of Mecca.

But whichever option the US chooses, the real "root cause" of the proliferating insurgencies in Yemen, and the inability of the regime to adequately deal with them, is the ongoing dysfunctionality of the region's political culture. All across the Middle East, failing, autocratic regimes face off against popular Islamist movements committed to a murderous and ultimately sterile political program.

Yemen offers an example of this situation in a particularly virulent form.

The author is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339425668&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

CHERRYS THAT CAN KILL YOU!

The Duvdevan cherry looks like another cherry found in Israel. The main difference between the two is that the Duvdevan can kill you dead with its poison.

That is the origin of the name of the Special Operations unit by the same name as the cherry. They dress like Arabs, operate inside Arab cities, do snatch and grab operations, capture or kill terrorist leaders all over the West Bank today.

Experts at Krav Maga, the Israeli unarmed combat fighting that is magnificent, these men study for about 1.5 years just to be admitted into the elite unit. Another 1.5 years is about all that the average (a poor word for these men) can take the operations before burn out sets in. But don’t kid yourself they are the crème de la crème of Israel’s special operations units.

We number among our friends one of the men who served in this unit. Today he is studying for his medical degree. A tall, soft-spoken lad, he is one of the best of the best in Israel, and his service was amazing.

Now their old commander is back at the helm. Here is some information on the unit and on him.

DUVDEVAN!

Security and Defense: When the Palestinian divide becomes a chasm

Jan. 7, 2010
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Col. Avi Gil returned to the West Bank seven weeks ago and couldn't believe it was the same place he had left just two years before. Since 2007, Gil has served as the IDF's attaché to the US Marines in Washington. In late November, he returned and took up his new post as commander of the Central Command's Efraim Regional Brigade, which is responsible for Palestinian cities like Tulkarm and Kalkilya, as well as Israeli settlements like Kedumim and Karnei Shomron.

Before becoming attaché to the Marines, Gil served from 2005 to 2007 as the commander of the elite Duvdevan unit, which conducts undercover, high-profile arrest operations in the West Bank. Duvdevan carried out the operation in Nablus two weeks ago during which its soldiers killed the three Fatah gunmen who had murdered Rabbi Meir Chai in a drive-by shooting near his home in Shavei Shomron just two days earlier.

When Gil left for the US, Duvdevan was carrying out daily arrest operations in the West Bank. Today - under the current political climate - an operation like the one in Nablus two weeks ago is a rarity.

What has changed, as one senior IDF officer explained this week, was not the outbreak of peace, but rather a mutual interest shared by Israel and the PA to stop Hamas from growing in the West Bank. In simpler terms, the officer said, the PA does not want to see Fatah men thrown from the roofs of buildings in Nablus and Ramallah like they were thrown from the roofs of buildings in Gaza City during Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007.

There is also another difference - both Israel and the Palestinians are graduates of the Oslo Accords. Gil, for example, was a junior platoon commander in the Paratroop Brigade in 1993 when the IDF began joint patrols with the PA. This came to a violent end, however, with the eruption of the second intifada in 2000, when PA security personnel turned their weapons against the IDF.

The lesson has been learned. While the IDF is supporting the PA forces in the West Bank by allowing them to be trained by the US in Jordan and to deploy in most Palestinian cities, it is not interpreting this as peace, but rather as a shared interest. In other words, the understanding in the IDF is that if one day the shared interest fades, things in the West Bank could change as well.

For this reason, there are no joint patrols or transfer of security control over cities to the PA. While the IDF has scaled back its operations, it continues to retain operational freedom to go where it wants, when it wants.

The same cannot be said about the Gaza Strip. Since Operation Cast Lead ended a year ago, the IDF rarely enters the territory, and if so, only a few meters at a time to clear brush and search for roadside bombs.

The end of the second intifada and the IDF's clear and decisive victory over Palestinian terror in the West Bank has had a completely different effect on Fatah than it did on Hamas. For Fatah, the defeat reinforced the position - as voiced recently by PA President Mahmoud Abbas - that terror doesn't pay.

Hamas walked away slightly different. While the IDF defeated Palestinian terrorism in the West Bank, it also - at the same time - helped collapse the PA, which, combined with the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, was one of the catalysts that contributed to Hamas's victory in parliamentary elections in 2006 and enabled its eventual takeover of Gaza a year later.

This led to another interesting phenomenon which further demonstrates the secular Fatah and religious Hamas divide.

IDF studies of Palestinian prisoners have shown that if you ask a Fatah terrorist why he killed an Israeli, the answer you will likely get is to "advance the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in my lifetime." If you ask the same question to a Hamas terrorist, the answer will likely be, "because this is what my religion dictates and this is how I ensure my place in heaven."

This is also the main difference today between the group's different leaders. Abbas talks about a resolution that can be achieved only though peace while Khaled Mashaal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, said recently in Iran that "peace talks are worthless and the path of the resistance is the only real option."

Mashaal, some here believe, is modeling himself after Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. Before the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Nasrallah began talking as if he was a leader of the Arab world. This was apparent in his speeches encouraging resistance in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Mashaal is beginning to do the same - as demonstrated by his speeches, as well as his trip to Iran - but is coming under criticism for it. On a trip to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, he was asked during a press conference about the significance of his earlier trip to Iran. Mashaal replied that Hamas is friends with Iran - its greatest financial supporter - but is ultimately part of the "Arab world," in other words Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The ideological difference between Mashaal and Abbas leads IDF intelligence analysts to predict that the reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas will fail, and that Palestinian elections will also not be held for at least another year.

IF THIS assessment is true, the question that needs to be asked is how can Israel talk about renewing peace talks with Abbas in the West Bank if there is no chance of him taking control of Gaza and implementing any peace deal there as well?

The answer is that there is currently zero likelihood of that happening, and, as a result, Israel is facing two options: Either continue to embrace the two-state solution, or begin to talk about the three-state solution - Israel, West Bank (Fatah) and Gaza (Hamas).

Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Yuval Diskin, for example, is extremely skeptical of the possibility that Hamas will want to become part of a diplomatic resolution, and in recent closed-door meetings has gone as far as to say that the Hamas-Fatah divide will likely prevent an Israeli-Palestinian resolution for years to come.

Others in the defense establishment believe that even though Hamas will not be an active part of it, if a deal between Israel and Abbas is signed, it will create an umbrella under which Hamas will eventually be incorporated. This will not mean that Hamas will accept Israel's right to exist, but it will likely make the group more pragmatic.

Hamas's supposed pragmatic side is demonstrated by its repeated calls for an extended hudna - or cease-fire - if Israel were to withdraw to pre-1967 borders. This would not mean peace with Hamas, but rather a pragmatic deal that would allow the terror group to solidify its control and build up its military in Gaza.

The concern in Israel is that this so-called pragmatic side of Hamas will open the door for European countries to directly engage the group, a move that would severely undermine Abbas and Israeli efforts to renew peace talks with the PA.

Instead, for the time being, the likelier scenario for the defense establishment is a new conflict with Hamas. While Hamas has stopped its rocket attacks from Gaza and is even reining in other groups, the defense establishment is concerned with the possibility that it will try to launch a large-scale attack in the West Bank or even overseas, like Hizbullah.

OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant made that opinion clear this week when, in a meeting with local council heads from the South, he said: "While there hasn't been a quiet year like this in the past decade, the horizon is still not completely safe, and we are preparing for evil wherever it might be."

Some Israelis, though, appear to not want to wait for another round with Hamas. According to a poll taken by Ma'agar Mochot this week and commissioned by Independent Media Review and Analysis, headed by Dr. Aaron Lerner, 67 percent of Israelis support launching a military operation to destroy the tunnels Hamas uses along the Philadelphi corridor to smuggle weaponry and explosives into Gaza.

The same 67% believed that Israel also needed to declare a new policy under which it will no longer tolerate the digging of additional smuggling tunnels from Sinai into Gaza.

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339425656&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

ANOTHER GENERAL, A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Retired General and former Chief of Staff of the IDF, Giora Eiland’s plans for eliminating the two-state quandary was dismissed in 2008 by former US Ambassador Martin Indyk (under Clinton) as “not viable” when Eiland presented them in a paper back then.

I interviewed General Eiland in 2007 and he discussed the proposals with me then. They made sense (I had also been suggesting a similar Jordanian plan, based on the Ottoman Empire plan of managing the area prior to meeting Eiland.) At the time I liked the Jordanian idea, but personally doubted that anyone could get Jordan to take more Palestinians. I also doubted that Egypt and Jordan would agree to either plan.

When I asked why then-Prime Minister Olmert hadn’t signed on to the idea, Eiland responded, “It matters who presents the idea.” In other words, Olmert wasn’t the man to carry new ideas to either nation or the Palestinians.

Read the details below, and see what you think.

Gen (Res.) Giora Eiland (Ernie Moore)

Gen. (Res.) Giora Eiland (Ernie Moore)

Eiland calls to establish 'US of Jordan'

Jan. 9, 2010
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

Forget a two-state solution, the way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to create a United States of Jordan that would include three states governed by a federal government in Amman: the East Bank, West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

That, at least, is one of two solutions that former National Security Adviser Giora Eiland presents in a monograph called "Regional Alternatives to the Two-State Solution," released Thursday by Bar-Ilan University's BESA Center.

In the 41-page booklet, Eiland - a former head of the IDF's Planning Department and today senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies - argues that the conventional wisdom of how to deal with the conflict is stale and mistaken.

What is needed, he argues, is a completely new way of looking at possible solutions, widening the lens to come up with fresh ideas beyond the idea of a two-state solution.

The first option is what could be called the US of Jordan, a variation on the old Palestinian-Jordanian federation theme. The second option indeed envisions a Palestinian state, but one with territory that would be enhanced by 720 km. given by Egypt, which would in turn be compensated by a similar amount of land taken from the Negev.

These new ideas are necessary, Eiland writes, because in 2010 an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, based on a two-state model, seems less likely than in 2000 at Camp David, or when the Oslo process was launched in 1993.

Among the elements making it more difficult now than in the past to solve the conflict, Eiland writes, are the ascendancy of Hamas; the complete lack of trust between the sides; the absence of a Palestinian leader like Yasser Arafat who is recognized by his people as speaking on their behalf; an Israeli leader not convinced that achieving a permanent settlement is possible; and demographics that now have 290,000 Israelis living beyond the Green Line, as opposed to 190,000 on the eve of Camp David.

"It is hard to believe that the diplomatic effort that failed in 2000 can succeed in 2010, when most of the elements in the equation have change for the worse," he states.

Eiland argues that over the years Israeli leaders have erred by creating the impression that Israel alone could take upon itself the task of solving the Palestinian issue.

For instance, at Camp David in 1979 Egyptian president Anwar Sadat wanted to hear Israel's position on the Palestinian problem. "Begin hastened to volunteer: Israel would give the Palestinians autonomy and both sides would be satisfied. This implies that the Palestinians are Israel's problem and Egypt has no reason to get involved."

Similar missteps were made all the way down to Ariel Sharon's disengagement and Ehud Olmert's convergence plan, he claims. The problem with these unilateral steps, he argues, was that they sent a message that "the Palestinian problem is Israel's problem and Israel alone will know how to solve it."

The new US administration, Eiland argues, has also made a number of errors based on misconceptions. "The Obama administration errs in believing that resolving the conflict is currently possible."

Among America's misguided assumptions, Eiland notes, are the following:

· The supreme Palestinian aspiration is to attain independence along the 1967 borders.

· The gap between the sides' positions is small and bridgeable.

· Moderate Arab states are interested in ending the conflict and therefore will assist in its solution.

· The end of the conflict will bring about stability.

· Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is vital to obtaining Arab assistance on the Iranian issue.

· There is currently an opportunity to resolve the conflict and it must not be squandered.

· There is only one solution to the conflict, and that is the solution of two states with the 1967 border between them.

As an alternative to becoming locked into the two-state mindset, Eiland proposes a Jordanian-Palestinian federation whereby Gaza and the West Bank would be states in a Jordanian kingdom, much like Pennsylvania and New York are American states.

"They will have full independence on domestic issues as well as a budget, governmental institutions, laws, a police force, and symbols of independence, but similar to Pennsylvania or New Jersey they will not have responsibility for two issues: foreign policy and military forces. Those two areas, exactly as in the United States, will remain the responsibility of the 'federal' government in Amman."

Eiland says the benefits of this proposal to the Palestinians are enormous. First and foremost it would ensure that an independent Palestinian state would not be ruled by Hamas. In addition, he writes, "the Palestinians also understand that under a two-state alternative, they will become citizens of a tiny state. Such a small state is not viable and will have security limitations (for example, conceding sovereignty over its airspace). It is preferable to be equal citizens in a large, respected country where the Palestinians will form the demographic majority."

Jordan would benefit, he continues, because the way to prevent instability in Jordan, which would be fueled by a future Hamas regime in the West Bank, is through Jordanian military control over this territory.

And Israel would gain, he says, because it is more likely to get the security it desires if the territories are incorporated into a greater Jordanian state, rather than if a new - and most likely failed - mini-state is created on its doorstep.

Eiland's other model, based on territorial exchange, calls for Egypt transferring some 720 km. of land - including 24 km. along the Mediterranean coast toward El-Arish - to the Palestinians, in order to allow them to build a million-plus city and a sustainable port and airport.

Egypt would be compensated by an equal amount of land taken from the Negev, and a tunnel at Israel's southern tip from Egypt to Jordan, which would connect Egypt with the Arab countries to the east. The 720 km. are equal to 12 percent of the West Bank, which would be the percentage of West Bank territory to remain in Israel's hands.

The enlargement of Gaza is necessary if it is to be a viable entity, Eiland argues, and it could enable the region to become an international trade center, which is impossible with the current dimensions.

Egypt would benefit primarily from the 10 km. tunnel to Jordan, which would give it important physical and economic access to the main eastern part of the Middle East, and Jordan would get - via the tunnel - an important passage to the Mediterranean.

As far as Israel is concerned, this type of arrangement would give the Palestinians a much better chance of viability and, by involving Jordan and Egypt, would create "stronger guarantees for the upholding of the agreement."

http://www.jpost.com servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339436935&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN

Fox News’ DC leader is the epitome of soft spokenness and sharp intellect. He has had a Christian testimony for as long as I have been following his career. I respect him and like his style.

Now he is the target of the anti-Christian media types. Finally National Review Online came to his defense and we applaud them for it. I think you will appreciate it as well.

 

January 06, 2010
Hume’s Gentle Witness
We should welcome honest talk about faith.

By Peter Wehner

Brit Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday — “I don’t think that [Buddhism] offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith,” and, “My message to Tiger [Woods] would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world” — have unleashed a torrent of criticism from the Left, including the various circus acts over at MSNBC and the Washington Post’s Tom Shales.

Shales’ criticisms in particular are manifestations of a mind that is enraged and slightly unhinged; they are ad hominem and, in some respects, unserious. But there are two lines of argument worth examining as they relate to what Hume said. The first is that he “dissed” all Buddhists; the second is that urging Woods to turn to the Christian faith is inappropriate, offensive, and out of line. Let’s examine both claims in turn.

What Hume said about Buddhism is, I believe, accurate. Whatever its virtues, Buddhism does not offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that are central to Christianity. Buddhism’s hallmarks are (among other things) reincarnation; the belief that wisdom, discernment, and enlightenment can emerge through meditation, self-control, and self-denial; that suffering ceases with the achievement of Nirvana; and that the path to liberation is found through the extinguishing of human desires and passions. One of the many theological differences between Buddhism and Christianity is that the former does not entail a belief in God, if God is defined as a personal being who created the universe by design; and it asserts that “the human self...has no soul,” in the words of the religious scholar Huston Smith. Hume did not say that Buddhism doesn’t teach virtues (it does) or that there are no good qualities about it (there are). But forgiveness and redemption are not cornerstones of the Buddhist faith in the same way they are in the Christian faith.

The second argument is that Hume should not be in the business of “drum[ming] up new business” for his faith, that he doesn’t have the authority to do so, and that, in the words of Shales, “he should do it on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it.”

Lots of commentators have offered opinions on what Tiger Woods has done and what he needs to do to recover. What was clearly motivating Hume was the hope that Woods can reconstruct his life; Hume believes Christianity, which was central to his own journey out of a terrible valley, is the best way in which to do so. (In a later, somewhat more expansive interview with Bill O’Reilly, Hume uses the example of Watergate convict Charles Colson, who turned his life around after he became a Christian.) Most people commenting on Tiger Woods deride him; Hume seems genuinely concerned for him. Is that a bad thing?

The intensity of offense taken at what Hume said is itself revealing. Perhaps it can partly be chalked up to shock; maybe Shales and Hume’s other critics are genuinely surprised to learn that those who hold the Christian faith do so because they believe the claims of Christ are true, that His story is real. But of course if Christians didn’t believe their faith were true, there would be no reason to embrace it, as the Apostle Paul himself understood.

Some people obviously disagree with Hume; that is certainly their right. They can offer a different remedy to Woods if they so desire. They may think that a commitment to materialism, or atheism, or pantheism, or something quite different, is what Woods needs. Or they may think what Woods did was not problematic, and that he should be free to indulge his appetites and passions. If so, let them make their case. But Hume, in the context of the discussion he was having, should be free to make his case. And one cannot help but think that if Hume had recommended that Woods embrace Transcendental Meditation, the philosophy of Deepak Chopra, or the New Age movement, instead of Christianity, Shales would not have been so offended.

(NRO.com)

 


FOLLOWING UP:

For decades there has been a bias against real Christianity, not just in the media. The hatred for faithful Christianity is found fully rooted in the public education system from kindergarten to virtually all universities. Humanism is the religion of these educators, enshrined in the NEA and other institutions and unions.

Outlawing any public display of the Christian faith from crèches to prayer at high school football games is now the norm. Based on totally false readings of the First Amendment and quoting the words found in the Communist Manifesto about “separation of church and state,” the anti-christs preach their humanist religion and have effectively convinced our judges that one atheist can trump thousands (millions?) of Christians. It is not only moronic, but illustrative of the fact that real Christians have for so long shrugged, sat silently on the sidelines and not addressed the eradication of faith in what was once a Christian nation.

Note: Don’t tell our Islamic loving President about our history. He is so happy thinking that most of us don’t exist that it would crush him.

Perhaps that crushing will come to light in the next election – 2010 – when he loses that ultra majority in the Congress, and like Slick Willy will have to either move to the center politically or lose even more ground.

At any rate, I urge you to make the attack on Christianity a part of your public discussions with more people than just your fellow church members, if you attend a congregation.

It would make a difference if most believers knew the history of our faith as it related to this nation. Learn something about it. Then with a sweet but persistent disposition, speak out.

You needn’t be disagreeable to state your position. But you should be at least a little knowledgeable.

In the mean time, find out what your candidates REALLY believe. Don’t fall for the non-answers that many of the slick politicians peddle.

I present to you one Sarah Palin – much maligned for her public statements about her religious beliefs – as an example of someone who has spoken out.

You can like her or hate her, but she is unafraid to be counted with the believers of Jesus Christ. Not just at election time, Easter and Christmas. Bravo, lady!

THANKS

For letting us vent a bit. Lots of information this week, but it seemed to be a time when so much good written work was abounding. Hope you like it.

Thanks too for your friendship. We are mended from our surgery, well on the way to getting our projects underway and still writing when the time allows.

Shabbat Shalom,

Ernie Moore

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Psalm 25:22 Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles.

Psalm 60:12 Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.

Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

 

This article can also be read at http://