Freedom rings worldwide

In a New York Times re-post, on May 20, 2015, fellow blogger, Mohammed A. Al-Jasem, wrote about his efforts at trying to get his government in Kuwait to address issues that all of us may resonate with. I thought it appropriate to re-post the article here:

"For the past 10 days, I haven’t left my home in Kuwait City alone. I always make sure someone is with me. I am a grandfather and have heart problems, but it is not because of my age or health that I’m being extra careful, nor is it because I am afraid of being mugged. It is a precaution I take, however ineffectual, against being abducted by my own government.

I know the threat is real because it has already happened to three people in the past four weeks.

I was the first Kuwaiti, but certainly not the last, to be sentenced in a freedom-of-speech case involving even mild criticism of the royal family. And it could happen to me again at any time. I am a blogger who has tried to speak freely about the absolute monarchy that rules my country, and as a lawyer, I am involved in defending more than 20 other freedom-of-speech cases.

The arrests are not pleasant, nor are the court sessions. On the fourth day of my hunger strike, while in custody of the State Security department in 2010, I collapsed. The ambulance took me to the military hospital, where my family was not allowed to see me. I spent one night there, IV drip on my left hand, while my right hand and foot were cuffed to the rail. I was transferred to prison the next morning. Whenever I am transferred to and from prison in a State Security case, I am placed against a wall, my arms behind my back, cuffs around my wrists and ankles, and with a thick black blindfold secured across my eyes. Then I am escorted by a 24-man SWAT team. I have no doubt the procedure will be the same, for myself and others, during future arrests. I chronicled my experience in a book I published, On My Way to Prison. It is banned in Kuwait.

The first time it happened, my imprisonment was regarded as a major issue. Now, however, hundreds of people are being prosecuted in political cases and are being sentenced to up to five years in prison.

This Thursday, the emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, will be one of the few Gulf state rulers to attend a planned summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council with President Barack Obama at Camp David.

Kuwaiti free-speech advocates have been eagerly anticipating this summit since Obama leveled some criticism of human rights policies in these GCC countries in an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times on April 5. “The biggest threats that they [GCC countries] face may not be coming from Iran invading,” the president said. “It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries.”

Some were expecting the Kuwaiti government to improve its human rights records ahead of the Camp David meeting. That hasn’t happened. The question remains whether it could happen after the meeting.

The Kuwaiti government realizes that it is very difficult for it to deny such a request from the United States. But does the White House have any serious interest in human rights violations by its allies?

I doubt it. Obama is probably far more interested in maintaining whatever Arab alliances he can as he tries for a historic nuclear deal with Iran.

One reason I’m such a skeptic is that I’ve been at this a long time. I have been a lawyer since 1978 and was a court observer for Amnesty International in Bahrain and Egypt. I started working in media in 1994 and eventually became the editor in chief of a daily newspaper and the Arabic versions of Newsweek and Foreign Policy.  

In 2003, while I was still an editor, I was accused of instigating to overthrow the regime in a State Security case. I was a guest speaker at an election campaign event and spoke openly about the relations between the ruling family and Kuwaiti people. I said simply that there had been no change in the ruling family’s mentality for decades.

That was enough for the state prosecutor to take notice. Two days later he notified me I was being investigated. Even though I wasn’t imprisoned in that case—I was released on bail—the U.S. State Department took a definitive stance against the Kuwaiti government. William Burns, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs at the time, raised the issue to his Kuwaiti counterpart during his visit to Kuwait. They reduced the charge to merely slandering the prime minister, but eventually they dropped the case.

Since then, however, we haven’t heard much at all from the U.S. State Department. Now many people are being imprisoned in freedom of speech cases, and there is no effective, public reaction from the United States. When it comes to its allies, I believe the Obama administration is more interested in protecting regimes rather than citizens. Especially if one of those regimes controls the spigot to a lot of oil. This gives their governments free rein on human rights.

In 2005, I resigned as editor, went back to working as a lawyer and launched my website (www.aljasem.org). Since then I have been imprisoned three times as a result of articles I published on my website giving my opinions on political developments as well as constitutional matters in Kuwait; most were simple analyses of the ruling family’s history in governing the country, but some of them also called for a constitutional monarchy like that in Britain. My articles were the first to cross the “traditional red lines” in terms of freedom of speech. My imprisonments began in November 2009, right after I published a series of articles that exposed increasing Iranian influence in Kuwait.

At first, the Arab Spring had a major role in curbing the government’s oppressive policies. I was released in January 2011, just before Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak was ousted. As the Arab Spring gained momentum, it temporarily had the effect of ameliorating the oppressive policies in Kuwait. Remarkably large demonstrations erupted as people demanded anti-corruption reforms.

The prime minister, Nasser Mohammed Al Sabah, was forced to resign in November 2011, and the mostly opposition-led parliament was elected in February 2012.
But as the Arab Spring faltered, particularly in Egypt, the Kuwaiti government was emboldened to revert to its oppressive means. Within five months of the elections, the Constitutional Court dissolved the parliament. The government changed the electoral system in a way that granted it more control over the outcome of the elections, and the Constitutional Court, which many believe to be far from independent, granted it the authority to autonomously do so.

The largest demonstrations in Kuwait’s history broke out. People were back on the streets protesting the changes. The government, however, felt safe enough to quell the protests by expanding its oppressive policies through violence and prosecuting people for political reasons under legal pretenses.

The opposition noticeably weakened after several members were sentenced to three to five years in prison. Internal conflicts between its leaders rendered the opposition ineffective. People turned to Twitter to express their frustration, but the government continued its political prosecutions, accusing people of infringing on the emir’s rights.
Some opposition leaders demanded a constitutional monarchy. The government responded by revoking citizenships. It revoked the citizenship of Abdullah Barghash, a member of the opposition and former member of the parliament, along with that of 57 members of his family, including children.

Saad Al-Ajmi, another strong supporter of the opposition, was the most prominent victim of the government’s oppressive policies. His citizenship was revoked in September 2014. In April 2015, 70 members of the secret police abducted him while he was on his way to the barber. He was blindfolded and handcuffed as the secret police drove him to the Saudi border. They decided to exile him. He was denied his right to contact anyone, including his family. No one knew what had happened to him until after he arrived in Saudi Arabia.
Plagued with short-term thinking, the government has tried to stunt rising voices with violence. This strategy backfired, as voices only became louder and triggered more aggression.

The government then altered its strategy to drowning the opposition with cases and, subsequently, sentences. The public prosecutor used his authority to detain people and ban them from leaving the country as an early punishment during the investigation period. This new strategy delivered the fatal blow to the opposition. The sentences came, one after the other, as the government realized that cases and sentences were far more effective than tear gas and batons.

Now the Kuwaiti government is going to great lengths to maintain the status quo, i.e., absolute power with no accountability. The government continues oppressing people, as it realizes that any infiltration of freedom might lead to fundamental reforms it is not willing to accept.
Like many others, I live in a state of estrangement from my country because of the contradiction between my beliefs and reality. At times, this estrangement drives me to risk everything for the sake of change. At others, it drives me to isolation.

The GCC is more than a group of royal families that export oil and import weaponry. They have citizens, and we seek development and freedom. Our choice should not be limited to being oppressed by our governments or escaping to extremism.

There must be a third choice. A democratic, civil society that respects human rights, not just a U.S.-backed sheikhdom. At Camp David , I hope that President Obama's efforts at marketing his forthcoming Iran deal to GCC leaders and the reassurances of protection he offers them will not come at the price of people’s freedom in the region.
Is it too much to ask, Mr. President, that I should be able to leave my house without constantly looking over my shoulder? Or that Saad Al-Ajmi should be able to return home to his wife and children?

Mohammed A. Al-Jasem is a blogger and lawyer based in Kuwait City. He was formerly editor in chief of a daily newspaper and the Arabic versions of Newsweek and Foreign Policy.  

Loyalty to the U.S. Government Questioned

By D. "Deuke"  © 2015

In recent times, and for probably the second time in my life, U.S. military personnel question whether the U.S. government, from which they take their orders is giving lawful orders, as it relates to Afghanistan, and other areas where the military is deployed. They ask, if the orders have been issued to weaken U.S. defense, as positions have been compromised, deals have been made that unilaterally shut off military intervention - even in places that intervention should be taking place - such as the battle against murderous terrorists beheading Christians, in and around Iraq and Syria, known as ISS.

U.S. military sources have told me that U.S. service personnel, "Question their own loyalty to the U.S. government." They have explained that they "Don't see the administration; that is, the executive branch, as supporting their 'mission' any longer. The "mission, which was thought to be establishing some kind of "normalcy to the region; to rid the farmers of the poppy fields in Afghanistan and to replace them with other cash crops; to form a democracy that people in the region would accept, and to rid them of the Taliban." Villages in the area have claimed for years now that the Taliban have spent decades repressing them. Service personnel say they are no longer carrying out the former orders to any major degree."

Very few seem to know why. The mission now, these same personnel say, is "confused with missions that are contrary to the initial directives. Today it is, "Protect the opium trade, continue to make sure oil flows through the various pipeline infrastructure, built more than a decade ago in Afghanistan, and to bring Muslim interests to the bargaining table, with emphasis on the latter, even if that includes the Taliban."
Attempting to get someone on the record about such news is nearly impossible. But it is still being tried. More later.................

Israel is slandered by the press!

By D. "Deuke"

I've been partially silent about this for way too long. The reasons don't matter anymore. I realize that though I have been a supporter of Israel in many ways, I have neglected to express an opinion that soundly exposes the subterfuge that mainstream media headlines run rampantly across various news sources - those that Americans read on a daily basis.

Much of mainstream media lies and furthers what they call a cause;  support for "humanitarian reasons," they say, for Palestinians.

However, these same Palestinians have been led down the sheeps' path since Yassir Arafat (and I don't care if the spelling is incorrect, I've had no respect for the man, ever). The media asserts that the world should weigh in on and condemn Israel's actions. But in reality Israel has simply been on the defensive against factions that have vowed to see Israel die. These factions have no clue they are touching a people that GOD calls, the "Apple of His eye."  

In recent weeks Israel has had to deal with terrorists that do not care who they kill. Hamas, a known terrorist organization which is in control of the events that have acutely effected Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip, has fired (to date) more than 800 rockets at Israel, none of which have killed a single Israeli citizen. Israel in turn, in attempting to protect their country and their citizens, have executed a barrage of retaliatory measures that has dismantled (to date) a third of Hamas' capability to carry out their attacks. In my opinion, GOD is the only reason that Israeli citizens have not been killed, despite the assertion that Israel's "Iron Dome," has been the deciding factor in thwarting a casualty list to Israeli citizens. Out of those 800 attacks, only 145 of the rockets fired were intercepted by the 'Iron Dome' defense. The other nearly 700 rockets have fallen on fields and in places where citizens live, but only property damage has occurred.

But none of this is as important as the perception Americans are formulating, and this because Americans are inundated with BS from the press! What is this BS? It is that the Palestinians are being bullied by an aggressor! Aggressor? How did the country that is being attacked become the aggressor? They didn't, but the media in America, controlled by Jew-hating moguls, probably left-over Nazis, are telling us this is fact. Forget that the aggression came from Hamas. Forget that the attacks were meant to kill Israeli citizens. Israel is going too far. Israel is a bully. All BS!

I've heard people say they believe that Israel is causing 'homelessness' to the Palestinians. What? It's incredible to me  how much influence the media has on the uninformed. I would say to all of these, 'Please, read the history. See the facts for yourself about who yaser, whatever the f... Arafat's agenda was. See how he convinced "Washington," whose only agenda was to secure the region for the oil, that he could deliver, if only they would rein in Israel - just a little. Arafat used the good hearted-ness of Americans to put his agenda in place - to set up a "state" that could siphon off Israel's progress and profits - nothing more. He was a thug that figured out how to use the media to further his own personal aims - and screw all those who opposed him.

Washington, whose only goal was to be the victor in the region, no matter what heart-ache it caused, went along, knowing or believing that in the end, we would control the whole ball of wax. Arafat got what he wanted and the U.S. govt. got what they wanted.  The only problem was that the so-called, Palestinians, were being used by terrorists; Hezbollah, Hamas, and whoever else frightened these poor people to death. And make no mistake about it, these were nothing but the poor people of the region. They were nomads with nothing and nowhere to go. They found in Arafat a leader they could rally around, to possibly, get a place they could call home. Nothing wrong with them wanting a place to call home, but, on the backs of everyone else in the region was to their detriment. Now they have Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and whoever else some Middle Eastern nomads could dig up to start wars. And the agenda was to make Israel the scapegoat, along with the United States.

There are few people in the U.S. that want this. Most, don't care a wit about it. The only time Americans say anything at all is when their sons and husbands and daughters and wives become the next casualties.
It's time that Americans see the particular sections of the media that call for punishment to Israel - for what they stand for and who stands behind the rhetoric and lies. It's time for Americans to recognize the truth when it stares them in the eye.

After publishing the above, I read an article published in the Jewish Press, July 16, 2014, that reinforces exactly what I am saying:

EXCLUSIVE: MK Ayelet Shaked Exposes Daily Beast Reporter’s Deliberate Distortions

Shaked: Gideon Resnick's hatred renders him useless to his readers.

By: Ayelet Shaked

Published: July 16th, 2014

print

MK Ayelet Shaked with Brigadier Gen. Gadi Agmon
Photo Credit: Flash90

Israel is under attack. Since last week, Hamas terrorists have fired more than 1000 rockets at our civilian centers, launching those rockets from residential enclaves, kindergartens and hospitals, exposing their own children to harm as they try to kill our children.

There’s no ambiguity among our allies as to Israel’s right to defend her citizens. In fact, many Arab voices, in Egypt and elsewhere, have condemned Hamas, blaming it for the tragedy it is bringing on the heads of its own people.

Sadly, the militant, leftist propaganda machine has not changed its tune, looking for every opportunity to make Israel the culprit in a war she did not desire and which she entered reluctantly, after days of increasing provocation.

I refer specifically to “Daily Beast” writer Gideon Resnick, who so misrepresented the facts in one of my recent Facebook posts, one has to wonder if his hatred for my country hasn’t rendered him outright useless to his website and his readers.

In a story headlined “Israeli Politician Declares War on the Palestinian People,” Resnick actually suggested I compared Palestinian children to “little snakes,” and accused me of fomenting Palestinian genocide. This vilification was later picked up by several bloggers and reporters, all of whom were convinced of this frightening notion, without even a scrap of fact or truth.

Let’s start with my July 1 Facebook post. It was written some 12 years ago, but never published, by a dear man, the recently departed journalist Uri Elitzur. The gist of his article was that once one side in a war attacks the other side’s civilians, they can no longer morally claim a special status for their own civilians.

Go ahead, ask a Hebrew speaking friend to translate it for you, they’ll confirm this is what my Facebook post was about. But you’ll find not a trace of that in Resnick’s account. Perhaps it’s his own ignorance of the Hebrew language. After all, he got the text from Electronic Intifada, a website dedicated to daily and hourly vilification of my country.

All Resnick had to do to make Elitzur’s sober, legally minded discussion sound like a speech made by Hitler himself, was to cherry pick words out of context. A call for the indiscriminate killing of children is a terrible thing. But what if the statement was that any time you attack our children, you’re exposing your own people to the same fate? Still unsettling, but rational when you consider their civilian population is actively supporting and participating in their war and terror efforts. It’s not a call for indiscriminate murder.

And then Resnick turned to character assassination. He cited an attack on me by Haaretz. They said I was “representative of an ideology unembarrassed by its racism.”

Haaretz, unfortunately, may look like the NY Times, but it is far from being a liberal, curious newspaper in the Anglo Saxon tradition. Expecting Haaretz to write about a political opponent like myself in an honest, informative—if critical—manner, is a little like expecting Gideon Resnick to offer an unbiased, honest citation from a pro-Zionist post.

And so, when Haaretz, read by a mere 30,000 Israelis, give or take, says I’m racist – I’d look for a more reliable source.

Then, in a second article, Resnick also sneaks in the dumb female bit: “the 38-year-old Shaked is also frequently the target of subtle sexism, at best referred to as ‘a young and pretty secular woman.’” And the citation is from – you guessed it, Haaretz. In fact, Electronic Intifada and Haaretz are Resnick’s only sources, other than his brutalization of the Elitzur piece.

Resnick’s distortions aside, the fact is that international pressure on Israel has not yielded peace because Israel is not starting the wars.

1. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are engaged in terrorism, one overtly, the other in a supportive role. Money is being transferred from the PA to the families of suicide bombers and convicted murderers in Israeli jails. The pay is actually based on the number and severity of the murders committed. The more gruesome the murder, the larger the number of Israeli victims, the higher the monthly reward.

Can anyone deny it?

2. Palestinian education today is based on violence and incitement against Israelis and Jews. Palestinian textbooks and Palestinian media ceaselessly promote Jew hatred. They praise Jew murderers. Their heroes and celebrities are Jew killers. They name streets and traffic circles after killers of Jewish children.

Can anyone deny it?

At the same time, the murder of Jerusalem teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir was immediately condemned by all of Israel’s society.

As a Knesset Member, I can assure you his murderers, once convicted for their terrible crime, will remain in prison for the rest of their lives.

We will certainly not name streets after them.

3. In Israel we protect our citizens from incoming Hamas missiles.

Hamas, on the other hand, positions its missile launchers in the midst of civilian enclaves, using women and children as human shields against Israeli raids.

Just the other day, the world watched a Hamas spokesman admitting they instructed civilians not to leave their Gaza homes during air strikes, in order to protect those arsenals of weapons.

Each Palestinian rocket coming out of Gaza represents two separate war crimes: one for purposely targeting a civilian population in Israel, the other for launching from within their own civilian population.

Not many journalists bother to share this information with their readers. It confuses the narrative, messes with the David and Goliath scenario.

Our residents in southern Israel have endured these missiles for more than 14 years. Many children and teens have known only life in a war zone. This past week, all our urban centers were targeted. How would you expect our government to react? How would you want your own government to deal with a similar onslaught on your neighborhood? What do you want us to do? Lie down and die?

The late Uri Elitzur wrote so eloquently in the article I cited on Facebook:

“The laws of war acknowledge that it is impossible to avoid hitting enemy civilians. Those laws did not condemn the British airforce for firebombing and completely destroying the German city of Dresden, or US planes for wrecking the cities of Poland and half of Hungary’s Budapest, whose residents had never done anything against America. Those sites had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil.”

Israel’s fight against Hamas terrorism is similar to NATO’s war on Al-Qaeda terrorism. Moreover, Israel is the only state who is notifying civilians to leave their homes before an attack by texting them.

Israel has no agenda against Arab civilians in Gaza, just as the US has none against Arabs in any of the countries where it’s conducting its now 13-year war to preserve civilization from violent barbarism.

We want a good life, with peace and prosperity for all the eight million plus people living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Indeed, if the Arab society enjoys prosperity, so will Jewish society, and vice versa. let me be very clear I condemn any kind of assault against innocent civilians, whether they are Jews or Arabs.

But in order to get there, they must stop firing rockets at us.

The madness of Hamas continued yesterday after Israel embraced an Egyptian call for a ceasefire. Hamas rejected the offer, and as of now has been shooting at all over Israel with renewed vigor.

Israelis are so used to the scene where we offer our hand in peace and the other side reacts by trying to cut it off, that we’re not even surprised. What does surprise us, time and again, are the voices in the West, like Resnick’s, which pin the blame for this madness on us. As in that famous quip: “It all started when Israel retaliated.”

As an aside, I’ll point out that a week later The Daily Beast finally removed one blatant lie from Resnick’s original article, where he accused me of being the author of statements I never made.

But this correction is too little, too late, the damage has already been done.

And so, you must ask yourselves, do you really want to continue getting your news reports about my country from writers who view the truth as little more than a needless inconvenience?

'Blowhards' and the enemy within

I have managed to stay off the political comment stage in recent months for several reasons.
My health has suffered greatly in the past two years, and checking out the latest sound-bytes of say, Senator Harry "sell-out" Reid, or Congressman "Goldie-lox" Kevin McCarthy, or the latest words of Senator-hero John McCain, or the person I call the "sleeper" and "usurper" in the White House, Barack Obama, has not been in my highest  priorities to do list.

I suppose I may have thought as well, that my comments weren't reaching very many and meant little to anyone other than those possibly few. But, I was surprised! I discovered that there were tons of people reading them, I just hadn't turned on several buttons that I could use in this format to see them. So for all you readers, thank you for tuning in. Today you might get a treat, I plan on blasting policies and trite conversations, possibly by the truckload! After all, I haven't written much lately.

My comments in the past have seemingly been written for newspaper writers and readers; those that gather news from all over the country and in the world, that look forward to reading the various and myriad of editorials and news stories, no matter how much they may disagree with the writer.  Personally, I like the challenge. I don't mind people snickering or guffawing, or outright make disgusting comments about me, at least they made them aloud (so-to-speak), and are therefore not cowards. No, it's those that read these things and either make no comment publicly, but plenty in the 'backrooms,' or pretend that they have little value while all the time seething inside with contempt. They worry me a little.

I knew Harry Reid personally. I knew Kevin McCarthy personally. I have great respect for John McCain. I have little for Barack Obama. From everything I have read to date about him, I get the impression, from patterns in comments, conferences, and sound-bytes, here in the U.S. and in other countries, that he's all smiles in public, but apologetic, floundering, angering, even ruthless, behind the cameras - in other words, a two-faced person.


Don't I look good in this suit?

However, the truth is he may have to be just that person -- at least that's the excuse I'll give him. The world must not see him stumble, and fall; they'll never let you live it down -- remember President Gerald Ford? -- though Obama has tripped on numerous occasions with words spoken, seemingly without aforethought, which I don't necessarily believe is the case, he is painted as a "paper tiger," by writers from all over the world.
Some Western writers have claimed that Obama lives in a "fantasy world," where what he believes is the reality of certain situations, is not reality at all, but a nightmare.

Take the Russian invasion of Ukraine for instance. First Crimea, and now the rest of the country. Russia says they are just protecting their people. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, seems to look at Obama as though he is a child waiting for the bear to lick him because he's cute or something. Putin looks like a warrior, while Obama looks like he's ready for another round of polo.

But I would remind people that with 20,000 troops and not a shot fired, they took Crimea. Eastern Ukraine may be a little bit tougher -- but you can bet Russia doesn't think so. In each case the only thing Obama did or said was that we would place sanctions on Russia. Now sanctions may work on smaller countries, but in Russia, who is now attempting to regain former ancient lands, and resources, it will hurt a little, but not stop them. They have basically said this already. 

China openly scolds Obama, saying they realize he has to cater to media hype, but when handling serious matters of foreign policy, he must look at realities. Truly, I don't believe Mr. Obama is in a fantasy world, I think he is the enemy within.
I don't know how it was accomplished, other than through the collusion of many very powerful individuals, but Obama came out of nowhere, and in less than three years became the president of the United States. Some say that people wanted to make history; let's put the first brown man in the White House, they said. Some say that his abilities as a speechmaker garnered him much excitement and support. And others say that he simply followed an agenda set forth by a group of business leaders that have way too much power and influence on governments from around the world. These are passed off as "conspiracy theorists." But the truth may be the elephant in the room; Obama is a "sleeper." Do we know much about his childhood? Are you able to gather more information about him that hasn't been filtered and sanitized than the few bits and pieces of a patchwork life and forged documents?

It is no secret what the Islamic agenda is. They intend to convert the world to their radical beliefs, in any way they see fit. There is resistance, but for the most part, governments seem afraid of them. Maybe they ought to be; those that seem to be leading the charge in the Islamic movement have no problem committing murder. My friend calls what is coming, the ultimate, "Clash of Civilizations." My friend knows something about which he speaks; he has lived it, and as I have stated in the biography I'm writing about him, "He has the battle scars to prove it."

In an article in the Jewish Press, May 1, 2014, written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu:  http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/leading-muslim-cleric-urges-mass-pilgrimages-to-temple-mount/2014/05/01/

The Muslims are out to show that they far outnumber the Jews on the Temple Mount.

A leading Muslim Brotherhood cleric who previously prohibited Muslims from becoming un-pure by visiting the Temple Mount in “occupied” Jerusalem now has decided they won't be tainted because they have an opportunity to try to claim Islamic sovereignty over the holy site by mass pilgrimages from the Arab world.

Sheikh Yussef Qaradawi as recently as last year prohibited Arabs from “tainting” themselves by going to the  Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, but now has reversed himself following the collapse of  U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s Peace Talks Charade.

It seems like Islamic law is not based on the Quran so much as it based on the Arab world’s struggle to destroy Israel as a Jewish country.

The sheikh previously has written on sites such as Onislam.net and in an e-book that there is no connection between Jerusalem and Jews, that Jerusalem is “occupied” and that therefore “visits are banned in order to deprive the occupier of legitimacy.”

The cleric, now 85, added, “Those who visit legitimize an entity which plunders Palestinian lands, and are forced to cooperate with the enemy’s embassy to receive a visa. We must feel as though we are banned from Jerusalem and fight for it until it is ours.”

His 180-degree about-face, published in a Jordanian newspaper this week, exposes Islamic law as a convenience store that sells anti-Jewish religious edicts as the word from Allah. Islamic law is whatever a Muslim cleric thinks is politically correct.

In 2009, he said in a sermon during the IDF’s counter-terror  Operation Cast Lead campaign in Gaza, O Allah, take your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O Allah, take the Jews, the treacherous aggressors. “O Allah, take this profligate, cunning, arrogant band of people. O Allah, they have spread much tyranny and corruption in the land. Pour your wrath upon them, O our God. Lie in wait for them…. take this oppressive, Jewish Zionist band of people. O Allah, do not spare a single one of them. O Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.”

As recently as last September, Qaradawi told Qatar TV, according to a translation supplied by MEMRI, he would not participate in an inter-faith dialogue if Jews were present. “If you invite the Jews, I will not participate,” he stated. “I will participate in a Muslim-Christian meeting, but with the Jews there should be no debate.

“Those Jews have committed clear injustice against us. They have shed our blood, killed our children, displaced our people, seized our lands, and usurped our rights.”

He also has said just as “Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption,… The last punishment was carried out by Hitler…. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

This is the same wise Muslim who told anti-Zionist rabbis in 2008, “There is no enmity between Muslims and Jews…. Jews who believe in the authentic Torah are very close to Muslims. Muslims are against the expansionist, oppressive Zionist movement, not the Jews.”

That was before the Arab world finally saw that Israel, after 20 years of concessions to the Palestinian Authority, after erasing almost every red line this side of the Temple Mount, and after releasing nearly 100 murderers the past year, finally said “Dayenu,” – enough.

The sudden appearance of Jews standing up for themselves was a bit of shock for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry but it was expected by Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab world.
     

9/11 was a CONSPIRACY carried out!

 Lest we forget

It has taken more than a decade to confirm many allegations concerning, "9/11". I think one of the best compilations that "connect all the dots," may be found in the following video: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

The problem with making criminal charges stick, against persons responsible for these atrocities is multiple: Testimony from those who know the truth; hard evidence, which cannot be disputed, and judges that will make crucial, honest, and fair rulings; and of course, the public that ought to demand justice!

Thanksgiving 2013

 Thanksgiving is tomorrow in America, and I thought it worth re-publishing a piece written by Michael Quinn Sullivan, Novemeber 27, 2013, of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, which speaks of what our Founders may have intended in the early days of this freedom-loving and greatest country on earth!

Interestingly, the real story of Thanksgiving isn't found in the syrupy-sweet stories of our youth. Instead, it's that our earliest settlers decided to reject socialism’s central planning and embrace liberty. It’s a decision we must similarly make every day.
We tend to forget that the pilgrims weren’t city slickers, ill-prepared for wilderness life; nor were they misguided about the challenges facing them in the New World.
Sadly, the travails and trials of those pilgrims weren’t merely the result of recklessness, ignorance or chance. No, the problems the pilgrims faced, and overcame, were of their very own making through a misguided ideology.

William Bradford, governor of Plymouth Colony, explains clearly in his own hand what happened in his “History of the Plymouth Settlement.” They imposed on themselves what he called “communal service” -- everything, the land, the work, the crops -- was held communally. Everyone was expected to work hard and receive only what they truly needed. Sound familiar?
Bradford noted: “Community of property was found to breed much confusion and discontent.” No one had an incentive to work, so no one produced, and everyone was miserable.
After three years, the colony abandoned its “communal” life lest they die-off completely. Bradford wrote that colony leaders divided the land among the families and “allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust to themselves for that.”
As a result, “It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.”
The very first days of the American experience demonstrated what world history has shown repeatedly: socialism fails, and fails miserably. Liberty, not government planning, produces bounty.
As we gather with family and friends this Thanksgiving, let us remember that just as in the 17th Century, individual liberty is a necessary and integral component for general prosperity. As Ronald Reagan said, we have to fight for freedom and defend it every day!

QUOTING...  "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people." -- Ronald Reagan

The Syrian Battle

In Syria, the battle is fundamentally the Sunni vs Shia. The Assad regime is Alawite/Shia/ Ba'athist, and is a 10-15% minority in Syria. Alawites live in and around Syria, including Turkey and Lebanon.The Assad family came to power in the 70's, by overthrowing the repressive government of the Sunni’s.

 There should be no confusion as to why Iran backs the Assad regime, or why Russia does. The Sunni regime basically, represent the agenda of the colonial powers of France, Britain, America and other "Western" powers – to ours and their detriment.

The U.S. has been caught in the middle ground, of either backing their allies that simply want to control the resources of Syria, or furthering old colonial policies originated by the French and British, against the Shia of Iran and by proxy, Russia.
Again, the Assad regime is, Alawite. So who are the “moderates” in Syria, and who are they attempting to overthrow? The Shiites and the Alawites of course, who by the way, came to power as, “freedom fighters.”
The Sunni seem easier to control, I guess is the thinking by the world-domination elite. However, to clarify something, the Sunni's generally want a strict Islamic state, how the colonial powers think they can control that is beyond me, maybe through bribery; who knows?

I find it ironic that since this “diplomatic overture” to take control of and (someday - right) dispose of the chemical weapon stockpile of the Syrian regime, we don’t hear a peep in the mainstream media lately about the "EVIDENCE." Why is that? They have continued their worship of Obama, helped him save face, and they do not want the truth to come out about who actually used those chemical weapons.

I wrote elsewhere that I believed the evidence was there that the Syrian regime was the guilty party. But now, as I see this little game unfold, I think the objective was carried out; blame the Assad regime, embolden the various factions, including the Muslim Brudderhood, to oust the Alawite/Ba'athist/Shi party, out of Syria, and replace it, once again with the repressive and possibly amenable regime of Sunni control.

But Who are the 100,000 dead? Who were the 1400 dead? Was the majority of the 100,000 killed, Shia/Alawite? Not - as far as I can tell, to date. Was the 1400 killed by chemical weapons, also supporters of the Assad regime, and died as a result of a conspiracy, cooked up by the “colonial powers,” to kill supporters; innocents, for the sole purpose of propaganda against the Assad regime? Most likely.
 Others have pointed out that this particular attack, which brought the anger of the world, including my own, is a farce. This is not a humanitarian cause in itself. IMO This was a meticulously planned out conspiracy for the above mentioned objective. I disagree wholeheartedly that “their problem isn’t our problem…” but I can clearly see that the rat-face politics and agendas, perpetuated by this administration, his “handlers,” and in complicity with the other colonial, resource-controlling world, is not at all what we as Americans should support.
I think we could kill two birds with one stone here; get rid of the chemical weapons, find out the absolute truth about who used them, by demanding a vigorous, authentic, and independent investigation, as to how, when, why, and who, used these chemical weapons, and get rid of the powers that are behind all of this.

If this could ever be accomplished, I’d bet my house that the results would show that this was a planned coup. This diplomatic overture has only deferred the outcome. They want Assad gone because they can’t control the Alawytes or the Shia’s.

Syria to be spanked, "if they do it again."

September 14, 2013

Days after the Obama administration deferred to Congress for an authorization to use military force in Syria, talks in Geneva, Switzerland, between Russian and American diplomats have produced an agreement. After an alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime against civilians and "rebels," that killed more than 1,400 people; the Russians, who are "in bed" with the Syrians, and who have been accused of selling the chemical weapons to Syria in the first place, have proposed an alternative to the Obama administration: if they will "stop the madness" of using military force to punish Syria, the Russians, and an overseeing international force, will secure Syria's chemical weapons, put them under UN control, and eventually destroy them. Sounds great - if it ever happens! Personally I wouldn't trust any of this folks.
This proposal was made after a conversation between Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State, John F. Kerry, (former Senator from Massachusetts - Kennedy wanna-be) days before. Some are saying that it was Kerry's idea. The Russians have since, "owned it."

John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov whisper to each other "about a party" after the talks in Geneva.

This morning, Saturday, 9/14/13, news sources from around the globe are reporting that the "closed door" private talks between the Russians and the U.S., i.e., Kerry and Lavrov, have produced an agreement. This agreement was first negotiated after the Russians demanded that the threat of force on Syria be "relaxed." The agreement calls for the chemical weapons to be identified and put under international control to eventually be destroyed. The Russians as well as demanding that the U.S. take the threat of force away from their best friends, the Syrian regime; Ala-waba-bala Assad (I don't care how it's spelled), was not to be under the threat of arrest and tried in an international criminal court. From preliminary reports, the Obama administration was quick to relent to the Russian arm twisting, and the use of force has been relaxed. However, reports that an international tribune could still arrest Assad was not taken off the table. So, unless Assad, is a bad boy once again, he got off almost scott-free. That is if he indeed did it.

It reminds me of the irritating mother who yells at her children for the umpteenth time that they will get a spanking if they don't knock off their shenanigans. Of course the children never get the promised spanking, and the children continue to disobey and in fact get worse.

Some might say that Syria and Russia blinked in this "war of words." Others are saying that Obama was handed a face-saving proposal - since he really didn't have the stomach for war anyway.

But once again, the world can now go back to their cable listings, i-pads, and smart phones, and the killing may continue in Syria. 100,000 people dead already and that may not be enough. The question should be asked, when is enough, enough?

Obama averts WWIII - for now!

August 31, 2013

Today at around 3:00pm eastern time, Mr. Obama made a short speech about the decision to respond to what he said was the Syrian regime's culpability in the use of a "chemical weapons attack on women and children, and opposition forces, in the "suburbs" of Damascus, Syria. The chemical attack, or "gas attack," as Obama put it, was one of several, according to reports, which took place last week and killed more than 1,400 Syrians. 


In the speech it was pointed out that there was "high confidence" that enough evidence had been gathered to lay the blame for the attack at the feet of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. 

 Media sources and others from around the world seemed to be goading Obama to "do something" about the chemical weapons attack. He called for leaders in other countries, who have "privately supported a U.S. military response, to make their support public." Several days ago, it was announced that the U.S. military was "ready to strike Syria," as soon as the order was given by the president.
Obama included in his remarks that Congressional leaders demanded that before any unilateral decision was made to attack Syria, they needed to be consulted, and that Congress must authorize any military strike against Syria. He agreed to this in his speech, though he made it clear that he was authorized to make the decision on his own, "...for national security interests," but would "look forward to a debate." It was also reported that legislators now had access to the evidence against the Syrian regime.

UN inspectors that have also gathered evidence of the chemical attacks and presumably who was responsible for the orders to conduct such horrifying atrocities, have returned to the Netherlands where a report will be generated and presented to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council - two members of which are allies to Syria; Russia and China.
Mr. Obama made clear he was not waiting for the UN's report, to determine what to do. In fact he made clear that the Syrian regime must be held accountable for the attack and that it was the responsibility of the United States to respond. He was willing to wait for a Congressional hearing on the matter and that the order to strike was not "time sensitive." He said that the military was ready to strike at any time.

In my opinion, President Obama has averted WWIII - for the time being, and I think it may have been one of the smartest moves he has made to date.
Here is the full text of the speech made Aug. 31, 2013:

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted. I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much. 
__________________________________________
 In a communication from Graham Hancock, here is his thoughts on the subject and my response:

Nine days for the American people to make their will known
President Obama, with an eye to his image, has stated he will seek approval from Congress before implementing his decision -- already made apparently -- to "punish" Syria with military force. "I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets," he said, adding a second decision: "I will seek authorization for the use of force from American representatives in Congress." That process will begin on 9 September, it seems. Full story from the Jerusalem Post here:http://www.jpost.com/International/Obama-will-seek-approval-from-Congress-to-strike-Syria-324866. See also the London Daily Telegraph here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10278259/Syria-latest-Obama-will-put-Syria-decision-to-Congress.html
This is a rather unique situation and represents an opportunity for the American people to make their will known and perhaps change the course of history. The British government, despite the macho gung-ho posturing of Cameron and Hague has already been prevented from launching bombing raids and firing missiles at Syria by the will of the public. Though it seems unlikely, since the President's party holds the majority and Republican support is probable, the same CAN happen in the US -- if members of Congress can be persuaded that public opinion is against such an attack.Then Obama will face a real dilemma. Will he go ahead with the attack anyway, against the will of Congress and the people, or will he call it off? More likely Congress will support the attack but IT IS NOT INEVITABLE.
There is a huge amount of propaganda surrounding this filthy war in Syria and the Western public is being bombarded by news reports focussing on Syrian government atrocities, etc, while these same reports consistently ignore or whitewash rebel atrocities. This can be nothing other than a deliberate media campaign designed to sway public opinion in favour of intervention and, interestingly, one of the world's leading media barons, Rupert Murdoch (Fox News, Sky, The Times of London, etc) has shareholdings in a company that earlier this year was granted oil-drilling rights on the Golan Heights -- sovereign Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Genie Energy, the company granted these rights to exploit the Golan, is advised by former US Vice-President Dick Cheney. Story from Business Insider here: http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2.
I accept absolutely that the Syrian government has blood on its hands, as do the various rebel groups sponsored by the West and the Arabian Gulf states to topple the Syrian government. I do not accept for a moment that bombing raids and missile strikes by the US and its new bed-partner France will do a single useful thing to end the atrocities carried out by both sides in Syria. Contrary to the well-funded propaganda, such strikes will not be "surgical"; they will be horrendous. They will only make things worse, and kill more innocent people and drive the whole region further towards catastrophic chaos. I hope and pray that the American public does not permit the US government to plunge the world into such madness and that somehow, through the will of the people, sanity will prevail.
If by some miracle sanity DOES prevail, what next? Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer. I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation. And I am equally certain that the position on the ground would rapidly improve if all the special interests, whether Western, Russian, Arabian Gulf or other, that are presently fuelling this insane conflict were to withdraw their support from war immediately.
War and more war is not the answer. It can never be the answer.

_____________________________

Mr. Hancock,
I agree with you for the most part. In fact I included a previous communication from you concerning your thoughts about the Syrian conflict and the use of chemical weapons near Damascus on my site. My thoughts were nearly identical.
After President Obama's short speech on Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013, I was a bit relieved - I felt that "cooler heads had prevailed." I too am concerned about what would be unleashed should the U.S. "go it alone" and conduct a strike in Syria.
However, as you stated; "....Undoubtedly this horror in Syria cannot be allowed to continue any longer..." then added, "I do not know what the solution is. But I am certain, body and soul, that it it NOT to add yet more missiles and yet more bombs to the equation."  - which in principle is easily agreed to. But in the real world, criminals allowed to get away with murder will continue to commit murder. The world should be responding to this madness, in force. If it was possible, the solution may be staring people in the face; arrest those responsible for the crime.
If that is not possible, what else is left but a strike at the heart of the matter?

Deuke Productions - Political Issues