05/5/15
Ted Cruz / Hillary Clinton

Why We Must Unite Behind Ted Cruz

New Zeal

Guest post from Shlomo from NJ

Open letter to conservative talk show hosts

Ted Cruz

I’m disappointed with conservative talk radio. I really can’t understand why our media giants, such as Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, are not actively pushing for Ted Cruz….

Conservative pundits have attributed the 2012 debacle, to the inability for conservatives to unite behind one strong conservative. YET WE’RE DOING IT AGAIN!?!

While we’re window shopping, the other team lost no time with scorn, and vilification; ignoring and misrepresenting anything Cruz.

Coalescing behind one guy, won’t happen by itself. Nor will the liberal leaning media help us in this regard. Conservative talk show hosts-the “editorial board writers for working people”, MUST LEAD THE WAY.

So, why Cruz? Answer: Those that go to Washington can’t be trusted, except Cruz.

It’s true, Marco Rubio might have a slight edge in speeches, and Scott Walker can point to more impressive successes. Still we MUST unite behind Ted Cruz….

Many feel that, on balance, Cruz’s skill-set outweighs his opponents, but that can be debated. What’s not debatable is that every single candidate, (except Cruz) that has already arrived in DC, has changed their tunes. The other opponents have simply not yet come to Washington.

The atmosphere in our nation’s capital, is antithetical to conservative values. It’s so toxic, even lifelong conservatives feel compelled to accommodate the special interests and big donors. All, at the expense of the voters that sent them there in the first place. Except Cruz.

Just last week, Jodi Ernst and Perdue, voted against conservative values. Why should anyone assume that a Scott Walker won’t drink the same kool-aid Rubio has been sipping the past couple of years.

If anyone thinks moving away from Cruz will slow media’s criticisms, think again. They’ll vilify anyone. They even turned harmless, squishy, Romney into the devil incarnate.

No, Ted Cruz is not 100% perfect. Nobody is. All criticisms are, however, anecdotal at best.

Ted must be mentioned every single day, and constantly contrasted to his counterparts in the Republican party.

If a drum-roll is keeping Hillary alive, imagine what constant positive focus will do to one of our best.

05/5/15
ISIS

Radical Islam: a Communist tool against the West

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

ISIS via BBC Radio

ISIS via BBC Radio

“The KGB boss described the Muslim world as a waiting petri dish, in which we could nurture a strain of hate-America.” – Lt. Gen. Ion Pacepa

The Cold War’s “most important defector,” Ion Mihai Pacepa, recently revealed that Liberation Theology “was the creation of the KGB, who exported it to Latin America as a way of introducing Marxism into the continent” and is traced to the 1968 “Conference of Latin American Bishops” as reported in a must-read article posted at Breitbart.

But Liberation Theology is only one of the many subversive creations of the KGB, who also fosters and promotes radical Islam as a “weapon against the West,” according to political commentator and New Zealand native Trevor Loudon, who is not at all surprised at the recent revelation that Liberation Theology was an invention of the KGB.

Loudon, whose book The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the US Congress is currently being made into a feature documentary, has been sounding the alarm about activities by communists in America for years. In fact, it was Loudon who first made the connection between President Barack Obama and his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis.

Radical Islam “serves Moscow as a deniable weapon against the West,” Loudon said. The connections between radical Islam and communism have been documented here, here and here.

Consider the following by Daniel Greenfield:

Former KGB General Oleg Kalugin had said that many Al Queda terrorists were actually trained by the KGB. A sizable number of the Taliban’s top military people had Russian training as well.

Additionally, former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko “alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB [formerly KGB] in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks,” as reported in his obituary at the BBC. As noted at the New American back in 2005, “al-Zawahiri had been very active as the purported top leader of Islamist terrorist operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina during Yugoslavia’s civil war.” As an aside, one of Litvinenko’s accused assassins opined that the whistle-blower accidentally poisoned himself last month.

Former KGB lieutenant colonel Konstantin Georgiyevich Preobrazhenskiy was granted asylum in the United States in 2006. According to Preobrazhenskiy, communists long considered Muslims as the “human resource” for the world revolution.

Watch a discussion here:

This article has been cross-posted at Broadside News.

05/5/15
Draw Mohammad Contest

Pam Geller and those Before Her

By: Denise Simon
Founder’s Code

Did the Yazidis draw cartoons? Did James Foley draw cartoons? Did Daniel Pearl draw cartoons?

How is it that Islam has assumed exclusive power with the declaration they are the judge, jury and executioner of what is blasphemy?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has this on Pam Geller. Ah but, they do have a right to do so as noted by the Supreme Court decision in 2011 in the case of picketing a funeral.

All media, even global media has become Sharia compliant for not standing long ago on free speech and now for blaming the Garland, Texas attack on those who are taking a stand.

Pam Geller, Tom Trento, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and Louis Gohmert are all declaring a call to action, a clarion call and offering sage advise. Are we as a nation listening? Two hundred plus years later why are they forced to do this? They are telling you the same as many historical figures before them. LISTEN

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
George Washington

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
Harry S. Truman

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

So Geller is taking a stand with her organization noted here.

Robert Spencer is doing the same here, offering books and lesson plans.

Tom Trento is tireless in his efforts as noted here.

Geert Wilders has been at the mission for a very long time in Europe.

Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).

05/5/15
Barack Obama

Dreams from Obama’s Different Fathers

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

President Obama on Monday is celebrating his “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative, designed to create and expand “ladders of opportunity” for young blacks, many of whom have no fathers to guide them. But does President Obama have the credibility to deal with this crisis when he has failed to acknowledge as President the debt that he owes to his mentor and father figure, Communist Frank Marshall Davis?

What’s worse, Obama’s own half-brother, Malik Obama, is calling the President a con man who has failed to help members of his own poverty-stricken Kenyan family. Asked if President Obama has contributed to the foundation for his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., Malik told filmmaker Joel Gilbert, “No. No. Nothing.”

Perhaps the senior Obama isn’t Obama’s real father, after all.

The fatherhood crisis in black America was illustrated by the controversy over a black mother in Baltimore pulling her son off the streets when she caught him throwing rocks at the police during the riots. The mother, Toya Graham, has six children but no husband.

In addition to his initiatives on behalf of black fathers and their sons, Obama has unveiled a “fatherhood pledge,” which goes as follows:

“In response to President Obama’s call for a national conversation on responsible fatherhood and healthy families:

  • I pledge to renew my commitment to family and community.
  • I recognize the positive impact that fathers, mothers, mentors, and other responsible adults can have on our children and youth, and pledge to do all I can to provide children in my home and throughout my community the encouragement and support they need to fulfill their potential.”

Signers are told that “President Obama grew up without his dad, and has said that being a father is the most important job he has. That’s why the President is joining dads from across the nation in a fatherhood pledge—a pledge that we’ll do everything we can to be there for our children and for young people whose fathers are not around.”

In one of several stories expected to highlight Obama’s alleged commitment to the progress of black people, Yahoo! News describes Obama’s Monday launch of a new foundation to help black youth as part of his presidential legacy.

But in the blockbuster revelations that have been ignored by the pro-Obama “mainstream media,” Malik Obama, son of Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., told Joel Gilbert in an interview from Kenya that he feels disappointed in, used and betrayed by President Obama. “In the beginning, I didn’t think that he was a schemer,” Malik Obama said. “His real character, his real personality, the real him, is coming out now.” Malik says that after using his Kenyan family for political purposes to get elected, Obama has largely abandoned them.

Malik is so disillusioned that he wants his half-brother to take a DNA test to see if he is really related to him.

The version of Barack Obama’s family history that continues to be disseminated nationally is that he grew up without a dad after his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., abandoned the family. The experience of not having a dad is said to have sparked Obama’s commitment to strengthen the black family through the “responsible fatherhood” initiative and the “My Brother’s Keeper” program. The foundation launched on Monday is an extension of the latter.

Gilbert asked Malik if he had approached Barack Obama about getting some funds to help bury their aunt, Zeituni Onyango, in Kenya after she died in Boston.  Malik responded, “Yes I did. I told him that she’s our aunt, she’s your father’s sister, she loved you very much and we need to do something for her. We need around $20,000 and he said that was too much and that it seemed like she deserved what she got. And I was saying in my mind, ‘what kind of person is this?’ And I told him, ‘you say you’re your brother’s keeper, I don’t feel it, and I don’t see you living up to what you say.’ She had really been good to him when he came. I felt really sad that he would just abandon her like that. I just left. She was stuck there for a month. People were trying to raise money and we finally got her back.”

“The White House had no comment on Onyango’s passing,” the Boston Globe reported at the time.

Malik’s statement to Obama, “you say you’re your brother’s keeper, I don’t feel it, and I don’t see you living up to what you say,” is just another indication that Barack Obama’s family history is questionable.

Obama’s claim to have been abandoned by his Kenyan father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., is usually combined with the story that he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii. However, this has been demonstrated to be a carefully concocted lie designed to hide the fact that his grandfather picked black Communist Frank Marshall Davis to be Obama’s childhood mentor in Hawaii.

According to Barack Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, Davis, referred to as “Frank,” gave him advice on such topics as going to college and race relations, telling him that blacks “have reason to hate.” Davis’s true identity in the Obama book Dreams from My Father was obviously concealed because of his controversial background—which has been extensively documented by Accuracy in Media—as a suspected Soviet espionage agent, pornographer and pedophile.

It was communist historian Gerald Horne who initially disclosed “Frank” to be Davis at a 2007 event announcing that the archives of the Communist Party USA were being stored at New York University’s Tamiment Library. He had noted Davis’s influence over Obama and predicted in his remarks, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party,” that Obama would go down in history as a major and influential figure.

Despite Obama’s professed concern for the future of the dysfunctional black family, he has never been asked publicly by the media to explain his relationship with Davis, and he has avoided even mentioning the subject in public, except for one 1995 appearance that just recently surfaced on the Internet in a video. Obama said in that appearance that Davis had schooled him on the subject of white racism before he went off to college.

At one time, Malik Obama said, they were very close. Yet, Barack Obama has largely abandoned his family in Kenya. “He doesn’t want anything to do with me anymore,” Malik said. “I don’t understand how somebody who claims to be a relative or a brother can behave the way that he’s behaving, be so cold and ruthless, and just turn his back on the people he said were his family.”

Gilbert, the director of a film claiming Obama’s real father is Davis and not the Kenyan Obama, asked Malik if he thinks Barack Obama may be the child of Frank Marshall Davis rather than Barack Hussein Obama Sr. “There’s a great resemblance,” Malik replied. “I think Frank Marshall Davis and Barack, they look alike. Some kind of moles I see on his face and Frank, he has those too. There’s a resemblance.”

President Obama has promised to visit Kenya in July. White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said, “he did not yet know whether the President would visit with members of his extended family,” CNN reported.

Gilbert asked Malik, “Do you expect when he comes to Kenya that he will come to see you?” He replied, “No, I don’t expect that. I don’t. He’s coming to Kenya right now. I’ve not been informed…An embarrassment and demeaning.”

We are two years into the second term of the presidency of Barack Obama and still serious questions are raised about the history and background of the President of the United States.

However, Gerald Horne and others on the left always have seemed secure in their knowledge of what this presidency represents.  “At some point in the future,” Horne had said, “a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, ‘Living the Blues’…”

At that point, perhaps, we will learn the complete truth about Barack Obama and Frank Marshall Davis.

05/4/15
Wedding

Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment

By Publius Huldah.

During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: 1

  1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
  2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? 2

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] 3

Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?

Simple! All they have to do is redefineliberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.

And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:

“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:

“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)

“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]

Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept. 4

And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.

I’ll show you.

The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!

The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.

Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:

  1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
  1. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and
  1. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].

Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]

If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.

Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:

“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”

Do you see?

So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?

The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”

Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.

So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!

But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large. 5

The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification. 6

It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.

Endnotes:

1 The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.

2 If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]

At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures.  An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.

3 Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.

Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta.  It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice.  It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!

In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.

4 They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].

5 Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.

6 The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this. PH

05/4/15
Israel

Towards a New Law of War

Arlene from Israel

This is the subject of a conference currently being held by Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center, founded and run by the amazing Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.

Credit: Wikimedia

Current laws of warfare are outdated, she explained in her introductory remarks.  The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the asymmetrical warfare that is waged today.  We must redefine the laws of warfare, so that democratic states can adequately fight back. Today, terror groups attack civilians, and when democracies fight back, their defense is referred to as a war crime.  Terrorists should not be able to apply to international courts as if they were victims when they are the perpetrators.

The IDF must be able to fulfill its mission of protecting the people of Israel and we we must protect our soldiers, as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

The conference is not being held with the expectation that it has any ability to change the rules of war. Rather, the goal is to stimulate an international dialogue on the issue.  What I will do here is summarize key speakers, and offer significant thoughts garnered throughout the day.

Participants are Israelis, Brits and Americans with legal and military expertise/experience.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, immediate past Chief of Staff of the IDF, provided the opening keynote speech.

Credit: Telegraph (UK)

His words were particularly powerful, as he spoke from experience in the field, addressing both strategic and moral issues.

Warfare in the past, he explained, took place on a battleground, on which military forces met each other. That battlefield has now disappeared and new dimensions have inserted themselves. As never before, we see the involvement of civilians – both as targets and human shields.  How does a soldier even determine who the enemy is, when he is not wearing a uniform?

As far as the international community is concerned, Israel has lost before even starting. Israel has no desire to hurt others who are not combatants but must protect the Israeli people.  A human dilemma.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are broad similarities with regard to the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.  In all instances, hostilities have been started by the terrorists, with Israel holding its force until there is no choice. In both instances, the enemy fighters are allied with the ruling powers, and operate from inside civilian society.  A house in a village in Lebanon will have a livingroom, but also a missile room; in the garden a launching pad may be hidden. Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as headquarters for Hamas terrorists.

We – as a moral nation – must update our legal tools.  The soldier today is subject to uncertainties as he faces a complicated situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Second speaker, Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, Former Deputy Commaner, US Special Operations Command, asked:  Can you deter terrorists?  He thinks not.  Americans do not get it, he declared.  They are shielded by the media.

~~~~~~~~~~

The first panel addressed the problem of human shields – civilians who protect weapons.  What we are dealing with here is military necessity vs. humanitarian needs. We cannot attack civilians as such or use indiscriminate force. but there is an obligation upon the enemy (in principle only as it is never honored) to separate civilians from combatants and from military operations.

Said Prof. Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, eyes must stay on the target, with fire adjusted one round at a time, using precision weapons.  The enemy is trying to provoke a response that uses overwhelming force. What is needed then is a modulated response.

~~~~~~~~~~

The next member of the panel to speak was Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan, and one of Israel’s staunchest friends.

Credit: militaryspeakers (UK)

The use of human shields is rapidly increasing, he said:

– there is a greater prevalence of asymmetrical power, with the weaker side using civilians
– this is a means of political warfare against the Western powers (Israel included), a way to undermine democracies and democratic armies
– there is influence by the media
– this hinders direct attack, restrains democratic armies ability to operate

Today human shields are used as primary weapons. Greater blame is placed by the world on those who hit human shields than on those who use them.

The use of human shields continues, said Kemp, because this works.  He suggested here that if democracies had greater reluctance to be deterred by human shields they might be employed less.  He is not suggesting wholesale slaughter! but wonders if perhaps there is a need to permit greater collateral damage.  The proportionality calculus must change, and it needs to be codified.

~~~~~~~~~~

Human shields lose their status as protected persons because they enhance the enemy’s goals.  But only if they are serving as shields voluntarily. (More on this follows.)

Death of human shields must be considered the responsibility of those who use them.  It is illegal to use human shields.  In fact, the law requires moving civilians from a combat area.

Kemp suggested that over-all military objectives, and not just the immediate situation, must be considered when deciding on how to respond to human shields.  If there is greater collateral damage permitted in one operation, perhaps in the long term it would discourage use of human shields.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bassem Eid, a courageous Palestinian Arab Human-Rights activist, followed with some comments on what Kemp had suggested.

The civilians in Gaza must wake up, he declared: their leaders do not have the right to do as they do.  However, Hamas coerces people, pays them to motivate them to stay put, and charges those who flee an area that Israel is about to attack with being Israeli collaborators.

International human rights organizations do not raise the issue of human shields:  “No Jews, no news.”

Hamas cares nothing about civilians or reconstruction – only about new tunnels and a stronger military.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to move here to the panel that discussed the critical issue of proportionality.  Proportionality is not about how many deaths were suffered on each side – which is how the topic is frequently represented. It is rather a question of what is a proportionate amount of collateral damage for a given military advantage. In the end, this is a principle that requires interpretation.  The rule of proportionality is the most misunderstood and misapplied.

Prof. Yuval Shany, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, says that democracies do not normally utilize indiscriminate force or kill civilians on purpose.  But there remains a host of related questions.  Regarding, for example, weapon choice: do you act quickly, even though there will be collateral damage?  Or do you lose valuable time and wait until a more accurate weapon is brought in?  Risk to the soldiers serving under a commander must be considered by him, as must issues of military necessity.

On these questions, “reasonable minds may disagree.”

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of Law, asked how one measures proportionality. The law does not define what the proportion is.  Who decides?  In international law, there is no final legal decider.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Geoffrey Corn, of the South Texas College of Law, provided insights on this matter that were clear and enormously useful.

Credit: mysantonio

We are dealing, he said, with the hypocrisy of double standards.  The law is not going to change, but we should not allow it to be distorted: if properly understood, there is flexibility.

The keyword is excessive: a significant imbalance.  Commanders must anticipate the risk, and make an assessment regarding whether it is worth it.

The commander must be judged on conditions that prevailed when he made his decision.  Many tactical factors will have weighed into the equation.

Instead, the commander is criticized based on the results.  No commander, no matter how moral, can always make the right decision.

~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Corn prefers to think in terms of the rule of precautionary obligations.  This provides objective evidence of good faith and morality.  Did the commander take into consideration different weapons, different timing, how much warning to give?  Etc. etc.  If all these measures have been weighed, then it is possible to move ahead with lethal force to defeat the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Corn says that the moral considerations need to be ramped up when fighting the most immoral of enemies – otherwise all moral footing is lost.  The moral well being of our combatants at the end of the war must be considered.

~~~~~~~~~~

These are exceedingly heavy issues that must be struggled with in real time.  We know that down the road – soon – we will be confronting these situations again.

I close here by noting that it was remarked several times during the course of the day that there is no more moral army in the world than the IDF. No other army takes the extraordinary measures that ours does to warn civilians before we attack.  At the same time, we take the most heat from the world.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is highly likely that when I next post it will be to discuss the formation of the coalition.  The deadline for Netanyahu is almost upon us.  It has not been a happy scenario, but I believe he will pull it off somehow by Wednesday. The news today is that Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu and until now foreign minister, is declining to participate in the coalition.

05/4/15
Draw Mohammad Contest

Pamela Geller Battles CNN Host over Garland Shooting: Why Is Media ‘Targeting’ Us? |FULL INTERVIEW

Hat Tip: BB

‘Making a complete fool out of her’: CNN’s Alisyn Camerota ‘schooled’ by Pamela Geller

CNN TAKES ISLAM’S SIDE IN TX ATTACK: Pamela Geller DESTROYS Ridiculous Attacks From CNN

ISLAMIC STATE (ISIS) followers took credit for the terrorist attack in Texas BEFORE the attack

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

Pamela Geller under attack from the sharia-compliant media for ‘provoking the Islamic terror attack in Texas’

DUKE University Islamic Studies professor blames critics of Islam for Muslim violence

05/4/15
Baltimore Police

Forum: What’s Your Reaction To The Baltimore Police Being Criminally Charged?

The Watcher’s Council

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: What’s Your Reaction To The Baltimore Police Being Criminally Charged?

Wolf Howling: I outlined the basic facts of the case here on my blog.

Three days prior to the arrest of Mr. Gray, a memo was sent through the Baltimore City Police Department mandating that suspects being placed into the police van be placed in a seat and secured with a seat belt. Mr. Gray was simply lain on the floor of the vehicle. Mr. Gray continued to complain and act agitated while in the van. At some point, and perhaps twice, he requested medical aid, which requests were ignored. Within 30 minutes, Mr. Gray was taken from the van by paramedics where he expired a week later as the result of an 80% severing of his spine at the neck. There were no other injuries to Mr. Gray. As Bookworm Room has pointed out, there is some basis to suspect that Mr. Gray’s reported prior exposure to lead may have left him particularly vulnerable to the type of injury that caused his death.

On 1 May, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that six Baltimore City Police officers have been arrested and charged in the death of Freddie Gray. Of the six officers, three are white, three are black, one is a woman. Two of the officers have been charged with crimes relating to wrongful arrest. Three others have additionally been charged with involuntary manslaughter. The driver of the police van has been charged with second degree murder.

So, on the facts above, what is my reaction to the police being criminally charged?

As a threshold matter, Freddie Gray deserves justice, period. That is beyond question. It will certainly mean civil damages for his death. Whether his death involved criminal wrongdoing such that others deserve punishment is a separate question. Equally, those involved in Freddie Gray’s death are entitled to justice. They need to be prosecuted to the degree to which they are culpable, and spared any punishment if they are not.

There is not enough information yet to say for certain if the ends of justice are being served by the arrests of these six officers. My initial reaction, and I dearly hope that I am wrong, is that a lot of this is nothing more than a sacrifice to the racial grievance industry. This is not a planted evidence case, nor a case of brutality by the arresting officers. If they wrongly arrested, that would, in the normal course, be a matter for internal discipline as well as open the officers up to civil suit. But now a wrongful arrest on these facts is being used, in at least three cases, to end careers and criminally prosecute police officers? It appears that all three of them are the white officers, by the way. That seems utterly outrageous just on the facts available. Indeed, it seems a lynching, no less than that which happened to Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson.

Likewise, charging three officers with involuntary manslaughter, just on the known facts and the lack of established policy regarding transport, seems as if it is quite a stretch. It is far less of a stretch to the extent the charge of involuntary manslaughter is based on failing to timely render aid, if such aid was requested and may have in fact saved Mr. Gray’s life. But it is not clear which evidence is being relied upon to support each charge against each individual.

Lastly, the driver of the police van, a black officer, has been charged with second degree murder. He, having sole custody of Mr. Gray from the time Mr. Gray was placed in the van until he was removed, injured, by paramedics, is likely at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter. That said, a charge of second degree murder, which requires some degree of intent or extreme recklessness, is likely an overcharge, just on the basis of the known facts.

So my reaction is mixed. At least one of the indictments – and perhaps as many as three – are or may well be warranted based on the available information. Several seem like nothing more than a lynching to satisfy the Al Sharpton wing of the left, who would dearly like to turn this into an indictment of racism and police brutality with which to, somehow, blame the right.

Baltimore City is a model of left wing urban governance and has been a social laboratory for nothing but left wing social policies for the past half century. The fact that Baltimore City, as well as its Police Department, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the left, and indeed, are led by minorities, is meaningless to the developing narrative. Already, Joan Walsh of Salon is tweeting that “there is no debate that tragically, black police officers often absorb the attitudes of their colleagues.” Shades of white Hispanics. The left will do anything to insure that whatever comes out of the Baltimore riots, it will not be a platform for rational discussion of the problems besetting Baltimore and inner city blacks. And if justice actually occurs in Baltimore — justice for Freddie Gray as well as the six officers — I am afraid it will be purely by accident.

JoshuaPundit: I’m sorry…it must be my depraved sense of humor but listening to Marilyn Mosby announce the charges as the crowd reacted like someone had just gifted them all with big screens made me laugh almost as much  as the videos of ‘reporters’ getting beaten up and mugged and still describing their assailants as ‘protesters’  afterwards.

Mrs. Mosby is an elected official (as is her husband, Councilman Nick Mosby, who demanded  the Baltimore PD  ‘stand down’ as the rioting broke out) whose offices depend on the votes of a city that is 68% black whom mostly see this issue through a racial prism. Regardless of what color they are, the police, even black cops, are seen as the enemy. She wasn’t going to make the same mistake the mayor and president of the city council (both black) made of calling the rioters thugs and  then having to grovel and walk back their statements. The video of Baltimore Council president Jack Young appearing with a herd of Bloods and Crips to apologize and refer to the rioters as ‘misdirected youth’ makes me chuckle just thinking about it.

The sad part is the jobs that will be lost, the houses that were burned and the long miles people who live in the neighborhood  and were simply trying to work hard and keep things going  will have to travel to buy groceries or find a pharmacy thanks to these ‘misdirected youth.’ And imagine trying to sell a house here and move to a better neighborhood now.

State Attorney Mosby referred to the arrest as ‘illegal’ and used the term ‘false imprisonment’ in her remarks. OK,  but it seems to me that a number of the criminal charges involved are motivated by a political desire to appease the Mob and will be modified significantly later. And I understand that.

But what we have here, not to be harsh, was  a career criminal whose rap sheet included multiple arrests for things like burglary, assault and lots and lots of drug trafficking arrests.  As a matter of fact, Mr.Gray had an upcoming trial coming up this month based on a December arrest for  selling narcotics. He was a known drug dealer talking to someone on the streets in a fairly crime ridden area when he saw the police and took off running.

Chances are he was pursing his chosen career and realized that a fresh bust could affect his out on bail status, his coming trial and his chances of a plea bargain, so he simply went to try and dispose of his stash before he was caught.  Given his reputation, there was definite probable cause and since Baltimore, like many jurisdictions allows suspects to be held 72 hours before being charged,  I can’t see his his arrest as illegal since he could have been interrogated and the area could have been searched while he was in custody.

The main thing the police seem to be guilty of at this point is not securing Gray in a seat belt in accordance with a general order that came out 3 days before the incident,  and maybe  with getting him a medic in a timely manner. That could certainly be called  that negligence, but murder two? Among other things, the prosecutor will have to figure out some way to establish intent for that to stick.

Of course, if the trial’s held in Baltimore, the jury will be composed of those ‘protesters’ and their allies and will likely resemble a carbon copy of some of the old Jim Crow jurisprudence we keep hearing about.  Or if it’s held elsewhere and some or all of the police are acquitted, it can be used as more fuel for Seething Racial Grievance. So it’s a win-win either way if you take my meaning.

The Glittering Eye: I think there’s been a rush to judgment. I understand the states attorney’s motives but whether because she’s inexperienced or ambitious or for whatever reason the theory of the case one would take from her public statements have painted her into a corner that will make it difficult to obtain convictions, particularly on the more serious charges. Note how many of the legal experts have pointed that out.

On the broader question the lynch mob mentality that has set in , not merely on the part of the demonstrators and rioters but on the part of the media and public officials is deeply concerning. We can only imagine the reaction that will occur if these officers are acquitted. That shouldn’t be the case. The presumption of innocence should always be paramount.

I don’t know what happened to Freddie Gray but neither do the demonstrators or the states attorney. We need to keep an open mind until we hear statements made under oath and read official statements on the forensic evidence. I’m beginning to fear for the republic.

Laura Rambeau Lee,  Right Reason : Maryland State Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby announced criminal charges against six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, a 25 year old black man who died, apparently after suffering lethal injuries while in their custody.

Her announcement came after a night of rioting, looting and violence that left the city reeling and seething in racial anger for several days. It appears to have been a rush to judgment on her part to alleviate the demands of the mob.

In a city with a large black population, black female mayor, and black prosecutor it kind of rings hollow to allege systemic racism is to blame. We should be looking at the Democratic social policies that have run the city for nearly half a century.

When a society makes it easier for people to live on welfare, food stamps and cheap housing than strive to better themselves, the result is another generation of Democrat voters to keep the free stuff coming. The left cries for more money, that not enough funds are going to help the poor. Baltimore has one of the highest amounts of education funding per child in the country. More money does not equate with a good education. No amount of money will help the people living in the poor neighborhoods in Baltimore, or any city for that matter.

This is not systemic racism. What we are seeing is systemic destruction of the family. The left is bent on destroying America by attacking traditional values, instilling feelings of entitlement for perceived grievances, withholding valuable education children need to better themselves, and making them believe they are victims in a country where opportunities do not exist for them.

As we have seen so many times before, it may just come out that the police are found innocent of the charges. What then? The left will never permit a real discussion on the issues facing poor black families in America. In reality, they are slaves to a system created to maintain and grow the power of the left.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Marilyn Mosby delivered a clear message when she stepped in front of the cameras to announce charges against six Baltimore police officers at a surprisingly early stage in the investigation.

Mosby deftly framed the serious charges leveled against the officers in a seemingly political context. On one hand, she promised Freddie Gray’s family that she would fight ceaselessly to bring about justice in the case. At the same time, she made it clear that she is not the avenging angel of the African-American community. As in every constitutional democracy, one is considered innocent until proven guilty in the USA.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it…

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

05/4/15
Lloyd Marcus

Dear Baltimore Family and Friends: Y’all Bein’ Played!

By: Lloyd Marcus

Dear Family and Friends,

Though you have not confronted me or organized an intervention, I know many of you do not understand why I dislike Obama, vote Republican, and joined the Tea Party. Y’all think, Obama is black, we’re black — so, what is my problem?

Dad told me that grandmother, 101 years old when she passed, cried when Obama was elected. I get that and totally understand. Still, I could not go brain-dead and hop on the elect-the-first-black-president bandwagon. As a matter of fact, I was stunned by how alone I was in considering who Obama was as a candidate and what he planned to do if elected.

Democrats and the media sold Obama as America’s Great Black Hope. They protected him by hiding Obama’s anti-American friends and writings.

I learned that Obama is another standard “liberal” Democrat con artist, only more extreme; sure to continue the Democrats screwing of black folks.

For those unfamiliar with political terms, in a nutshell, “liberals” are those who believe that man can perfect himself and is capable of controlling everything. Ninety-nine percent of the time, liberals reject God’s laws and question His existence. “Conservatives” tend to be God fearing (reverencing) folks. I’m a conservative Republican.

Liberal Democrats have played blacks for over 50 years. Obama is simply their latest front man, brilliantly covered in a black skin disguise.

Now, before you go off on me, calling me an Uncle Tom and worse, please hear me out.

The recent Baltimore riots perfectly illustrate my point. Rioters expressed anger over high black unemployment, poor schools, and poverty. Well, guess who has controlled Maryland politics for the past 50 years? Liberal Democrats. And yet, they still keep playin’ blacks with their standard lie — vote for us and we’ll fix everything with our programs and block racist Republicans from keepin’ y’all down and lynching you.

Meanwhile, there hasn’t been one Republican in sight in Maryland for 50 years in a position to affect anything. (GOP governor Larry Hogan has been in office for a grand total of four months.) And yet, all the problems liberal Democrats promised to fix have gotten worse. Y’all been played. Also, how long will y’all fall for their lie that the lack of jobs is Bush’s fault? Obama has been president for six years. Y’all bein’ played!Aunt Bummie and four of her five sons were on welfare their entire lives. Theirs was a fatherless household. Only Poochie (Lawrence) her eldest, remarkably worked his way through college. Aunt Bummie and four of her sons died early.

Sleeping over from time to time, at 9 or 10 years old, I felt the depressed vibe of their household and knew their lives were tragic. I felt sorry for them. I felt their envy of my dad living with us.

When President Reagan tried to wean folks off of total government dependency, Democrats and their media buddies told blacks that Reagan was a racist mean old white man who hated blacks. That was another lie.

Don’t get me wrong, a government safety net is fine. But, addicting people to cradle to grave welfare is evil; robbing folks of pursuing their God given gifts and potential. Liberal Democrats hope to get as many folks as possible hating the rich and hooked on welfare to keep the masses voting Democrat.

A friend ranted about mean Republicans in Congress cutting food stamps for the poor. Another Democrat lie. After six years of Obama, more folks than ever are receiving food stamps (over 47 million). Remarkably, a third of the country is out of work. Many quit looking for jobs, deciding to ride Obama’s government gravy train. Come election day, they will vote Democrat. And guess who is hardest hit by Obama’s job killing policies? Black folks.

Here’s another Democrat scam. Democrats love to rant about evil Republican “draconian” cuts to welfare programs. Well, the truth is, no program ever gets less money than it did the previous year. In Washington, a cut means that Congress will not give a program as much of an “increase” as first projected.

Despite Democrat control for 50 years and government programs out the ying yang, Baltimore blacks are suffering more than ever; high school dropouts, no jobs, still murdering each other, high out-of-wedlock births, poverty, high incarcerations, and fatherless households. Even after spending trillions of taxpayer dollars fighting poverty since 1965, Democrats tell the poor and blacks they’re gettin’ screwed by rich white folks. They’re playin’ y’all.

Obama’s response to the Baltimore riots is typically liberal Democrat; more government programs and blaming Republicans.

Some of you will view Obama as your homey no matter what. It’s a black thing. I get it. But, Obama does not feel the same about you. If he did, Obama would not be flooding the country with uneducated poor illegals who suck up your welfare and your jobs.He only cares about creating new Democrat voters. He’s playin’ y’all.

Meanwhile, y’all say, what is up with Peanut (my childhood nickname)? He just “don’t” get it.

I pray that I have opened your eyes and that you will think twice before voting for another Democrat.

Love, Lloyd (Jr. Jr)

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee