01/11/15

Crisis

No way to be upbeat today, even with the outpouring of protest from people grieved and furious about the terrorist killings in France.

Late Friday – before Shabbat – four French Jews were killed in a kosher market in Paris by an associate of the terrorists who attacked at Charlie Hebdo. Apparently he intended to take hostages, to trade for the release of his associates. In the end, four were shot dead and others were hidden in the market refrigerator by Lassana Bathily, a “Malian Muslim” employee [from Mali or of Mali extraction] and then rescued.

The four killed were Yoav Hattab, 21; Yohan Cohen, 22; Philippe Braham, 40; and Francois-Michel Saada, about 60.

Credit: Elder of Ziyon

~~~~~~~~~~

Hattab, who was studying in France, was the son of the chief rabbi of Tunis.

Leah Elyakim, of Israel, met him just weeks ago when he visited here for the first time. It had been difficult for him make his way here sooner, coming from Tunis.
“He learned Hebrew, he knew everything about Israeli history, more than any of us,” she remembered.

“Every day we traveled, we walked around with an Israeli flag on his back. He said Israel was the only place he would walk freely with a Star of David or an Israeli flag. In France he never could have.”

“His dream was to move to Israel and serve in the army. [He had been] “so depressed when he had to return to France. He told me, ‘when I get to Paris, I’ll have to hide the flag.'”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189773#.VLJd-Jv9nIU

So he hid the Israeli flag, but shopped at a kosher market in Paris, and that did it.

Make no mistake: These four were killed because they were Jews.

There is talk now about bringing them to Israel for burial. I consider this enormously appropriate because of the statement this makes.

~~~~~~~~~~

A dear friend of mine, who lives in Paris with her family (and will likely see this), wrote to me last night:

“Sadly this is just the beginning – finally the authorities have admitted its just a matter of when!!”

Important, this honest recognition: There are Islamist cells throughout France and it will happen again. And again. There are now reports that terrorist sleeper cells have been activated.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613629,00.html

And there is evidence of links the terrorists may have had to either Al-Qaeda or Islamic State.

~~~~~~~~~~

French aliyah (immigration into Israel) has grown a great deal in recent years. In 2014, 7,000 French Jews came, twice the number that had come the previous year. Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, has reported that there were 50,000 inquiries about aliyah from French Jews in 2014. With the current attack, the actual aliyah is likely to increase significantly. Numerous Israeli officials, beginning with our prime minister, are encouraging this.

Last night, Netanyahu spoke out to French Jews:

“The State of Israel is not just the place to which you turn in prayer. The State of Israel is also your home. This week, a special team of ministers will convene to advance steps to increase immigration from France and other countries in Europe that are suffering from terrible anti-Semitism. All Jews who want to immigrate to Israel will be welcomed here warmly and with open arms. We will help you in your absorption here in our state that is also your state.”
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=22707

~~~~~~~~~~

Some French officials are disturbed by the prospect of a major Jewish emigration from France. (There are some 500,000 Jews in France – the largest Jewish community remaining in Europe.)

Of particular note is the statement by the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valis, reported by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic:

“The choice was made by the French Revolution in 1789 to recognize Jews as full citizens. To understand what the idea of the republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews. It is a founding principle. If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/french-prime-minister-warns-if-jews-flee-the-republic-will-be-judged-a-failure/384410/

I found this fascinating. They are saying they will send the army, if necessary, to protect the Jewish institutions of France.

But my response is that they should have thought about this sooner. The French Republic is about to be judged a failure not just because it has not protected the community of Jews it had emancipated long ago, but because it has not been true to its principles in a host of spheres. Because there are enclaves of Muslims (“no-go zones governed by Sharia law) right in Paris and other locales, where the French police will not enter. And because essential freedoms presumably guarded by the French nation have been sacrificed.

~~~~~~~~~~

Says Alex Fishman, writing in YNet (emphasis added):

“As long as Jews were the only ones getting killed, France avoided dealing with the Islamic terror. The red lights which should have been triggered several years ago didn’t even flash for a second.

France has opened its arms to Islamic terror. And the bigger the failure, the larger and grander the mourning rallies. This is a rule invented by politicians to cover up their own failures….
”The French security services’ failure in the past week was colossal and shameful, and indeed, France and all of Europe are being swept away accordingly in mass mourning rallies and protests of millions. (See below on this.)

“But there is not a single protest or speech which can cover up the bitter truth: The Western European countries’ security services in general – and France’s security services in particular – are not prepared in any way for dealing with the radical Islamic terror. Not professionally, not legally and definitely not mentally…

“Suddenly it turns out that all those red lights which should have been triggered several years ago, when the Islamic terror killed Jews, did not even flash for a second. The French security services insisted on not touching the Islamic terror, professionally and fundamentally.

“There is no legislation in France which makes it possible to deal with the hundreds of people who left France to fight along with the radical Islamic movements. There is no legislation which defines Islamic terror as a problem, and therefore there are no agents in the problematic mosques.

“The French intelligence services have zero ability to do something with the information they receive from foreign intelligence agencies about dangerous Muslims who have returned to France. And so the terrorists had no problem travelling on a train in France with Kalashnikovs in their bags. There was not a chance in the world that someone would stop them…

“Who would have thought that the French people, who invented the modern intelligence, would reach such a low point. When France wants its intelligence to be extraordinary, it is. But it just didn’t want, for political reasons, to deal with the Islamic terror…”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613823,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~

There are politically correct concerns being voiced about a backlash against innocent Muslims – Islamophobia, they call it – as a result of the terror attacks. With regard to this, I share the observations of Lawrence A. Franklin writing in Gatestone (emphasis added):

“A seemingly required inclusion in most reports on the recent mass murder in Paris was the rhetorical question posed by reporters has been: “Will these events invite a wave of anti-Muslim incidents”? Since these Islam-inspired murders, however, there have been only a few anti-Muslim actions — all against property.

“Under-reported, however, was how rapidly the assault against Charlie Hebdo migrated into an anti-Jewish mini-pogrom in the heart of Paris. What did shoppers in a kosher market, four of whom were slaughtered, have to do with the cartoon images of Mohammad? Nothing. But the assault on the HyperCacher Jewish kosher supermarket has a lot to do with the true nature of Islamic militancy.

“It seems the drawings in Charlie Hebdo offended some true believers of Islam, but the mere existence of Jews also offends them…

“In reaction to the murders in Paris, the French capital’s Grand Synagogue was closed for the first time since World War II. In fact, synagogues all over Paris were closed. There were no Shabbat services this Saturday, the Jewish day of rest…In light of all the expressed concern about possible anti-Muslim incidents, claims on television, such as on CNN, that ‘Muslims are the most persecuted people,’ seemed jarring and wrong.

“The Grand Mosque in Paris, like mosques all over the capital, was open for business on Friday, the Muslim day of prayer. Moreover, there was little discernible increased security around the Grand Mosque. It seems French security authorities were less worried about attacks directed at Muslim institutions than were America’s media commentators. Perhaps they should have spent just a little time reporting on the anti-Jewish rioting that took place in the heavily Muslim neighborhood of Trappes, a suburb of Paris?”

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5025/paris-mosque-synagogue

~~~~~~~~~~

It is well understood that Obama embraces the same politically correct perspective, which translates into a policy protective of Muslims. I will note here that it has made the rounds of several blogger sites that Obama’s press secretary said that, in light of the terror attacks in Paris, fighting Islamophobia would be given a priority by the president. However, I have not been able to locate a primary source for this. Thus, while I have no trouble believing that this would reflect Obama’s position, I cannot verify this statement.

What I can share here, however, is a piece by eminent anti-terrorist Steve Emerson, regarding the refusal to use the word “Islam” in association with terrorism:

“The first comments came from Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, who refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, but made sure to add the now typical non-sequitor which…routinely follows Islamic terrorist attacks, that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and therefore no [one] should associate the “extremists” in Paris with Islam.

“Then President Obama issued his own statement, but in keeping with his administration’s 6 year old prohibition on using the term ‘Islamic terrorism,’ he simply referred to the attack as ‘terrorism’ — a vanilla term conspicuously devoid of any descriptive term explaining the motivation behind the attack.”

There’s more. See it here:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4721/will-we-ever-learn-obama-white-house-cant-admit

~~~~~~~~~~

Emerson reports that in 2012, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said, referring to the very same Charlie Hebdo Magazine that was attacked last week:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

So much for defending freedom of speech.

~~~~~~~~~~

I mention this here not only to expose the appeasement of the Obama administration, but to point out where true courage in “telling it straight” can be found now: Amongst the cartoonists. And I want to spotlight one particular cartoonist, Yaakov Kirschen, originator of “Dry Bones.”

Says Kirschen:

“I don’t think that the political or religious leadership in the West is up to the job. I think they are cowardly. I think they are fearful and that’s what we got.

“I think what we have now, is that bizarrely, cartoonists are the front-line soldiers in the war to defend freedom of speech…I think cartoonists have become advocates and activists.”

http://www.jpost.com/International/Cartoonists-The-unlikely-front-line-soldiers-387312

Kirschen is involved in a cartooning project to fight anti-Semitism and apathy regarding persecution of Middle East Christians.

You might want to lend support. See http://www.drybonesblog.blogspot.co.il/

~~~~~~~~~~

As I close today, hundreds of thousands, if not a million, people are winding up their march in Paris, a silent protest against terror. Among the leaders present are Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi; Israeli Ministers Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman are also in attendance.

Credit: Jewish News UK

Something heartening about seeing such a turnout against terror. You want to believe it says something positive. But for me this has been seriously marred by the revolting presence of Mahmoud Abbas, who was not ashamed to show his face, as if he were also against terror.

A good show. But let’s see what, if anything at all serious, follows.

01/11/15

Tony’s Liberal Cat

01/11/15

Philadelphia Freedoms

By: Nancy Salvato

The founding documents, which include the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, capture the philosophy and political thinking that drove the Founders and Framers of our country. Afraid of losing the freedom we gained from a tyrannical government, the Federalists wanted a stronger (albeit “limited”) federal government to ensure our country’s sovereignty and ability to “keep our republic.” Afraid that a strengthened federal government would abuse its power, as those with governing authority are prone to do, the Antifederalists wanted not only to limit the authority we ceded to a federal government, but to add a Bill of Rights, to guarantee our rights against encroachment by a government which didn’t understand or respect the sovereignty of the people.

Alexander Hamilton argued vehemently against the need for a Bill of Rights. Because the federal government’s powers were enumerated, there was no concern of over-reach. We were only yielding a specified amount of authority and what we didn’t hand over was ours to keep. The Antifederalists, looking to history, were fervent in their arguments that our rights needed to be specified on paper, so that there would be no question about what belonged to us. John Adams, though a Federalist, captures this sentiment so well when he says, “We are a nation of laws, not men.” By writing down our laws, we can prevent men from impulsively reacting to public demagoguery or from despotic tendencies. It is no surprise then that the Framers capitulated on these demands and made good the promise of a Bill of Rights.

There is a difference between the power to require of people certain behaviors and rights to behave without fear of reprisal. This is the balance the Framers sought and the balance which must be maintained in order to provide a climate of freedom and security. Though we are mostly familiar with the 1^st amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition, the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms, and the 5^th amendment right to a jury and to remain silent, the people, who are the ruled and the rulers alike, should understand what compelled the Framers to include the 9^th and 10^th amendments.

Amendment IX states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Surely, the Framers hoped to assuage the fears of a populace intimately familiar with tyrannical practices such as illegal searches and seizures, unreasonable punishments, and other abuses (many listed in the Declaration of Independence). However, two concerns were not evident in any of the first source materials left behind from our founding, perhaps they weren’t even considered, but they should be. The first being preciseness of language. If we go back to Hamilton’s belief that the powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution belong to the people, we wouldn’t be having any discussion over what specifically is meant or not meant by the rights listed in the first ten amendments. The second is that there is no right “not to be offended.” When we bow to political correctness and prevent certain forms of free speech in certain venues, we hobble the very freedoms for which we fought to maintain. It’s that simple.

The Framers were concerned that we respect minority rights and this includes minority views or views that may offend some. It is in this way that we honor our first amendment freedoms. It is power that is limited, specifically that which is granted to our intentionally limited government.

Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJourna.usl and a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com and FamilySecurityMatters.org.

01/11/15

Americans Are Brave Enough to Say It, Why Not Their President?

By: Frank Salvato

The contortions to which those in the Obama Administration will submit themselves in order to avoid calling Islamist terrorism just that would be comedic if the subject matter weren’t so deadly serious. Case in point comes to us in an announcement by the White House that a “summit on how to counter violent extremism” will be held next month amid fears amongst the American populace that Islamist terror attacks on US soil are all but certain.

The Washington Times reports:

“The White House on Sunday announced it will host a summit next month on how to counter violent extremism amid renewed fears among Americans that terror attacks on the homeland are inevitable.

“A Rasmussen poll released Sunday shows that 65 percent of Americans believe it is at least somewhat likely an attack “on those critical of Islam” in the U.S. will occur over the next year. Just 26 percent said such an attack is not likely, the survey shows…

“‘The [ani-extremism] summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community,’ White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Sunday. ‘Through presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions, participants will build on local, state, and federal government; community; and international efforts to better understand, identify, and prevent the cycle of radicalization to violence at home in the United States and abroad.'”

Missing in this grand overture was the words “Islamist” and “terrorism”. Go figure.

The Rasmussen poll cited as the catalyst for this “summit” (as Mr. Obama would say, “Just words. Just speeches”) centered on the American population’s concern about terror groups executing attacks on institutions of free speech here in the United States. It didn’t ask about “extremist groups,” which the Obama Administration has bastardized to include TEA Party groups and Second Amendment groups. It focused solely on Islamist terrorism, period. But, as then Obama Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel famously (or infamously) said, one should never let a good crisis go to waste. So, the Obama Administration widens the focus area from Islamist terrorism to “extremism” providing a wider blanket of topic coverage, and purely for political gain. It is sickeningly disingenuous.

It is sad, really, that the American people possess the courage to call Islamist terrorism what it is, even as their elected President bobs-and-weaves to avoid even using the terminology, all the while conniving, manipulating and distorting the issue at hand to affect marginalization of his political foes. His actions are not only beneath the dignity of his office and a stain on American history, they are a harsh and wicked slap in the face to everyone affected by Islamist terrorism, and especially those affected by the slaughter at Charlie Hebdo and the people of France, America’s oldest ally.

I would identify Mr. Obama as a coward for his refusal to state the obvious where Islamist terrorism is concerned. But I fear his motives are much more nefarious that cowardice.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director of BasicsProject.org a grassroots, non-partisan, research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy, and internal and external threats facing Western Civilization, and a division of The Archangel Organization, LLC, His writing can be found at FrankJSalvato.com: Because Our Republic Is Worth It. Mr. Salvato sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA, a solutions-oriented non-profit organization. He also serves as the managing editor for NewMediaJournal.us. Mr. Salvato is the author of six books including “Understanding the Threat of Radical Islam”. He has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a regular guest on talk radio across the country. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at [email protected].