Yom HaZikaron

Arlene from Israel

Credit: Erinamsili

Credit: Haifa-Israel

Credit: Porisrael

Credit: Na’ama Yehuda

Israel’s Memorial day – a day for remembering all those from our defense forces who have died defending the country, and all those who have died at the hands of terrorists. It is a day of national mourning. Just about everyone in the country has either suffered a personal loss or knows someone else who has.

I dedicate this posting to all of them.

If not for the readiness of our soldiers to risk their lives in the defense of Israel, there would be no Israel. Our debt to them is boundless.

Our responsibility is to remember them, honor them, and keep this nation strong. They have given their lives for this nation. We owe it to them to reach to our own limits in building Israel and bringing blessings upon her.


The official number of those who have fallen is 23,169 since 1860. There are 57 added to the list since last year. The official number of bereaved families is 17,038, which includes 2,141 orphans and 4,966 widows whose loved ones have fallen in the service of the IDF and security establishment.

A siren at 8 PM last night marked the beginning of the day of memorial – with official ceremonies at the Kotel. A two-minute siren sounded again at 11 AM today. As the siren begins, everyone stops and stands at attention. Today, tens of thousands visited the graves of their loved ones.



I confess that I am in awe, with an astonishment that is two-fold. The stories abound of young people who acted with extraordinary bravery, ultimately giving their lives in the process.

What Roi Klein did is one such story.


And I am awed as well by the strength of families – parents, spouses, siblings, children – who find ways to carry on. No, “carry on” does not sufficiently describe it. They find ways to embrace life and to bring goodness to life in the memory of the one they have lost.

Rabbi Stuart and Susie Weiss – whom I was honored to hear speak last night – are such people, doing good in the name of their son, Ari Yehoshua, who fell in Shechem in 2002.

Here is the speech Susie Weiss delivered last night:


And here is something Rabbi Weiss wrote. A week after his son died, he eulogized him and then asked that everyone assembled go home and sing “Am Yisrael Hai” The Jewish People lives. This extraordinary piece explains his thinking.



A memorial video:



Out with the old, in with the new

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Yesterday during our Sunday School lesson on the Old Testament we discussed how Israel was commanded in nearly every aspect of their lives right down to items to be worn and their purpose. It was the Lord’s way of transforming them into His. Being a stiff necked people and easily distracted it was important that the land they conquered, a land which had previously been occupied by idolaters, that land must be cleansed of those idols along with the people who followed false gods.

“Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.” Exodus 23:34

And as the Israelites took control of this newly conquered land they were again reminded not to entertain any of the customs found, not to marry outsiders or consider anything which would open the way for corruption.

“But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.” Deuteronomy 7:5

The tactic of destroying altars and breaking down images is being used against the Lord’s people in our day, a siege if you will, of idolaters against believers. Who will win?

The Ten Commandments have been banned from the public square, crosses which stood for years on public lands have been ordered removed to satisfy the demands of Atheists or others ‘offended’ by outward symbols of religion. Supposedly these assaults on Judeo-Christian America have been carried out to conform with constitutional restrictions separating church and state, something which isn’t in the constitution; but our Supreme Court managed to extract it from among the smoke and mirrors.

‘“It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our law and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge,” said (Alabama Chief Justice Roy) Moore, suspended by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission last week for refusing to obey (U.S. District Judge Myron) Thompson’s order.”

Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”; but he was referring to the slavery issue as Southern States withdrew support from the Union.

More recently the Supreme Court seems to have reversed direction, or at least altered the course by upholding the right of city council members and others in public meetings to open with prayer in a 5-4 decision.

‘“The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers,” Kennedy said.”

Sadly, history recorded the Democrat Party’s (Socialist/Communist Party’s) intention to remove God from the public square during its 2012 build up for the presidential elections. Long time Democrats, hard working Americans who’ve followed after their parents and grandparents footsteps, believing the Democrat Party still stood for Judeo-Christian core values were left scratching their heads in disgust as a small but very vocal portion of progressives took charge of the proceedings.

“The Democratic National Convention has removed any reference to “God” from the party’s platform, or as some call it, the party’s 24,000-plus word mission statement.”


“Delegates approved the final version of the platform Tuesday afternoon including language that supported same-sex marriage and almost unlimited abortion rights for women.”

A curious dichotomy exists in America, one which makes us weaker and eventually will destroy our foundations. Elements of a godless society are intent on silencing people of faith. The State must reign supreme and to accomplish this God and references to religion and faith must be removed until the people recognize that all benefits, rights and powers are gifts of the State.

It will be interesting and challenging in the years to come as the battle for America continues to divide and separate the wheat from the chaff; humm, wonder where that came from?

We The People are caught up in the ancient war between good and evil. Will we play the part of the Lord’s chosen people and follow Him or will we be Canaanites establishing false gods and idols, all the while tearing down images of the Ten Commandments, committing all manner of abominations to include abortion and same sex marriages or any other deviant practices which act in defiance of God’s Plan of Happiness.

Each day we get to decide who we will follow, the Lord votes for us doing what is right, the Devil votes against; but we make the deciding vote. In modern terminology I guess you could say, “It’s out with the old and in with the new”; but that doesn’t say which side will win, now does it? If this were a Paul Harvey moment I’d close with, “Good day”.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”


Charlotte Observer lies then covers its tracks

By: Jim Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

Today’s Left-biased media is emblematic of our liberal-dominated degenerate culture. They lie, make up stories about political enemies, publish slander without blinking then issue retractions buried inside the paper well after the damage has already been done. It is evidence of a political strategy, not mere incompetence or careless reporting. They lie with purpose.

The Charlotte Observer is a metaphor for everything wrong with media. Today, for example, the paper published an editorial that attacked political opponents of leftist North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson. The judge sided with the minority against a Court opinion that will force convicted child molesters to wear ankle bracelets for life – even those already convicted. To bolster their case for Hudson, the Observer used the more general term “sex offenders.” But if you want to read about the kinds of people this law will apply to, read the Supreme Court decision here. These are serial child molesters. But the real kicker was that the Observer used this as an opportunity to spread disinformation about her opponents. Here’s the quote:

When former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot saw the TV attack ad against Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson, he was appalled. “Despicable,” he called it in an email to the Observer editorial board.

The ad is so offensive that Vinroot, a diehard Republican, said he will protest it by voting for the Democrat Hudson – and only Hudson. Though voters can cast ballots for two of the three candidates in the race, neither of the other two will get Vinroot’s vote on Tuesday, though they’re both fellow Republicans. (Emphasis added.)

The Observer lied. One cannot vote for “two of the three candidates in the race.” Republicans reading this could concievably do so, spoiling the race for those two candidates. Herein lies the Observer’s true agenda: to confuse republican voters and sabotage Republican candidates’ chances to the extent possible, while pretending to be taking the moral high ground. The story is masked in self-righteous outrage, and leads off by citing this stupid Republican who was goaded into giving them a quotable quote to carry the deception forward.

Except they got caught. Phil Kerpen, one of the sharpest political observers on the block, noted this factual error early this morning. Presto! The revised article deleted that entire section. All that remains now is the following:

The ad is so offensive that Vinroot, a diehard Republican, said he will protest it by voting for the Democrat Hudson.

The print version still carries the error, so those who read that will continue to be decieved. Ironically, the Observer named their piece “All rise for political shenanigans.” But who is engaging in the shenanigans? The Observer issued no retraction, no correction, so many readers will carry on with the disinformation the Observer deliberately planted.

The Observer is owned by McClatchy. Need we say more?


Infiltration of the U.S. Government, Part One

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The announcement that the House will vote on a special congressional committee to investigate Benghazi is long overdue. Accuracy in Media’s two special conferences on Benghazi helped mobilize the public and the press to demand this outcome.

In addition to identifying the Obama operatives in charge of the cover-up, a critical question is why the Obama administration facilitated the flow of weapons to al Qaeda in Libya. Indeed, answering this question could help explain the nature of the cover-up and why a video was falsely blamed for the deaths of four Americans.

It will take a lot of public pressure to uncover the dimensions of what one member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi called evidence of the “infiltration” of the U.S. government by the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is because some of those who want to investigate Benghazi, such as Senator John McCain (R-AZ), have no interest in uncovering Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. Government. McCain defended Hillary Clinton when one of her aides, Huma Abedin, was publicly identified as having personal and family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has also defended Abedin.

At AIM’s second conference on Benghazi, held at the National Press Club on April 22, retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons stated openly what many have been talking about privately—that the transformation of U.S. policy from opposing to supporting al Qaeda can only be understood in terms of Muslim Brotherhood “penetration into every national security agency of this government,” and “their carte blanche entry into the [Obama] White House.”

So will these agents of influence be named and exposed by the Benghazi special committee? That is why the public has to continue to be mobilized to apply pressure.

Lyons said, “Just like during the 30s and 40s, and 50s, if you compare what went on then, to what we’re seeing today, that influences our policies, our actions, it is very similar and cannot be dismissed. Nobody wants to talk about it. But that’s what happened then, and that’s what’s happening now. The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t want to see Qaddafi there. They wanted him out. How much influence did that have on our policies? You’ve got to go in and dig and find out.”

His comments on the early time period are, of course, a reference to communist infiltration of the U.S. government. But it appears that some of our most important intelligence agencies have still not come to grips with that.

Consider Michael J. Sulick, who worked for the CIA for 28 years, served as chief of CIA counterintelligence from 2002 to 2004, and as director of the National Clandestine Service from 2007 to 2010. His new book, American Spies: Espionage against the United States from the Cold War to the Present, insists that “Senator Joseph McCarthy’s shrill allegations of pervasive communist infiltration of the US government denigrated scores of civil servants but again surfaced no real spies.” Sulick says McCarthy was “discredited” and that he ran a “misguided crusade” that “raised American suspicions of government efforts to prevent foreign espionage.”

In fact, author M. Stanton Evans has produced a “‘McCarthyism’ by the Numbers” table naming 50 people identified by McCarthy, his aides, or in his committee hearings, and what is now known about them, based on official records. They are Soviet agents, Communists, suspects, or persons who took the Fifth rather than talk about communist or Soviet activities.

In total, the number was larger. Evans says, “All told, the McCarthy cases linked together in such fashion amounted to several hundred people, constituting a massive security danger to the nation. However, numbers per se were not the central issue. By far the most important thing about his suspects was their positioning in the governmental structure, and other posts of influence, where they could shape American policy or opinion in favor of the Communist interest. This they did on a fairly regular basis, a subject that deserves discussion in its own right.”

The same question about influencing policy should now be front and center in the Benghazi probe.

But the other important question in regard to both scandals, then and now, is why a former high-ranking CIA official would take the position that McCarthy had somehow exaggerated the threat and failed to uncover even one spy. Sulick’s book includes praise from Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and former director of the NSA; Peter Earnest, executive director of the International Spy Museum (and a 35-year veteran of the CIA); and Burton Gerber, a retired CIA senior operations officer.

In his previous book, Spying in America: Espionage from the Revolutionary War to the Dawn of the Cold War, Sulick claimed McCarthy “defamed civil servants with baseless charges” and was “eventually discredited” after his “smear campaign” was over. In this book, he says McCarthy was able to identify “no major Soviet spies.”

Sulick may feel that he has to go along with the liberal view of McCarthy in order to sell books. It may be that he is resentful that a member of Congress investigated a problem of infiltration that affected the intelligence community, of which he was a part.

Whatever the motive, we are likely to see the same kind of resistance to a Congressional probe of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the intelligence community and White House.

The work has only just begun. The target can’t just be the White House. But it is a good place to start.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.