07/27/15

Revelations du Jour

As the news keeps coming with regard to the horrors of the Iran deal – and the horrors of how Obama and Kerry are conducting themselves – I have no choice but to continue to write on the subject.

This issue remains number one in importance for Israel, and for the Western world. It must be taken with dead seriousness, and yet the the unfolding of revelations has become something of a self-parody. One is tempted to respond, “Nah, this cannot be happening…” But it is.

Consider:

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, a mind-boggling issue was raised by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) and then pursued by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The question at hand: Does Iran get to collect its own soil samples from the military site at Parchin for analysis by IAEA? Senator Risch’s understanding was that the IAEA will be monitoring Iran’s soil collection by video.

As Fred Fleitz, “a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction,” explained in National Review (emphasis added):

“The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.”

From where I sit, there could have been only one acceptable response by Kerry to these queries on process: “Of course Iran will not collect its own samples.” But instead Kerry let it be known that this issue was covered in a side agreement and was confidential. Would confidentiality be necessary if it were a straight up process structured with integrity and an eye to keeping Iran accountable?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421550/iran-nuclear-bombshell-Iran-police-itself

~~~~~~~~~~

Kerry then followed up with a statement on Friday at the Council of Foreign Relations in NY that was a pathetic mix of attempted intimidation and postured self-pity (All emphasis following here added):

As to intimidation, he said: “[if Congress rejects the Iran agreement] our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”

MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) responded thus:

“If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”

While Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) countered that:

“Israel will make its views clear on the Iranian nuclear issue, which is relevant to its security and its existence, and no one has the authority to intimidate us.” What is more, Steinitz pointed out, objections are not coming exclusively from Israel: “Criticism of the agreement in the United States in general and Congress in particular is due to the serious flaws and loopholes displayed in the deal.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-minister-rejects-kerrys-intimidation-on-iran-deal/

I have a strong aversion at this point to having Kerry refer to Israelis as “our friends in Israel.” I think not. His statement is a follow-up to an earlier one – that any military action by Israel would be an “enormous mistake.”

~~~~~~~~~~

But this argument by Kerry as to why Congress had to vote to accept the accord perhaps wins the prize for offensive and ludicrous positions (emphasis added):

“…it would be embarrassing to him and a blow to US credibility on the world stage if Congress rejects the deal.

“It would be a ‘repudiation of President Obama’s initiative and a statement that when the executive department negotiates, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because we have 535 secretaries of state.’

“’I mean please. I would be embarrassed to try to go out. What am I going to say to people after this as secretary of state.’”

~~~~~~~~~~

Tears out your heart, does it not? The prospect that John Kerry might be embarrassed before the ayatollahs.

Credit: atlasinfo

For members of Congress not already angry, this statement should make them furious. Kerry is negating the Congressional role mandated by the Constitution, and claiming unilateral prerogative to make earth-shaking agreements. What would he say to people? That the US is a democracy, and has a due process by which he must abide. That it was understood when he got up from the negotiating table that agreements would not be final until after a Congressional review.

Kerry’s attitude here is a reflection of that of his boss. Obama behaves in an autocratic fashion that is not consistent with the role of the president of a democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~

“A top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that the Islamic Republic would deny International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors any access to the country’s military sites, contradicting remarks by US officials following the signing of a nuclear agreement with Tehran last week.

“’The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden,” Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite TV. Velayati further stressed that the directive will be enforced regardless of interpretations by the P5+1 world powers to the contrary.’”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-says-inspectors-to-be-barred-from-military-sites/

Two points to make here: First, and most importantly, this signals the futility of striking an agreement with Iran – for Iran will not adhere by it in any event, as its leaders will do as they please.

And then, the refusal to allow inspectors into Iranian military centers rather confirms the charge that at Parchin Iran will be doing its own soil collection.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to share here a video of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). The Senator was speaking at a rally against the Iran deal – and for the release of American hostages held by Iran – in front of the White House last week and was harassed by leftists calling themselves “Code Pink.” The senator’s method of handling the hecklers is a pleasure to watch – a class act. But I am sharing this because he responds rationally to their charges, and this is precisely what we need: rational answers when all sorts of off-the-mark charges are leveled against those battling the Iran accord.

There is, to provide one example, the charge that those for the accord, which offers a “diplomatic resolution,” are for “peace,” while those against it are “for war.” The critical point that the Senator makes is that peace comes with strength, and that the accord makes war more likely. (More on this below.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QCbpafD3Pw

~~~~~~~~~~

What was left out of mainstream media coverage of this rally was background on who the Code Pink hecklers are. Code Pink is an NGO led by women, which claims to be “pro-peace.”

Credit: AP

According to Gateway Pundit:

“Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans was an early fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Evans has met with several times over the years with President Obama and his most trusted White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Code Pink has acted as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.

“Code Pink travels to Iran as guests of the regime. Code Pink leaders are regulars on the Iranian government’s PressTV propaganda outlet. Code Pink did Iran’s bidding in an effort to undermine the government of U.S. ally Bahrain in 2012.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/code-pink-ties-to-obama-iran-not-reported-in-ted-cruz-debate-coverage/

This is information that ought be shared.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let me close with this outrageous exchange between a journalist and White House spokesman Josh Earnest, held right after that rally (shared by The Gateway Pundit, with my emphasis added):

“Q Secondly, I wondered if you were aware that, just before the briefing, Senator Cruz was across the street at Lafayette Park. It was a protest against the nuclear deal. Among other things, he was very vocal about how, because of the sanctions being lifted eventually, that there would be so much money flowing into the country that the country would use the money to ‘kill Americans.’ Do you have any thoughts about that?

“MR. EARNEST: Well, Anita, I was aware that Senator Cruz was planning to hold a pro-war rally in front the White House today. I didn’t see actually how many people turned out for the rally, but it doesn’t sound like he said anything there that he hasn’t said anywhere else.

“Q Pro-war rally? Is that what you just called it?

“MR. EARNEST: I did.

“Q You have no other thoughts about it?

“MR. EARNEST: I think that pretty much says it all.”

Really low. It is what happens when there is no good argument for a position one has embraced: Rely on insults and innuendoes. Senator Cruz’s rally was NOT “pro-war.”

~~~~~~~~~~

David Greenfield, writing in FrontPage, described part of the exchange between Cruz and Code Pink – with regard to being “pro-war” – this way:

“One CODEPINK member responded to Cruz by saying that he does not like ‘war mongers’ and asking Cruz, ‘Why are you so aggressively violent?’

“’I recognize that the folks in CODEPINK like to hold up signs saying, “Peace with Iran.” You know who doesn’t reciprocate those views? Iran,’ Cruz said, to cheers.

“’In the midst of this negotiation, the Ayatollah Khamenei led thousands of Iranians in chanting death to America while they burned American flags and Israeli flag,’ Cruz continued to more applause. ‘Iran has stated its objective to murder as many Americans as possible. They are not seeking peace with us.’”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259572/white-house-code-pink-attack-ted-cruz-rally-us-daniel-greenfield

07/13/15

A Lethal Farce

Arlene from Israel

For days, I have delayed writing because the situation regarding negotiations with Iran has been so much in flux. I was waiting, waiting, for some outcome or closure. My own feeling for some time has been that there is the possibility that there will be no deal, as the Iranians in the end might balk at signing.

No deal would be the best we might hope for now. Great damage has already been done. But at least this way, Obama’s insanity would be exposed and he wouldn’t be able to claim “victory.” And then, if/when Israel were to attack Iran, there would be no charge that an agreement that would have brought “peace” had been sabotaged.

In truth, the Iranians pretty much have what they want already – insofar as much sanction relief has been provided upfront, European nations are clamoring to trade, and the international community has conceded the Iranian “right” to operate centrifuges. Why mess things up by signing an agreement that calls for inspections, however limited, or other controls?

~~~~~~~~~~

The problem, of course, is that, while Iran hasn’t come to terms with signing, neither have the mullahs said negotiations were at an end. They have been willing to play the game, on and on and on, all the while advancing their nuclear agenda.

While the American administration – in spite of Kerry’s feeble claims that he wouldn’t stay at the table forever – has been reluctant to be identified as the party that called an end to proceedings. Then, of course, the Iranians would charge that it was the US that was refusing to cooperate on a deal.

Thus have the negotiations gone past one deadline after another. I came to refer to this process, in my own head, as “faux negotiations.” These are not legitimate negotiations, for there is no real give-and-take.

~~~~~~~~~~

This is how journalist Daniel Greenfield described the situation in “Obama’s Infinite Nuclear Deadlines for Iran” (emphasis added):

“’We are certainly not going to sit at the negotiating table forever,’ John Kerry said. That was last year around the time of the final deadline which had been extended from July 2014.

“’New ideas surfaced’ in the final days, he claimed and ‘we would be fools to walk away.’ That’s also the theme of every sucker caught in a rigged card game, MLM scheme and Nigerian prince letter scam.

“Smart people walk away after getting cheated. Only fools stay.

“The final deadline was extended to March. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in March that, ‘I think it’s fair to say that we’ve reached our limit, right now, in as far as the conversations have been going on for more than a year.’

“The March deadline was extended until the end of June.

“Earnest said earnestly that the Obama Squad was ready to walk away even before June 30. An official claimed, ‘No one is talking about a long-term extension. No one.’

“The Iranians had a good laugh and sent the US negotiators out to fetch them some coffee and smokes.

~~~~~~~~~~

“…But Kerry was almost coherent compared to European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini who stated that, ‘We are continuing to negotiate for the next couple of days. This does not mean we are extending our deadline.’

“When you don’t treat a deadline as final, that means it’s being extended. A deadline that isn’t kept, isn’t a deadline. It’s an ex-deadline pining for the peaceful Iranian fjords.

“But Federica explained that the deadlines weren’t being extended, they were being ‘interpreted… in a flexible way.’ A flexible deadline is a good metaphor for the Obama negotiating posture.

“If the negotiators can’t even make one of many deadlines stick, who really believes they’ll stand their ground on nuclear inspections or sanctions snapback?…

“…Obama’s people have admitted that they will negotiate until doomsday. And doomsday is likely to be the date that Iran detonates its first bomb.

“…The deadline concession officially puts Iran in the driver’s seat.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259412/obamas-infinite-nuclear-deadlines-iran-daniel-greenfield

~~~~~~~~~~

And so… yesterday it was announced that a deal was very imminent and would likely be announced on Monday. (Monday midnight – tonight – is the latest deadline.) Hearts sank, stomachs clenched, at this possibility.

But here it is, Monday evening, and still no deal. AP, reporting this afternoon, says a deal is still elusive (emphasis added):

“Disputes over attempts to probe Tehran’s alleged work on nuclear weapons unexpectedly persisted at Iran nuclear talks on Monday, diplomats said, threatening plans to wrap up a deal by midnight…

“The diplomats said two other issues still needed final agreement — Iran’s demand for a lifting of a U.N. arms embargo and its insistence that any U.N. Security Council resolution approving the nuclear deal be written in a way that stops describing Iran’s nuclear activities as illegal…”

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-talks-hit-final-stage-announcement-expected-064307157–politics.html

~~~~~~~~~~

The UN arms embargo has to do with conventional weaponry and impinges directly on Iranian plans for hegemony in the region. But it has implications even beyond this. As Andrew Bowen writes, in “Give the Mullahs Ballistic Missiles?” (emphasis added):

“Ending an arms embargo on Iran will only destabilize the Middle East and threaten U.S. national security…

“Advocates of this policy have three main arguments.

“First, that the U.S. shouldn’t get preoccupied by this small snag…

“Second, Washington’s concessions on the embargo aren’t a big deal because these negotiations are focused on Iran’s nuclear program…

Finally, there’s a claim that Iran simply needs advanced weapons to help defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria….

“Matthew McInnis, a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former senior expert on Iran at the CENTCOM, argues, ‘these are all red herrings. They distract from Iran’s real threat to U.S. national security interests: an unfettered Iranian armed forces’…

“It is one of the great ironies with this potential deal that in trying to constrain Iran’s nuclear program for ten to 15 years, we may actually help create an Iranian military that puts the lives of American sailors, soldiers, and airmen at serious risk.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/13/give-the-mullahs-ballistic-missiles.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Omri Ceren’s observations on this:

“…it just doesn’t seem possible that the Americans can give ground on this. What’s the sales pitch to Congress going to be? ‘Not only are we giving Iran $150 billion to bolster its military, but we’re also lifting arms restrictions to make it easier for them to buy next-generation cruise missiles they’ll use against the U.S. military and our allies.’

“…yes of course lifting the arms embargo would detonate American national security…

“…If Kerry agrees to drop the arms embargo, it’s difficult to see Congress accepting the agreement. If Kerry gets the Iranians to give up on the demand, Congress will want to know what he had to trade away to do it.”

But (see below), Khameini is saying all his red lines have to be met, if there is to be an agreement. If the Americans cannot accept it, is this a genuine sticking point? Or, if they do, the kiss of death in Congress?

Whatever the case, it is imperative that all Americans be aware of what is going on here, and hold Congress accountable.

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps by midnight tonight there will be a deal. But do not count on it. There is talk of extending negotiations into Tuesday. In fact, there are reports that hotel rooms have been booked again in Vienna by the US delegation.

While Iranian media outlet PressTV cites Iran’s nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi (emphasis added):

“…certain issues still remain. As long as these issues are not settled, one cannot say we have reached an agreement. I cannot promise that the issues will be resolved by tonight or tomorrow night.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/july-13-2015-liveblog/

~~~~~~~~~~

If there is a deal, it will be the stuff of nightmares, beyond horrific.

Yesterday we saw photos of the overwhelming crowds in the streets of Tehran, waiting to celebrate the agreement. Horrendous.

Credit: Reuters

Hey folks, if the Iranians are that pleased, something is very very wrong.

According to the semi-official news agency Fars, the anticipated agreement complies with all the “red lines” set out by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

Khamenei had put forth these “red lines” last month, in talks with Iranian president Rouhani.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/07/12/iran-state-media-says-final-nuclear-agreement-includes-all-khameneis-demands/

Providing a somewhat different take, a Khamenei advisor, going by the name Velayati, has tweeted that: “Any deal in Vienna will be provisional, subject to approval by ‘Supreme Guide.’”

Credit: AFP

~~~~~~~~~~

Also a signal of something very wrong is the readiness of the Obama administration to continue negotiations even as Khamenei calls for a continuing struggle with the US – which he refers to as an “arrogant power” – regardless of what deal is signed.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4678652,00.html

Last Friday, in Tehran, “Al Quds Day” was observed by crowds of tens of thousands shouting, “Down with America,” “Death to Israel.”

Credit: AP

Not even the specter of a burning American flag prompted Obama or Kerry to protest, or gave them pause regarding the wisdom of the negotiations.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it clear again and again that Israel will not be bound by a bad deal with Iran. Yesterday at the weekly Cabinet meeting, he showed a video of President Clinton, in which he praised a nuclear deal with North Korea, which would make the world safer. We all know how that turned out.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/12/blasting-world-negotiators-for-parade-of-concessions-to-iran-netanyahu-drives-home-his-point-with-a-bill-clinton-video/

~~~~~~~~~~

In an interview with The Times of Israel yesterday, Dr. Dore Gold, who is currently serving as Director-General of the Foreign Ministry, let it be known that (emphasis added):

“Israel won’t be shy about making its views on the Iran deal heard on Capitol Hill…While Israel needs to express its concerns with civility, he stressed, the government is gearing up to firmly advocate its position in discussions with all the relevant players in the US government. ‘We’ll do it respectfully, but we have to tell the truth,’ he said.”

Reports The Times:

“According to other Israeli diplomats, never before has a Foreign Ministry director-general been as close to the prime minister as Gold is to Benjamin Netanyahu, who also happens to be serving as interim foreign minister. Unlike his predecessors, Gold, who immigrated to Israel in 1980, can pick up the phone and call Netanyahu at any time. It is quite clearly Gold, rather than Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who is calling the shots in Israel’s diplomacy, these diplomats say, acting as Netanyahu’s trusted emissary.”

“’The story of Iran’s nuclear capability is not over,” said Gold, the author of a 2009 book on the Iranian regime’s bid for the bomb.

“…he hailed Netanyahu, whom he has advised since the mid-90s, as the courageous defender of the entire region, single-handedly bearing the burden of opposition to a deal that all Sunni states loathe but don’t dare to publicly criticize.

“’They can afford a strategy of silence when there is one player in the region who is defending not just itself but the entire Middle East,’ Gold said. ‘When Prime Minister Netanyahu stands up and attacks Iran, he’s not just defending Israel. He’s defending Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and all the other Sunni countries.’”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/battle-to-thwart-the-iran-nuke-deal-is-not-over-foreign-ministry-chief-vows/

~~~~~~~~~~

Gold’s role here is important not only because of his close relationship with Netanyahu. It is also because he carries a certain prestige as an academic, author and diplomat.

Credit: Flash 90

In truth, we do not yet know how this will play out.

06/15/15

Obama Administration Incompetence Subjects Millions of Americans to Cyber Hackers

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Millions of American government employees, former employees, contractors and more have had their most personal and private information breached by hackers, because the government failed to take the necessary steps to protect those records. According to Politico, “Administration officials have said privately that signs point to the first hack having originated in China, and security experts have said it appeared to be part of a Chinese effort to build dossiers on federal employees who might be approached later for espionage purposes.”

It is an outrageous and unacceptable breach of trust. The federal government, through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), interviews everyone who requires any sort of security clearance, and asks the most detailed and personal questions about past associations, indiscretions and behavior, to make sure nothing in their past could subject them to blackmail or subversion. The interviews extend to friends and associates of those being vetted, and those people are also in the databases that have been breached. But now it has come to light that OPM failed to hold up the Obama administration’s end of the bargain by not doing everything they could to protect those records.

According to David Cox, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, in a letter to the OPM director, “We believe that hackers have every affected person’s Social Security number(s), military records and veterans’ status information, address, birth date, job and pay history, health insurance, life insurance and pension information; age, gender, race, union status, and more. Worst, we believe that Social Security numbers were not encrypted, a cybersecurity failure that is absolutely indefensible and outrageous.”

The Obama administration initially downplayed the cyber hack of the OPM, which centrally manages records for current and former federal employees. It did so even though it had missed the hack for at least four months, if not more, until a company, CyTech Services, which was conducting a sales demonstration, found malware in OPM’s system that could have been there for a year or more. The unfolding series of disasters has affected at least four million Americans—and perhaps as many as 14 million—including all current federal employees, retired federal employees, and a million former federal employees.

Reports of a second hack by China has added to the outrage, and compounded the problems. “Hackers linked to China have gained access to the sensitive background information submitted by intelligence and military personnel for security clearances, U.S. officials said Friday, describing a cyberbreach of federal records dramatically worse than first acknowledged,” reported the Associated Press.

“The forms authorities believed may have been stolen en masse, known as Standard Form 86, require applicants to fill out deeply personal information about mental illnesses, drug and alcohol use, past arrests and bankruptcies. They also require the listing of contacts and relatives, potentially exposing any foreign relatives of U.S. intelligence employees to coercion. Both the applicant’s Social Security number and that of his or her cohabitant is required.”

How many millions of Americans serving their country does this place at risk?

Under a Republican president, this newest administration scandal would have been front-page, round-the-clock news, with the most sinister of motives ascribed to them, probably for many days running. But as of Friday morning, The Washington Post had relegated coverage of this story to page A14, and several other news outlets began covering the story by simply reposting an AP article to their own websites. Television news has been dominated by stories of two escaped convicts, a local head of the NAACP who falsely represented herself as African American, and the reset, or re-launch, of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Where are the talking heads, the pundits in the media, calling for President Obama—not agencies, not government bureaucrats, but President Obama—to show more care in protecting American citizens against cyberattacks? Such attacks violate our privacy and leave each of us open to hacking, blackmail, and targeting by China, which has been connected in most reports to the breaches. And it serves as a reminder how likely it is that Hillary Clinton’s private email server that she used during her tenure as Secretary of State was hacked by the Chinese, and possibly the Russians, North Koreans and Iranians. One can only imagine what they have on her.

“What’s more, in initial media stories about the breach, the Department of Homeland Security had touted the government’s EINSTEIN detection program, suggesting it was responsible for uncovering the hack,” reports Wired.com. “Nope, also wrong.”

“The OPM had no IT security staff until 2013, and it showed,” reports Wired.

Ken Dilanian’s AP article, despite its wide distribution, fails to mention the number of warnings that OPM, and the government as a whole, has received about its lack of adequate security. “U.S. Was Warned of System Open to Cyberattacks,” reported The New York Times on June 5, describing OPM’s 2014 security as “a Chinese hacker’s dream.”

The 2014 Inspector General’s report was based on an analysis conducted between April and September of last year. While the administration has said that the attack occurred in December of last year, The Wall Street Journal’s Damian Paletta and Siobhan Hughes wrote of the first reported attack: “Investigators believe the hackers had been in the network for a year or more” when it was discovered in April.

That IG report stated that OPM’s status was “upgraded to a significant deficiency” due to a planned reorganization, and that it had “material weakness in the internal control structure” of its IT program.

“The agency did not possess an inventory of all the computer servers and devices with access to its networks, and did not require anyone gaining access to information from the outside to use the kind of basic authentication techniques that most Americans use for online banking,” reported the Times. “It did not regularly scan for vulnerabilities in the system, and found that 11 of the 47 computer systems that were supposed to be certified as safe for use last year were not ‘operating with a valid authorization.’”

Neither the AP nor the Times noted that this situation reaches as far back as at least fiscal year 2007, with the 2013 IG report indicating that there was a “lack of IT security policies and procedures.” This worsened in fiscal year 2009, with some corrections in 2012, but as of fiscal year 2013 instituted reforms had “only been partially implemented.”

Clearly, this failure has been growing on President Obama’s watch.

The Times noted that “upgrades were underway” when the first reported attack happened, and cited an unnamed former Obama administration official as saying, “The mystery is what took the Chinese so long.”

When asked about the IG reports, White House press secretary Josh Earnest insisted on setting the cited reports aside, because “there is risk associated” with using any computer network. The U.S. government has been raising that risk by not securing its own networks.

One might question whether American citizens are any safer today, and if the Obama administration has made the necessary reforms following these attacks. Earnest, the White House press secretary, used vague language to describe security upgrades after the first cyber intrusion was reported. He cited “ongoing efforts” to “update our defenses and update our ability to detect intrusions” and blamed Congressional inaction.

“And the fact is, we need the United States Congress to come out of the Dark Ages and actually join us here in the 21st century to make sure that we have the kinds of defenses that are necessary to protect a modern computer system,” he said. “And we have not seen that kind of action in Congress.”

While cooperation with the private sector may help upgrade government information technology systems, it is the responsibility of the administration and the media to hold President Obama accountable for this debacle, which has been brewing over the course of his entire term in office. There should be a complete investigation, whether by Congress or an independent counsel, into the failure of the Obama administration to protect the privacy and personal information of millions of Americans. What did they know, when did they know it, and who or what is to blame? What can be done to ensure this doesn’t happen again? People should be held accountable.

“If OPM is behind on cybersecurity, which it is, it has plenty of company,” reported the Post on June 7. Almost all, 23 of 24, major agencies cited these security issues as a “major management challenge for their agency,” it reported. The GAO indicated last year that the number of breaches involving personally identifiable information has more than doubled between 2009 and 2013, according to the Post.

With the mainstream media intent on championing all the benefits of Obamacare amidst an upcoming Supreme Court decision over subsidies, coverage of the security deficits within the health care exchanges has virtually disappeared. “Independent agencies such as the Government Accountability Office and the HHS inspector general have warned of continued security problems,” wrote Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) for The Wall Street Journal last November. “This is concerning for Americans, as HealthCare.gov houses vast amounts of sensitive personal enrollment information—from full, legal names, to Social Security numbers, dates of birth and even income information.” She notes that Healthcare.gov has been “described by experts as a ‘hacker’s dream.’”

Just like OPM. How soon will we hear that the millions on the Obamacare exchanges have also had their personal information compromised by foreign hackers, and will the mainstream media also then blame that future disaster on a bureaucrat, and not Obama?

Our nation also remains vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse attack, which could involve exploding a nuclear weapon at high altitude in the atmosphere. With Iran seeking nuclear capability, this becomes even more of a threat.

A report by the Department of Homeland Security indicates “that a massive electromagnetic pulse event caused by a solar flare could leave more than 130 million Americans without power for years,” reported WorldNetDaily last December.

“President Obama could sign an executive order mandating [that] DHS add EMP to its emergency planning, but he has not done so, even though he reportedly is aware of the consequences.”

When are the mainstream media going to hold President Obama accountable for the many scandals, and bungling incompetence, plaguing his administration? Our veterans are at risk because of scandals and incompetence at the VA, and our flying public because of scandals and political correctness at the FAA and TSA. Obama’s security policies are jeopardizing the safety and welfare of millions of Americans. If the Chinese government is really behind these attacks, which is still being investigated, do we plan to retaliate in any way? Or is there no price to pay? The mainstream media, once again, appear to be more interested in preserving their access to the halls of power, and in avoiding at all costs attributing any of the blame for this catastrophe to the Obama administration’s ineptitude and incompetence.

05/28/15

Baltimore Mayor Lashes Out at FNC Reporter Asking about Recent Violence – Dana Loesch

Hat Tip: BB

04/29/15

Iran Literally Fired a Shot Across an American Ally’s Bow, But Obama Won’t Dump His Disastrous Deal

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

What, if anything, would cause President Barack Obama to step away from the negotiating table with Iran?

This is the question I find myself pondering in light of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy Patrol’s unchecked act of aggression on Tuesday against America’s interests in the Straits of Hormuz – an act that in a sane world would in and of itself put an end to the president’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.

As of this writing, reports indicate that the Iranian Navy Patrol fired shots at and ultimately seized a commercial cargo ship, the M/V Maersk Tigris, which flies under the Marshall Islands flag. Some believe Iran was even targeting a U.S. vessel.

An Iranian warship takes part in a naval show in 2006. (Photo: AP)

In a helpful dispatch, commentator Omri Ceren notes the significant implications of such an action given that the U.S. is: (i) Treaty-bound to secure and defend the Marshall Islands, and (ii) Committed to maintaining the free flow of commerce in the strategically vital waterways of the Middle East — as affirmed just one week ago on April 21 by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf and Pentagon Spokesman Col. Steve Warren.

The U.S. fulfilling its obligations to its protectorate, and acting to ensure vital shipping lanes remain open are not trivial matters.

Further, this act can be seen as a brazen test of the sincerity of U.S. resolve, as it was timed to coincide with the opening of the Senate’s debate on the Corker-Menendez Iran bill.

Yet there is a broader and perhaps more important context in which to consider what Ceren calls an act of “functionally unspinnable Iranian aggression.”

Even if we ignore the history of Iranian aggression against the U.S. and its allies since the deposal of the Shah in 1979, the firing upon and seizing of the Tigris marks the latest in a long series of such provocations that Iran has undertaken in just the last few months. Consider:

On February 25 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard blew up a replica U.S. aircraft carrier during defense drills
On March 24 it was reported that the Iranian regime had increased its naval threats against the U.S., including “[T]hreats to take over and sink American aircraft carriers and other warships; to close the Strait of Hormuz and Bab El-Mandeb; to carry out large-scale missile attacks inside and outside the Persian Gulf; and to mine the Persian Gulf”
On March 31 Basij militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard stated that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable”
On April 1 it was reported that an Iranian military observation aircraft had “buzzed” an armed U.S. navy helicopter over the Persian Gulf during March 2015
On April 12 it was reported that Iran had been working to deliver surface-to-air missiles to the Houthis in Yemen
On April 13 it was reported that Iran had increased arm shipments to Hezbollah and Hamas
On April 14 Russia lifted its ban on the sale of missiles to Iran, no doubt with the firm support of the Iranians
On April 17 it was reported that Iran was sending an armada of seven to nine ships – some with weapons – toward Yemen
On April 18 Iran celebrated Army Day with calls of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”
On April 19 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s deputy leader Gen. Hossein Salami declared that there would be no inspections of military sites under any nuclear deal, threatening “We will respond with hot lead [bullets] to those who speak of it…;” and
On April 24 the Iranian Navy Patrol intercepted the Maersk Kensington, a U.S.-flagged vessel

This rhetoric and action comports with Iran’s historic hostility toward the U.S. since the fall of the Shah. Lest we forget, this list of atrocities includes, but is certainly not limited to:

The 1983 bombing of the U.S. army barracks in Beirut
Aiding and abetting Al Qaeda with respect to the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on our nation
Funding, training and arming terrorists responsible for slaying American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

Would Iran’s most recent actions in the Strait of Hormuz coupled with the litany of other recent and historical bellicose acts lead one to question whether it is in the United States’ interest to continue negotiating with the mullahs?

Put more directly: In what respect can the U.S. consider Iran to be a reliable, honorable negotiating partner?

Iranian women hold an anti-US sign, bearing a cartoon of US President Barack Obama, outside the former US embassy in Tehran on November 2, 2012, during a rally to mark the 33rd anniversary of seizure of the US embassy which saw Islamist students hold 52 US diplomats hostage for 444 days. This year’s rally came just days before US presidential election in which Republican challenger Mitt Romney has made Iran’s controversial nuclear programme a top foreign policy issue. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Concerning the content of the nuclear deal being negotiated, it should be noted that the Iranians have stated the agreement accomplishes the very opposite of what the American public been led to believe. With respect to sanctions, Iran says they will be fully lifted upon the execution of the accord. As MEMRI notes, in an April 9 address, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini gave a speech in which he called America a “cheater and a liar” and

publicly set out the negotiating framework for the Iranian negotiating team, the main points of which are: an immediate lifting of all sanctions the moment an agreement is reached; no intrusive oversight of Iran’s nuclear and military facilities; the continuation of Iran’s nuclear research and development program; and no inclusion of any topics not related to the nuclear program, such as missile capability or anything impacting Iran’s support for its proxies in the region.

It is no wonder then that the nuclear deal has been lambasted on a bipartisan basis, including at the highest levels of the national security establishment. Even former Secretary of State James Baker is highly critical of the Iran deal – and his animus toward Israel, perhaps the primary casualty of the deal, may be second only to that of President Obama.

As to whether Khameini’s portrayal of the deal is accurate, former CIA analyst and Iran expert Fred Fleitz asserts that under the terms of the agreement, Iran will (i) be able to continue enriching uranium, (ii) not have to disassemble or destroy any enrichment equipment or facilities, (iii) not be required to “permit snap inspections and unfettered access to all Iranian nuclear facilities, including military bases where Iran is believed to have conducted nuclear-weapons work,” (iv) be able to continue to operate its Arak heavy-water reactor, a plutonium source, in contravention of IAEA resolutions and (v) be subjected to an eased sanctions regime that will be incredibly difficult to re-impose.

If this were not enough, so intent is the Obama Administration on reaching a deal that it has been reported that for signing this agreement, Iran may even receive sweeteners including a $50 billion “signing bonus.”

The contorted logic used by the president in defense of his progressive stance towards Iran is worthy of Neville Chamberlain. During an interview with New York Times soulmate Thomas Friedman, Obama opined:

Even for somebody who believes, as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes, that there is no difference between Rouhani and the supreme leader and they’re all adamantly anti-West and anti-Israel and perennial liars and cheaters — even if you believed all that, this still would be the right thing to do. It would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves. In fact, you could argue that if they are implacably opposed to us, all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they’re doing and that, for a long period of time, we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Tom Cotton provides a necessary corrective in a recent interview:

I am skeptical that there are many moderates within the [Iranian] leadership … I think it’s kind of like the search for the vaunted moderates in the Kremlin throughout most of the Cold War, with the exception that we could always count on the Soviet leadership to be concerned about national survival in a way that I don’t think we can count on a nuclear-armed Iranian leadership to be solely concerned about national survival.

As for Lord Chamberlain, Sen. Cotton – he of that irksome letter to Iran — takes a more charitable view, noting:

It’s unfair to Neville Chamberlain to compare him to Barack Obama, because Neville Chamberlain’s general staff was telling him he couldn’t confront Hitler and even fight to a draw—certainly not defeat the German military—until probably 1941 or 1942. He was operating from a position of weakness. With Iran, we negotiated privately in 2012-2013 from a position of strength … not just inherent military strength of the United States compared to Iran, but also from our strategic position.

To those who recognize reality, this deal – coupled with our weak response to the ongoing provocations of the Iranian Government — not only threatens our national security and that of our allies, but reflects an utter dereliction of duty to uphold the Constitution, and protect our people against foreign enemies.

In a word, it is treasonous.

04/8/15

National Security Question? Ask Someone Else, Says White House

By: Caleb Howe
RedState

RedState has learned this week that when Deputy White House Press Secretary for National Security Shawn Turner leaves this Friday, it is probable that he will not be replaced for that position. Instead, a source tells us they will most likely [be] offloading his duties to NSC spokesperson Bernadette Meehan’s office.

Turner has routinely been point man for the press regarding the President’s positions on intelligence, foreign policy, border security, military pay and benefits, and military and CIA interrogations. He previously served as Director of Public Affairs, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The Obama administration has been under fire from the beginning of his first term for the President’s views on foreign policy as well as his, and his team’s, inexperience. With major screw-ups like Benghazi, Ukraine, the reset button, and just this week, caving on the Iranian nuclear deal deadline, one would think that having a press secretary prepared to articulate the President’s national security views would be a no-brainer. But the Obama administration has been out-thought by the no-brain crowd once again.

It seems the administration’s need to surrender extends not only to national security policy, but even to the apparently daunting task of talking about national security policy.

While turnover in Washington is the rule, the fact is that this position has been filled, and has had an office at the white House. That will no longer be the case. That means there won’t be someone on the premises who has the job of Deputy Press Secretary of National Security. The timing, hot on the heels of the Iran “deal” and other security gaffes (like Hillary’s entire tenure at State), is especially notable.

Putting distance between the President and the actions of the government under his leadership is certainly nothing new. How many times has he found out about a major issue by “watching the news”? Now it seems he can catch National Security Policy briefings on C-SPAN, too. And won’t it be convenient for Hillary Clinton to not have to associate her continuance of Obama policy with an actual White House spokesperson.

But hey, having other agencies do the talking has gone great so far. Just look at the resounding successes of Jen Psaki and Marie Harf. And of course, we still have the always forthcoming Josh Earnest and the rest of the most transparent administration in history. Right?

03/10/15

Obama and Hillary: What Did They Know, and When Did They Know It?

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The latest revelations about Hillary Clinton’s use of private emails while Secretary of State for the Obama administration have proven “politically problematic,” and invited discomfort by some of her fellow Democrats, possibly encouraging other ambitious Democratic hopefuls to contend for the presidential primary, according to some in the media.

By defining the problem as just “political,” these reporters can cast the issue as one dividing political parties to distract from the pressing issues of the day. This media frenzy works in the Obama administration’s favor. “…why did Hillary Clinton become the Obama administration’s bête noire this very week…? questions Lee Smith writing for Tablet Magazine. Perhaps because Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech before Congress reflected badly on the administration’s plan for an Iran deal. “This week’s tarring of Hillary Clinton is part of the White House’s political campaign to shut off debate about its hoped-for deal,” he asserts.

Smith’s suspicions are raised by the fact that Gawker’s John Cook emailed then-deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest, now White House press secretary, about the issue of Clinton’s private email account back in 2013—two years ago!

Yet on Saturday, President Barack Obama told CBS News’ Bill Plante in an interview that he learned about Mrs. Clinton’s private email system at “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” much like he claims to have learned about so many others of his scandals.

The most recent claim apparently didn’t stand up to common sense scrutiny. After all, one needed only to ask if the President and Secretary of State hadn’t exchanged emails for years. On Monday Josh Earnest told the press that President Obama and Secretary Clinton had exchanged emails, that the President had noticed the private address, and that “The point that the President was making is not that he didn’t know Secretary Clinton’s email address… But he was not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.

But few in the media seem to be asking about who actually saw Cook’s email back in 2013. Either the White House has known about the potential political fallout for years, or someone failed to pass the word up the chain of command.

Some members of the media prefer to view this latest scandal, like so many others, as some sort of right-wing conspiracy, with conservatives out to get Mrs. Clinton. Michael Tomasky of The Daily Beast stubbornly refuses to define this growing debacle as a “scandal,” writing instead, “If she does become president, the right is going to be gunning for her from Day One, sniffing around for impeachable offenses from the second she takes the oath.” This implies, again, that opposition to Clinton’s lack of transparency is rooted in politics and ideology, as if real outrage were impossible or unjustified.

It’s not just the right this time, with people like Ruth Marcus, Mark Halperin, Mika Brzezinski, Maureen Dowd and Ron Fournier also taking Hillary to task. It’s enough to suggest a different conspiracy theory: that the left wants to dump Hillary for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), or someone they believe would be more electable, and more to their liking.

And while some in the media may have tacitly admitted that there is already blood in the proverbial water, and that Clinton may see greater challenges coming from other candidates, the narrative persists that the Select Committee on Benghazi was established simply to damage Mrs. Clinton. So the villain in this growing scandal, for Clinton acolytes, is not Clinton herself. It is, instead, the Select Committee on Benghazi, which apparently had known about her multiple private email accounts since at least last summer, according to National Review’s Andy McCarthy.

“The panel’s Republican House members are seizing on the revelations regarding Clinton’s private e-mail domain to expand their committee’s mandate, delay Clinton’s testimony and extend their investigation indefinitely,” write Josh Rogin and Eli Lake for Bloomberg. Similarly, Tomasky writes that “… it smells like the Times may have been rolled by the Republican staff of the Benghazi panel. And hey, great work by them and Chairman Trey Gowdy to use the nation’s leading liberal newspaper in this way.”

Mrs. Clinton and President Barack Obama were some of the main decision-makers during the 2012 Benghazi attacks, and have always dominated the heart of the Benghazi scandal—as inconvenient as this may be for some in the media.

The media are, once again, accusing the Republicans on the Select Committee of engaging in run-away politicking during an election season. “Republican Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy has insisted he wants his investigation to be impartial, not to be partisan nor about Hillary Clinton personally,” reports The Daily Beast. “But the pull of conservatives clamoring for answers regarding the scandal has focused the committee’s attention on the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination.”

These politicized assessments ignore and minimize the valid security and transparency concerns raised by Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account during her entire term as Secretary. But the lack of transparency revealed by this latest Clinton scandal demonstrates that Mrs. Clinton has a problem with humility, and as “heir apparent” for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination may have internalized a feeling of invincibility—as if she is above public accountability and standards of conduct.

The additional debate about fairness to Mrs. Clinton in The New York Times reporting also ignores the larger, overlooked picture: the Obama administration’s culpability in enabling Mrs. Clinton’s behavior. In cases where Clinton’s email was requested by citizens’ groups and news reporters, “the State Department acknowledged receipt of the [Freedom of Information Act] requests and assigned case numbers but did not produce any of the requested documents,” The New York Times reported.

According to the Associated Press, the State Department “never suggested that it didn’t possess all her emails” when the A.P. requested records more than a year ago. That is a scandal in and of itself.

To put it mildly, the fact that there were no records to produce from Mrs. Clinton’s service until this recent date likely proved politically convenient for the administration, and provides further evidence of a government cover-up on Benghazi. Now-public records have already demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s guilty knowledge about the attacks. Her pro-active attempts at concealing her communications through the use of a private email server have already been thwarted by the Freedom of Information Act.

The newly released Judicial Watch emails documenting correspondence sent to Cheryl Mills (then-Chief of Staff to Sec. Clinton), Jacob Sullivan (then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), and Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s Executive Assistant) provided ample evidence that Mrs. Clinton had guilty knowledge of the nature of the terrorist attack in Benghazi as early as a half an hour after the attack.

“Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group,” reports Catherine Herridge for Fox News. “A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.”

And as I have previously reported, the President was told this was an attack by terrorists—not the result of a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control—by his military advisors on September 11, 2012, shortly after the attacks began.

Mrs. Clinton has now requested her emails’ public release, and may hold a press conference in the next several days, according to Politico. Perhaps it was the ridicule from Saturday Night Live that convinced her to speak up, or the sting from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Meet the Press calling on Hillary to come clean if she expects to be the party’s standard bearer. But the process of releasing her emails could take months, according to Reuters, which reports that “The email controversy could intensify long-standing Republican criticism of Clinton’s transparency and ethics.”

Clinton’s request to make her emails public should be treated with urgency, and may yet yield additional information regarding the Benghazi attacks and other administration policies during her time as Secretary. But in a real sense it may not matter now whether the State Department actually releases this set of emails, as they were first vetted by Clinton’s advisers. One must ask: What did these advisers choose to omit?

The media shouldn’t be fooled by these “latest [Clinton] efforts to demonstrate transparency” if they are designed to conceal politically damaging material from the public while appearing to be open and fair. Neither should they accept platitudes from Mrs. Clinton if and when she does hold her press conference. But in an even greater sense, the media spotlight shouldn’t be on Mrs. Clinton—it should be on President Obama. What did he know, and when did he know it?

02/12/15

Crystal Clear

Arlene from Israel

In case you still had doubts about Obama’s positions regarding jihadi terrorism, I provide here just one more instance that makes it clear how eager he is to deny what is in front of all our faces.

Two days ago, in the course of an interview with Matthew Yglesias of Vox.com, the president referred to the Islamic jihadis who shot up the kosher store in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attack as “vicious zealots” who “randomly” shot “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

The “vicious zealots” are not identified as Islamists. (They never are so identified by Obama, are they?) As he sees it, the choice of a kosher deli was just a coincidence. And the shooting victims were merely “a bunch of folks,” and not Jews, specifically.

Mind blowing, really.

You can see the video in which he says this, here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/09/obama_legitimate_for_americans_to_be_concerned_about_violent_zealots_who_randomly_shoot_people_in_paris_deli.html

~~~~~~~~~

Ah, but there is more that illustrates how Obama perceives matters – or purports to perceive them at any rate. It is “legitimate,” he says, to be concerned about these vicious zealots and to devote resources to dealing with them, just as a big city mayor acts to cut crime.

This too indicates an obfuscation of the genuine underlying problem that we are confronting: that problem being the ideology of radical Islam. Dealing with street criminals is not parallel at all. This analogy serves to underplay the seriousness of what is threatening the free world right now.

Lastly, I mention this, more for a laugh than anything else. Obama says it is good to allocate resources to dealing with these “zealots,” but it is important to also devote attention to “future threats” such as “global warming.”

Is this man for real? I am certain that all of my readers across the east coast of the US have spent inordinate amounts of time this winter worrying about the imminent threat of global warming. (Actually, satellite data indicates there has been no global warming for about 20 years.)

~~~~~~~~~~

A great deal of energy was expended following these remarks by Obama, in attempts to justify what he meant.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest, for example, explained that: “the individuals who were killed in the terrible tragic incident were killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”

This is pathetic sophistry. No, the victims of the massacre were not singled out by individual identity. But does anyone imagine that the terrorists’ selection of an establishment where kosher food is sold, on a Friday afternoon when Jews would be shopping for Shabbat preparations, was just random? Is there anyone even half-way honest who truly believes that the fact that it was Jews who were killed was purely a random happening?

State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki also dealt with this. She was asked the question: “Does the administration believe that this was…an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

She replied: I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

The questioner persisted: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists, is he? Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)? …I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say this was a targeted attack.”

Her response: “I don’t have more for you…it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191210#.VNtbBpv9nIU

~~~~~~~~~~

After the attack at Hyper-Cache, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, “How can we accept that in France, we still hear about the death of Jews? How can we accept that people are killed because they are Jewish?”

What I ask is how we deal with this: that the French prime minister was able to accept an ugly reality, while the American president and those who speak for his administration dance around it?

I see this state of affairs as alarming.

~~~~~~~~~~

Meanwhile, Prime Minster Netanyahu continues to make it clear that he intends to speak to Congress and the American people about a matter that is existential for Israel. He will speak in Congress, because the Congressional role may be important, and he will speak before March 24th. (He has clarified this in response to suggestions that the venue of the talk or its timing be changed.)

You can see a short video of his statement here (all emphasis following is added):

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23451

“At a time when there are those who are dealing with protocol and politics, a bad deal is being put together in Munich that will endanger Israel’s existence.”

“Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue. Not in Israel, nor in the United States…

“I am going to the United States not because I seek a confrontation with [U.S. President Barack Obama], but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country.”

~~~~~~~~~~

“Disagreements over Israel’s security have occurred between prime ministers in Israel from the Left and from the Right and American presidents from both parties.

“None of these disagreements led to a rupture in the relationship between Israel and the United States. In fact, over time, our relationship grew stronger.

[He refers here to some major US-Israel disagreements over time.]

“But we do have today a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival. This is a regime, Iran, that is openly committed to Israel’s destruction. It would be able, under this deal, to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs for the goal of our destruction.
“This is not a personal disagreement between President Obama and me. I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields. Equally, I know that the president appreciates my responsibility, my foremost responsibility, to protect and defend the security of Israel.”

~~~~~~~~~~

Bibi is diligently seeking to separate out the political accusations from genuine security concerns. And yet, those opposed to what he has to say (read, those supporting the Obama administration) continue to try to delegitimize his efforts to speak out on Iran by accusing him of playing politics, making the matter partisan, etc.

Once again, I urge that if you are in the US, you contact your elected representatives in Congress. Tell them that Iran’s threat to Israel is not a partisan matter. Encourage them to listen to what Israel’s prime minister will be saying on March 3. And most especially, urge them to support the Kirk-Menendez bill.

For your Congresspersons:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

For your Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the accusations made early on, regarding the Netanyahu talk in Congress, is that it was planned without (it was claimed) prior notification to the White House. This was said to be a serious lapse of protocol. Well…I thought I’d take a minute to look at how Obama observed protocol when he was here here in Israel.

As Aaron Lerner of IMRA describes the situation:

”Back on 21 March 2013 President Barack Obama declined to address the democratically elected Knesset and instead chose to speak to a crowd that was screened by the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to preclude Israelis who did not share Mr. Obama’s outlook on Arab-Israeli affairs. The White House termed this selected group ‘the People of Israel.’”

Ruby Rivlin, who was then Speaker of the Knesset, called the situation “worrying”:

”Three American presidents have spoken on the Knesset stage, as well as [Egyptian president Anwar] Sadat and leaders from Europe. President Obama should speak to the people of Israel through its elected representatives.”

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Rivlin-slams-Obama-for-not-visiting-Knesset-307083

Obama only focuses on protocol when it suits him.

~~~~~~~~~~

Zahava Gal-On, head of the far left Meretz, had hoped to prevent the broadcasting of Bibi’s speech here in Israel, on the grounds that it constituted electioneering, two weeks before the March 17th election.

Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has said, however, that there is no reason to block Israeli media outlets from carrying the speech, which “has a very clear news value…;” is “substantially related to the prime minister’s work, so that one cannot say it enters the realm of electioneering;” and “will deal with important matters relating to Israel’s foreign policy and which hold interest for the public.”
~~~~~~~~~~

As to what is going on regarding the negotiations with Iran, let’s take a look at the latest:

John Hannah, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, writes (emphasis added):

”Iran appears to be working systematically to advance all three of the elements essential to its nuclear weapons program: 1) the ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade (by developing more powerful centrifuges); 2) a nuclear explosive device…; and 3) a delivery vehicle (the ballistic missile program). The Iranians have been using the breathing space provided by the interim deal to improve parts of their weapons program that aren’t yet quite up to snuff. In terms of sheer technical capability, Iran will be in a better position to breakout to a bomb in the aftermath of the interim deal than before it took effect.

“The pretense that this process was about compelling a rabidly anti-American theocracy that has been at war with America for four decades to surrender permanently its nuclear weapons ambitions is now out the window. In its place, what remains is the quixotic pursuit of some form of grand bargain, a rapprochement that – while leaving the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place – will somehow work over time to tame the Islamic Republic.

“We see today an Iran on the march throughout the region, plotting terror attacks in the Western Hemisphere, and actively seeking to advance key elements of its nuclear program in the middle of a negotiation whose very purpose is to end that program.”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/10/how-congress-became-the-fall-guy-for-obamas-iran-deal/

This title presents its own commentary. Read it, my friends, and weep, or, far better stand up and scream bloody murder.

~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the following comment after emerging from a closed-door briefing on the status of negotiations with Iran (emphasis added):

“It’s evident that these negotiations are really not P5+1 negotiations anymore. It’s really more of a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Iran.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191195#.VNtxp5v9nIV

This has been obvious for some time to anyone who has been watching closely. But now it’s being said publicly. And this is scary as hell. Do you realize how much power this gives Obama? And how critical it is that Netanyahu address the Congress?

The way I see it, those P5 + 1 powers that are not actively participating in negotiations have abdicated their solemn responsibility to be involved. I know that France, at least – and perhaps others as well – has been discontent with the Obama position, which is seen as too lenient.

~~~~~~~~~~

And let’s see just how lenient the US is. As Omri Ceren provided a review of the situation two days ago:

“As always there are two things at stake: process and substance. Process is about the technicalities of the next few months: when are scheduled talks, what are deadlines for various agreements, etc. Substance is about what will ultimately be acceptable to the parties: the structure of the deal, centrifuge capacity, plutonium-production capability, etc.

“The American stance on process is that there’s a March deadline for a political agreement and a June deadline for a technical agreement. The stance on substance is that the West will trade phased sanctions relief for Iran meeting confidence building benchmarks.”

On Sunday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had given a speech laying out the conditions he would consider acceptable in negotiations. It took a bit of time for careful translation to proceed. This is the heart of what Ceren reports regarding the Ayatollah’s positions:

(1) Process – rejects political agreement – “I do not favor remarks that we should agree on some principles and later on details. I dislike it when they say that there should be a deal on general principles at one stage and then we can talk about details. Given our experience with the other side, they will use this as a tool for repeatedly making excuses regarding details. If they want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations. This is not logical.”

(2) Substance – rejects phased lifting of sanctions – “[T]hese are all meant for taking away the weapon of sanctions from the hands of the enemy. It is good if they can do this. However, the sanctions must literally be taken away from the hands of the enemy. The sanctions must be lifted. This kind of a deal [is favored]. Otherwise, if they achieve no success in this regard, the Iranian nation, statesmen, the honorable government and others have numerous ways and they must certainly take this path in order to nullify the weapon of sanctions.”

“So,” writes Ceren, “while it’s technically true Khamenei pressed for ‘progress,’ what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how talks should move forward. And while it’s technically true he embraced a ‘fair’ deal, what that actually means is he rejected the US’s understanding of how a deal should be structured.”

Khameni has been widely quoted as saying no deal is better than a bad deal, and that for him, a good deal means one that is good for his nation. In other words, he is not predisposed to compromises. He wants what he wants.

~~~~~~~~~~

Fast forward one day. When Jen Psaki, our good old State Department spokesperson, was asked about the March deadline, she responded:

“Yes it is a goal, it remains a goal, but the secretary has been very vocal about that. We’ve never called it a deadline. We’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.”

The problem with this is that the date has been consistently called a deadline by US spokespersons. For example, on January 28th, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said, “…the president has made clear the importance of the end-of-March deadline…”

What we see, then, is that while Iran may be inflexible, Obama’s desire to seal an agreement is so strong that he will be unendingly flexible.

~~~~~~~~~~

I’m going to end here with a good news story of no particular consequence except for the fact that it is charming, and, I think, says something heart-warming about how we operate.

Last week, a mobile intensive care unit of Magen David Adom was driving from Ma’aleh Adumim to Jerusalem when something hit the vehicle’s windshield and fell to the ground. Paramedic Nati Haron got out to investigate and found a baby fruit bat that had been knocked unconscious by the impact. He fed her sugar water and she regained consciousness.

“I looked at her, and she looked back at me. I tried to release her twice in the Ma’aleh Adumim area, but I saw she couldn’t fly. I took her home and called the zoo.”

The Jerusalem Biblical Zoo took her in, and she is being cared for until she recovers, at which time she will be released back into the wild.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Health/Israeli-paramedic-saves-life-of-baby-fruit-bat-after-painful-windshield-collision-390668

Credit: Magen David Adom

02/7/15

Christian horses found too high

By: Olga Photoshopova
The People’s Cube

Uppity Christian horsemen from the Crusades are still
trampling modern-day Muslim pacifists.

As everyone knows, the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington is a yearly event designed to put Christians in their place and advance Islam as the national religion. At today’s breakfast, President Obama once again met the expectations of the progressive movement by telling off those uppity Christians like a true Muslim would:

“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Indeed, in these dark times of Christian Extremism, what we need is a president who can inform the world about all of the Christian atrocities throughout history for which currently living Americans are personally responsible. Having effectively airbrushed “Islamic Extremism” from the lexicon, Obama completed his sermon with a prayer towards Mecca.

Christians are hereby instructed to remove incorrect pages from their Bibles and replace them with the following corrected transcript of Jesus’ words: “Thou shalt murder gays; thou shalt enslave minorities; thou shalt bomb women and children.”

Since there isn’t an equivalent in the Quran of anything so hateful as this corrected version of Biblical history, Christians need to get off their high horses and admit that Jesus had personally instigated terrible atrocities, as proven by the Crusades and the Inquisition.

As if that weren’t enough, Jesus had the audacity to die but not stay dead, to walk around alive and kicking for forty more days, and then to fly up to heaven. Such antisocial behavior allowed Christians to start getting uppity around 33 A.D., which still continues unabated to this day.

The science is settled: there are no Islamic Extremists anywhere on Earth because President Obama has never uttered the words. Christians, on the other hand, are committing terrible atrocities daily, taking hostages, cutting off heads, blowing themselves up in public places, burning people alive, and otherwise terrorizing the peaceful and rapidly diminishing Muslim community. No verification of these facts is required simply because Obama is a genius who would never tell a lie.

President Obama is seen modeling a People-approved low-horse for those who are barely Christians, pretending to be Christians, or embarrassed by Christianity.
(Photo Credit: blurbrain.com)

It is known that President Ronald Reagan liked to ride horses – all of them high – for which he is revered among Christian Extremists. He was once even injured in a fall from his high horse. Let that be a lesson to all Christians to get off their high horses and stay off.

President Reagan’s horse was so high that in order to fit it into his Presidential Library, workers had to chop off its legs. This picture gives a whole new meaning to “Reagan’s quarterhorse.” Too high a horse would not be a humble memorial for a Christian anyway.

Here, President Reagan is seen assisting his wife Nancy off of her high horse.

In view of the above, our scientists at the People’s Cube Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed recommendations on how to get Christians off their high horses efficiently: hack off the high horse’s legs or replace them with miniature low horses.

A standard horse owned by a Christian should be no taller than 36 inches. All horse-riding Christians will be subject to measuring with a pole similar to those used on amusement park rides.

This Christian got off her high horse, and the world is a lot better off.

Compliance with these measures is expected to level the playing field, bringing Christians closer to the ground where the peaceful Muslim crowd congregates.

And finally, as we discussed the subject of Christian high horses at our latest meeting, we received a few questions from confused members of the audience. People wanted to know whether the horse in question was a Christian, what exactly the definition of “high” was, and what if President Obama really meant to say that the horse was high from marijuana and the Christian should get off to avoid contact.

We will make sure to ask the White House spokesperson, Josh Earnest, for clarification on what the President really meant. Until then, the debate gallops on.

This Christian white male needs to get off his high horse. It’s offensive to Muslims.

01/11/15

Crisis

Arlene from Israel

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.