Tag Archives: Middle East

Putin Punks Obama

The most glaring example of diminishing United States power and influence around the globe is the dynamic taking place between the U.S. and Russia regarding Syria.

Russia has dispatched a flotilla of eleven warships, almost half of which have the ability to carry hundreds of marines to the eastern Mediterranean.  Some of those ships are to be docked in Syria. It is the greatest display of Russian power in the region since the start of Syria’s current conflict.

This is clearly a part of Russia’s effort to become a decisive power broker in Syria, and by extension, the Middle East.  Syria is Russia’s one remaining ally in the region and home to Tartus, the last remaining Soviet era military base outside of Russia.

The unusually large size of the deployment announced by Moscow can be considered a message.  The message is not just to the Middle East, but also to the United States.  The message is: We are strong and you are weak.

Not unexpectedly, the response from Washington was, to put it politely, muted.  Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council said:  “Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus.  We currently have no reason to believe this move is anything out of the ordinary, but we refer you to the Russian government for more details.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/middleeast/russia-sends-warships-on-maneuvers-near-syria.html?_r=1

The nature of this response will reaffirm to Putin that the current Oval Office occupant is willing to react passively and submissively to the Kremlin.  Leading from behind is seen by experienced global power brokers like Putin as weakness.

Although KGB style secrecy and the Kremlin’s careful manipulation of his image make him difficult to read, watching the recent body language between Putin and Obama makes it is clear for all to see that Putin has little respect for Obama.

Whether Putin or any other Soviet/Russian leader likes you or not is irrelevant to a successful foreign policy.  Ronald Reagan understood that.  George W. Bush understood that.  Mikhail Gorbachev respected Ronald Reagan and grew to like him.  Putin never openly displayed affection for Bush in the way Gorbachev did for Reagan, but Russia’s relative inaction during Bush’s presidency indicated that Putin respected him.  It seems clear that Putin saw, as a result of Bush’s actions, that Bush was ready and willing to promote U.S. interests and power abroad.  In Obama, Putin sees the inverse.  Putin does not see a partner in Obama.  He does not see an adversary in Obama.  In Obama, Putin sees a tool, a weakling who can be punked at will.  Russia’s military deployment to Syria reinforces that conclusion.

Obama’s insistence on making the world like him the cornerstone of his foreign policy is but one of a multitude of reasons why removing him in November is vital to American interests.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/putin-punks-obama/

Fundraise and Fore! obama’s Answer to World Events

Israel issued warnings over security problems with Egypt. Militants from the Sinai Peninsula crossed over into southern Israel Monday and fired on a border security fence, killing one Israeli. The IDF moved tanks and other armed forces to the Israel-Egypt border in response to the attack. Egypt is on the offensive against Israel.

Egypt’s presidential election results lean towards victory for Mohammed Morsi, the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Thanks at least in part to vocal White House support for the “Arab Spring”, which ushered the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt’s presidency, Egypt is now likely to be more inclined towards acting offensively towards Israel.

Russia’s General Staff announced Russian Black Sea fleet warships may head for Syria, saying: “The Mediterranean Sea is a zone of the Black Sea Fleet responsibility. Hence, warships may go there in the case it is necessary to protect the Russian logistics base in Tartous, Syria”. Several warships, including large landing ships are ready for deployment. Russia supports Syria, an active agent for radical Ismanists in Iran, who also just happen to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Russia exerts new influence in the Middle East while Russia’s President Vladimir Putin plays the White House like a fiddle.

The Euro survived over the weekend after a close call in Greek elections. Early market euphoria on Monday diminished when persistent uncertainty over the situation in Spain, Italy and other eurozone countries resurfaced. Despite Greece’s election result easing fears that the single currency will disintegrate, indications that Greece will run out of money in mid-July stalled initial market optimism. Multiple countries in Europe are now in economic decline after decades of following Socialist policies.

In France, Socialist President Francois Hollande was given a mandate to follow through with his tax-and-spend agenda when France’s Socialists won control of parliament on Sunday. Hollande now has the majority he needs to combat France’s debt crisis by following the very formula that created a debt crisis in France, Greece, Spain, Italy and the rest of the eurozone.

Meanwhile, in an address to the UN sustainability conference in Rio, Great Britain’s Prince Charles issued warnings about climate change. In a pre-recorded speech the Prince declared: “Catastrophic consequences of carrying on with ‘business-as-usual’ are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future”. The Prince then went on to say: “We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term.” So, which is it? Either “we do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term” or we know enough to say “many millions more people” have to worry about poverty, food, water and energy security. You can’t have it both ways, “your majesty”.

In America, Al Gore cashed in on the hysteria he and his fellow climate change propagandists created when New York city Comptroller John Liu OK’d a $16.56 million contract with Generation Investment Management, the former vice president’s environmentally friendly investment firm. Generation Investment Management will help manage New York City pension funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Given the track record of green energy capital investments, New York City pension funds are going to be another candidate for a taxpayer funded federal bailout. As with any investment management company, Generation Investment Management will earn their fees no matter what happens to the funds they invest. Apparently it pays to be a global warming alarmist. Perhaps Prince Charles fears the British Monarchy faces pending austerity measures and is just trying to get on the global warming gravy train.

Over the past three and a half years while current world events were taking shape, the White House has been spending money it does not have ala Socialist Europe. All the while enacting another big government socialist “entitlement” program to “nudge” Americans towards European style government dependency.

They championed bureaucratic violations of the free exercise of religion, using the presidential bully pulpit and complicit media lapdogs to convince uninformed voters that it was really a Republican attack on women’s healthcare.

Drones and unmanned airplanes began spying on private property in America’s heartland to ensure American Citizens are complicit with stifling new draconian EPA regulations. An EPA that is now attempting to redefine ditches as bodies of water in order to grant itself additional regulatory power.

Exceeding the Oval Office’s Constitutional and statutory authority to give work visas to a hand picked group of illegal aliens was deemed more important than creating a business friendly, jobs creating economic environment for American Citizens and legal immigrants.

This coming from an administration that pledged in 2008 that it would cut the federal deficit in half by the end of its first term. Instead, the size of the federal government, federal spending and the deficit are all at record high levels. The U.S. national debt has increased by over $5 trillion in less than four years, and after surviving WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the economic disaster that was Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the global financial crash of 2008, the United States of America’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Insinuating his name into the online biographies of former Presidents and releasing a photo-montage of himself in his “private moments” became priorities, as did attending a record number of fund raising events and playing 100 rounds (and counting) of golf. Never mind that David Axelrod, his 2012 re-election campaign chief, called former President George W. Bush “out of touch” for playing golf while the country struggled with a bad economy.

That’s what his deep-pocketed out of touch with reality millionaire and billionaire Hollywood elite friends expect from their “cool” friend in the White House. To be truly “cool”, one must be seen as being above it all.

America and the world will be better off once the current Chief Executive of the United States begins spending his days playing golf full time as a former government employee.

God Save the Queen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/fundraise-and-fore-obamas-answer-to-world-events/

Egyptian Supreme Court Wants Parliament Dissolved

Outrage was sparked in Egypt Thursday when that country’s Supreme Court ruled that the recent parliamentary election was unconstitutional. That decision led to emergency meetings of the ruling military council. In response, the country’s interim military rulers declared full legislative authority.

Supreme Court head Farouk Soltan said: “The ruling regarding parliament includes the dissolution of the Lower House of parliament in its entirety because the law upon which the elections were held is contrary to rules of the constitution.”

Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, who won 46% of the vote, said the ruling would take Egypt into a “dark tunnel”.

Freedom and Justice Party and Salafist Al-Nur Party critics who said it would leave the next incoming president without either a parliament or a constitution, describing the ruling as a “complete coup” and “a complete disregard for the free will of the voters”.

The Supreme Court also decided in a separate ruling that former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq could run for president in the June 16-17 election, rejecting a law that would have kept him from competing against the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi in a run-off election. Ahmed Shafiq was Egypt’s last Prime Minister under ousted President Hosni Mubarak. Some in Egypt have called for the disqualification of Shafiq because he is a “remnant of the old guard”.

The makeup of Egypt’s government is crucial to future peace in the Middle East. Should the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt it will then be in position to put its long held hostility towards Israel into motion. The Brotherhood is dedicated to establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. Islamic law has no room for either democratic principles or religious freedoms. It uses violence against dissenters and tramples the rights of minorities and women. The Brotherhood is, in its own words, dedicated to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within”. They were early critics of the Egypt Israeli peace treaty and have long been held responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the treaty in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood also has close ties to Iran, which is accused of engaging in hegemony and suspected of secretly developing nuclear arms.

Even though the Muslim Brotherhood was still outlawed in Egypt at the time of his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, barack obama invited the group to attend. his administration established relations with the Brotherhood in 2011. Today three members of the Muslim Brotherhood wield influence over White House policy.

What was the White House reaction to the Egyptian Supreme Court’s ruling?

*Cue the sound of crickets*

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/egyptian-supreme-court-wants-parliament-dissolved/

A Year of Historic Elections

The year 2012 is rapidly becoming a year of historic elections.

Greece held one recently where no single Party won enough of the vote to form a government. In ensuing weeks, no progress was made by the nation’s Parties while negotiating to form a coalition. This potentially could lead to a chaotic situation – not just for Greece. The eventual outcome might lead to that country’s exit from the Eurozone. Fragmentation or an unraveling of the Eurozone would have enormous impact on Europe as well as a sagging global economy.

France elected a Socialist president who plans to reopen the spigot of government largess. What’s noteworthy about the French election is that Hollande’s victory was due in large part to a boost from Islamist voters. Having a presidential election within one of the European Union’s largest economic powers decided by voters whose cultural background includes centuries of antagonism and hostility towards Europe should be quite alarming to all of western civilization.

Now Egypt’s presidential election is apparently headed for a runoff between Mohammed Mursi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate and former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq. The Egyptian election, declared by world leaders as an historic first, could well be a harbinger for the Middle East, Europe and the world

Egypt was the first Arab country to officially recognize Israel and sign a peace agreement in 1979. The Muslim Brotherhood has since called for an end to the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. The strongly conservative Islamic movement wants Egypt to move away from secularism and be ruled by the Quran. That does not bode well for western civilization. If an Egyptian government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood ends the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty, the front line of western civilization will be in enormous peril. Not only is Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East, it’s the sole nation in the region where religious tolerance is practiced.

In America, November’s election will also hold historical significance. Will voters in the United States re-elect an incumbent who sat silently by while a tyrannical, Quran ruled theocracy in Iran slaughtered it’s own citizens in cold blood for disputing election results? Will voters re-elect the candidate who openly supported the Arab Spring revolts that led directly to the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? Will voters choose to retain someone who so lusts to bask in glory for “getting” Osama bin Laden that his administration granted access to highly restricted national security information to Hollywood producers to make a movie glorifying “his” achievement? A movie scheduled for release right before the election? Will the United States choose to keep those in power that leaked to Pakistan the name of the doctor who helped find bin Laden, resulting in his being sentenced to decades in prison by what’s at best a fair weather ally? Will voters elect to continue an administration that insists on calling the war on terror “an overseas contingency operation”? That continues calling terrorist attacks “man caused disasters”? That’s own Secretary of State officially refers to Osama bin Laden as a murder, instead of a terrorist?

The current White House occupant violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chaimanship of the UN Security Council. He reduced NATO security by canceling missile defense shield installations in Europe, supported a pro-Chavez candidate in Honduras and violated the Law by engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress. He’s abandoned enforcing the security of American borders while transferred billions of taxpayer dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid. He’s snubbed Britain, one of America’s traditional allies repeatedly, and treated the duly elected Prime Minister of Israel the way a member of the KKK would treat a Negro.

Over the past century, especially post WWII, America has been leader of the free world. Having originated from and being comprised primarily of former European colonies, America is naturally the leader of the western world. By extension, that makes the President of the United States the leader of western civilization. Will U.S. voters re-elect someone whose own actions indicate open hostility towards western civilization, or elect someone who will defend the west?

History shows Americans will vote to defend the west. What “progressives” will choose is largely foretold by the actions already taken by their choice in 2008 for the Office of the Presidency.

The November 2012 U.S. elections will indeed be historic. Not just for Americans.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/a-year-of-historic-elections/

Where’s the Combat Footage?

desert storm

During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom the press was embedded with American troops showing regular footage to American T.V. watchers causing an anti-incumbent sentiment as it was designed. Americans saw guided bomb hits, infantry assaults, tank maneuvers.. One question remains – where are the combat reporters in Afghanistan during Obama’s leadership?

No Time magazine covers of injured soldiers? New Y0rk Times interviews with Afghanistan civilians? No huge stories on torture, Gitmo or any of the other activities that have not stopped during the Presidency of Barack Obama despite his promises?

The impeachment of the American media is incomplete. While many have asked about the rush to judgement in the Treyvon Martin shooting, the lack of honesty from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, there is more that is oddly missing and unjust.

Remember this video from CNN when we had a real President?

When was the last 60 minutes story on the fighting in the Middle East?

While CBS news is covering Pizza Hut creations in the region there is no riveting TV coverage of the fighting in the tribal regions of Afghanistan.

Is it the quiet cover for the sitting President that no one objects to? Sure, there are printed stories and 10 second quick-cover stories, but where are the every day battering of the American population with war footage that happened during a Republican presidency?

There is the current Administration’s disdain of Bush’s “unilateral” action in the region despite the press coverage of British successes and the more than 25 nations involved in the conflict. The media and re-historians even paint President George H.W. Bush as a fascist.

The previous White House also sought the approval of Congress for military actions as outlined by U.S. law – a process the Obama Administration has waved off, ignored and spoken against. Why Congress is not more inflamed that their part in our government has been lessened is unfathomable, questionable and possibly impeachable.

Congress has forgotten our fighting men and women. The press could care less about them. When it is not politically advantageous to do so, the most brave are forgotten – where is the combat footage?

The main stream media cover for the Democrat administration is not as obvious as many point out – in many cases, it is as simple as forgetting to report what’s actually going on because it suits an end.. by any means.

As we near Memorial Day, it is a behavior that Americans must deplore, outrage against and decide whether those networks deserve their time and money.

UN Considers Action Against Syria

Syrian Protestors

Amid violence and unrest in Syria has the UN Security Council proposing a resolution that would call on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down from office and transfer power to a new government.

Reports from the Syrian State Media Monday say that the ‘terrorists’ have blown up a gas pipeline near the border with Lebanon.

According to a Breaking News Report from The Associated Press at 4:30am ET:

Syrian activists report hearing gunfire and explosions in suburbs of Damascus as the country’s conflict moves ever closer to the capital.

Monday’s reports by the Local Coordination Committees, an opposition group, could not be independently confirmed.

On Sunday, Syrian troops in dozens of tanks and armored vehicles stormed rebellious areas near the capital, shelling neighborhoods that have fallen under the control of army dissidents and clashing with fighters.

Activists and residents said at least 62 people were killed in violence nationwide.

The widescale Sunday offensive suggested the regime is worried that military defectors could close in on Damascus, the seat of President Bashar Assad’s power.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

The reports of the effects of Syrian violence differ, depending on whose statistics are cited.  According to CNN:

 The United Nations last month estimated that more than 5,000 people have died since March, when the government launched a crackdown against demonstrators. Opposition groups estimate a higher death toll, with counts near or exceeding 7,000 people.

The opposition has blamed the deaths on government actions. The Syrian government says terrorists are responsible for the casualties.

The World’s Sliding Scale of Moral Values

Imagine a world where destruction of historic and archeological sites is dismissed as unimportant and irrelevant by the World Community. Imagine a world where the murder of innocents gets a moment of silence but is otherwise ignored by that same World Community. Imagine again, that this is not a make-believe world, but truly the one we live in. The World Community seems to be quite a tolerant bunch depending on what group you belong to. Perhaps they’ll even admit you into their little organizations – despite or perhaps because of past ‘activities’.

Let’s start with the UNESCO vote to allow the “Palestinians” into their agency. UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. I wonder if anyone could list what the “Palestinian” contributions have been to humanity at large up until this point? Anyone?

Aside from the fact that the “Palestinians” deny Jewish history – denying that the Jewish Temples in Jerusalem ever existed, denying that modern day Jews are the descendants of those Jews of 3000 years ago, denying 3000 years of Jewish existence in the Land of Israel, and even denying the Holocaust – is the fact that the “Palestinians” actively destroy Jewish historical artifacts and sites.

One would imagine that actively destroying anyone’s historical artifacts and sites would be frowned upon by UNESCO – but I suppose that it depends on who is doing the destruction. The “Palestinians” seem to be exempt.

Here are just a few examples of important Jewish holy sites being attacked and destroyed:
* In Septemer 1996, Palestinian rioters destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Schem/Nablus.
* Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem has been repeatedly attacked since 1996.
* In October 2000, Joseph’s Tomb was torched after the Israeli garrison guarding it was temporarily withdrawn. It was subsequently rebuilt as a mosque.
* Also in October 2000, the ancient synagogue in Jericho was destroyed by arson and a second historic synagogue was damaged.
* The Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the holiest site in Judaism, home of the First and Second Temples, has also seen tremendous destruction of historical artifacts. From 1996-2001 historic parts of the Temple Mount were destroyed to make way for underground mosques.

In November 1999, the Islamic clerics opened what they called an “emergency exit” to the new mosque. Over three days and nights, the “exit” expanded into a gaping hole, 18,000 square feet in size, and up to 36 feet deep. Thousands of tons of ancient fill from the site, subsequently found by Israeli archeologists to contain artifacts dating as early as the First Temple period, were dumped into the Kidron Valley.

In February and March 2001, an ancient arched structure built against the eastern wall of the Temple Mount enclosure was razed by bulldozers in order to further enlarge the “emergency gate” of the new mosque at Solomon’s Stables.

Furthermore, without any archeological supervision, approximately 6,000 square meters of the ancient surface level of the Temple Mount were dug up by tractors, paved, and declared to be open mosques. The previous director of the Antiquities Authority has called this “an archeological crime.” No Israeli official has seen any plans or has set limits on the work being carried out.

One would imagine that the destruction of a 3000 year site would stop a world body from allowing these “people” from joining the ranks of those who care about history and the preservation of ancient artifacts. But again, I suppose it matters who is doing the destruction and whose property is being destroyed.

I also suppose that we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. World organizations seem to like to reward egregiously destructive behavior such as those demonstrated by the “Palestinians”.

The 1996 Olympics in Atlanta saw the “Palestinians” participate in the Games for the first time. Only 24 years after the Munich Olympic Massacre of the Israeli athletes – unarmed civilians there to complete on the world stage, the “Palestinians” were welcomed to compete as well. Once again, it matters who is doing the murdering and who is being murdered. The “Palestinians”, of course, again get a pass.

So which world organization is next to admit the “Palestinians”? Would it be the World Heath Organization (WHO)? Perhaps using ambulances (Red Crescent and UNRWA) to transport bombs and terrorists would be sanctioned by WHO. Is this scenario really so far fetched?

Everything seems to be morally relative when it comes to the “Palestinians”. Destroy historic artifacts and sites, holy sites not withstanding, and get admitted to UNESCO. Murder innocent Jewish athletes at the Olympics, and be admitted to those same Games a few years later. All is forgiven. Moral relativity at it’s best – all dependent on the parties at hand. The World at large seems to have a sliding scale of standards, but then again, no surprise there.

Jewish Blood is Cheap

I cried as I watched the Hamas held Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, return to his family while throngs of people waving Israeli flags and singing Am Yisroel Chai (the nation of Israel lives) danced outside. It was a great moment. I’m happy he’s home.

The prisoner exchange that set Shalit free I believe we can label a valuable “teachable moment”. What lessons were learned and what were taught?

We learned that Israelis believes that every life is precious. Israel willingly traded 1027 terrorists – hundreds of them serving multiple life sentences for cold blooded murder – in order to see Shalit returned safely home after over 5 years in captivity without one International Red Cross visit.

It’s an admirable idea – to care for each soldier as if he were everyone’s son, brother, father – and since military service is compulsory – Shalit really does represent everyone. This is why we saw that 80% of Israeli’s supported this exchange.

While we learned that Israel cares about the sanctity of life, and was willing to go to great lengths to save Gilad Shalit – we also taught the terrorists a very important lesson as well: Jewish blood is cheap.

In other words: Kill a Jew, serve a few years and go home a hero.

The modern state of Israel rose out of the ashes of the Holocaust with “Never Again” the watchwords of the Jewish State. With this exchange, “Never Again” became an empty slogan. The idea that Israel was to be a safe haven for Jews, that Jewish blood could never be spilled in vain, is gone.

Some of the most horrific crimes against the citizens of the Jewish state: the 2000 Ramallah lynching, the 2001 Sbarro pizzaria bombing, the 2001 Dolphinarium discotheque bombing, the 2002 Passover massacre bombing, bus bombings and so many more – those terrorists who perpetrated them, or who helped those who carried them out are being freed to carry out more attacks on innocent men, women and children.

Life is precious, however, an innocent life is certainly more precious than the life of a murderer. Until now, Israel has reserved the death penalty for Nazis. It’s certainly way past time to put terrorists to death as well. By allowing these murderers (and some mass murderers) to walk free it minimizes the deaths of those innocents who were killed by those same people.

What of the victim’s families? Their pain never ends. As Sherri Mandel, whose 13 year old son was murdered, explains:

Most people don’t understand the continuing devastation of grief: fathers who die of heart attacks, mothers who get sick with cancer, children who leave school, families whose only child was murdered. We see depression, suicide, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder. You wouldn’t believe how many victims’ families are still on sleeping pills and anti-anxiety medication. We see the pain that doesn’t diminish with time. We literally see people die of grief.

In allowing these unrepentant murderers to go free, we see that terrorism truly does work. Every Israeli (and Jew) has now become a target for kidnapping. Calls for another Gilad Shalit have already begun. It’s no surprise. Terrorism works. There is no down-side to kidnapping (or murdering for that matter) Jewish innocents. Kill as many Jews as you would like – you’ll be free in a few years and you can do it all over again.

There needs to be a new lesson taught. That Jewish blood is not cheap. There must not be any murderers held in prison for life sentences awaiting the next exchange. They should be given a trial and executed if guilty. There must be a serious disincentive for spilling Jewish blood. If there isn’t, G-d forbid, we are going to see future exchanges which will only result in more blood spilled.

“Never Again” must really mean Never Again.

Breaking News Flash! Libya's Muammar Qaddafi Reportedly Captured/ Now DEAD

Fox News is reporting that Libya’s ousted leader,  Muammar Qaddafi has been captured. He was reportedly wounded in both legs and found in a hole similar to when Iraq’s oppressive leader, Saddam Hussein was captured. UPDATE: AFP confirms Qaddafi dead. i (Pic: AFP /Philippe Desmazes) It is reported that Qaddafi was shot in both legs and shot in the head. He was reportedly found hiding in a bunker.  The conflict remains about how Qaddafi was originally captured and then whether he was executed by an order to avoid his trial. Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam said he has confirmed that Qaddafi was dead from fighters who said they saw the body. He said he expects the prime minister to confirm the death soon, noting that past reports emerged “before making 100 percent confirmation.” Huge concerns about the huge stockpiles of rocket-fired missiles are being reported, as there are no NATO/US boots on the ground to keep those weapons from being sold on the black market.

Colonel Gaddafi (Pic: AFP /Philippe Desmazes)

 

 

 

 

In an earlier report from Foxnews.com we had seen it reported that Libyan Rebels had captured Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte, which apparently led to his capture. We will update this story as more information becomes available.

Col Gaddafi

Qaddafi took power in 1969 in a bloodless coup at the young age of 27. A ruthless dictator for 42 years, he ruled Libya with an iron fist which included reinstating the punishment of cutting off the hands of thieves. U.S. President Reagan gave Qaddafi the moniker of “Mad Dog of the Middle East. According to the latest reports. NATO jets attacked a convoy trying to escape the town of Sirte,  in which Qaddafi was riding in. The Libyan Rebels then captured Qaddafi alive when they found him hiding in a drainage ditch, and attempted to transport him to their Headquarters in Misrata. Qaddafi had wounds from gunshots to his legs and eventually was shot in the head, but whether it was the Rebels or the NATO strike that resulted in Qaddafi’s death is still in dispute.

Libya is now free from the notorious Dictator and there is dancing and celebratory gunshots in the streets across Libya today. France and the UK are to be commended for their role in the initial demands to intervene in Libya and to oust Qaddafi. President Obama eventually bent to the demands of French President Sarkozy to intervene in Libya, and the U.S. was very heavily involved in the initial air strikes and supplied the majority of the cruise missiles that started to turn the tide against Qaddafi. Many people have criticized President Obama for not taking action sooner and possibility avoiding some of the atrocious murders of the Libyan citizens in late 2010, and in the beginning of 2011.

The world, and especially the Libyan people are better off today with the death of the ruthless Libyan Dictator who was also responsible for numerous bombings in other countries, including the deaths of 270 people in the Lockerbe bombing over Scotland. Just what the Libyan people do with their new-found freedom remains to be seen. Qaddafi was supposedly the last obstacle preventing them from installing a Democracy and creating a new constitution. Just how they handle their new-found freedom and liberty could set them up for a true Democracy and a bright future for all Libyans if done properly without overt influence from radical fundamentalists in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE: While Fox News reports Qaddafi is now dead, the BBC still reports that  he was captured here.

Is the United States still a Moral Power?

We’ve all heard that the Palestinian bid for full United Nations membership has to go to the Security Council first. We also all know that the United States has threatened to veto this bid.

What is a disturbing footnote to this story is that the US is attempting to avoid using it’s veto power.

However, officials in both Israel and in Washington have affirmed that the U.S. was hard at work to prevent itself the possible embarrassment of being forced to use its veto power in order to thwart the Palestinian vote, by attempting to assemble enough council members to either vote against the proposal or abstain as to make the veto unnecessary.

Why is the United States trying to avoid using their veto? Perhaps they are trying to keep the Arab world happy with them by not throwing their wholehearted support behind Israel? But then again, wasn’t the “Arab Spring” all about replacing totalitarian dictatorships with “freedom” and “democracy”? Shouldn’t the Arab world show their appreciation to the United States for bringing those basic concepts to the world at large?

Rather, what we see is the United States’ public face turning away from the principles that have made us great. We see a fearful stance – trying to have it both ways – keeping the Arab world happy by attempting not to use their veto, and keeping the Israelis happy by stating their support for the Jewish state.

Where is the United States’ clear support for an ally of 60+ years? Words are cheap. Statements of support are easy to make. The US should be clear that they are vetoing this Palestinian bid without any attempt to find a way out of it.

Since when has the United States become a “follower” rather than a “leader” in the moral-relativity zone known as the United Nations? The US has been the moral compass of the world for years and now it seems that our needle is broken. We’re willing to relinquish that leadership role.

Is this where we’re headed? Is the US the same as every other two-bit nation that holds a seat at the United Nations? Are we no longer the power that we once were – too afraid of Arab and world “opinion” to do the right thing?

I certainly hope not.

The Palestinians, The U.N. and Bizarro World

After an eventful week at the United Nations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas handed a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on Friday requesting full membership for the currently non-existent Palestinian State.  The U.N. can, of course, take a long time to “consider” this request before coming to any decision, but the problem here is the principal of the action.

Does the United Nations now have the authority to create nations within disputed borders without due negotiation happening first?  Let’s put it another way:  If a Native American tribe in Kansas suddenly decided it didn’t want to be in the United States any longer, and they wanted the entire state of Kansas for themselves, could they just go to the U.N. and ask to be included as a full member and recognized as an independent country?  The thought is absurd on its face.

How then, can the United Nations and the 100 some odd countries who support this move be so frivolous?  Surely they know that unless and until Israel and the Palestinian Authority come to an agreement on permanent borders and reciprocal recognition of each other that U.N. “legitimacy” is as valuable as a Confederate dollar.

Obviously, they don’t have any authority to do this, but that doesn’t mean they’re not going to try.  The P.A. doesn’t want to negotiate with Israel because Israel wants three things the P.A. is unwilling to give them:

          1.  Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State.

          2.  Jerusalem as an undivided city that is the capital of Israel.

          3.  Secure, defensible borders.

Abbas, himself, said the following when talking about recognizing Israel:

“They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state.”

So much for Israel’s point number 1.

Jerusalem has been and will continue to be a major problem.  Both sides claim it as their capital.  Israel doesn’t want to re-divide it.  The Palestinians secretly (or not so secretly) want all of it.  There is no room for compromise here, so the expectation that the two sides will agree on Jerusalem’s status is laughable.

It is more likely that Jerusalem will end up as an internationally maintained city that symbolically serves as the capital for both Israel and Palestine.   Israel will be pressured, grudgingly, into this position.  Palestine will gladly accept it, while complaining publicly about it.  This will give them a foothold and allow them to move further down their stated path of removing the “Jewish scourge” from all of the land.

As to point number 3, the Palestinians don’t care about Israeli security.  They want Israel gone and so they insist on starting with the 1967 borders, thus leaving Israel with a weak point that is only 9 miles across to defend.

The Palestinians, for their part, want all settlement activity by Israel to cease and for the residents that move to their new homes to leave.  They insist on having a Jew-Free Palestine.  Israel, on the other hand, has many non-Jews living inside its borders, some even serving in the government, yet it is Israel that is called racist and apartheid.

The world went to sleep one day not too long ago and woke up in Bizarro World.  In Bizarro World, good is evil, evil is good, everything is backwards and accepted as normal.  In this world, the Palestinians are an oppressed people being systematically evicted from their ancestral homelands by the Nazi Israelis (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

Only in Bizarro World does years of terrorist activity lead to an organization becoming a “respected” partner for peace when their very own charter calls for the destruction of the other “partner”.  Perhaps in Bizarro World, peace only happens when you’re the only party left at the negotiating table.

True peace can never come to the region until both sides learn to accept and respect each other.  It’ll take a miracle for just that to happen.

When Middle East Policies Collide

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 will prove to be a very busy and interesting day.  On that day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the United Nations general assembly, followed soon after by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Both men will outline the state of affairs between the two peoples who reside in a very contentious region.  Their perspectives, however, are very different, and in the end, only one of them is right.

Netanyahu will start out the day in an effort to defend Israeli policy and practice.  The reception, however, is likely to be very chilly, to say the least.  The U.N. General Assembly has been known for its blatant anti-Israel stance, so Netanyahu’s message is more of a matter of record than of sway.  He simply wants to get everything out there for the world to hear, even if it’ll all fall on deaf ears.

Abbas has different motives.  He is seeking a U.N. Resolution, preferably from the Security Council that declares, unilaterally, the existence of a State called Palestine.  He wants full U.N. membership and representation, and his goal is to force Israel’s hand by having the U.N. outline the borders.  The Palestinian Authority is intent on securing borders from prior to the 1967 war.  At least, that’s the border they want to start with.

Israel, however, has argued that those borders are indefensible and negotiations must be undertaken to choose different borders.  Israel also insists that Jerusalem not be re-divided and remain the capital of the Jewish State.  One other thing that Israel wants, however, is something that the Palestinians are unwilling to give:  a declaration that Israel as a Jewish State has a right to exist.

The P.A. won’t resume negotiations until Israel stops building settlements in the so-called occupied territories.  That, of course, is a straw man being used to further the Palestinians’ goal.  They’d prefer to have the world exert pressure on Israel through the United Nations by painting themselves as the good guys.

The P.A. is undertaking this move by saying they are just copying what the Israelis did in 1948.  An article ran in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 29th in which Sonja Karkar distorted history and portrayed it as fact.  He said:

“Israel’s own unilateral move in declaring statehood after the UN’s intention to partition historic Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state cannot be avoided. It underscores that Palestine was never a land without a people and that Israel’s existence was imposed on Palestinians, robbing them of their homes and land and destroying their proud and millenniums-old society.”

What Mr. Karkar fails to mention in his first sentence is that when Israel declared independence, they did so within the U.N. partitioned borders in good faith.  The Arab League opposed the plan.  They argued that the U.N. lacked the authority to divide the land and they viewed the division as being unfair.  On the day Israel declared her independence, the surrounding Arab States declared war with one purpose in mind:  the obliteration of Israel.  They wanted to push the Jewish infestation in Arab lands into the sea.

The Palestinians in the region at the start of the war were urged by the surrounding Arab States to leave their homes.  They were promised prime land, once Israel no longer existed.

Mr. Karkar’s reasoning again is faulty by his assumption that the “Palestinians” were actually a distinct society.  There, of course, have always been people there.  Those people come from all different sorts of backgrounds and cultures, but never once has there been a nation of Palestine that was run by the people who call themselves Palestinian.

The Arab confederation lost this war.  Several more military campaigns would be waged over the years and each time the result was the same:  Israel was victorious and the surrounding nations were clueless.

In 1949, the land that the U.N. had partitioned for the Arab State was firmly in the hands of the Jordanians and Egyptians.  It remained in their hands until 1967.

In those 18 years, no effort was made to establish a nation of Palestine according to the U.N. plan.  The only thing the Egyptians and Jordanians did was plan their next war.  In 1967, they lost the now so-called “Occupied Territories”.  Egypt also lost the entire Sinai Peninsula.

On the eastern side, Israel had taken the West Bank of the Jordan River along with East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Israel reunited Jerusalem, but under treaty with Jordan, left the temple mount under Jordanian control.

In 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a Peace agreement that formally ended 30 years of war.  As part of the deal, Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai Peninsula and wanted to give Egypt the Gaza Strip at the same time.  Egypt did not want Gaza.  They viewed the residents there as being problematic and preferred to leave the problem in Israel’s hands.  Once again, no effort was made by the Egyptians to secure that land, which they could have then turned around and ceded to the Palestinians.

Over the course of time, the Palestinian Liberation Organization evolved from a purely terrorist organization to a “respected” representative of the Palestinian interests.  Various accords have been signed and Israel has withdrawn from large portions of the land.  The exception would be the settlements that are being constructed in the West Bank.

This is where the racist aspect of the Palestinians comes clearly into view for those of us who want to look.  The Palestinians have no interest in having any Jews live in what will be their State and so they oppose, often violently, any Jewish settlements in those areas.  This sort of apartheid is condemned elsewhere, but for some reason, is not only accepted in this region, it’s promoted as the only way to have “peace”.

The truth is there won’t be peace in the region because there are two peoples in one region that both want the same land and refuse to live together and work together.

With the exception of re-dividing Jerusalem, Israel is more than willing to share the land with the Palestinians, side by side.  They just want to make sure their borders are wide enough to be defended.  The Palestinians, however, only view such an existence a stopgap to their goal:  A Palestinian State that extends from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

The United States wants to stop Abbas from making his demands, and Netanyahu wants to make sure the world knows why.  If both efforts fail to change the course the world is on, September 20th could prove to be a very busy, perhaps even bloody, day, indeed.

Tim Pawlenty Releases Middle-East Foreign Policy Statement

Governor Pawlenty gave these remarks in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Tim PawlentyI want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility.

Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.

Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past — at the end of World War II, in the last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror … and we can do it again.

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the opportunity is simply too great.

No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring – but the freedom deficit in the Arab world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable oppression.

President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy – whose fruit we see now ripening across the region – he adopted a murky policy he called “engagement.”

“Engagement” meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.

While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was “waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes.” She and the president waited long enough to see the Green Movement crushed.

“Engagement” meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was “perceived by Egyptian democracy activists as signaling a lack of support.” They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.

“Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them?

The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt — the pro-democracy, secular political parties — these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.

The Obama “engagement” policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a “reformer.” Even as Assad’s regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan to give Assad “an alternative vision of himself.” Does anyone outside a therapist’s office have any idea what that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.

By contrast, I called for Assad’s departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As President, I will not.

We need a president who fully understands that America never “leads from behind.”

We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.

Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring — and we should seize it.

As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different strategic approach.

The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy – the formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its journey toward democracy.

For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.

Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and toward efforts to build good allies — genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.

We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the region’s emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American interests.

Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade—not subsidies and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth.

In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.

Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.

The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some – like Jordan and Morocco – are engaging now in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.

But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.

The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has significantly weakened it.

The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The 2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.

We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.

To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.

When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.

The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the region’s diversity of religious, ethnic, and political groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty, secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regime’s tyranny.

So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and expose Teheran’s regime for the pariah it is.

And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.

Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to independent courts and all other democratic rights.

Nowhere has President Obama’s lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.

It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.

President Obama could not be more wrong.

The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. They’re about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.

Today the president doesn’t really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And let’s be frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more pressure on Israel.

I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it because I know the people of Israel want peace.

Israeli – Palestinian peace if further away not than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not have to be a permanent situation.

We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands strongly with Israel.

I would take a new approach.

First, I would never undermine Israel’s negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.

Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step towards global legitimacy.

Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.

Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.

The Middle East is changing before our eyes—but our government has not kept up. It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.

All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now wonders where we are and what we’re up to.

The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges. While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.

In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.

It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obama’s military leadership in Libya. There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petreaus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.

Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed.

That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must carry around the world.

Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer, more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress.

Taking A Stand May Mean You Lose Friends

I was put in the position just a couple of nights ago where I had to take a stand. You know the saying, “If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.”

As a very solid supporter of Israel I write articles, tweets, and speak out very boldly of my support for Israel. I had a friend who is a liberal, who as it turns out is atheist, but her parents are Muslim. Obviously we are as different from each other as night and day in our beliefs.

However, we had found a way to remain friends without letting our difference cause issues. I had to draw the line with her a couple of times and tell her certain things were not up for discussion. I was never disillusioned enough to believe I could change her mind or beliefs and I know for certain she was not going to change mine.

That all changed night before last when I posted the link to my article “Come Hell Or High Water I Will Stand With Israel“.

I doubt very seriously she even took the time to read the article. Instead, she started ranting that while she could sympathize with Israel it was not right that they go “bulldozing down homes.” This was just the beginning of the rant.

Israel is one of the topics that was off-limits for us. I warned her, as nicely as I possibly could, that I would not discuss this issue with her as I refused to do in the past. She persisted. I told her I was giving her one last warning. I drew my line in the sand. The topic of Israel just was not up for discussion with her. Still she persisted. So I blocked her from my twitter account.

That was the last thing I wanted to do. However, she did not respect me and my stand. She refused to let it go. She continued to bait me. I stood strong. A friendship was ended.

It is sometimes tough to take a stand. These days, it is often very difficult to take a stand, most especially if it involves supporting Israel. However, if you don’t stand for something, you WILLfall for anything! Not I, says the Lady Warrior who knows the Blessings of Freedom! I will fight forever- until my dying breath, if that is what it takes! To paraphrase my favorite movie, “Braveheart“, they may take my life, but they will NEVER take my freedom!

America, we must be prepared. I strongly believe that the actions of President Obama today will bring down the wrath of God Almighty on this nation. He has turned his back on Israel. He spat in the face of God’s chosen  people. God will not take this lightly!

I stand united with you, Oh Israel! Lift up your eyes unto the heavens. Yes, as Glenn Beck just said, I do most certainly believe the very gates of hell have just opened up against you! But I also believe just as Glenn Beck just stated that the very gates of heaven are standing wide open for you! YOU, OH ISRAEL, are the apple of Sovereign God’s eye! Do not despair! He is with you always. My heart and prayers will continue to be with you, Israel! May God bless you and keep you always!

“That” Day Has Come- Israel IS The Burdensome Stone

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people. All who burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.”
Zechariah 12:3

It does not surprise me that the world has come against Israel. Prophecy foretold of this thousands of years ago.

What does surprise me is how people who call themselves Christians are now among the ever-growing group who stands against the nation of Israel and her people.

I just read a headline that broke my heart. It shouldn’t surprise me, but I must admit it does.

The headline reads, “United Methodist Board Features Anti-Israel Message in Newsletter”.

The United Methodist Church’s official website states:

“As United Methodists, we have an obligation to bear a faithful Christian witness to Jesus Christ, the living reality at the center of the Church’s life and witness. To fulfill this obligation, we reflect critically on our biblical and theological inheritance, striving to express faithfully the witness we make in our own time.”

If you read the various links on the website regarding The United Methodist faith and beliefs they speak strongly of taking a stand and being active in society, their response to God’s love and grace, a mission to make disciples, and other areas that seem to take a definite stand for doing what is right according to God’s Word.

If this Statement of Faith is held true by the religious organization of The United Methodist Church, they would come out strongly against this  “advocacy wing” of the organization and denounce every ounce of this newsletter!

To quote Abraham Lincoln,

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

Members of The United Methodist Church, you must ask yourself where you stand.  Do you support Israel? If you do, you must seriously question being a part of anything or anyone who stands on the wrong side of God! As the clichés go, “You are known by the company you keep.” There’s also the applicable quote, “Birds of a feather flock together.” I could spend a lot of time and space quoting common sayings that have relevance to this, but I believe you get the idea.

Our faith in Christ comes not from a specific religion, church building or leader. The ONLY Leader we must glean our Truth from is the One who IS The Way, The TRUTH and The Life- Jesus Christ.  (John 14:6) If you disagree with The United Methodist Church “advocacy group” you MUST go to the top on this issue! The time for sitting silently by has long since passed. This is the reason we have the leadership we have today and the social issues we do today. The Church- The Body of Christ- became complacent. I speak for ALL religions that call themselves “Christian” in that statement. I cannot point fingers at anyone else without having 4 fingers pointing back at myself. We must stand strong, proud and resolved on this issue. Israel and her people- the Jews- are God’s chosen people. Genesis 12:3 makes it very clear where we must stand in regards to Israel-

“I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”

If you support the division of Jerusalem- the land of Israel- you are essentially supporting the division of the homeland of Messiah.  Yeshua- or Jesus as we know Him- was born into this earthly world in Israel.Oh yes, there are those who contest this fact, but they are wrong, plain and simple. The Bible- God’s Holy Word- the ONLY resolute written Truth in existence- clearly documents the genealogy of this man Yeshua (Jesus).

If you are a Christian then your standard of belief should come only from The Holy Word of God Almighty. Either you believe that The Bible is complete Truth or you don’t.

Matthew 2: 2 says specifically that He was born, “King of the Jews”.  If you stand against Israel, you stand against  Yeshua- Jesus- The Christ- The Messiah.

If you stand with Israel, you stand with Yeshua- Jesus- The Christ- The Messiah.

When it comes down to the end, we are each, personally accountable before the throne of God Almighty. The Methodist Church cannot and will not speak for you. The Baptist Church cannot and will not speak for you. The Catholic Church cannot and will not speak for you. The Pentecostal Church cannot and will not speak for you. The choice is yours and yours alone. YOU will be PERSONALLY held accountable for where YOU stand!

We have come to the point in history that prophecy speaks of. Jerusalem has indeed become a burdensome stone for all the world. The time for playing church has come and gone. The time for choosing the label of “Christian” for your religious preference is over. The time has come to make some hard choices. You are not going to be alone, but there are far more people who stand against Israel than with her. Even those who call themselves her allies are coming together against her. Yes, you will be mocked for taking a stand for her. Your life may even be in danger at some point in time, but there is eternal life after this temporal life. The choice is now yours.

Choose you this day whom you will serve.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15). As for me and my house, we will Stand With Israel- NOW AND FOREVER!

« Older Entries Recent Entries »