Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion, Or Prohibiting The Free Exercise Thereof!

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012

MONKEY IN THE MIDDLE

The very first sentence of the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Words that clearly spell out that the United States has no established Church and that each person is free to follow his or hers conscience in matters of faith.

Yet according to Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, the Free Exercise of Religion is not a personal option, but what his government wants.

The Obama administration on Friday finalized a regulation that orders all Americans—unless they work directly at a church--to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions.

The regulation further requires that health-insurance plans must provide sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients without any fees or co-pay.

The regulation, issued as part of the initial implementation of Obamacare, requires Catholics to act against their faith--which teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion violate the natural law and that Catholics cannot be involved in them.

In a statement, the nation's Roman Catholic bishops immediately condemned the administration's decision to move forward with the regulation as "literally unconscionable."

The regulation will go into effect on Aug. 1.

In December, the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives negotiated a continuing resolution with President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate that allows the administration to fund implementation of the regulation. That CR, which funds the government through the end of fiscal 2012 (which comes on Sept. 30), expressly denied the administration the funds to carry out some regulatory activities but did not deny it the funds to carry out the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient regulation.

In announcing the final version of the regulation on Friday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the administration would allow some non-profit groups, which object to the rule on religious grounds, an extra year to comply as long as these groups file a certification document with the administration and inform their employees about where they can find contraceptives.

“Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law,” Sebelius said in a statement.

“Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation,” Sebelius commanded.

“This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule," she said. "We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.”

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was caustic in responding to administration’s extension and made clear that the church objects to the regulation as it applies to both groups and individual citizens.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan said in a statement.

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable,” said Dolan. “It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

According to the Associated Press, Obama personally called Dolan to inform the archbishop he had decided to move ahead with the federal sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate despite pleas from Dolan, the Catholic bishops, and prominent Catholic lay people that the mandate was an unambiguous and unprecedented attack on the free exercise of religion that is expressly guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

To force faithful Catholics to provide and/or purchase insurance plans that cover sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortaficients--all of which Catholics believe violate the moral law--is to force them to act against the teachings of their church and their consciences and thus violates the constitutional right to free exercise of religion, Catholic leaders argued.

When HHS Secretary Sebelius first announced the regulation in August, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops submitted formal comments to HHS calling the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and urging the administration to rescind it.

"Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase 'services' to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty," the bishops told HHS.

The bishops also told HHS that a so-called religious exemption in the regulation was so narrowly drawn that it would not exempt Jesus Himself from being forced by the government to buy or provide coverage for sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.

The exemption, the bishops noted, holds that a church organization is "not a religious employer if it (a) serves those who are not already members of the church, (b) fails to hire based on religion, or (c) does not restrict its charitable and missionary purposes to the inculcation of religious values."

"Under such inexplicably narrow criteria--criteria bearing no reasonable relation to any legitimate (let alone compelling) government purpose--even the ministry of Jesus and the early Christian Church would not qualify as 'religious,' because they did not confine their ministry to their co-religionists or engage only in a preaching ministry," the bishops said. "In effect, the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences."

Specifically, Catholic universities, Catholic hospitals and Catholic charitable organizations would not be exempted.

The regulation never contemplated exempting individual Catholics, or other people who object to buying sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients on grounds that it violates their religion and their conscience.

The regulation, as originally drawn and confirmed Friday by the administration, applies to all Catholic lay people—unless they work directly for a parish—and all Catholic business owners.

Cardinal-designate Dolan personally met with Obama in November to explain the church’s objection to the regulation, but Obama has now rejected Dolan’s pleas and those of Dolan’s brother bishops.

After the final regulation was announced on Friday, Dolan taped a video in which he said the Obama administration was violating the right to free exercise religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment and called on Americans to make their elected leaders reverse the regulation.

“But I am afraid the administration is on the wrong side of the Constitution again,” said Dolan. “Now it has ordered almost every employer and insurer in the country to provide sterilizations and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans. And it is requiring almost all Americans, even those with ethical and religious objections, to pay for this coverage.

“The administration offered a very narrow religious exemption to some employers such as churches, but the government will still require most Americans to pay for this coverage even if it violates their consciences,” said Dolan. “That is a foul ball by any standard. Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights. How about letting our elected leaders know that we want religious liberty and rights of conscience restored and the administration’s mandate rescinded? We can’t afford to strike out on this one.”

Feminist and pro-abortion groups were quick to applaud President Obama’s move to force Catholics to buy sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients.

“At last concern for women's health trumps pressure from the Catholic Bishops,” said Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “Millions of women who may have been denied access to birth control with no co-pays or deductibles will now have full access. I am especially pleased that college students at religiously affiliated institutions will now have coverage for birth control without co-pays or deductibles under their school health plans beginning in August 2012.”

“Women's rights and pro-choice groups, including the Feminist Majority Foundation, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the National Women's Law Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Organization for Women (NOW), and NARAL Pro-Choice America, urged the Obama Administration not to consider the broader religious exemption,” said Smeal.

The National Organization for Women put out a statement thanking “the many activists and women's rights supporters around the country who flooded the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services with messages urging the administration” not to agree to the requests of Catholics to expand the exemption in the regulation.

NOW President Terry O’Neill described the religiously affiliated institutions denied an exemption from the regulation as groups incapable of having a “conscience” in need of protection.

“Last year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops intensified its lobbying campaign peddling a version of so-called ‘religious freedom’ that would allow organizations to withhold needed reproductive health care from women, as if those organizations were people with the ability to have a 'conscience,'" O'Neill said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, defended Obama’s move.

“I strongly support this action by the Obama Administration to expand access to fundamental, basic health care and will continue to fight to protect the benefits of health care reform for the American people,” said Pelosi.

Source

I wonder what he will demand of religious group next?  Jews forced to eat bacon?  Hindus forced to kill cows?
Muslims forced to look at pictures of Muhammad?  Ignore the last one.  Obama would never allow that. 

We could see the EPA screaming about Full Immersion Baptism.  How that pollutes the water.  Why not?  If Obama says it is to be the tenets of faith, then it must be so.

The left loves to quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. How the letter calls for a wall of separation between Church & State. But they don't quote the whole meaning of that sentence.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

A quite different idea.  The idea that government has NO PLACE TELLING A FAITH WHAT THEIR TENETS ARE!  That government MUST stay out of religion, not the opposite.

In this issue I side with the Catholic Church.  Not for the reasons of pro-life, in fact I am very pro-birth control.  No my reason is very simple.  The government has no place telling any faith what tenets of their faith they are to follow or be taxed out of existence.  No government has that right!  Will somebody please give President Obama a copy of the US Constitution and force him to read it!!

Posted by Findalis at 09:00

Video: Allah's willing executioners

ISRAEL MATZAV

by Carl in Jerusalem

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Here's a full-length video documentary on the role of Muslims in the Holocaust, which I have not yet had time to watch. It was made by Alfred Hitchcock. There's a brief description of it here.

Uploaded by TheRimDoctor on May 8, 2011

In 1945, the American, Canadian and British armies entered the Rhineland. In it they faced the grisly horror of the Nazi Concentration camps. Hidden by the BBC for decades and deemed unsautable and unfit for viewing bu the general public. Recently released, and kept alive by a short few people for audiences around the world, no one can forget this happened, lest if we forget history, we forget humanity.

Wenn dies ist nicht genug Beweis für den Holocaust für Sie, gehen Sie bitte auf den Iran oder in Ihrer Nähe Klippe und springt dementsprechend.

Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).

Barack Hussein Obama, Commander-in-Chief, BLOCKS Legislation That Would Hold Iran Responsible for 1983 Bombing of Beirut Marines Barracks

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2012 'by HOLGER AWAKENS

Barack Hussein Obama, Commander-in-Chief, BLOCKS Legislation That Would Hold Iran Responsible for 1983 Bombing of Beirut Marines Barracks

A U.S. Marine searches the rubble on Oct. 31, 1983, after an Oct. 23 attack on the headquarters of the U.S. troops of the multinational force in Beirut, Lebanon. In twin attacks on U.S. and French military installations, suicide bombers driving trucks killed 299 French and Americans, including 241 U.S. service members.


If there actually is one person left in America who hasn't caught on to the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama actually detests the American military and all of those who serve and have served this country in uniform, this story from World News Tribune, should set them straight. And for those in America who doubt Obama's unwavering support of the mullah regime in Iran, even over his own country, I encourage you to read this report as well.

For most patriotic Americans, the following should not only seal the deal as to your vote in the Presidential election coming up in November, it should make you nauseous:

President Barack Obama, in a bid to reconcile with the
Teheran regime, has blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for
the Hizbullah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983.

A survivors group has asserted that the administration is pressuring
Democrats in Congress not to support a bill that would enforce massive
judgements against Iran by the families of the Marines. In 2007, a U.S.
federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and
ordered Teheran to pay $2.65 billion in damages.

“This administration talks a lot about sanctions, but we know Iran is watching this case closely and, astonishingly, Obama’s people are taking Iran’s side,” Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a lobbyist for the legislation, said.

Ms. Derbyshire, whose brother Marine Capt. Vincent Smith was killed in the 1983 bombing, said survivors and their families were urging Congress to support amendments to the Iran Sanctions Bill, scheduled for mark-up in the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 2.

You see where this woman is amazed that Obama is taking Iran's side - well, I ask the question, why is she amazed? The question should be...when HASN'T Obama taken Iran's side?!

Once again, we have an American President who has sided with Muslims over Americans in uniform. Once again, we see an American President show allegiance to Mohammed above and beyond Old Glory. Once again, we see an American President support Islamic terror before protection of the American people.

And once again, I call for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama ‘taking Iran’s side’ on damages from ’83 bombing that killed 241 Marines


WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, in a bid to reconcile with the
Teheran regime, has blocked legislation that would hold Iran accountable for
the Hizbullah bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1983.

A survivors group has asserted that the administration is pressuring
Democrats in Congress not to support a bill that would enforce massive
judgements against Iran by the families of the Marines. In 2007, a U.S.
federal district court judge found Iran liable for the Beirut bombing and
ordered Teheran to pay $2.65 billion in damages.

“This administration talks a lot about sanctions, but we know Iran is watching this case closely and, astonishingly, Obama’s people are taking Iran’s side,” Lynn Smith Derbyshire, a lobbyist for the legislation, said.

Ms. Derbyshire, whose brother Marine Capt. Vincent Smith was killed in the 1983 bombing, said survivors and their families were urging Congress to support amendments to the Iran Sanctions Bill, scheduled for mark-up in the Senate Banking Committee on Feb. 2.

But they said committee members were being pressed by the White House not to vote for amendments that would hold Teheran responsible for the 1983 attack and transfer the $2.65 billion awarded in 2007. The Iran Sanctions Bill would enable U.S. sanctions on foreign companies that purchase or ship oil through the Iranian government or sell telecommunications equipment to Teheran.

“We have petitioned Congress to prevent the government of the Islamic republic of Iran from avoiding its obligations to pay judgments awarded to past and future victims and survivors of Iranian terrorism,” Ms. Derbyshire said on Jan. 30. “We’ve spoken with many sympathetic members of Congress but
they won’t act while this administration is blocking what we and the
American people know is right.”

Over the last decade, the families of Iranian-sponsored attacks have won
billions of dollars in suits against the Teheran regime. But the federal
government, particularly the State Department, has blocked access to Iranian
assets or funds in the United States.

Ms. Derbyshire said she represents more than 1,000 families across the
United States in the campaign to target Teheran and its finances. The group
has also lobbied Congress to strengthen the U.S. law that bans Iran from
laundering money in the United States to finance Hizbullah and other
insurgency proxies.

“We can show that international banks have moved billions of dollars of
funds from Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank, through banks in the U.S.,”
Ms. Derbyshire said. “So far that money has been untouchable. We believe
that is wrong. We are confident that most Americans would agree. Yet, the
Obama administration is thwarting our efforts.”

State-Controlled Mainstream Media?

EXPOSE OBAMA

February 8th,2012 

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh blithely calls the mainstream media “state-controlled,” as if the White House Press Corps,AP,UPI,ABC,CBS,NBC,CNN,etc. were some giant Soviet Politburo directed by Obama.

Of course we all experienced the slanted coverage in the 90s of the Bill Clinton fiasco,with accusations from women across the country rising like a whack-the-mole game. Sadly,these women,from Gennifer Flowers to Paula Jones to Kathleen Willey,were to be suppressed and referred to as whores by the mainstream media. Then Monica Lewinsky came forward,stating that Clinton had committed some rather inappropriate acts in the Oval Office. Hillary Clinton’s charge of a “vast right wing conspiracy” directed at her husband was vociferously echoed by the mainstream media. Of course,we later found out it was all true,down to the cigar and blue dress. But this does not rise to a state-controlled mainstream media,does it?

In 2008,when McCain was running on the Republican ticket for President,there was this strange,bubbling question of his eligibility due to the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Various mainstream media sources questioned McCain’s natural-born status,blatantly ignoring Obama’s more pressing question of natural-born status,his father being a Kenyan and a subject of the United Kingdom,and Obama being listed as an Indonesian citizen in school records. But this does not rise to a state-controlled mainstream media,does it?

As the “birthers” were swooping down upon McCain,a mainstream media smear job began against Sarah Palin. Although she had been a hockey mom, no one had discovered how STUPID she was,so they said. When she was a mayor and brought the city of Wasilla to grow by leaps and bounds, when she ran the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and got the political crooks out of the game, and when she was Governor of Alaska with an approval rating of ninety 

percent,strangely,the hundreds of thousands of people who had voted for and supported her were just not aware of her stupidity (so they said). Of course,the mainstream media’s portrayal of Sarah Palin was and is a lie,this being our first taste of what we would learn to be a smear job. But this does not support the charge of a state-controlled mainstream media,does it?

When Herman Cain was rising exponentially in the GOP polls,the mainstream media had first charged that he was stupid like Sarah Palin. They charged him to be a sell-out to African-Americans,a “minstrel.” They called him a racist. Yet all this time,his poll numbers continues to rise. Then they pulled out the big guns,whereby a series of “stories” surfaced:anonymous women with vague charges of sexual harassment. Politico ran almost one hundred stories about these allegations in a single week,subsequently having little to say about more substantiated subjects such as Fast and Furious,Solynda,or the other endless corruptions within the Obama administration.  But,oddly,his numbers continued to rise. The mainstream media then pulled out all the stops,relentlessly splashing the faces and stories of Sharon Bialek and Ginger White across every website,every TV screen,and every radio outlet. Mission accomplished;Cain dropped out of the race. Of course the accusers strangely and suddenly disappeared also. But this does not support the charge of a state-controlled mainstream media,does it?

By this time,we had all come to the conclusion that the facade of an objective mainstream media had been dropped. We could still rely on Fox News to a certain extent. We could rely on Drudge Report, National Review,and all the other conservative outlets. But enter Newt Gingrich. The Republican establishment made no bones about Romney being their man,but we never expected conservative media outlets to take on the Alinsky attack mode of the mainstream media. Almost in unison, Drudge Report and National Review attacked Gingrich regarding his statements of his relationship with and support of Ronald Reagan. After the initial Drudge Report and National Review assault,it quickly seethed on much of conservative media,subsequently being parroted by the mainstream media. This shocked most conservatives that,like the mainstream media’s tactics,there had been a relentless orchestrated attack against Newt Gingrich—a political version of what had been heaped upon Herman Cain. But even this does not support the charge of a state-controlled mainstream media,does it?

But when five hundred thousand people gathered for the pro-life March for Life rally in D.C. January 23,there was little if any coverage from the mainstream media. In fact,they covered the dozen or so pro-choice protesters. Therefore,we must come to the conclusion that Rush Limbaugh is right: We have a state-controlled mainstream media.

So,when the state-controlled media’s smear job of Newt Gingrich comes to fruition,then they can move on to the next target:Rick Santorum.

Kris Zane is editor-in-chief of The Obama Files

Related posts:

1. State Controlled Media? For anyone wondering why an increasing number of conservatives now…
2. Becoming The Mainstream Media As a college student back in the stone ages,one…

undefined

UPDATE: CNN FIRES ENTIRE JEWISH STAFF OF ISRAEL BUREAU - AND RETAINS ONLY ARAB REPORTERS

UPDATE:  

NOTICE

This blog will not print any news from CNN - NOTHING that they print will be "news worthy" or trusted - their choice to fire Israeli journalists is a sign that CNN is biased, anti-Semitic and useless as a news source. (How's that for decision-making, CNN?)


I hope other conservative bloggers do the same ...


Bee Sting

ATLAS SHRUGS
by Pamela Geller

We have always known how anti-Israel and biased CNN (Crescent News Network) is. Now there is no pretense. They have laid bare their antisemitism for all the world to see. Unabashed prejudice. One can only imagine the propaganda packaged as "news" that we will be subjected to by their from their 'Palestinian' stringers.

CNN Fires Entire Jewish Staff Of Israel Bureau - And Retains Only Arab Reporters (Before It's News)

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Friday, February 10, 2012 at 09:23 AM 

NOTE:

SEE:  Report: CNN Israel fires all its Jewish journalists?

AND

CNN Fired All Jewish Journalists

undefined

For Palestinians, No Arab Spring

STONEGATE INSTITUTE

by Khaled Abu Toameh
February 10, 2012 at 4:30 am

 Abbas collecting autocratic titles, including those he denied to Arafat.

At a time when Arab heads of state are facing popular uprisings demanding reforms and democracy, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has secured himself yet another job: Prime Minister.

Earlier this week, Palestinians were surprised to hear that Abbas had reached a deal with Hamas to form a unity government that would be headed by the Palestinian president.

The 76-year-old Abbas already holds several titles. In addition to his job as president, he is also the chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, head of the Fatah Central Committee and Commander of the Palestinian Armed Forces.

Abbas's deal with Hamas, which was reached under the auspices of Qatar, has drawn sharp criticism from many Palestinians. Moreover, the deal has divided Hamas into camps -- one that accepts the appointment of Abbas as prime minister and another that categorically rejects it.  As if not enough, Palestinian sources reported that Abbas may also serve as Finance Minister and Interior Minister in the proposed unity government -- raising the number of titles he would hold to eight.

Abbas's critics say his planned appointment as prime minister is in violation of the Palestinian basic law, which prohibits the president from serving as prime minister simultaneously.  Ironically, it was Abbas who in 2003 demanded that the basic law be amended to prevent his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, from serving as prime minister and president at the same time. Abbas's goal back then was to limit the powers of Arafat's autocratic leadership.

While most Palestinians have welcomed the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, the feeling in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is that Abbas is making a mockery not only of the same law that he fought so fiercely to approve, but also of calls for reform and change.

Many Palestinians are convinced that the Qatari-brokered deal is more about helping Abbas consolidate his grip on the Palestinian government than ending the Hamas-Fatah dispute.

The deal with Hamas does not only guarantee Abbas additional titles and powers, but also helps him (and Hamas) get rid of current Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.

Both Fatah and Hamas regard Fayyad as a threat. Fatah does not like him because of his efforts to end financial corruption and reform Palestinian institutions. Hamas has never accepted Fayyad because of his moderate views and the Palestinian Authority's security crackdown on Hamas supporters in the West Bank.

In the end, Abbas succumbed to Hamas pressure to get rid of Fayyad. If and when the Qatari-sponsored deal is implemented, Fayyad will be forced to search for a new job.

By agreeing also to serve as prime minister, Abbas has chosen to swim against the tide. Instead of paving the way for the rise of new leaders, he is searching for ways to tighten his grip on the government.

It is hard to see how he will manage to get away with this new initiative at a time when a growing number of Palestinians and Arabs are demanding an end to the rule of autocrats and tyrants.

The Fatah-Hamas peace process - by Caroline Glick

CAROLINE GLICK

On Monday afternoon, the Palestinians destroyed officially whatever was left of the concept of a peace process with Israel.

When PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas signed a deal with Hamas terror-master Khaled Mashaal in Doha, Qatar, the notion that there is a significant segment of Palestinian society that is not committed to the destruction of Israel was finally and truly sunk.

But before the ink on the agreement had a chance to dry, the peace processors were already spewing bromides whose sole purpose was to deny this inarguable conclusion. Both the Obama administration and the EU claimed that the agreement is an internal Palestinian issue. The EU actually welcomed the deal.

As Foreign Policy Commissioner Catherine Ashton's spokesman put it, "The EU has consistently called for intra-Palestinian reconciliation behind President Mahmoud Abbas as an important element for the unity of a future Palestinian state and for reaching a two-state solution."

The Israeli Left was quick to blame the agreement on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

In an apparent bid to inject a bit of reality into the delusional discourse, Netanyahu condemned the pact. As he put it, "If Abbas moves to implement what was signed today in Doha, he will abandon the path of peace and join forces with the enemies of peace."

Netanyahu added a personal appeal to his supposed partner in peace saying, "President Abbas, you can't have it both ways. It's either a pact with Hamas or peace with Israel. It's one or the other."

Netanyahu's statement was a nice start. But it didn't go nearly far enough. In speaking as he did, Netanyahu obscured the fact that Abbas already made his choice. He has cast his lot and that of Fatah with Hamas. In so doing Abbas once more exposed the dirty secret that everyone knows but no one likes to discuss: Fatah and Hamas share the same strategic goal of destroying Israel. Fatah is not a moderate force that accepts a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. It is a terrorist organization and a political warfare organization. Fatah's strategic goal remains what it has been since it was founded in 1959: The obliteration of the Jewish state.

In truth, Monday's agreement is nothing new. Fatah and Hamas have worked together since at least 1994. In November 1994, Hamas and Fatah signed an agreement in Cairo. The agreement set out each side's sphere of responsibility. Fatah would negotiate with Israel and Hamas would attack Israel.

That Cairo agreement was but the first in a line of agreements between the two groups. Each new agreement in turn reflected both their shared goal of destroying Israel and their changing tactical preferences.

In 2000, for instance, when Fatah returned to active terrorism against Israel, Fatah and Hamas set up joint terror cells they called the Popular Resistance Committees.

In 2007, they signed their first unity government deal after Hamas defeated Fatah in the 2006 legislative elections. That deal not only set the terms for cooperation in the PA. It paved the way for Hamas's inclusion in the PLO. Since the PLO rather than the PA or Fatah is the signatory to the agreements with Israel, the 2007 agreement signaled Fatah's willingness to abrogate its treaties with Israel.

After Hamas ousted Fatah personnel from Gaza in June 2007, the unity deal was left unimplemented. But even as their gunmen shot at one another on the streets, Fatah and Hamas remained strategic allies. Fatah continued to finance Hamas and provide political support for its continued missile and terror war against Israel.

Last May, Abbas signed another unity deal with Hamas. Like the 2007 deal, the pact set the conditions for Hamas's integration into the PLO and so placed the Palestinians on course for canceling all the agreements that the PLO has signed with Israel since 1993. In the months that passed since, the sides have been diligently working out the means of enacting their unity deal. Those contacts brought about another agreement signed in Cairo in December. That pact laid out the steps for integrating Hamas and Islamic Jihad into the PLO. The first step involved setting up a temporary PLO leadership. This step was implemented last month. The transitional leadership is now organizing new elections to the PLO's legislative body, which in turn will appoint the executive.

December's agreement also set out the basis for the interim unity government agreement that was signed on Monday. The sole charge of the transitional PA government is to organize elections for the PA's legislature and its chairmanship.

SO MONDAY'S agreement doesn't represent a break with past Fatah behavior, but a continuation of it. The notable aspect of Monday's agreement is that it shows just how drastically the balance of power has tilted towards Hamas and away from Fatah since 1994.

Since Monday, the usual crowd of peace processors has come up with a number of arguments to deny the significance of the latest Hamas-Fatah rapprochement. One of their favorite claims is that the deal with Fatah is proof that Hamas is becoming more moderate.

For instance, Shlomo Brom, an inveterate peace processor from the Institute of National Security Studies, told JTA, "Hamas is moving away from Syria and Iran, and to a certain degree from Hezbollah, and is repositioning itself in line with the popular movements behind the Arab Spring and the democratization process, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia. A renewed push for reconciliation with Fatah should be seen as part of this reorientation."

To make this claim, Brom had to ignore the fact that "the popular movements behind the Arab Spring" are jihadist movements from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since December, all of Hamas's leaders have made public statements underscoring that the movement's goal remains the destruction of Israel and that its chosen means of attaining that goal is terrorism and war.

Hamas's leaders have also been clear that they view their current rapprochement with Fatah as a means to overwhelm and defeat Fatah. As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' senior researcher Jonathan Halevi showed in recent studies of this week's deal and the December agreement, Hamas's goal in entering the PLO is to abrogate the PLO's treaties with Israel. Its goal in joining a unity government with Fatah is to organize elections. Hamas is expected to win both the PA's presidential and legislative elections in a landslide.

Another argument that the Left is making is that since Monday's deal made Abbas the PA prime minister as well as its president, the agreement is proof that he is strong and therefore, it's terrific. As Haaretz editorialized on Wednesday, Netanyahu is irresponsible and destructive because, "Instead of welcoming the bolstered status of a leader who signed the Oslo Accords and reined in terror in the West Bank, Netanyahu opted to present the deal as a capitulation by the PA to a terrorist organization."

This argument ignores the inconvenient fact that Abbas had no choice other than to take on the title of prime minister because Hamas forced him to fire Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Both the US and the EU view Fayyad as a moderate and the only way to avoid a backlash from firing him was for Abbas to replace Fayyad with himself.

A THIRD argument that has received substantial attention is that the agreement is nothing more than a survival pact between two weakened leaders. Mashaal, it is argued, was weakened by his forced departure from Damascus. He made the deal to strengthen his position vis-à-vis Hamas's leaders in Gaza.

While it may be true that Mashaal's stature has taken a hit in comparison to Hamas terror master Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, the shift in power between the two arch-terrorists is immaterial.

With their Muslim Brothers taking power in Egypt, both men are far more powerful today than they ever were before. Moreover, Mashaal's transitional power-sharing agreement with Abbas is remarkably similar to the deal the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood wrought with Egypt's military junta in the lead-up to the recent elections.

Unlike Hamas, Fatah has certainly been weakened by recent events in Egypt. As Mashaal's Egyptian patrons take power, Abbas's chief patron Hosni Mubarak is on trial and dying under house arrest.

What is notable about the claims that the agreement is nothing more than a deal between two weak leaders is that they presuppose that it is perfectly understandable that Abbas would turn to Hamas in his moment of weakness in the hopes of strengthening his position.

From Haaretz's perspective, Abbas is outsmarting Hamas by signing an agreement with Mashaal. According to this line of thinking, Abbas is riding Hamas to increase his power. Since Haaretz is convinced that Abbas is interested in peace, the paper's editorialists are certain that once he gains strength he will renege on his agreement with Hamas. That is,Haaretz thinks the deal is terrific because Abbas is a liar.

The problem is that it isn't terrific that Abbas is a liar. Because what that means is that he can't be trusted to keep his word. Just as Haaretz seems to think he won't keep his word with Hamas, so, Israel has every reason to believe that he won't keep its word with it. And indeed, he has a proven track record of lying to Israel. In 1996, he signed an informal "peace deal" with then-deputy foreign minister Yossi Beilin. The Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement was the basis of Ehud Barak's peace offer to Yasser Arafat in 2000. When Arafat rejected Barak's offer, Abbas denied he had ever signed the agreement with Beilin.

In 2008, Abbas negotiated with Ehud Olmert, giving the premier the impression that he was interested in peace. But after Olmert offered him unprecedented Israeli concessions, not only did Abbas reject the offer, he announced that he does not recognize Israel's right to exist.

The most troubling aspect of Abbas's decision to turn to Hamas in his moment of weakness is what it says about the relative balance of regional forces. Twenty years ago, when Arafat was weakened and isolated due to Israel's defeat of the Palestinian uprising, and Arafat's decision to support Saddam Hussein against the US in the Gulf War, the PLO chieftain decided that the only way to rebuild his strength was to gain recognition from the US. And 20 years ago, Arafat knew that the road to Washington went through Jerusalem. So he agreed to enter into peace talks with Israel.

It is a testament to the weakened state of the US in the region that in his hour of distress, Abbas opted to turn to Hamas. Not only does this signify that Washington is no longer considered a serious power broker. It indicates that for weakened leaders, peace with Israel is a far less attractive option than peace with jihadists.

Like Abbas, Arafat was a liar. The consequence of Arafat's move towards Washington was a two-decade-long phony peace process that left Israel in a strategic position far weaker than that it enjoyed in 1992.

The consequences of Abbas's move towards Hamas will in all likelihood be far worse.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

Posted on February 10, 2012 at 2:29 AM

A MUST READ: Friday Afternoon Roundup - A Clash of Civilizations - by Sultan Knish

Friday, February 10, 2012

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS

It's not often that the Democratic Party's working class religious base collides with its progressive radical left base, mainly because the leaders of the first group rarely concede that there is a conflict between the radical left's agenda and their own. The contraception mandate was one of those unique events when the collision happened and the left backed down.

That the collision happened at all is a testament to the arrogance and cluelessness of the Obama elite which operates in its own bubble. Even the input of insiders like Biden who understood exactly what was going to happen did not prevent the ship from sailing. It took some aggressive pushback for the administration to reverse itself, while pretending that there was no reversal, but the real story is how tone deaf the insiders in this administration really are.

The last thing you want to do before a national election is pick a fight with a major section of your own base which is a bit skeptical about you anyway. Giving them a reason to turn on ObamaCare and the administration was the dumbest thing possible. And it happened because the people running things did not understand it would happen. They assumed that they could put on their paternalistic attitude, smile dismissively, spin up some talking points and everyone would go along.

This stupidity is our best hope. If the Republican Party establishment insists on arrogantly making a mess of things, the Obama Administration's arrogance and heavy-handedness exceeds their own and may succeed in the battle of alienation.


ISLAM'S GROUNDHOG DAY 

Groundhog Day is the long eternal tragedy of Islam, which always sees its shadow and always ends up with six weeks, six months or six hundred years of more winter. That hopeful time when the bitter cold of winter begins its slow transition into the warmth and renewal of spring never comes for Islam.

In a reversal of the cycle of season, the Arab Spring led to the Islamic Winter, but that is the endless pattern of Islamic attempts at reform and rejuvenation, which rather than finding renewal in their attempts at transformation only go on perpetuating the same cycle of violence, tyranny and oppression.

There is a peculiar tragedy to a religion which cannot escape its own destructive nature, each time it reaches for some form of redemption, its hands come up dripping with blood and it all ends in more bodies and petty tyrannies.

The full article is up at Front Page Magazine



GET YOUR WAR ON

If you tune in to CNN you can see footage of adorable Syrian children, as reported by Anderson Cooper. Because we've got to get our war on in Syria and liberate the Syrian people on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. No adorable Christian children need be shown because we might have to think about what's going to happen to them once the funloving Religion of Peace is in the driver's seat.

Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (El-Ameriya), Alexandria, were attacked on January 27 by a mob of 3000 Muslims led by Salafi leaders, who looted and torched homes and shops belonging to Copts.

Three "reconciliation meetings" were held at the El-Ameriya village police headquarters. They were attended by Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood representatives from neighboring villages, as well as church representative. Muslims demanded the eviction of all Coptic inhabitants from the village because "Muslim honour had been damaged."

That's what's going to happen to them. The Obama Administration is bent on this, but they don't particularly want to do the heavy lifting. Which makes it more likely that the Turks, the Saudis and some others will contribute the troops, while the United States acts as the air force for the Muslim Brotherhood one more time.

AKP's sleazy Islamist Foreign Minister is meeting with Clinton to discuss the next "steps" and it's clear that Turkey would like to be at the center of a coalition to take down Assad. The euphemism will be "Friends of Syria", because nothing says friendship like an invasion.



I WAS A MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTER BUT I BROKE FREE

Can anyone imagine seeing a headline like, "I was a Sunni Muslim but I broke free" in any mainstream American newspaper today? Nope.

But you can see a headline like "I was a Hasidic Jew - but I broke free‎" in the Post. Now if we are to have "I was a Jew, but I broke free" articles, then we should at the very least have equal time for, "I was a Muslim but I broke free" articles.

It's not too hard to break out of being a religious Jew. You just stop. Nobody beheads you or kidnaps you and ships you to Pakistan. Breaking out of being a Muslim is a good deal harder as plenty of Ex-Muslims can tell you.

Peculiarly though the media will not pay any attention to Ibn Warraq or to the victims of Muslim honor killings, but street trash like Deborah Feldman looking to find a book deal can always get media coverage.

Deborah Feldman claims that Jews are no better than Muslim "extremists" and while I'm no fan of the community she was a part of, she could leave. She doesn't have to look over her shoulders waiting for a cousin or brother to come up and kill her. The women who actually do have to live like that can't get book deals or the media coverage she laps up.

Jews and Christians who leave their religion bask in the adoring attention of a media which loves to portray those religions in the blackest colors. But when it comes to Islam, the only coverage allowed is the positive kind.

What's really repulsive is that the blurb for Deborah Feldman's book actually dares to compare this  Satmar version of Snooki, with about the same IQ, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel.

Ali has actually taken risks for what she believed in. Feldman grew up in a broken family and deciding she wanted the party life broke up her marriage. She's more qualified to be on the Jersey Shore than to write a memoir about her "struggle".  If you're an Orthodox Jew and you decide not be one anymore, your only challenge is shopping for new clothes. If you're a Muslim and you decide to opt out, then you are endangering your life.

Today Ali needs bodyguards. Feldman needs PR agents. The difference between the two tells you all you need to know about the reality of Islam and the contempt in which Western elites hold traditional religion while embracing Islam.


THE CHUTZPAH OF OMAR THE BOYCOTT MAKER

The classical definition of the Yiddish word Chutzpah is a man on trial for killing his parents who asks for leniency because he is an orphan. Next to that definition is a picture of Omar Barghouti, a Qatari-born Muslim who moved to Israel and enrolled in Tel Aviv University to obtain a Masters Degree in Philosophy while conducting an academic boycott campaign against Israel.

See the full article at Front Page Magazine


LOOSE LIPS

There was still some ambiguity after Panetta's statement on the Iran window what the Obama Admin was up to, that ambiguity is all but gone after anonymous "officials" appeared to have hand fed NBC news a story that claims Israel is working with the MEK Iranian group to assassinate Iranian nuclear gurus.

This is straight up sabotage and a warning that the Obama Administration will keep on leaking information to damage any Israeli action against Iran unless Israel falls into line. Considering the operational necessities of launching an attack and the level of US surveillance, O and his cronies can do a lot to inhibit and even cost lives in an attack on Iran.

This should also settle any further rumors that bombing Iran is an election strategy for Obama. That couldn't be further away from the truth. 

The Obama Administration's sabotage is all the more obnoxious after it threw a hissy fit because Russia and China wouldn't let it go after Syria. So war with Syria on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood, yes. Allowing Israel to take out Iran's nuclear program, no. Sabotaging Israeli efforts to go it alone, also yes. 

Israel had to inform the United States of what it was doing as part of the process of cooperation, though considering the MEK's presence in Iraq, it is extremely doubtful that the United States had no involvement in this, under the previous administration or even the current one. 

While there is no independent verification of this story, it is far more plausible than the nonsense peddled by the mainstream media about Mossad agents running around Tehran. I have suggested all along that Israeli and American backed Iranian dissidents were responsible. But it doesn't take much to reach that conclusion.

After the Iranian backed Iraqi PM's MEK massacre and the US withdrawal, the MEK would need backers more urgently. Its position in Iraq is precarious and while its people have refugee status, nobody is going to protect them from Maliki's thugs. The Ashraf\Liberty situation is ugly and the MEK certainly has no sympathy from the Obama Administration. Not unless MEK was willing to hit Syria.

The ideology wouldn't really matter. The region is full of militias willing to ally with anyone on a temporary basis if it gets them money and advances their agenda. That's what keeps Afghanistan and Iraq where it is. And MEK is "unusual" enough that just about anything could be expected. But none of that means it's actually true.

Iran's claim that this is an MEK-Israel plot is convenient, but this is a region where every Muslim state or party accuses its enemies of working with Israel. During the Arab Spring, both governments and rebels accused each other of being pawns of Israel. Iran would like to delegitimize the MEK and justify further crackdowns by Maliki. This is the best way to do it.

The Pre-Tehran arm of the American left has been pushing the same line for a while, tying the MEK to some Republican officials who have at times supported it as a foil against Iran. The NBC article even looks like it was written by ThinkProgress with the same talking points.

It doesn't really matter though who's pulling the trigger. The assassinations are a sideshow that aren't going to stop the nuclear program. Israel is now on its own moving toward a direct strike method, while Obama tries to hold it back.

Defense Minister Barak, formerly a darling of the Clintonites in the Obama Administration, is on the outs after having strongly endorsed a strike. How bad is it? So bad that Administration handlers are now pushing the message that Netanyahu is the reasonable party who needs to keep Barak in hand. 

The following excerpt from the New York Times, a reliable administration organ sets the tone

President Obama tried to defuse arguments for military action in a telephone call last month with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the substance of which was confirmed by an Obama administration official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the conversation. While the two men have had an often contentious relationship over Middle East diplomacy, American officials emerged from that exchange persuaded that Mr. Netanyahu was willing to give economic sanctions and other steps time to work.

Which is the tune that was played all along. Give us more time till Iran has a nuke.

a senior Obama administration official, expressing frustration that the Israelis are looking at the problem too narrowly, given the many kinds of pressure being placed on Tehran and the increasing evidence that far tougher sanctions are having an effect.

Ah yes too narrowly, instead of taking the "broader view", which all comes out to not enough nuance. Which is a good summary of liberal foreign policy.

Administration officials cite this more complex picture in pressing the Israelis to give the latest sanctions a chance to inflict enough pain on the Iranian leadership to force it back to the negotiating table, or to make the decision that the nuclear program is not worth the cost.

Just like North Korea. And here we go...

Administration officials also noted a distinction in the tone of Mr. Barak and Mr. Netanyahu, who does not publicly favor the phrase “zone of immunity.” This week, an American official noted, Mr. Netanyahu declared that on the topic of Iran, officials should just “shut up.”

“I think that’s good advice,” the American official said.

Yes I'm sure administration officials are big fans of Israel shutting up about Iran, but then shouldn't they be shutting up about Israeli plans for Iran?


NUDGES

The creepy social engineering innovations that you'll see tomorrow are being tested in Europe today. So here's a sample of what you can look forward to. 

Mr Halpern is director of Downing Street's behavioural "nudge unit". It advises government on ways to encourage people to change behaviour, without using compulsion. The approach is based on a school of thought that "nudging" people in a certain direction is more productive and cost-effective than trying to change behaviour by banning things or passing regulation.

So where is the UK "nudging" people now?

Mr Halpern said Britain faced a shortage of housing, partly because elderly people remained in family homes after their children left. “A big issue we have is under-occupation of houses,” he said. “We have more TVs than people in the house.”

Officials also denied Mr Halpern was urging elderly people to down size after he told the conference that “we do have enough houses… it is just essentially they are lived in by older people”.

A report last year suggested there were 25 million empty bedrooms in the country. Ministers were urged to draw up proposals to encourage elderly couples to downsize and create more affordable family homes. The Government has recently backed council schemes that help pensioners move into smaller properties and rent out their family homes.

Sic transit.


BUT JEWISH REPORTERS CAN BE ANTI-ISRAEL TOO

CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

This is blatantly unfair considering how hard Jewish CNN reporters have worked on smearing Israel. This discrimination fails to take into account how hard reporters like Joshua Hammer, Joe Klein and Peter Beinart have worked at proving that they hate Israel more than any Muslim does.

No one denies that Muslims really hate Israel, but I would urge CNN to remember that while hating Israel may be a qualification for working at CNN or in any mainstream media organization




THE ROUNDUP

The obsessive compulsive narcissism of Barry 

What will European Sharia law look like? You're already seeing it now.

As larger and larger urban areas become Islamized (and it is happening very quickly), shari'a will not need to come in from above, through the traditional processes of legislation. Rather, it will come in from below, from people willing to enforce it and profit from it, and from the fact that the ethnic-European police will not even enter a lot of those neighborhoods.

So we are talking about de-facto City States, not de jure Nation States, going Islamic. That seems like an incontrovertible trend to me, and I would love to see any evidence pointing away from this reality. The nation state as a model will become increasingly unimportant, I project, as Western Civilization continues to decline, and the Islamic cultures overcome the sterile remains of the Englihtenment.

The entire piece is a good assessment of the trajectory of the process. Londonistan made real.


How big is that jobs deficit anyway?

According to the US Debt Clock Time Machine, in the period from 2000-2004, we gained about 10 million in population and 4 million in the workforce -- that is, for every new person in the population, we gained four tenths of a person in the workforce.

Now here's what worries me. From 2008-2012 we gained 9.5 million in population. Supposing an "average" gain in the workforce of about five tenths or 50%, we should have seen the workforce grow by 4 or 5 million. Right? But instead, the workforce SHRANK by nearly 5 million.

If it should have grown by 5 million and instead shrank by 5 million, aren't we looking at a deficit of 10 MILLION JOBS? 

The Arab Spring comes to Sydney.

Showdown in Georgia

It's not easy being a Black Conservative.

It's getting harder to deny anymore...even as my adult, grownup brain wants to disdain the idea—actual evil seems to be afoot in the world, and its guise is becoming ever more clear.


Decoding the code

Islamonausea: It's the new human condition.

Veteran discrimination 

The lost art of raking up profits

I decided long ago to end the shameful practice of begging on my property.  First, I never allowed my own kids to raise funds this way.  Second, every time a tot or teenager arrived on my doorstep, he was given a choice.

My pitch was simple; I'd say, "Look, I don't need or want what you are selling.  But I understand that your teacher wants you to raise money for your class project/field trip/whatever, and I'd like to help.  There's a rake in my garage, and I'll pay you ten dollars in cash if you work in my yard for one hour.  You can give the money to your school, or you can keep it for yourself.

Only one ever took me up on my offer.  

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/