Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog

Thérèse Zrihen-Dvir

Regard d'un écrivain sur le Monde

11 février 2017 6 11 /02 /février /2017 18:04

Le Hezbollah : Netanyahu: « Nul besoin de créér une alliance avec l’Arabie Saoudite contre l’Iran, elle existe déjà »

 
انور عشقي مصافحا مسؤولا صهيونيا

 

Le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu a affirmé que l’entité sioniste  » n’avait pas besoin de créer une alliance avec l’Arabie Saoudite contre l’Iran , tout simplement parce que  cette alliance existe déjà », a rapporté la chaine satellitaire iranienne arabophone alAlam.

Interrogé sur des rapports de presse confirmant qu' »Israël et certains pays arabes coopèrent étroitement ensemble au niveau de leurs services de renseignements respectifs,   Netanyahu  a répondu, dans une interview avec le programme « 60 Minutes » sur la chaîne américaine « CBS News »: « Tout ce que je peux dire c’est que la situation d’Israël a changé dans le monde arabe . Les arabes ne considèrent plus Israël comme un ennemi, mais comme un allié dans leur lutte contre les forces combatives de l’Islam, notamment l’Iran ou Daech ou des groupes sunnites jihadistes ».

Le Premier ministre israélien a indiqué  lors de l’entrevue, que « son gouvernement a développé de façon spectaculaire ses relations  avec l’Egypte et la Jordanie ».

Interrogé sur l’évolution des relations avec l’Arabie saoudite, il a répondu: « Pas de commentaire ».

Sauf que l’animateur du débat a insisté sur la question en réitérant :  » je doit insister sur la question car elle est sujet à la polémique… Est-ce que Israël et l’Arabie Saoudite sont entrain de créer une alliance  pour contrer l’Iran au Moyen-Orient? »

Alors, Netanyahu répond :  » Nous n’aurons nullement besoin de  créer cette alliance , car elle existe déjà ».

Le processus de normalisation des relations israélo-saoudienne : du privé au public

En Juin dernier, le prince Turki al-Faïsal a participé à un débat avec un général israélien , Jacob Amidror , ex-conseiller de la sécurité nationale au cabinet de  Benjamin Netanyahu. Le débat en question était  organisé par l’Institut de Washington pour la politique au Proche-Orient, a rapporté la chaine satellitaire américaien CNN News.

A cette époque, le prince saoudien avait déclaré :  » la coopération entre les Etats arabes et Israël pour relever les défis, quelle que soit leur origine, iranien ou  autre,  sera renforcée dans le cadre de la paix entre les Etats arabes et Israël, et je ne vois pas aucune difficulté  en ce sens ».

Les appels  du prince Faïsal à une normalisation  des relations entre «Israël» et les Arabes sont également partagés par  Anwar Ochqi , un ex haut-officier des forces saoudiennes et ancien  haut-fonctionnaire dans le ministère des AE saoudien. Atuellement, il préside un centre de recherches stratégiques et juridiques à Jeddah .

En Juillet 2016,  Ochqi s’est rendu en Israël , accompagné d’une délégation d’hommes d’affaires et d’universitaires  saoudiens.  Le ministère des Affaires étrangères israélien a décrit cette visite de « sans précédent ».

A l’époque, Le porte-parole des Affaires étrangères israélien,  a affirmé  que  » Ochqi s’est réuni à l’Hôtel King David à Jérusalem, avec un fonctionnaire du ministère des Affaires étrangères israélien, Dori Gold ,  un commandant militaire chargé des opérations en Cisjordanie et à Gaza, Yoav Mordechai, et  des membres de la Knesset de l’opposition ».

Le journal Haaretz avait commenté cette visiste en notant que  » Ochqi n’aurait pu se rendre en Israël sans   l’approbation par du gouvernement saoudien ».

A noter que Ochqi et Gold ont participé , en  2015,  à une réunion du Conseil des relations étrangères à Washington et s’étaient réunis en marge   du Conseil pour discuter   » des opportunités et des défis auxquels fait face le Moyen-Orient », avait rapporté  le site du Conseil  .

Au cours de leur intervention respective , Ochqi et Gold ont évoqué  »  la menace iranienne qui  pèsesur la sécurité de leurs pays » soulignant qu' »ils ont tenu des séances secrètes de dialogue sur plus d’un an, et maintenant ils ont décidé de les annoncer publiquement ».

Dans une interview accordée à la chaine satellitaire israélienne i24 en  Septembre 2015, Ochqi avait décrit le  Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu,  d' » homme fort et réaliste », l’appelant à accepter l’initiative de paix arabe et d’en discuter avec l’Arabie Saoudite ».

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
29 juin 2016 3 29 /06 /juin /2016 08:16

Two members of Congress accused of Muslim Brotherhood ties


Covering the Senate hearings on Islamic terror, Tuesday’s HuffPo headline read: “Witness At Ted Cruz Hearing Accuses Congress’ Two Muslim Members Of Muslim Brotherhood Ties.”

The teaser read: “This doesn’t normally happen on the Hill.” The teaser should have been: It’s about time.

I rarely venture over to the HuffPo, but I couldn’t resist reading their coverage:

In explosive testimony Tuesday, a witness before a Senate panel about Islamic terrorism accused the two Muslim members of Congress of having attended an event organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge was leveled by Chris Gaubatz, a “national security consultant” who has moonlighted as an undercover agitator of Muslim groups that he accuses of being terrorist outfits, and it was directed at Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). At the heart of his accusation is the attendance by those two members at a 2008 convention hosted by the Islamic Society of North America — a Muslim umbrella group, which Gaubatz claims is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

HuffPo was eager to smear Chris Gaubatz, whose impressive undercover work inside CAIR is chronicled in his book Muslim Mafia. (To learn more about him, The Clarion Project has a short interview, here.)  The Huffpo continues:

“I attended a convention in Columbus, Ohio, in 2008, organized by Muslim Brotherhood group, ISNA, and both the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons had recruitment and outreach booths,” Gaubatz said in his testimony. “Both Congressman Keith Ellison, MN, and Andre Carson, IN, spoke at the Muslim Brotherhood event.”

Allegations that Ellison and Carson are secret Muslim agents with extremist leanings are usually found among fringe groups online, often discussed in dire tones on poorly designed websites. Rarely, if ever, do such sentiments get read into congressional testimony, with the imprimatur that offers.

Wow, this is why, as a rule, I don’t read the HuffPo. But seriously, the excerpt noted above highlights how behind the curve we are regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB should have been declared a terrorist organization ions ago. Instead, they have been operating through countless front groups that are legitimized and lauded by the leftist politicians and the media. As a result, no red flags are raised about anyone affiliated with these groups.

Responsibility for this rare instance lies with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who oversaw the hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts and whose staff likely saw the testimonies of the witnesses.

Oh, well. Leave it to Ted Cruz to invite someone associated with “fringe groups” that operate online using “dire” tones on “poorly designed websites.”

An aide to Ellison confirmed that he did attend the 2008 ISNA convention. He’s gone to a few of the group’s conventions, in fact. Carson’s office didn’t return a request for comment. But news reports show that both he and Carson led a discussion at the 2008 convention on how to mobilize Muslims politically. President Barack Obama has addressed the group as well, though only via a video recording.

Mobilizing Muslims politically. Hmm. I’m sure that’s perfectly innocent, right? And who can forget Obama’s video recording where he praised ISNA, Muslims, the fabulous halal food in his hometown of Chicago? (Warning: Don’t look in his eyes for too long.)

Critics of ISNA have insisted that these politicians have either turned a blind eye to — or explicitly embraced — the group’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, an affiliation that is based on ties some of the founding ISNA members have allegedly had to the hard-line religious organization. ISNA has long insisted that no such connection has ever existed.

“I can definitely tell you we are not Muslim Brotherhood. We are not affiliated with them at all and never were,” said Faryal Khatri, an official with ISNA. “That much I can reassure you.” 

Well if an ISNA official has gone on record to assure everyone that the organization is not affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, that’s good enough for me! Mr. Khatri wouldn’t lie, would he?

ISNA is not the only group targeted by Gaubatz. In 2009, he told Talking Points Memo that he obtained an internship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations as part of an effort to secretly collect evidence against the group to be used in a book written by his father. The book, “Muslim Mafia,” alleged that CAIR, a Muslim advocacy group that works to combat Islamophobia, was a front for the Muslim Brotherhood.

In case there is any confusion, CAIR is a front group for the MB. Now if we could all stay focused on facts such as these, we might actually get somewhere.

And to those who think I might be a “fringe” person using a “dire” tone (surely AT isn’t one of those “poorly designed websites” to which HuffPo referred), I’m not just making this up. The MB told us who their front groups were in their Explanatory Memorandum during the Holy Land Foundation trial. Here’s the list. ISNA’s right on top.

Cruz’s office did not respond to a request for comment on Gaubatz’s allegations against Ellison and Carson or whether it had given either member a chance to respond. But the senator has displayed a tolerance for these kinds of conspiracy theories in the past.

Oh my goodness! I am kicking myself for reading through the entire HuffPo piece. “Conspiracy theories?” Anyone who thinks any of this is a conspiracy theory is on the fringe of reality. Dire, desperate, and dumb. (Whether they are affiliated with a poorly designed web site, or not, I couldn’t say.)

Before he suspended his presidential campaign, Cruz appointed known Islamophobe Frank Gaffney to his team of national security advisers. Gaffney, now head of the Center for Security Policy, has objected to Ellison and Carson serving on the House Intelligence Committee because he believes their Muslim faith could compel them to leak information to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also accused Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and conservative heavyweights Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan of being closeted Muslim Brotherhood members.

When asked about his controversial selection, Cruz defended Gaffney as a “serious thinker” focused on “fighting jihadism across the globe.”

Frank Gaffney is a tireless warrior trying to inform the idiot masses on the looming threat before us. His work, and the work of his colleagues who sound the alarm day in and day out might one day save the lives of those who smear him as an “Islamaphobe” (a fabricated word that has no actual meaning).

God bless Ted Cruz, Frank Gaffney, and everyone on the front lines of this fight of the ages.

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
8 mars 2016 2 08 /03 /mars /2016 12:24

61 million immigrants in US, 15.7 million of them illegals

 

A study done by the Center for Immigration Studies has determined that there are 61 million immigrants in the U.S., with 15.7 million of them here illegally.

In 1970, there were 13.5 million immigrants in the country 6.6% of the U.S. population.  The 61 million immigrants in the U.S. today constitute an astonishing 18.9% of the population.

Washington Examiner:

"These numbers raise profound questions that are seldom even asked: What number of immigrants can be assimilated? What is the absorption capacity of our schools, health care system, infrastructure, and labor market? What is the effect on the environment and quality of life from significantly increasing the nation's population density?" wrote Steven Camarota, the Center's director of Research.

"With 45 million legal immigrants and their young children already here, does it make sense to continue admitting more than one million new legal permanent immigrants every year?" he added.

His report found that the normal pattern of immigration to the United States changed after 1970. At that time, there were 13.5 million immigrants, or about one in 15 U.S. residents.

But since 2000, the number of immigrants has increased 18.4 million, and now nearly one of every five U.S. residents are immigrants.

"The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 — 353 percent vs. 59 percent," he added.

Camarota dug deep into Census Current Population Survey and other data to determine his estimate of 15.7 million illegals in the United States.

"Our best estimate is that in 2015 there were 5.1 million children with at least one illegal immigrant parent. Taken together, the best available evidence indicates that there were a total of 15.7 million illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children in the adjusted December 2015 CPS, accounting for 25.7 percent of the 61 million immigrants and their children in the country," he said.

I don't see how any rational person can look at these numbers today and say we're not allowing enough immigrants to enter the U.S.  Those who make that point clearly have an ulterior agenda not related to compassion for poor people or the well-being of the United States. 

And from now on, I will have to use the 15 million figure rather than the previously accepted number of 11 million for illegal aliens.  That 15 million number actually falls right in the middle of previously estimated numbers of illegals 10-20 million. 

Camarota is correct in pointing out the growing strain on our education and health care systems, as well as employment.  But it's more than that.  The people behind this push for open borders don't care about the U.S. as a sovereign entity with citizens who share a common language and who respect our history and culture.  We are being balkanized, and the process is only getting farther along.


 
Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
18 février 2016 4 18 /02 /février /2016 04:36

Ally with Russia Against Islamists? Not so Fast

A de facto American-Russian alliance mustn’t come without the U.S. sharply defining value. Realpolitik dictates that U.S. interests are preeminent -- and they’re global. Whatever advantages Russia extracts from an entente, the U.S. must seek to extract more and better. While the U.S. must keep its eye on the immediate Islamic threat, it must look to its interests elsewhere in the world and look past the horizon. How smartly positioned will the U.S. be in a “postwar” world?  And has the U.S. succeeded without forsaking its character?

Writing for American Thinker, Alexander Maistrovoy and Ted Belman posited this -- frankly astonishing -- notion about an American-Russian alliance:

Until the fall of the USSR, the 20th Century was dominated by an ideological struggle between American capitalism and Russian communism. But now that Russia has abandoned communism and the US is embracing socialism, as seen by the Sanders’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, the two powers are more alike than ever before. [Italics added]

The writers are too facile about a U.S. embrace of socialism. The struggle is on here; the issue is far from settled. The writers suggest that an American-Russian alliance is predicated on a convergence, political and moral. It’s a chilling prospect if the U.S. is stepping away from liberty under God, and that then permits it a basis for an entente with Russia. An alliance with Russia must mostly exclusively rest on U.S. interests.

Realpolitik insists that the U.S. not be blinkered. Putin is a bad player. He’s a former KGB thug. He’s dispatched political opponents with the ease of a mafia don. He’s an oligarch; corruption is rife in Russia. Putin desires to recreate the Soviet Empire sans totalitarianism (but not authoritarianism). Make no mistake, in Eastern Europe that means Russian expansion undermines liberty and nationhood. Putin wants access to the Mediterranean for his warships.      

Know your enemies? Know your allies. Assessing -- and accepting -- Putin for what he is and what his aims are doesn’t preclude entente. The U.S. won’t help itself by creating a fiction: “Uncle Vlad” is no more suitable than was “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Taking the measure of the man and his intentions (and those of his likely successors) allows a more precise alignment of policy with reality. That can only well serve U.S. interests.              

An entente with Russia doesn’t require that the U.S. acquiesce to Putin’s machinations and predation. The Russians, after all, face a more immediate existential threat from Islamic militancy than does the U.S. Russia is vulnerable to Islamic unrest and insurgencies among Muslim peoples along its southern flank. (Western Europe is also more directly menaced by the Islamic threat, thanks to the importation of millions of Muslims since the 1960s. Frau Merkel’s admittance of a million -- mostly male -- Syrian refugees last year has made matters worse.)

The U.S. has strong cards to play in forging the terms of greater cooperation with the Russians. U.S. interests aren’t served by Russian expansion westward, nor are its interests benefited by Russia gaining a longer term hold in the Eastern Mediterranean. The goal is to wage a successful fight with Russia’s cooperation against insurgent Islam while stymieing Russia’s efforts at hegemony. This is statecraft at its most complex and challenging.

Ali Hashem, a columnist for Al-Monitor, in an analysis carried by U.S. News & World Report, concluded:

The source added, "The Russians are here to win the war, this is what everyone knows. Russia's war isn't only in Syria; it's a war for a serious international role. If they succeed here, then they are going to have decision-making power in Syria and other issues in the Middle East. And this means that their influence will be stronger than any change in the country's leadership."      

The option in the Middle East isn’t ceding Russia a dominant role or allowing militant Islam to prevail. It’s to induce Russia to act in concert with the U.S. against militant Islam to better safeguard its own territorial integrity. There are other inducements, of course -- economic, chiefly, though economic inducements to partner with the U.S. must also mean that Russia subordinates its designs on Eastern Europe, principally.    

The U.S. shouldn’t be in the business of making the world safe for democracy. America needs to close shop on ousting dictators who are otherwise friendly to American interests (or, at least, pose no threat.) Mubarak comes to mind. Nor should the U.S. sink sweat, blood, and treasure into nation-building. Yet the U.S. mustn’t accept or assist -- openly or tacitly -- the subjugation of nations and the subversion of liberty to maintain an alliance with Russia. Having a common enemy with Russia, and having the imperative to defeat that enemy, doesn’t translate to accepting or enabling Russia’s territorial designs or allowing it to intimidate nations’ into submission.     

Moreover, Russia must be persuaded that the U.S. is capable of finding alignments in the Muslim world that offers no advantages in solving the “Muslim problem” on its southern flanks. How much of Afghanistan do the Russians care to revisit within their borders? 

Yes, this can be a double-edged sword, in that the Russians could find ways of facilitating Muslim insurgencies against the U.S. and its interests. Further assisting Iran in surreptitious development of nuclear weapons would work crosswise U.S. interests, for example. But let’s go on the premise that Russia needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs Russia. A couple of words sum it up: “military might.”

Barack Obama has diminished the American military during his two terms in office. The navy – a primary means of American power-projection across the globe -- has been hard hit by about a trillion dollars in Defense Department cuts. The next president, if Republican, has the task of rebuilding American military power. The less the U.S. needs to rely on others for its security -- especially the Russians -- the better. 

At the minimum, the perception of a re-equipping and rearming U.S. military plays to America’s advantage in its dealings with the Russians (and not incidentally, the Chinese). It’s no stereotyping to say that Russians respect strength. Russia must calculate that in the fight against militant Islam, it gains more from an alignment with a militarily resurgent U.S. even if it must subordinate its desire for greater hegemony. The critical stress-point for the Russians must be homeland integrity.

The ongoing fight against militant Islam takes more than guns. Victory certainly is about more than fighter jets. The fight with militant Islam is an epic clash of ideologies, culture, and religion. 

Winning for the U.S. against militant Islam comes with the confident assertion of the nation’s commitment to liberty under God. It comes through smart prioritization of national interests and their unswerving pursuit. It calls for realistic and shrewd applications of power. It calls for alliances -- formal and informal -- that advance U.S. interests while minimizing the potential for damage to the nation’s longer term interests through ill-considered understandings and accords. Russia is the prime example. 

Remember realpolitik? In modern America, it’s most associated with Henry Kissinger. The dictionaries say it’s an approach to foreign affairs and national security that’s “based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong.”

The U.S. and Russia face existential threats from militant Islam. The West in general does. When threats become “existential,” ideals and ethics become -- shall we say -- more pliable. They don’t become disposable, however. An entente with the Russians to suppress militant Islam makes sense, yet it doesn’t come without strings. There are perils. 

A de facto American-Russian alliance mustn’t come without the U.S. sharply defining value. Realpolitik dictates that U.S. interests are preeminent -- and they’re global. Whatever advantages Russia extracts from an entente, the U.S. must seek to extract more and better. While the U.S. must keep its eye on the immediate Islamic threat, it must look to its interests elsewhere in the world and look past the horizon. How smartly positioned will the U.S. be in a “postwar” world?  And has the U.S. succeeded without forsaking its character?

Writing for American Thinker, Alexander Maistrovoy and Ted Belman posited this -- frankly astonishing -- notion about an American-Russian alliance:

Until the fall of the USSR, the 20th Century was dominated by an ideological struggle between American capitalism and Russian communism. But now that Russia has abandoned communism and the US is embracing socialism, as seen by the Sanders’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, the two powers are more alike than ever before. [Italics added]

The writers are too facile about a U.S. embrace of socialism. The struggle is on here; the issue is far from settled. The writers suggest that an American-Russian alliance is predicated on a convergence, political and moral. It’s a chilling prospect if the U.S. is stepping away from liberty under God, and that then permits it a basis for an entente with Russia. An alliance with Russia must mostly exclusively rest on U.S. interests.

Realpolitik insists that the U.S. not be blinkered. Putin is a bad player. He’s a former KGB thug. He’s dispatched political opponents with the ease of a mafia don. He’s an oligarch; corruption is rife in Russia. Putin desires to recreate the Soviet Empire sans totalitarianism (but not authoritarianism). Make no mistake, in Eastern Europe that means Russian expansion undermines liberty and nationhood. Putin wants access to the Mediterranean for his warships.      

Know your enemies? Know your allies. Assessing -- and accepting -- Putin for what he is and what his aims are doesn’t preclude entente. The U.S. won’t help itself by creating a fiction: “Uncle Vlad” is no more suitable than was “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Taking the measure of the man and his intentions (and those of his likely successors) allows a more precise alignment of policy with reality. That can only well serve U.S. interests.              

An entente with Russia doesn’t require that the U.S. acquiesce to Putin’s machinations and predation. The Russians, after all, face a more immediate existential threat from Islamic militancy than does the U.S. Russia is vulnerable to Islamic unrest and insurgencies among Muslim peoples along its southern flank. (Western Europe is also more directly menaced by the Islamic threat, thanks to the importation of millions of Muslims since the 1960s. Frau Merkel’s admittance of a million -- mostly male -- Syrian refugees last year has made matters worse.)

The U.S. has strong cards to play in forging the terms of greater cooperation with the Russians. U.S. interests aren’t served by Russian expansion westward, nor are its interests benefited by Russia gaining a longer term hold in the Eastern Mediterranean. The goal is to wage a successful fight with Russia’s cooperation against insurgent Islam while stymieing Russia’s efforts at hegemony. This is statecraft at its most complex and challenging.

Ali Hashem, a columnist for Al-Monitor, in an analysis carried by U.S. News & World Report, concluded:

The source added, "The Russians are here to win the war, this is what everyone knows. Russia's war isn't only in Syria; it's a war for a serious international role. If they succeed here, then they are going to have decision-making power in Syria and other issues in the Middle East. And this means that their influence will be stronger than any change in the country's leadership."      

The option in the Middle East isn’t ceding Russia a dominant role or allowing militant Islam to prevail. It’s to induce Russia to act in concert with the U.S. against militant Islam to better safeguard its own territorial integrity. There are other inducements, of course -- economic, chiefly, though economic inducements to partner with the U.S. must also mean that Russia subordinates its designs on Eastern Europe, principally.    

The U.S. shouldn’t be in the business of making the world safe for democracy. America needs to close shop on ousting dictators who are otherwise friendly to American interests (or, at least, pose no threat.) Mubarak comes to mind. Nor should the U.S. sink sweat, blood, and treasure into nation-building. Yet the U.S. mustn’t accept or assist -- openly or tacitly -- the subjugation of nations and the subversion of liberty to maintain an alliance with Russia. Having a common enemy with Russia, and having the imperative to defeat that enemy, doesn’t translate to accepting or enabling Russia’s territorial designs or allowing it to intimidate nations’ into submission.     

Moreover, Russia must be persuaded that the U.S. is capable of finding alignments in the Muslim world that offers no advantages in solving the “Muslim problem” on its southern flanks. How much of Afghanistan do the Russians care to revisit within their borders? 

Yes, this can be a double-edged sword, in that the Russians could find ways of facilitating Muslim insurgencies against the U.S. and its interests. Further assisting Iran in surreptitious development of nuclear weapons would work crosswise U.S. interests, for example. But let’s go on the premise that Russia needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs Russia. A couple of words sum it up: “military might.”

Barack Obama has diminished the American military during his two terms in office. The navy – a primary means of American power-projection across the globe -- has been hard hit by about a trillion dollars in Defense Department cuts. The next president, if Republican, has the task of rebuilding American military power. The less the U.S. needs to rely on others for its security -- especially the Russians -- the better. 

At the minimum, the perception of a re-equipping and rearming U.S. military plays to America’s advantage in its dealings with the Russians (and not incidentally, the Chinese). It’s no stereotyping to say that Russians respect strength. Russia must calculate that in the fight against militant Islam, it gains more from an alignment with a militarily resurgent U.S. even if it must subordinate its desire for greater hegemony. The critical stress-point for the Russians must be homeland integrity.

The ongoing fight against militant Islam takes more than guns. Victory certainly is about more than fighter jets. The fight with militant Islam is an epic clash of ideologies, culture, and religion. 

Winning for the U.S. against militant Islam comes with the confident assertion of the nation’s commitment to liberty under God. It comes through smart prioritization of national interests and their unswerving pursuit. It calls for realistic and shrewd applications of power. It calls for alliances -- formal and informal -- that advance U.S. interests while minimizing the potential for damage to the nation’s longer term interests through ill-considered understandings and accords. Russia is the prime example. 

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
22 janvier 2016 5 22 /01 /janvier /2016 10:25

Speaking Truth to the European Union

On October 10, 2015, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Congress to counter the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.  By the U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act, U.S. trade negotiators are instructed to discourage potential trade partners from engaging in economic discrimination or participating in or promoting acts of BDS against Israel.  The bill seeks to eliminate the politically motivated boycott and barriers on Israeli goods, services, and other commerce imposed on the State of Israel.

President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress should relate this firm statement to the shameful behavior of the European Union.  It is generally assumed that the EU and Israel share common values.  Yet on January 18, 2016, the European Council of the European Union issued yet another of its fatuous conclusions on the Middle East peace process.  It was "deeply concerned about the continuing cycle of violence" in Israel and the Palestinian territory in recent months.  It recalled the special significance of the holy sites and called for the upholding of the status quo put in place in 1967 for the Temple Mount/al-Haram al-Saharif.

With the moral equivalence that it illustrates to perfection, the EU urged "all parties" not to worsen the situation by way of incitement or provocation and called on all parties to condemn attacks when they occur.

The remembrance by EU ministers and officials of things past is uneven, if not schizophrenic.  Absent from its memory is any note of the unprovoked Palestinian violence that has "worsened" the situation in recent months.  The EU memory is steeped in the Palestinian Narrative of Victimhood.  There is no hint in it of the corruption and inefficiency of Palestinian authorities and the intent of some to start Intifada III, let alone their refusal to come to the negotiating table for peace.  Above all, not a word is said or thought about the Palestinians wielding knives to stab innocent Israelis to death.  The EU did not point out that since October 1, 2015, Palestinians have killed, by stabbings, car-ramming, and attacks by guns, 24 Israelis and a U.S. citizen.  Israeli soldiers, in defense, have killed 93 terrorists, and another 50 died in clashed with Israeli security forces.  

What is present in a full way is the reiteration of EU opposition to the policy of Israeli settlements, which it considers illegal and an obstacle to peace.  So is the EU "strong opposition" to actions such as building the separation barrier, which more properly may be considered an Israeli security fence, beyond the 1967 line, demolitions and confiscations, illegal outposts, and restrictions of movement.

The EU, like the U.N. General Assembly, holds Israel to a double standard.  No censure applies to other territorial conflicts such as those in northern Cyprus (Turkey), Western Sahara, Kashmir (India), or Tibet (China).  This is now shown in a dramatic way.  The EU decided on November 11, 2015 to issue guidelines for the labeling of exports originating from Israeli settlements in the West Bank.  They cannot be labeled "Made in Israel."  The EU says the objective of the labeling policy is to distinguish between goods made inside the internationally accepted borders of Israel and those outside.  Britain, Belgium, and Denmark already do this.

There are seven factors the EU should have  considered.

The first is the humiliating analogy of its boycott with Nazi Germany, which was the last country in Europe to label Jewish products.

A second factor is that in response to the EU action, Israel on November 29, 2015, announced it was suspending diplomatic contacts with those EU bodies and institutions, though not necessarily individual states, involved in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.  It would continue business as usual with EU member-states.

The third basic issue, referring to recognized boundaries, is that most of the Arab countries and certainly the Palestinians do not recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel, let alone borders. 

A fourth is the fact that economically, the effect of the EU decision is minimal.  The produce going to the EU from the settlements is worth about $50 million a year – mainly grapes, dates, wine, poultry, and cosmetics, compared to almost $300 million's worth of goods made in the settlements every year.  Also, Israel exports some $30 billion's worth of goods and services to the EU every year – about a third of all Israeli exports.

A sixth factor is that more than 20,000 Palestinians work in the settlements at a salary considerably higher than in Palestinian-run enterprises.  They may consequently become unemployed as a result of the EU proposal, which is in effect a form of boycott.

A seventh factor is that the very imbalance of the EU on the Middle East itself prevents it from playing the larger role in the Middle East peace process that it desires.

At a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on January 18, 2016, the ministers finally agreed on a joint statement on the degree to which they should stress a distinction between the country, Israel, and its occupied territories.  Even the final softer text expresses that all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate they are not applicable to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

The ministers had spent several days in heated discussion and had been deadlocked over the statement concerning Israel's actions in the territories it has occupied since 1967.  Interestingly, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, and Hungary were concerned that the criticism of Israel not be too strong, while Sweden, Ireland, and Malta pressed for tougher language.

It is noteworthy that the person most in favor of a stronger text against Israel was the Swedish foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, who has already called for an investigation not of the Palestinian terrorists wielding their knives against Israeli civilians, but of how Israel deals with the knife-attackers.

President Obama and Congress now have the opportunity to implement the October 2015 bill.  They should inform the EU that its boycott, call it what you will, will not be tolerated.

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
13 janvier 2016 3 13 /01 /janvier /2016 10:25

Another Miracle from Israel? Prostate Cancer Cure in 20 Minutes

 

One in six American men will develop prostate cancer.  It is the most common cancer after skin cancer, and the second biggest cancer killer for men.  Two Israeli scientists at the Weizmann Institute in Israel promise an almost miraculous cure, now in clinical trials at New York’s Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.  It is the culmination of 20 years of basic research by plant scientist Avigdor Scherz and cancer researcher Yoram Saloman.

Professor Scherz took a naturally occurring form of chlorophyll from aquatic bacteria:

…chemically modified by Prof. Scherz's lab at Weizmann to fit the team's pharmaceutical needs. Once the photosensitized drug is injected, it meets up with the second crucial element in this therapy—light—at the targeted tumor site… from highly focused fiber-optic lasers that have been inserted near the tumor. As the chlorophyll absorbs the light, it can then interact with the third component in the process—oxygen—to produce oxygen radicals. This interaction initiates a fast cascade of pathophysiological events that cause instantaneous closing of the blood vessels leading to the tumor, followed by oxygen and nutrient deprivation at the tumor site, as well as other active processes that kill tumor cells. In 24 to 48 hours, the tumor undergoes complete necrosis.

The treatment, called vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy or VTP is a one-time 20 to 30-minute procedure.  There have been no side effects in urination or sexual function. 

The Israeli team foresees applications for breast, ovary, lung and pancreas tumors.  The latter has no effective treatment to date and has been a tragic death sentence.

As I read about these medical breakthroughs from Israel, my mind goes to Germany today, and yesteryear.  The Nazis killed off their Jewish citizens, their best and their brightest, out of envy, greed and spite.    

Attracted by Nazi Jew-hatred, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood allied with Hitler. The Arabs’ price for their allegiance, valuable because of the promise of sabotaging the British in the oil fields of the Middle East, was to deny Europe’s 6 million Jews refuge in Palestine, their only lifeline.  Germany, Britain, and America under FDR had the same policy in this regard -- do not upset the Muslim Brothers, it being preferable to let Europe’s Jews be wiped out by Hitler by forbidding Jews refuge in their own Palestinian Jewish Homeland.  Divine Justice has brought that evil decision back to haunt us.

The jihadi movement is Hitler’s enduring gift to us.  The Third Reich sent Eichmann to Egypt to train the Muslim Brothers in antisemitic propaganda, bomb-making and other sabotage techniques, giving birth to the modern jihadi movement.  The Nazis built the Muslim Brothers up from ten thousand to a million members.  Ayatollah Khomeini listened to Nazi-Arab broadcasts from Berlin every day of the war years.  (Read my column on Hitler’s jihadi legacy here, and more from Dr. Matthias Kuntzel here). 

We are all suffering the consequences today.  We had a second chance.  If the world had stood behind Israel in the face of the post-war 60-year antisemitic Islamic onslaught seeking to destroy them, we would have marginalized and starved the jihadi movement long ago.  But Europe chose to indulge the Arabs in their Jew-hatred, only partly to kowtow to the oil-rich Arabs.  It was also Europeans’ pleasure, and the pleasure of European and American leftists in particular, to pretend the Jews were the bad guys.

Now Germany is inviting the jihadis out of their Middle Eastern hellhole and into their midst.  In her misguided invitation for the Muslim invasion of Europe, German Chancellor Merkel is driving out the rest of Europe’s Jews, who are targeted by Europe’s hate-filled Arabs, and consigning Germany and Europe to cultural and demographic suicide. The Arab population of Europe has been terrorizing Europe’s Jews and forcing the younger generation to flee for many years now, but the rest of Europe considered this acceptable.  The final tragic chapter in Europe’s self-destruction is at hand, with antisemitism at its core at every step.

And then my mind goes to the other side -- all those lost Jewish lives.  Would cancer have been cured decades ago if not for the Nazi-Arab pact of evil that wiped out 6 million precious lives?  Jews undoubtedly have genetic gifts, but much of their cultural flowering is from Judaism itself, a religion that fosters reading, thinking and debating – in a word – individualism and freedom.  Merkel is instituting the final purge of Judaism from Europe and substituting a million followers of ‘Submission’ (that’s the translation of the name Islam).   

Luckily, this time around, the Jews of Europe do have a place to flee and to flourish, and to develop their gifts of life for the benefit of the rest of us.  Men over sixty have a special reason to be grateful to Israel this week.

 

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
7 janvier 2016 4 07 /01 /janvier /2016 13:37

Obama's fake tears?

 

Were President Obama's tears over gunshot victims genuine? Nearly political commentators, and even Donald Trump credited him with genuine emotion. Doug Ross and Biff Spackle, however, noted how unusual it was for Obama to mourn with tears, given the many opportunities:

(more examples here)

There were so many AT comments on my blog yesterday about Obama’s crocodile tears, I was inspired to write a short follow up piece to highlight them and to further expand on his intentional manipulation of the public with choreographed emotions.

Additional insights from AT readers

Several readers noted that if a person applies a dab of menthol or camphor to their fingertip, it can induce tears. Likely many of us are familiar with this when we inadvertently touch or rub our eye after we’ve used a substance that is irritating. (Bengay comes to mind.) It stings and causes one’s eye to get red and to tear; our body’s automatic response to remove the substance from our eye.

willmay posted there are products called “tear stick” or “tear blower” readily available for actors who need to cry on cue. (Great product for con artists, as well, no?) She had additional insights worthy of note, including her observation that Obama first wiped his left eye and then “tears appear from that eye only.” (saksin also observed that Obama’s first wipe of one eye preceded any tears at all.)

Great points. Tears do not flow asymmetrically, with one eye tearing up while the other remains dry.

And if I might add, Obama wiped the left eye starting at the outer edge, wiping inward. Try doing that. You’ll realize that you have no muscle memory or any sense of familiarity with that gesture from times in life when you’ve cried. That’s because it’s abnormal since tears emanate from the tiny hole in our tear ducts located at the inner rim of each eye. As Sons of Charlemagne noted, “tears don't flow from the outside corner of the eye.”

I thought it worthwhile to explore precedent for this kind of calculating behavior.

In the not-too-distant past, Bill Clinton, another liar-in-chief, put on an act that was truly shameful. (Par for the Clinton course.) A comment by vinny prompted me to search for an emotional flip-flop Clinton pulled off, going from laughter to (fake) tears in a nanosecond. It happened in 2008 when Clinton was leaving the memorial service for Ron Brown. Clinton can be seen chatting and laughing with the person he was walking with. That is, until he caught sight of the media’s cameras. At which point, he bowed his head, put on a sorrowful expression, and pretended to wipe a tear from his eye (freeze frames, here):



 

 

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
18 novembre 2015 3 18 /11 /novembre /2015 06:25

HuffPo compares Syrian refugees to Jews in the Holocaust


David Bier, the director of immigration policy at the very nutty libertarian-leaning Niskanen Center, writes in the HuffPo that it is more important than ever that we admit unvetted Muslim refugees.  He does so by comparing the situation to the Holocaust:

During World War II, the U.S. turned away Jews due to security concerns. We sent shiploads back to the camps. ... The lesson of the Holocaust, as I noted here, is that we must deal with threats without rejecting our ethical obligations. We must not send those fleeing persecution back to their persecutors. The definition of moral courage is to resist allowing fear to overwhelm our humanity.

This is an offensive analogy.  Jews who came to America were not themselves violent.  They did not strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in theaters; they did not go into restaurants and execute diners, one by one; and they did not attempt to set up a caliphate wherever they moved to, although they did tend to dominate the deli, bagel-making, and stand-up comedy fields.

But a large percentage of Muslim "refugees" do believe in strict sharia law and are intolerant of other religions, and a large subset of those do want to kill people of other religions.  Letting Jews into America didn't put American lives at risk, but letting Muslims in does.

A second problem with this analogy is the belief that the refugees have nowhere to go.  There are at least two dozen Muslim countries, many of them wealthy gulf states, who could easily afford to take in refugees.  During the Holocaust, there was no Jewish state that could take in Jews.  That's a big difference.

The Holocaust was about exterminating an entire race of people.  Millions were killed.  Only a small fraction of that number have died in Syria and Iraq.  What is happening in Syria and Iraq is part of what has been happening there for hundreds of years: intolerant Sunnis killing Shi'ites, and intolerant Shi'ites killing Sunnis.  Just the names – ISIS, Assad, Hezb'allah – have changed, not the fundamental players.

Another difference from the Holocaust: the Jews fleeing didn't want to go to new countries to find Muslims to kill.  But the fleeing Muslims in fact have been persecuting and killing Jews in Europe at an accelerated rate.

Too many of these "refugees" have unclean hands, and we don't know who is who.  If you see a survivor of a downed ship in the water, you may feel compelled to reach out your hand, but only a crazy person would give a hand if he knew there was a significant chance that the person in the water was going to pull him in.

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
18 novembre 2015 3 18 /11 /novembre /2015 06:21

One picture to sum up Obama's idiotic ISIS policy


Recently the Obama administration was crowing loudly about its success in vaporizing a single, notoriously vicious jihadist with a well-placed Hellfire missile.  Mohammed Emwazi was a British citizen who not only joined the jihadist movement, but became one of its leading public executioners, quickly dubbed by the media Jihadi John.  John had no qualms about publicly incriminating himself in widely distributed videos showing him sawing off the heads of helpless kneeling victims.  His flair for such bloody publicity placed him at the very top of the high-value targets list and resulted in his mission as a fervent executioner for ISIS being abruptly truncated last week, according to U.S. authorities.  Since John earned his own execution by drone missile last week, the Obama administration has been basking in the warm glow of his fiery demise, citing the event as evidence that its strategy for combatting ISIS is effective.

And therein lies the problem.  In its article relating John's demise, the U.K.'s Daily Mail includes a photograph that pretty much sums up the slapdash aspects of Obama's strategy of going after newsworthy targets rather than those that are truly significant in terms of reducing the jihadis' ability to wage war.  View for a moment this aerial photo from the Mail's article.

Note that the location of the drone strike on Jihadi John appears to be but a few city blocks from a large building marked "ISIS Main HQ."  Does the question not immediately arise in your mind why we would target a specific human enemy and yet leave perhaps hundreds of them alive and well to continue to conduct their war against us?

Will you please explain this strategy, Mr. Commander-in Chief?

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article
23 octobre 2015 5 23 /10 /octobre /2015 09:20

Prieres de rue aux USA 

Los Angeles Muslims block the street to pray


If any other religious group in America pulled a stunt like this, we would never hear the end of it. But Muslims are a special class.

And so in Los Angeles this week, a street was clogged and rendered impassible because a horde of Muslims decided to roll out a huge prayer rug, set up speakers to broadcast the Arabic drone, toss off their shoes, and block the street in order to pray (here). Of course prayer was just part of the agenda. The other part was to assert supremacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwWJEogS3w

I guess they figured this would be a win-win. They get to assert supremacy while being able to claim they need more and bigger mosques.

This tactic has been used many times in other cities:

Paris

New York

If Obama has his way (and it seems he always does), soon their brethren will be arriving en masse to join them.

Please do everything in your power to put the brakes on this madness. People are slowly waking up and speaking out. But the pace must quicken.

Hat tip: Atlas Shrugs

Repost 0
Published by PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE - dans American Thinker
commenter cet article

Pimprenelle Pourprée

  • : Regard d'un Ecrivain sur le Monde
  • Regard d'un Ecrivain sur le Monde
  • : Cherchant les points communs entre les peuples, les nations et les religions pour creer un monde meilleur...et une paix durable.
  • Contact

Profil

  • PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE
  • écrivain, née à Marrakech, Maroc, qui cherche une voie pour rapprocher les coeurs et les ames.
  • écrivain, née à Marrakech, Maroc, qui cherche une voie pour rapprocher les coeurs et les ames.

PIMPRENELLE POURPRÉE

Recherche

Pimprenelle Pourprée