Sunday, September 21, 2014

New York Times and Metpltn Opera continue their deep anti Semitism

New York Times and Metpltn Opera continue their deep anti Semitism

Sept. 21, 2014
Monday September 22 marks the beginning of New York’s Metropolitan Opera season, a season slated to include production of “The Death of Klinghoffer,” the notorious opera romanticizing terrorists who murdered Leon Klinghoffer and caricaturing Jews in bigoted language. As Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, wrote in a statement to be read at a protest rally against the opera in front of the Met that same day:

    I submit to you that there has never been a crime in human history lacking grievance and motivation. The 9/11 lunatics had profound motivations, and the murderers of my son, Daniel Pearl, had very compelling "grievances.”

    In the past few weeks we have seen with our own eyes that Hamas and ISIS have grievances, too and, they, too, are lining up for operatic productions with the Met.

    Yet civilized society, from the time of our caveman ancestors, has learned to protect itself by codifying right from wrong, separating the holy from the profane, distinguishing that which deserves the sound of orchestras from that which deserves our unconditional revulsion. The Met has smeared this distinction and thus betrayed their contract with society.

Not surprisingly, The New York Times has joined in smearing the distinction between right and wrong, endorsing the Klinghoffer production in an editorial entitled “The Met Opera Stands Firm: ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ Must Go On” (September 19, 2014)

Unmentioned in the endorsement of the opera are anti-Semitic lyrics, including these sung by one of the terrorist hijackers: "Wherever poor men—Are gathered they can—Find Jews getting fat—You know how to cheat—The simple, exploit—The virgin, pollute—Where you have exploited—Defame those you cheated—And break your own law—With idolatry." Nowhere in the opera are Arabs condemned or ridiculed as a group as Jews are here.

New York Times coverage of Israel continuously reflects the same lack of a moral compass regarding the onslaught of hatred and violence against the Jewish state and neglects the journalistic responsibility to report the full, unvarnished truth about that aggression. Indeed, The Times has a lamentable history of distorting the picture when the victims are Jews, as it did by its own admission in failing to cover the Holocaust fully and accurately.

Why is Obama ignoring his generals?

Why is Obama ignoring his generals?
It is simple. Obama has no desire to really fight Isis but politics make him appear to do something so he will do as little as possible. He WANTS Jihad to spread. There is just too much evidence to fully deny this.
FRom World jewish Digest: " U.S. President Obama and his generals at the Pentagon have often disagreed on strategies when it comes to American foreign policy. The latest sign of tension is about how to fight the Islamic State.

A Washington Post report noted U.S. military leaders have publicly spoken out against the president’s plan against the Islamic State militant group. While Obama has promised not to deploy ground combat troops, Pentagon officials say this option should not be taken off the table.

"Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility," said Ret. Marine Gen James Mattis in the Post report. "We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground."

The U.S. military has thus far launched airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and has approved a plan to expand the strikes into Syria, but a target date has not been announced.

This week, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly backed Obama's plan to train and arm Syrian rebels to help fight the jihadist Islamic State. But after the fall midterm break and Congress reconvenes, lawmakers will come back to Washington to debate the issue of a broader authorization of military force in Syria."

From me: Obama helps massive spread of Islamic jihad under his watch-see details below

NEWEST: Obam covering up domestic jihad murder again.
Flourishing of Jihad 2009 until now under Obama, much with his direct aid. You decide whether its purposeful on his part, or incompetence, or horrible consequences of wrongheaded world view.
1.Libya: he helped push out Quaddafi, and now Libya in hands of various jihad groups. Egypt is very worried about them.
2.Iraq: pulled out after war was won opening way for ISIS
3.Syria: drew red lines and then ignored them when breached and now Isis controls half
4.Hamas: secret talks with this terrorist group while they toss missiles daily at Israel for 6 months and continued to fund PA even after the have unity government with Hamas. Secret talks with them.
5. Iran: weakened sanctions consistently and now extends talks while they move forward tried to overthrow Mubarak and support Moslem Brotherhood, gave them 1.5 billion and sophisticated weapons
6. Turkey Obama’s favorite foreign leader calls Israelis Nazis It is also no surprise that Obama would name this vicious Jew-hater as his closest friend among world leaders. “Erdogan calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler,” Times of Israel, July 19, 2014
7. He backed Morsi in Egypt, head of Moslem Brotherhood who said Jews are descended from pigs, gave them 1.5 billion and f16s.
8. Iron Dome vs Terrorist funding Follow the money: each round of Iron Dome funding, Obama has tried to cut substantially. Congress overruled him. His response? $47 more for Hamas to rebuild, $500 million for Syrian rebels (which will go straight to Isis, $11 billion arms deal with Qatar
9. Opens southern borders, allowing terrorists cross into US easily
11. Lost whereabouts of 6000 “students” of foreign nationality who never showed up for class
12. The unilateral release of five senior Taliban back to the enemy while the enemy is still fighting us.
14. Does this bother anyone else? Obama had a meeting with an "interesting" cleric -- on the anniversary of 9-11 no less.
15. His administration hired senior terrorists to work for US government. One example
16. Had Bagdadai, Isis leader in custody in 2009 but released him
17. Severly limits FBI ability to monitor Islamic extremists in USA
18. They've lifted all restrictions on Muslim Brotherhood visits to the United States and now restricting entry of Israelis to US
19. He and Hillary lied and lied about 9-11 Alquida attack in benghazzi being caused by Youtube video, to continue their lying narrative that alquida was vanquished to try and assist his 2012 election,
20. Fort Hood shooter business card says “soldier of Allah” and he shouts alla akbar before he kills 13 fellow soldiers, Obama calls it ‘workplace violence”.
21. Obama demands scrubbing word jihad from documents on terror and demands CIA Director scrub word Islamist before the word “terrorists” from Benghazi talking points
22. Fight vs Isis: Steve Emerson: “our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins.."

Terrorism expert summarizes this: “Steve Emerson Terrorism expert
“we have an administration that's in bed with these radical Islamic groups who pretend to be moderate or civil rights groups that have basically curtailed the ability of the FBI, ICE agents, to monitor, do investigations, or even prosecutors. Prosecutors now have to petition the Department of Justice to use the word "jihad" in indictments. This shows you the extent to which this administration has neutered the whole campaign to stop jihadism and basically interfere, Monica, with the ability of FBI agents to do their job...,the FBI, city and state law enforcement and now the border patrol with essentially an open border with god knows what kind of terrorists and Islamists are coming over the southern border, how they have really been hamstrung by regulations and political correctness restricting their ability to monitor the Islamic communities and the border...this administration has essentially embraced and legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the godfather and parent of all Sunni terrorist groups, including Hamas, including Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda. And for the administration to make a distinction between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood is simply murderous. And that's what they've done. “

Friday, September 19, 2014

terrorist college youth group

The student terrorists college youth groups, called Muslim Student Assciation and Students for Justice in Palestine are giving us a Rosh Hashanah present,  Protest Anti-Semitic "Int'l Day of Action on College Campuses"Tuesday, September 23rd - on the eve of the Jewish New Year.
Anyone working with them or supporting them are aiding and abetting terrorism and death to Jews and the free world.

Muslim Student association and Students for Justice in Palestine is an EVIL, Monstrous group. Fight them everywhere,

Muslim Student Association are terrorist supporters. With nearly 600 chapters -- including roughly 150 affiliated chapters -- located in the United States and Canada,the Muslim Students Association (MSA) is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America. As reflected in the extensive information presented in this dossier, MSA has gained legitimacy on American campuses as a benevolent collegiate faith club; however, under this moderate veneer MSA advances a different agenda among impressionable college students. Through conferences and events, publications, websites and other activities, MSA has disseminated and promoted militant Islamic ideologies on college and universitycampuses throughout North America. This dossier is on MSA-National as well as the numerous chapters of MSA formally affiliated with MSA-National.
The Muslim Students Association (MSA) of the United States and Canada was incorporated in January 1963, when members of the Muslim Brotherhood came together at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America.”
The Moral Psychosis of Demonstrating in Support of Hamas
"That pro-Palestinian student activists, those who purport to be motivated by a desire to bring “justice” to the Middle East, could publicly call for the renewed slaughter of Jews in the name of Palestinian self-determination demonstrates quite clearly how ideologically debased the human rights movement has become. Activists on and off U.S. campuses, who never have to face a physical threat more serious than getting jostled while waiting in line for a latte at Starbucks, are quick to denounce Israel’s very real existential threats and the necessity of the Jewish state to take counter measures to thwart terrorism."
STUDENTS FORE JUSTICE IN PALESTINE: Jewish Voices for peace and JStreet: Using our good and trusting nature to spread lies and destruction to the one Democracy in the Middle East.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Arabs buying Democratic and university influence

Follow the money. Arab oil influence
Obama and Arab money
Martin Indyk US peace negotiator always takes Arab side. $15 million from Qatar
Jimmy Carter always blasts Israel. Millions in Arab money
Clinton blasts Netanyahu yesterday. Clintons millions from Arab money. Hillary excuses Hamas firing from schols by claiming gaza is crowded.
Many universities including Harvard and Georgetown millions in Arab money.   Columbia  Qatar money
Arab money flowing to influential US leaders to influence them vs Israel!!
What should Israel do with billions it will get from their huge natural gas discoveries? Fight fire with fire.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Israeli Reality Check for Liberal Critics

Israeli Reality Check for Liberal Critics

Israel’s American critics viewed the latest conflict in Gaza as more evidence of how the Jewish state needs to be saved from itself. That is particularly true of Jewish groups like the left-wing lobby J Street whose attacks on the Netanyahu government and support for Obama administration pressure on Israel have continued even as anti-Zionist and pro-BDS (boycott, divest, and sanction) efforts have intensified. But the latest opinion poll from Israel illustrates yet again just how out of touch these liberal know-it-alls are with reality as seen by the majority of Israelis.

A new opinion poll from Israel’s Channel 10 provides sobering results for those who continue to hope that Israelis will listen to them and both push for a new prime minister and resolve to begin leaving the West Bank. While many, if not most Americans, actually believe the press when they call Netanyahu a “hard-liner,” the perception of his conduct at home is very different. Far from convincing Israel to start ceding more territory to the Palestinians, after their 50-day ordeal during the summer as thousands of rockets fell on their heads and a new threat of terror tunnels made them feel even less safe, more Israelis seem inclined to view Netanyahu as not tough enough.
Netanyahu’s personal approval ratings dropped once the fighting ended and many of his countrymen were disappointed with his failure to end the threat from Hamas-run Gaza once and for all. These latest numbers confirm that the big winner if elections were to be held today would be the prime minister’s most strident critic on the right. Even more discouraging for the “save it from itself” crowd is the fact that the right-wing parties as a whole are gaining strength while those on the left are dropping even lower in public esteem.
The Channel 10 poll shows that the public would give Netanyahu’s Likud Party 26 seats in a new Knesset. That’s less than the 31 it got when it ran on a joint ticket in 2013 with Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu Party. But that right-wing rival would get 14, representing a gain of four for the two natural coalition partners. But the big winner would be Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home Party which has been highly critical of what it considers to be Netanyahu’s timid approach to Gaza and negotiations with the Palestinians. It would get 16 in a new election, an increase of four over their current total.
While these three men are more or less continually at each other’s throats, it must be understood that the combination of the three—which represent the core of any center-right government—would stand at 56, almost enough for them to govern on their own and reminiscent of the old days of Labor Party dominance when the left ruled the country for its first three decades. That would give Netanyahu the option of putting together a right-wing government with the religious parties that would, however fractious its character, dominate the Knesset.
At the same time, the biggest losers would be the parties that Israel’s critics are counting on to form the core of a new “pro-peace” Cabinet. The centrist Yesh Atid Party led by current Finance Minister Yair Lapid is the big loser in the poll, going down to only 8 seats from its current 19. That leaves any potential center-left coalition led by Labor, which went down to 13 from its current 15 seats, hopelessly short of any sort of majority. Even if you added in the seats that may be won by a new party focused on economics led by former Likud minister Moshe Kahlon to the total of all the left-wing, centrist, and Arab parties, it adds up to only 49. And that is an inconceivable coalition since in all likelihood Kahlon and his supporters would join any Cabinet led by Netanyahu.
What does this mean?
The first conclusion is that although anything can happen in the two or three years between now and the next election, barring some sort of spectacular and currently unforeseen collapse, Netanyahu will almost certainly lead the next Israeli government.
Second, Lapid’s party appears fated to follow that of every other centrist party in Israeli political history. Voters are always hungry for alternatives to the old left and right choices but even though circumstances occasionally thrust a centrist to the fore, they are inevitably, as Lapid has been, marginalized by the continued centrality of war and peace issues on which they cannot compete. Lapid also made the same mistake of all his predecessors (including his father) of joining a government and thus became both tarnished and diminished by the hard choices any Cabinet must make on economics or peace. These poll numbers also lessen Lapid’s leverage in the current budget dispute he’s been waging with Netanyahu.
Third, and most importantly, these numbers reflect the fact that, unlike most liberal Jews–or most Americans for that matter–Israelis have been paying attention to events in the region. They know the continued rule of Hamas over Gaza and the Islamists’ increased popularity among Palestinians at the expense of the supposedly more moderate Fatah and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas renders any idea of withdrawing from the West Bank, as was done in Gaza, an impossibility. No sane Israeli leader would risk turning that far larger and more strategic territory into another Gaza.
This will, no doubt, heighten the frustrations of American left-wingers about Israel. But their anger tells us more about them and their refusal to think seriously about what Palestinians have done and believe than it does about what Israel should do. Israelis want peace as much if not more than American liberals. But they understand that dreams of peace are meaningless to Hamas and Palestinian rejectionists. Those who claim to be pro-Israel as well as pro-peace need to come to terms with the fact that the people who understand their country’s dilemmas far better than they could are still firmly rejecting their advice.

Maimonides, LBJ and the War on Poverty

Maimonides (Laws of Gifts to the Poor in the Mishneh Torah) states the goal of welfare programs is to create independence. LBJ set that as the goal for the War on Poverty 60 years ago. But it has done the OPPOSITE.  Liberals claim that the War on Poverty has failed because we didn’t spend enough money. Their answer is just to spend more. But the facts show otherwise.
Since its beginning, U.S. taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson’s War on Poverty (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusting for inflation, that’s three times more than was spent on all military wars since the American Revolution.
One third of the U.S. population received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013.
The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs. These programs provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income Americans. Federal and state spending on these programs last year was $943 billion. (These figures do not include Social Security, Medicare, or Unemployment Insurance.)
Over 100 million people, about one third of the U.S. population, received aid from at least one welfare program at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient in 2013. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S.
But today the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.
How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?
According to government surveys, the typical family that Census identifies as poor has air conditioning, cable or satellite TV, and a computer in his home. Forty percent have a wide screen HDTV and another 40 percent have internet access. Three quarters of the poor own a car and roughly a third have two or more cars. (These numbers are not the result of the current bad economy pushing middle class families into poverty; instead, they reflect a steady improvement in living conditions among the poor for many decades.)

Infographic by Kelsey Harris/The Daily Signal
The intake of protein, vitamins and minerals by poor children is virtually identical with upper middle class kids. According to surveys by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the overwhelming majority of poor people report they were not hungry even for a single day during the prior year.

We can be grateful that the living standards of all Americans, including the poor, have risen in the past half century, but the War on Poverty has not succeeded according to Johnson’s original goal. Johnson’s aim was not to prop up living standards by making more and more people dependent on an ever larger welfare state. Instead, Johnson sought to increase self-sufficiency, the ability of a family to support itself out of poverty without dependence on welfare aid. Johnson asserted that the War on Poverty would actually shrink the welfare rolls and transform the poor from “taxeaters” into “taxpayers.”
Judged by that standard, the War on Poverty has been a colossal flop. The welfare state has undermined self-sufficiency by discouraging work and penalizing marriage. When the War on Poverty began seven percent of children were born outside marriage. Today, 42 percent of children are. By eroding marriage, the welfare state has made many Americans less capable of self-support than they were when the War on Poverty began.

President Obama plans to spend $13 trillion dollars on means-tested welfare over the next decade. Most of this spending will flow through traditional welfare programs that discourage the keys to self-sufficiency: work and marriage.
Rather than doubling down on the mistakes of the past, we should restructure the welfare state around Johnson’s original goal: increasing Americans capacity for self-support. Welfare should no longer be a one way hand out; able-bodied recipients of cash, food and housing should be required to work or prepare for work as condition of receiving aid. Welfare’s penalties against marriage should be reduced. By returning to the original vision of aiding the poor to aid themselves, we can begin, in Johnson’s words, to “replace their despair with opportunity.”