Thursday, April 24, 2014

What 'Nakba Day' Really Means - And Why Israel And The World Should Prohibit it

The Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians have a number of curious holidays. There's 'Prisoner's Day', observed on April 17th when the Palestinians celebrate the convicted murderers in Israeli prisons for their murder of Jews.

There's 'Land Day' observed on March 30th, which commemorates violent riots by the Palestinians against Israeli Authorites that led to the first intifada.

And then there's Nakba Day, celebrated May 15th, the day after Israeli Independence day on the Gregorian calendar.

'Nakba' means 'catastrophe' in Arabic. The holiday mourns the creation of Israel and is observed by marches, fiery, incendiary speeches in Arabic and almost always violent confrontations with Israeli civilians and police.

Today, as a matter of fact there's a story out there about a group called the Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced Persons in Israel frothing at the mouth over being denied a permit for a march in the Lavi Forest on Israeli Independence Day by The head of the Lower Galilee Regional Council, Moti Dotan.

Dotan wants the march called off because he's afraid of confrontations with what he described as 'Radical right-wing people' who will also be celebrating in the forest on Israeli Independence Day.Like a lot of politicians, Dotan makes the right decision for all the wrong reasons.

What does 'Nakba Day' really represent? Like every one of the other 'holidays' the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians observe, it celebrates violence and terrorism.

Even before Israel was declared a state by the UN in 1948,  the Arabs, aided and abetted by the British authorities were engaged in violence and terrorism against Israel's Jews.With the British appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj-Amin al-Husseini spurring them on, the Arabs attacked Jewish communities throughout Mandatory Palestine in a violent campaign leading up to Israel's independence in May of 1948. Even after that, al-Husseini's 'irregulars' aided the Arab armies attempting to invade Israel, with one goal in mind, one they openly stated -a jihad ending in the ethnic cleansing and genocide of every Jew in Palestine.

You see, to the Palestinians, that's what they're mourning. The 'nakba', the 'catastrophe' was that they failed at an attempted geniocide.

Imagine how the world would react if Germans held a public ceremony mourning the fact that they failed to kill off all of Europe's Jews? or if the Russians publicly mourned failing to successfully starve all the Ukrainians to death or or the Turks had a holiday mourning their failure to totally wipe out the Armenians in the 1915 Genocide. Yet the Arabs whom call them selves Palestinians and their left wing groupies like the EU funded Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced Persons in Israel mourn their failed attempt at genocide every year.

Not only should it be prohibited in Israel, but in every civilized society on the face of the earth.

Is Cliven Bundy A Racist? And If He Is, What Changes?

This comes from Pravda-on-the-Hudson, so it's highly suspicious. It's certainly not like they haven't lied for partisan purposes many times before. But they're claiming that their reporter overheard Bundy say the following (h/t Hot Air):

Cliven Bundy stood by the Virgin River up the road from the armed checkpoint at the driveway of his ranch, signing autographs and posing for pictures. For 55 minutes, Mr. Bundy held forth to a clutch of supporters about his views on the troubled state of America — the overreaching federal government, the harassment of Western ranchers, the societal upheaval caused by abortion, even musing about whether slavery was so bad.

He said he would continue holding a daily news conference; on Saturday, it drew one reporter and one photographer, so Mr. Bundy used the time to officiate at what was in effect a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Hmmmm. If Cliven Bundy said this - and considering the source and the timing let's really emphasize that 'if' - he's going to forfeit a lot of sympathy from me and others. 'Family life' under slavery certainly existed, but whether it was in ancient Rome or 1840's Georgia, it was always subject to the owner's approval and changing financial circumstances at any given time.

That doesn't change the fact that contrary to what you're hearing,  he may in fact have had a legal case of sorts (look up 'prescriptive easement' and 'adverse possession', especially as they apply to Nevada law for details) nor does it change the fact that the Bureau of Land Management tried to seize land under false pretenses, participated in the illegal taking of private property without compensation by stealing Bundy's cattle and sent an armed SWAT team to lay siege to Bundy's home and  act like Nazi brown shirts in general.

This purported statement  does serve quite conveniently to distance Bundy from people that were supporting him politically. As such, the timing is pretty suspicious, but I will merely report this, wait to see what if anything Cliven Bundy has to say about it and let you draw your own conclusions.

Where The Citizens Commission Gets It Wrong On Benghazi, And What Really Happened


There are a number of high profile articles out there in the last few days concerning the findings of a self-selected Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

The speculation here - that the Obama Administration 'changed sides in the War on Terror' by 'allowing a half billion dollar shipment of arms to be sent to al-Qaeda', that Ambassador Stevens was supposed to be the victim of a staged 'kidnapping' and swapped for 'the Blind Sheikh' Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot and the use of questionable sources like NewsMax and WorldNetDaily should tell you that this report was concocted more for sensationalism, online fund raising and internet traffic rather than accuracy.

Here's an example of one tall tale. Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told a press conference that the Obama administration failed to stop a huge arms shipment from the United Arab Emirates from reaching what she called 'al-Qaeda-linked militants'.

"Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,' Lopez claimed. 'They were permitted to come in. ... [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed.."

Except Khaddaffi had plenty of arms already during the period she's talking about, and if he had any arms shipped in at that point there was no blockade until he had virtually won the civil war and was advancing on Benghazi, where he had the Islamists and al-Qaeda fighters cornered. That's the point when President Obama had us intervene, and putting the no fly zone into effect took additional time.And that's just one part of this 'report' than can easily be picked apart.

Let's also not forget that Benghazi happened after Khaddaffi had be defeated and lynched by a an 'arms shipment' would have been unnecessary and futile from Khaddaffi's viewpoint, to say the least!

And the 'kidnapping'? The jihadis  planned the whole thing well in advance, and used heavy weapons like mortars and RPG's from Khaddaffi's looted stash to attack the consulate. Tell me..who uses ranged anti-personnel weapons like mortars in a kidnapping?

What actually happened in Benghazi is bad enough without making things up, and I revealed the true story here about a year ago. Obviously it needs retelling, so that the guilty parties aren't able to squirm out from under because of some self-seeking media buffoonery.

The key to finding out the truth about Benghazi is to try and figure out what Ambassador Stevens was doing sitting in a compound with no security in a town run by the al-Qaeda allied Ansar-al-Sharia, when even the International Red Cross had pulled its people out because it was too dangerous.What was he doing there?

The first thing we have to look at is why a U.S. Ambassador was there in Benghazi in the first place. He was there as an envoy to Ansar al Sharia and the other jihadist groups that ruled Benghazi, and his assignment, according to what I've been able to find out, was to make a deal over the heavy weapons they had pilfered from Khaddaffi's armories thanks to President Obama's ill advised intervention in favor of the rebels. Stevens, who was intimately familiar with Libya, was there to purchase as many of these arms as he could outright to ship them to Ansar al-Sharia's al-Qaeda comrades in arms in Syria. The idea was to help take out Basher Assad's regime covertly without the necessity of committing US forces, and as a secondary goal to dispose of as many of the arms as possible, buy off the Benghazi rebels if possible and cover up what a huge mistake the Obama Administration had made by getting involved in Libya. There was absolutely no other reason for Ambassador Stevens to be in such a dangerous location virtually unprotected, except as an envoy to the jihadist forces controlling Benghazi.

An envoy in the Arab world has a very carefully defined position. He relies on the age old rules of Arab hospitality, comes unarmed to his enemy and throws himself on their protection. And if the negotiations fail, especially if a state of war exists, his life can be forfeit. That's why not only was Stevens denied more security, but most of what he had was taken away, even when it became plain to him (if not to the Obama Administration) that the deal had failed and he and the rest of the Americans were in mortal danger.

Needless to say, the approach to Ansar al-Sharia and the other Muslim Brotherhood groups involved had to be off the radar. For it to come out publicly during an election that the Obama Administration was dealing with one al-Qaeda affiliate as a middleman to ship arms to another al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood group in Syria was not something that would have gone down well with either the American electorate or with the Russians, with whom the president was working on a diplomatic solution - at least officially.

The Saudis and the Qataris are the ones bankrolling the jihadi Sunni rebels in Syria, so it was their money that was involved.

The murder of Stevens and the subsequent mutilation of his body (something that was carefully hidden and unreported by the U.S. press, but was widely reported overseas) was the classic Arab negative response to the deal the Obama Administration was trying to achieve. It was an unmistakeable message. When Ansar al-Sharia was finished with him, it was they who took the body to a hospital under their control. And those Libyan arms wound up being used in places like Mali, Algeria and Sinai, as well as helping Ansar al-Shariah and their friends keep control of Benghazi.

Stevens likely wasn't rescued for two reasons. First,because the president was AWOL and no one else wanted to take responsibility for giving the order to send our forces in. It was Mrs. Clinton's '3 AM phone call' ad on steroids. And second because the way things went down, it would almost certainly have raised a number of awkward questions in the middle of an election campaign that had President Obama's supposed foreign policy expertise as a major talking point.

In the end, Ambassador Stevens was far more useful as a dead martyr and photo-op than as a live ambassador subject to inconvenient congressional questioning.The talking points, of course, had to be constructed in such a way to lead as far away from the real story as possible, a story we now know they were fully aware of. The Obama Administration was primarily concerned with protecting the president politically in the middle of his re-election campaign, and felt that by sequestering the survivors under pain of prosecution, classifying all the documents, videos and phone logs as top secret and relying on a compliant media to spread the narrative the Administration came up with they could make it work.

The repercussions of Benghazi were hideous. Libya remains a failed state in chaos to this day thanks to President Obama. And as I said at the time, one of my notorious Lil' Birdies who is definitely in a position to know told me, among other things, that the attempt to buy arms and send them to jihadis in Syria was seen as a major double cross by the Israelis, who knew those arms could just as easily be used against them. Those stinger missiles wouldn't only have been useful in taking out Basher al-Assad's Russian-built helicopters but commercial airliners, including those landing in Israel. You can just imagine how the Israelis felt about a plot to have weapons like this shipped to their northern border without their knowledge. Not to mention the Iranians, who use commercial airliners to ship fighters and weaponry to Syria to bolster Basher Assad's forces.

And the Russians? They were also livid about what they saw as President Obama's duplicity while he was supposedly working with Putin on a diplomatic solution to Syria. That's pretty much the point where Putin stopped trying to deal with President Obama in any serious way.

You can refer back to the link to read about the mechanics of the coverup an dother details. But this is the real story of what happened in Benghazi that night. No mystery arms shipment, no fake kidnapping...just a Middle East version of Fast and Furious, thought out by a clueless amateur of a president and his team..who then had to lie and connive to keep the truth from the American peiople to protect Barack Obama's re-election.

That's what happened, and that's how it was.

-Selah - 

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The Beast Unites; Hamas And Fatah Sign Unity Deal As Israel Cancels Talks

In a deliberate move to scuttle even the possibility of any further negotiations, Mahmoud Abbas, the unelected dictator of 'Palestine' had a sitdown with Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh and finalized a unity agreement that calls for new national elections in five months and a single government to control Gaza and the Arab-occupied parts of Judea and Samaria.

Regular members of Joshua's Army will recall I reported that the details of this agreement were worked out back in mid-December, so this was merely a formal signing ceremony.

And if I knew about this, I'm certain the U.S. State Department did. But they still kept hammering Israel for concessions to make an agreement with what was in fact a terrorist entity all this time. Abbas wanted to turn this into a public occasion just as he did his abrogating the talks agreement by signing membership applications to those UN organizations and conventions live on PA State television, to deliberately rub Secretary of State John Kerry's nose in it.

So the State Department's pose about being “disappointing in terms of the content as well as the timing” is hypocritical in the extreme.State Department spokeswoman Jan Psaki underlined that when she mentioned why Hamas was a problem. Not because they're an officially recognized terrorist organization. Not because they're openly genocidal. And not because they have the blood of more than a few American citizens on their hands. No, it's because - wait for it- they refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.

“It’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to sit down and negotiate with a group that denies its right to exist,” Psaki told reporters. She said that the State Department believes that a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation would “certainly complicate the process.”

“The ball is in the Palestinians’ court to answer whether the principles that have been part of the process can be met,” she said. “Historically Hamas has not shown a willingness to abide by the basic principles expected by the US government.”

'Complicate the process' ? It ends it, at least in the real world outside Foggy Bottom in Washington.

The Israelis cancelled a scheduled meeting of the PA and Israeli negotiating teams, with Israeli PM Netanyahu tweeting the following:

And for comedy relief, there was the reaction of one particular member of Netanyahu's coalition, Finance minister and head of Yesh Atid Yair Lapid. Just yesterday, he was threatening to leave the coalition if peace talks were ended. Today? Well, it's a different day. You can almost picture Lapid scratching his head in puzzlement:

“Do the Palestinians really want a state?” he asked. “If the answer is ‘yes’, they could have a state in six months.”

Addressing a unity pact announced hours earlier between Hamas and the Fatah faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Lapid noted that Fatah, which dominates the PLO, made no demands from Hamas to give up its terror policies before signing the agreement.

Lapid, head of the centrist Yesh Atid, said a threat to dissolve the PA and hand responsibility for the West Bank back to Israel was “illogical,” but maintained that the Fatah-Hamas unity deal was even worse.

“Hamas is not a government, it is a Jihadist terror organization that has inscribed on its flag the killing of civilians — women, children, old people — just because they are Jewish,” he said.[...]

“The question that is left is do the Palestinians want their own state, and if so, do they want to set it up alongside the Jewish state? Or have they never abandoned their original vision, a Palestinian state instead of Jewish state?”

Gosh, Yair Lapid. Are you still even asking that question?

What's more of interest in what happens now in Washington and Jerusalem. As I've said many times before, Abbas and the rest of the Fatah Old Guard are ready to turn over the keys to Hamas and use their Jordanian citizenship and passports to leave 'Palestine' and retire happily to the EU or the Emirates with all the money they've stolen in the last two decades or so. The next five months are simply a transition period.

As David Gerstman and others have noted, President Obama and his team have achieved peace all right...between Fatah and Hamas. Abbas has played the president, the Secretary of State and the entire Obama team for fools, and the odds are that the PA won't suffer any significant consequences for it either, not even a cut in funding. And I'd put the odds at the US vetoing Palestinian statehood in the UN at no better than 50/50, if that.

Israel, on the other hand, has to realistically assess what going on here, finally. Just as an exercise in how little has changed over the years and how futile the entire 'peace process' since Oslo has been, take a look at this piece of mine written two years ago and tell me whether 95% of it couldn't be republished now with today's date on it.

There is no peace process, and for the Palestinians, whether we're talking Fatah or Hamas, it's the same old story of no peace, no recognition and no negotiations. If Israel wants a solution, they will have to implement it themselves.

It's called d-i-v-o-r-c-e.

Israel should immediately declare Oslo null and void, delineate the borders it needs unilaterally, all of Area C, the Jordan Valley and the parts of Area B it needs for the sake of a contiguous and defensible border. Leave Area A, where most of the Arab-occupied part of Judea and Samaria is to the Palestinians tom,ake whatever they want out of it. Move any Israeli citizens to the Israeli side of the border and any Arab non-Israeli Arabs to the other, perhaps with compensation for property. Then Israel should annex the land withing their new borders, declaring it part of Israel. . Build the land, let a thousand bulldozers sing and dance and and defend those new borders, making it clear to the 'Palestinians' and the world that an attack on Israel would definitely be dealt with using a disproportionate response.

The Arabs who refer to themselves as Palestinians would never accept it, of course, but then they don't accept Israel's existence as it is. Perhaps with the corrupt Fatah mafiosos gone, new leadership might possibly evolve with the sense to realize that 'Palestine' isn't viable without a decent partnership with Israel. It never was, even if they had all of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

The 'international community'? The UN? Yes, there would be a period of pro forma condemnations and meaningless resolutions, but in the end the world is pretty tired of 'Palestine' and the endless financial drain , and the fact that there's at least some kind of independent Palestinian reichlet would make that reaction fade away in a relatively short time.Especially since it's hard for any but true believers to deny that Abbas and the Palestinians have rejected any kind of negotiated settlement.

Again, the idea here is divorce, and on Israel's terms. It's time this nonsense was finished, once and for all, with facts on the ground.


Turkey's PM Erdoğan Almost Admits Armenian Genocide,Talks About 'Shared Pain'

Turkey's Islamist PM Tayyip Erdoğan is definitely under strain. Today, on on the eve of the day Armenians world wide memorialize the victims of the Turkish genocide that occurred in 1915, Erdoğan became the first Turkish politician in history to actually admit that something evil just might have occurred:

Turkey has issued a first-ever statement offering condolences to the descendants of slain Ottoman Armenians just a day before of 99th anniversary of the mass killings of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan highlighted the “shared pain” endured during the 1915 events in a historic statement April 23 on the Armenian issue, expressing condolences on behalf of the Turkish state to the grandchildren of Armenians who lost their lives “in the context of the early 20th century.”

In a first-of-its-kind statement released by the Prime Minister’s Office, Erdoğan said April 24 carries “particular significance for our Armenian citizens and for all Armenians around the world.”

Speaking to reporters April 23, Erdoğan said it was always Turkey that had taken steps for reconciliation but that it was now the Armenian side’s turn to take steps toward Turkey.

“It is indisputable that the last years of the Ottoman Empire were a difficult period, full of suffering for Turkish, Kurdish, Arab, Armenian and millions of other Ottoman citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnic origin,” wrote Erdoğan.

“Millions of people of all religions and ethnicities lost their lives in the First World War,” he added. “Having experienced events which had inhumane consequences – such as relocation – during the First World War, should not prevent Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane attitudes among towards one another.”

This is typical Islamist doublespeak. Until now, rather than 'taking steps towards reconciliation', the Turks have denied the Armenian genocide ever occurred, imprisoned and even murdered Turkish writers and academics who wrote or spoke about it, and leaned on foreign governments who passed or attempted to pass resolutions mentioning it.

And contrary to Erdoğan's statement, it was the Turks doling out those 'inhumane consequences' and Greeks, Assyrians, and Armenians who were almost exclusively at the receiving end.

But this is still a surprising first step for a Turkish leader in even acknowledging what happened. An attempt at reparations by Turkey to the descendants of genocide victims similar to what Germany provided to Holocaust victims would be a necessary second one to keep the process going.

Watcher's Council Nominations - The Shot Heard 'Round The World Edition

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best posts in each category, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Council In Action!!

  • The multi-talented Tom White over at Virginia Right! has a brand new song up at YouTube, 'The Eric Cantor Blues'. Tasty!

  • Debra Heine at Nice Deb has a great piece over at Breitbart giving us the low down on the latest doings of the Tea Party Express with Tea Party Express Launches Ninth National Bus Tour

  • Yours truly at Joshuapundit has a new piece up at the Times of Israel on Mahmoud Abbas and his threat to dissolve the Palestinian Authority if all his demands aren't met, Farewell To Abbas And The PA? Good Riddance

  • This week, The MidKnight Review, Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion , Jewish American Patriots, Gulag Bound and The Pirate's Cove earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

    You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

    To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for that week when it comes out Wednesday morning.

    Simple, no?

    It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

    So, without further ado, let's see what we have this week....

    Council Submissions

    Honorable Mentions

    Non-Council Submissions

    Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!

    Tuesday, April 22, 2014

    The Serpent's Tongue - An Open Letter To Catherine Ashton, EU Policy Chief

    EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton [file]

    Dear Lady Ashton,
    I noted with interest your remarks and your concerns about what you called "recent events in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, which are not conducive to the climate of trust and cooperation needed for the current peace negotiations to succeed."

    Your remarks were exclusively addressed to Israel. You were 'concerned' about Israel declaring something like 2.5 square miles (1 square KM) of vacant land near the Israeli community of Gush Etzion - which you, of course, call a 'settlement' - as Israeli state land. You're also concerned about what you referred to as the authorization of a 'new settlement' in Hebron, and you "particularly deplore the recent confiscation of EU Humanitarian Assistance provided to vulnerable civilians in the Jabal Al Baba Community in the E1 area."

    First off, just between us...don't you think your use of language is somewhat suspect? One might almost think you were biased. You refer to Gush Etzion as a 'settlement' when after all, it's an established Jewish community that dates back to 1924 on land legally purchased by Jews from Arab landowners. Jews continually inhabited it and worked the land except for a 19-year period between 1948 and 1967. And when you speak about vulnerable civilians, may I remind you of how the residents were ethnically cleansed in 1948 by Jordan's Arab Legion, and that almost 200 able bodied Jewish males were executed in cold blood after they surrendered and were guaranteed safe conduct to the Israeli lines with their women and children? May we recall who commanded the troops who committed that atrocity and who oversaw the ethnic cleansing of all the communities in Judea and Samaria as well as East Jerusalem? It was British officers, Lady Ashton, under your own Colonel John Glubb. Project much?

    Then you say you particularly deplore what you refer to as "confiscation of EU Humanitarian Assistance provided to vulnerable civilians in the Jabal Al Baba community in the E1 area." That 'community', as you call it, refers to a handful of Arab squatters living for a matter of a few weeks in EU-funded caravans in a contested vacant hillside within the city limits of the Israeli city of Maale Adumim, a city that Israel isn't going to give up in any peace agreement. And as we both know, E-1 is necessary to Israeli security needs in order to connect Maale Adumim to the rest of the Jerusalem area, so it doesn't become surrounded on all sides by those extraordinarily peaceful Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians.

    So in your world, Gush Etzion is a 'settlement' after decades of existence on legally purchased land, while a few caravans parked illegally for a matter of weeks on Israeli land with the EU's connivance that you give the name of 'Jabal Al Baba' is a 'community'? It seems obvious that you have one set of rules for Jews and quite another for everyone else,and there's a word for that, isn't there Lady Ashton? And isn't it more than just a little hypocritical to 'especially deplore' the Israelis confiscating what was obviously an attempt by the EU to unlawfully create facts on the ground in what at best can be considered a 'disputed' area? If 'humanitarian aid' was the purpose, why not put those caravans somewhere in Area A, where the Palestinian Authority controls things? Again, one might almost suspect you of - heaven forbid - bias.

     Hebron? Ah yes, another one of those awful 'settlements'. This one amounts to Jews being allowed to move into a property they legally purchased, one four story house. Although to be honest, it could probably be more accurately described as a 'repurchase'. You see, Hebron had a sizable Jewish community that lived there for centuries until 1929, when the Arab residents of the town turned on their neighbors on orders of the British appointed Grand Mufti and began raping and murdering them - while the British troops who were supposed to be keeping order did absolutely nothing to stop them.

    Even if Hebron were entirely given to Israel, it would not compensate for the blood of the men, women and children  murdered there. And you have a problem with Jews moving into one house? Is there anywhere in the world, let alone the Middle East you don't mind them living, Lady Ashton?

    You devoted one sentence in your remarks to "the recent killing of an Israeli man in the West Bank" and called for "an immediate end to all acts of violence."

    Once again, I must admit I find your use of language interesting. Let's look at what actually happened to Baruch Mizrachi (HY"D) and his pregnant wife and children and see if we can't find a more appropriate word than 'killing', shall we?

    The Mizrachi family was driving from the Israeli town Modi'in to Kiryat Arba and was ambushed by a Palestinian terrorist who had situated himself by the roadside and deliberately fired on a car filled with a man, his pregnant wife and five children. The other members of the family survived by sheer chance. They were deliberately targeted, Lady Ashton, and their 'crime' was simply driving a car with an Israeli license plate on it. Hadassah Mizrachi, who was wounded in the attack may lose the child she was carrying as well as her life's companion and will have to raise her children on her own.

    A 'killing' Lady Ashton? How about using the word murder instead, since that's exactly what it was? How about calling it terrorism? And would it interest you at all to know that  the killer is still at large and that the Palestinians reportedly know his identity and location but refuse to turn him over to Israeli authorities or jail him themselves? When he's apprehended by the Israelis, tried in an Israeli court and imprisoned, the Palestinians you're so enamored of will pay him a salary for murdering a Jew that will be funded in part by EU taxpayers, just like hundreds of other sitting in Israeli jails for the same crime. And Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader will insist on him being freed as a 'holy martyr' in any peace agreement, to return to a hero's welcome just like all the other murderers the Israelis have freed,

    Does that bother you at all, Lady Ashton, to be a part of providing an incentive for all those murders? In legal terms, Lady Ashton, doesn't that make you and the EU accessories to those murders? Have you even once forcefully condemned the Palestinian Authority's practice of rewarding and making heroes out of those who murder innocent men, women and children? Has the EU ever once threatened to end the cash flow unless it stopped?

    And to add insult to injury, in your remarks, the murder of Baruch Mizrachi barely rates a sentence, almost an afterthought. And you equivocate by calling for 'an immediate end to all acts of violence', as though Israelis were likewise targeting Arab families for murder on the highways. And then you call on Israel and Israel alone to mend its ways and reverse these so-called punitive actions that you deplore so much.

    Are you that dead to shame, Lady Ashton? Are you that blind to justice?

    Do you sleep well at night?

    Matt Yglesias' Brilliant New Idea - Punish 'The Rich' With Confiscatory Taxes!

    Matt Yglesias, Soros galley slave and former WAPO columnist has a great new idea.Let's make taxes really, really high on the 'Evil Rich' to punish them and redistribute their wealth for Big Government's social engineering purposes!

    The Laffer Curve - the idea that tax cuts can sometimes increase tax revenue - is one of the most influential and widely debated ideas in the past two generations of American politics. Beloved by the right and despised by the left, one thing that both sides have tended to agree on is that knowing what side of the curve we're on should be a key driver of tax policy.

    But in an era of surging inequality, it's time to revisit that assumption. Maybe at least some taxes should be really high. Maybe even really really high. So high as to be useless for revenue-raising purposes - but powerful for achieving other ends.

    He actually equates seizing the money people earn with 'sin taxes' like the ones on cigarettes. I just couldn't resist shooting him an e-mail:

    Yo, Matt!
    I always knew you were a totalitarian commie at heart, and I congratulate you on finally coming clean about it.

    As someone familiar with several places where this kind of thing has been tried, here's what happens when your charming 'eat the rich' scenario is implemented.

    First of all, yes, business talent and business capital flee like potential customers from a hooker with a herpes sore. R&D, patents and innovation disappear. And job killing? Think of it as your boyfriend President Obama's efforts on steroids.We can't all work for the government or live off welfare and food stamps, especially once President Obama implements amnesty. Just look at what's going on in France with a mere 75% taxation rate on 'the rich'.

    Here's something else that happens. Contrary to what you might believe, the majority of the rich, even those small business owners grossing over $250K President Obama likes to demonize as 'rich' mostly aren't stupid. So if they don't flee to more inviting climes for their money and talent, guess what? A black market develops, with goods and services being sold under the table for cash.

    And all these things kill economic activity and make those tax receipts dear to your Marxist heart plummet alarmingly.

    You can play with your cute charts all you want. It doesn't change anything.

    You see, Matt, this kind of theft only starts with 'the rich'. Eventually it trickles down to where everyone gets screwed, just like Obama Care where working people will be paying a 40% tax on healthcare in a couple of years.Even you, Matt. After all, why should you get more than one piece of pizza (if that) while others have none? Rising inequality, no?

    Imagine, equating punitive tax rates with 'sin taxes' on cigarettes! I can't stop laughing at that one. The kulaks must pay, eh?

    Rob Miller @ Joshuapundit

    Monday, April 21, 2014

    Forum:The GOP House Leadership Saying They're 'Hell Bent' On Passing Immigration Reform This Year?

    Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Are Your Feelings on The GOP  House Leadership Saying They Are  'Hell Bent' On Passing Immigration Reform This Year?

    Liberty's Spirit:Yes there needs to be immigration reform. The situation as it exists is untenable. First the government needs to secure the border. We we saw with the Bundy ranch development, when the federal government wants to, they are able to amass a huge show of force. It would be nice if they did that to oversee our security. Border states have been asking for help for years to combat the actions of those that traffic in humans and drugs, and not simply during the Obama administration. If it becomes unprofitable for coyotes and others, like the Chinese tongs and East European mafias, that actually smuggle in people through the ports of New York and on the west coast, then we could put a huge dent in human trafficking. It is a big issue here in the Untied States even though no on seems to want to talk about it. The borders are not just porous from those crossing over the Rio Grande. Furthermore, a bigger issue is that the openness of our borders allows for infiltration by terrorists groups. It is believed that our enemies already have sleeper cells throughout the country, which came undetected, including through the Canadian border (people tend to forget our border to the north in this discussion)

    There however is a big problem once the border is secure: what to do with the myriad of illegal immigrants that are already living in the United States. They do take jobs away from American citizens. They are paid less than Americans, under the table, by these employers who do not file the appropriate taxes on their behalf. Furthermore, the illegals do use our healthcare system, welfare system, educational system and invariably do not pay taxes themselves on what they earn. On top of that, if they happen to have a child born in the United States, these children are entitled to safety net protections. Do we deport American citizens to a country that they know nothing about? Do we deport people who have set up roots in this country or do we create a system for them so that they can become legal? It it cheaper for this country to just let them stay and create a path to citizenship? Should they be allowed to stay but not allow them to become citizens (equal protection and civil rights issues with that one but could be overcome)?

    If the government is not going to deport those who came here illegally then here is some ideas: These people broke American law when they came. Letting them off the hook without paying some recompense to society is inappropriate. I have no issue with doubling the years it takes to become a citizen once they gain a green card. Let it take them 10 not 5 years before they can apply for citizenship (heck make it 15 years, but make it a long waiting period). They should pay a fine, one that is not simply a slap on the wrist. Make it painful. When we don't pay our taxes on time the government levies penalties and interests. The government comes after citizens for monies citizens owes, let them go after these illegals. I am not opposed to the idea of the DREAM ACT for those that were brought here by their parents if they were under 14 years of age. However, the idea that going to college could alleviate their obligations to society is a nonstarter (they should not be allowed to earn scholarships or get student loans for school either). The only way to gain legal status for these persons should be through serving in the US armed services. But they also have to be able to meet the standards set by the armed services in education and ability as well. In fact I have no issue with any illegal wanting to serve in the US armed services if they want to shave off a few years from the (10 year) waiting period.

    Lastly, and in some ways most importantly, is dealing with those Americans who hire illegals. There should be jail time for every year taxes were not filed and paid, huge fines levied and community service once they are let out of prison. This should include those individual families who hire illegals for any domestic purpose as well. Not simply corporations. These Americans are not filing appropriate taxes for their illegal alien employees and by doing this they are aggrandizing themselves at the expense of the American people. They are literally stealing from every one of us.

    The Noisy Room: This is something I predicted long ago. You have the Progressives on the Left who want a permanent voting majority and the Progressives on the Right supporting crony capitalism and pushing for a permanent slave class for the Chamber of Commerce and their cohorts.

    I consider the 'hell bent' push from the GOP House leadership as nothing short of an utter betrayal of conservative principles and America in general. All to push a Marxist agenda and line their own pockets. They have to push it this year, because it will never fly under more conservative leadership. We are no longer talking two parties, but in reality a one party system vs. the American people.

    Boehner and the current power brokers of the GOP no longer represent the people who elected them -- indeed they haven't for years now -- but rather their own influence and wealth, and it's time for their constituents to un-elect them. Conversely, the party segment upon whom they heap the most abuse, hate and outright lies -- the Tea Party and those aligned with it -- resonate with the real America, the grass roots taxpayers and represent a restoration of Constitutional principles and the vision of our founding fathers.

    The GOP "old guard" have morphed into self-declared enemies of America's everyman -- indeed, have created themselves as the enemies within -- and it is a matter of greatest urgency that they be unplugged from any ability to influence our economic and civil welfare. They're promising to permanently poison the political font in this country and that's simply unacceptable. It's time to fire the lot of them.

    I am reminded of the boardroom scene at the end of The Secret of My Success, where the senior execs tell the corporate raider, Donald Davenport, that they are worried they'll be replaced: "What we're concerned about, frankly, is the upper management positions;" to which Davenport responds, "Most of 'em will have to go. But a handful of 'em... who have been so helpful... like yourselves, of course... will be stayin' as long as you like."

    Our government has been taken over by political raiders who now control the narrative, the press and, indeed, the election results. From their behaviors, it would seem that our GOP "leadership" has found itself in a boardroom meeting with the Marxist raider who has assured them that, though most of the Republican influence will have to go, "... a handful of 'em... who have been so helpful... like yourselves, of course... will be stayin' as long as you like."

    My take?  Fire the bastards.Fire them all.

     JoshuaPundit: First, I have problems calling this 'immigration reform'. What we are talking about here is an illegal migration problem and the failure to enforce our laws.Immigrants are people who have legal permission from a sovereign country to migrate and settle. True immigration reform would involve scrapping the diversity visas and country quotas and doing what Australia, Canada,New Zealand and other developed nations that are prime immigration targets have done - to establish a points system that changes according to the country's requirements and applies equally to anyone seeking to migrate.

    What's happening here is that Speaker Boehner and the GOP establishment are listening to the consultant class that is pushing the notion of a Hispanic tidal wave that must be pandered to at all costs, a myth I already deconstructed some time ago. Conveniently, the idea of amnesty also appeases certain large donors who want to ensure a continuing supply of cheap labor,

    In the end, three things are evident. First, we can continue to support large scale illegal migration or we can continue to be a welfare state,but we can't do both. Second,  the importation of one select ethnic demographic consisting largely of poorly educated blue collar workers unsuited for a 21st century economy is both racist, unfair and a ultimately a  recipe for balkanization and economic  disaster.And finally, the security implications of unpoliced and porous borders are unacceptable for any sovereign nation, especially given the realities after 9/11.

    Any politician of either party supporting what amounts to amnesty for political purposes is guilty of betraying their oath to the American people and the public trust. There is simply no excuse for it.

     GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: What the heck? As crazy old Uncle Paddy (still in his dotage) implied...

    "An imminent Republican debate over immigration will play into the hands of the Democratic party. With the widespread unpopularity of Obamacare, Republicans should instead focus on the embattled health-care law ahead of the 2014 midterm election. By pivoting to the issue of immigration, Republicans are walking right into the trap."

    Former Colonel Congress Cat Allen West calls it a U shaped Ambush

    "First of all, at a time when Americans are suffering from high levels of unemployment, they should not be adding illegals into the job market until we can rectify the situation for Americans.
    The Democrats will certainly blame the Republicans for exacerbating the jobless situation for Americans and castigate the GOP as the party of big business and corporations who want cheap labor.

    "Second, why would Speaker Boehner do anything that feeds more members into the liberal progressive welfare nanny-state? Who does the Speaker believe these new legal-status individuals will support?

    "Think we have voter fraud issues now?

    "Lastly, why would the GOP want to discourage its base, which enabled them to have a House majority in 2010?

    Fair points all - yet it may be a way more smarter tactical play.

    The qualifier in SOH's Heck Bent Stance is something something "44 must first prove he is a trustworthy partner in reform."

    Since 64% of Americans believe 44 is a big fat fibber, The Speaker's play is a GOP smokescreen designed to knock the immigration sword out of the Dem's hand in the 2014 mid terms.

    The Independent Sentinel:My initial reaction is to ask how Republicans are any different from Democrats except they are not as good at being Democrats as Democrats are. I remember when they conducted the autopsy after the 2012 election. I thought at the time that use of the word "autopsy" was unfortunate, but they weren't kidding apparently. They really are dead.

    Until the border is secured and people here illegally are actually deported, we shouldn't be considering immigration reform. We shouldn't consider any immigration reform that doesn't include an assimilation component. Do we really want people coming here illegally for entitlements or do we want people who actually buy into our values and want to be real Americans?

    Republicans are on a suicide mission if they think they can trust Barack Obama with an immigration reform package. Instead, they should be looking at ways to stop him from refusing to enforce the laws we have.

    If Barack Obama wanted to cut down on illegal immigration, he would crack down on people who jump visas or cross our borders illegally. He doesn't and that should tell us all we need to know.

    Bookworm Room: I'm very sorry that it isn't within my power to fire House leadership. Whether they support amnesty because they are payed to do so (and these payments could come from anyone from George Soros to the Chamber of Commerce) or because they actually believe amnesty will allow them to court Hispanic votes, it's a terrible, dangerous, very bad idea that will lead to a permanent Democrat majority for decades.

    Even though many Hispanics ought to be Republican voters to the extent that their values center on family, hard work, faith, and a belief in life's sanctity, the Democrat party has bought and paid for them with welfare checks that outweigh all other considerations and by planting in them a sense of victimization that makes them a natural Democrat Party constituency.

    The Glittering Eye:Presumably, it means that there are Congressional Republicans who are just desperate to pass an immigration reform bill with an amnesty provision in it. I can't quite seem to get my mind around that.

    IMO a populist immigration reform bill could have been passed years ago but for its unacceptability to the Democratic Senate leadership. A populist immigration bill would include tighter workplace (and maybe even border) enforcement, some form of the DREAM act, and not a great deal else. All of those have supermajority popular support but much lower support from both parties in Congress.

    Rep. Joe Wilson Had It Right When He Yelled Out 'You Lie' To Obama

    Remember the firestorm that ensued when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled out "You lie" during a speech President Obama was giving to a joint session of congress on ObamaCare in 2009?

    He was castigated by members of both parties, the ObamaMedia literally went insane and he was made to apologize, saying,

    This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.

    Now, people remember that, but what everyone forgets is what prompted the outburst. President Obama had just said, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

    The usual suspects backed him up on that too., for instance said at the time that “Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally.”

    Actually, it doesn't. Not only doesn't ObamaCare bar non-citizens from buying their own health insurance coverage through the health insurance exchange, but prior to the president's speech, Democrats twice rejected amendments to the bill requiring documentation of legal status in the United States in order to receive ObamaCare benefits, something President Obama knew full well.

    Flash forward to the present.

    The Spanish-language version of the Covered California exchange says: “Fear not if you are undocumented and want to enroll your family in health insurance.” Nowhere on the site does it mention that illegal aliens aren't eligible for benefits or prohibited by law from enrolling in ObamaCare.

    That language is present on every ObamaCare site across the country I Spanish and 11 other languages.

    And that's no accident. President Obama even admitted it on March 6, 2014 in a town hall meeting with Spanish language Telemundo and Univision. He openly stated that Obamacare will make no effort to determine whether anyone who applies is actually a citizen or legal resident and sign up data will not be used for enforcing immigration laws. "None of the information that is provided in order for you to obtain health insurance is in any way transferred to immigration services. So that's something we've been very clear about."

    Interestingly, he blamed congress for any deportations that have occurred, saying he has already stretched his "administrative capacity very far" by taking immigration actions using "prosecutorial discretion," a fancy way of saying that the Administration isn't prosecuting illegal aliens in deportation hearings or making much of an effort to find and deport the over 500,000 illegal aliens who already have outstanding deportation orders filed against them.

    What this amounts to is that illegal aliens are definitely applying for ObamaCare, especially since most of them qualify for the subsidies, at least as far as any income they're reporting goes, since many both work under the table and collect aid like welfare benefits and food stamps. Certainly it would be interesting to see exactly how many of the enrollees the president is thumping his chest about just happen to be in the country illegally.

    So we now know Rep. Joe Wilson had it exactly right. The President was lying through his teeth, and he knew it even as Rep. Wilson called him out on it. The meme has already shifted from 'no non-citizens will be eligible for ObamaCare' to 'why shouldn't undocumented workers be covered?'

    Illegal aliens will receive taxpayer funded ObamaCare benefits the same way they already receive Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, and tax refunds for earned income credit and for children who may or may not exist. They simply apply, and the system processes them with a deliberate 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

    No one's checking, not really. And if course, if you object to being robbed blind to pay for it and to being lied to to facilitate the theft and the con, you're simply ra-aaa-a-cist.

    Sunday, April 20, 2014

    Farewell To Abbas And The PA? Good Riddance

    Mahmoud Abbas has made yet another threat to Israel if he doesn't get all of his demands met. He says he's considering dissolving the Palestinian Authority.

    The idea here is that the Palestinians would dissolve the 1993 Oslo Accords, declare that the Palestinian Authority is an "occupied government" and leave Israel with full responsibility of the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria. Abbas is also claiming that he would dissolve the Palestinian security forces and end any cooperation with the IDF.

    The chances that Abbas, his sons and his cronies in the Fatah Old Guard would do this are fairly slim. For one thing, they've already declared a long time ago they weren't bound any longer by Oslo, not that they ever abided by it much in the first place. And dissolving the PA essentially means they've given up the game and would be fleeing 'Palestine' on their Jordanian passports to live out their lives on the money they've stolen over the years, over a billion US dollars in the case of Abbas alone if Mohammed Dahlan is to be believed. Without their security forces and the IDF keeping Abbas and his friends from being overthrown by Hamas or other actors, even their physical safety would be at risk.

    But let's say Abbas and his PLO friends pull the trigger on this.Would it be a catastrophe or a blessing?

    First, Abbas cannot realistically claim to be a 'government under occupation' by any stretch of the imagination. He's an unelected dictator in his 10th year of a four year term in office, and even the UN might have trouble swallowing that, especially if the PA voluntarily dissolved. It would also shut of the faucet on the bonanza of all that donor aid. Whom would the EU, UN and USAid give it to? Some superannuated terrorists in Geneva? And how would they describe it as 'humanitarian aid'? They would have to come to some kind of agreement with - wait for it - Israel.

    Second, Israel's situation with 'Palestinian security forces' would pretty much be unchanged. With no one paying their salaries, they'd simply morph into what they've always been, a terrorist militia. They've never actually cooperated with the IDF and Shin Bet to any great degree, and there has never been a single Palestinian ever imprisoned for murdering a Jew. The biggest problem is the three combat brigades trained under President Obama's General Keith Dayton, but again, they've been trained as conventional forces, and with no one paying the bills or coordinating anything they're more than likely to simply divide up by clans, and can be dealt with by the IDF if necessary or by simple containment, as they are now.Also, with the security forces disbanded, rest assured that any Arab in 'Palestine' at that point who had means or ability to go elsewhere would do so. Wouldn't you?

    Another possibility this opens up is for a real peace agreement.

    The absence of the PA would allow Israel to do what they should have done after 1967 - delineate Israel's borders and annex those territories in Judea and Samaria as part of Israel, under Israeli law. Israel This might also involve transferring Jews outside those borders to the Israeli side and non-citizen Arabs in Israel to the Palestinian side.

    Getting the monkey of Abbas and the PLO off their backs would be an absolute godsend for the Palestinians.'Palestine' has always been run as a kleptocracy, and well connected Fatah dons like Jibril Rajoub and Saeb Erekat have always been well fed because the Palestinian Authority literally has its hands in every bit of economic activity in the areas they control, as well as having their hands on the tap controlling who gets the donor aid money and who doesn't. With the PA out of the picture, there's more than a chance that new,more practical and honest leadership might emerge that Israel could actually work with.There must be a few Palestinians who see without Israel as a partner, 'Palestine' is economically impossible anyway.

    And if it doesn't Israel could simply relinquish all claim to the areas outside those new Israeli borders and allow them to proclaim themselves a state, or anything else they wanted to. It would be the ultimate divorce, which is always what Israel has needed to resolve this situation anyway.

    So let's hope Mahmoud Abbas and the corrupt, violent beast that calls itself the Palestinian Authority is headed for extinction.

    Read the rest  at The Times of Israel

    Obama Signs Bill Barring Iran's Terrorist Envoy - But Won't Enforce It

    You might remember the story I ran a few days ago about 'moderate' Iranian president Hasan Rouhani's appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as Iran's UN envoy, which means he would enjoy complete diplomatic immunity in America.

    As pictured above then and now, Aboutalebi was one of the terrorists who stormed the American embassy in Tehran, kidnapped our diplomats and held them hostage.

    When the Iranians refused to cancel ABoutalabi's appointment, both houses on Congress, sparked by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)voted unanimously voted to pass legislation that would ban terrorists from entering the US to serve as UN ambassadors and sent the bill to the White House for Presdient Obama's signature.

    The President's spokeshole Jay Carney signalled that he would sign legislation banning terrorists from receiving visas as diplomatic personnel:

    "We concur with the Congress and share the intent of the bill," said White House spokeshole Jay Carney.

    Our president did indeed sign the bill, passed unanimously by both parties. And then said he would never enforce the law.

    Obama decided to treat the law as mere advice. "Acts of espionage and terrorism against the United States and our allies are unquestionably problems of the utmost gravity, and I share the Congress's concern that individuals who have engaged in such activity may use the cover of diplomacy to gain access to our Nation," Obama said in his signing statement.

    "Nevertheless, as President [George H.W.] Bush] also observed, "curtailing by statute my constitutional discretion to receive or reject ambassadors is neither a permissible nor a practical solution." I shall therefore continue to treat section 407, as originally enacted and as amended by S. 2195, as advisory in circumstances in which it would interfere with the exercise of this discretion."

    Obama frequently criticized President George W. Bush for such signing statements during his 2008 campaign. “Congress's job is to pass legislation," he said, as The Daily Beast recalled. "The president can veto it or he can sign it.”

    “It is unconscionable that, in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard for the status of our diplomats when they were stationed in his country,” Cruz said when he introduced the bill.

    Once again, this most lawless of presidents has shown that he'll only uphold those laws that he feels like upholding and that work for his political agenda.

    Friday, April 18, 2014

    Obama To Spend $100M In Taxpayer Dollars In Stealth Bailout Of Detroit

    President Obama has decided to secretly bail out Detroit and make its corrupt pension plan whole at the rest of the nations' expense.Which of course, means he lied about his commitment not to do so.

    In order to sneak this past the American people, the regime is labeling this as 'blight remediation,' but the fine print allows the new city manager to shove it into the city's pension funds, which were looted over several decades by Detroit's Democrat politicians and corrupt public employee union bosses.

    As the Detroit Free Press reported, the money's coming from a secret $7.6-billion slush fund the Obama Administration established called the the Hardest Hit Fund designed to help those 18 states hardest hit by the real estate collapse. Surprise, surprise, 11 of those 18 states (and the ones getting most of the cash) are either deep Blue enclaves or battle ground states with predominantly black urban Democrat populations. And the 7 of those states that are Red States likewise have significant black populations, like Georgia's urban Democrat stronghold in Atlanta. There's also looks like there might be an interesting correlation here between the areas hardest hit and a population of certain borrowers who received loans from Fannie and Freddie they weren't really qualified for normally based on those sharply reduced, politically correct underwriting standards doesn't there? And while the Democrats who controlled congress after January 2007 fought off any attempts at oversight of Fannie and Freddie during the Bush years.

    Michigan is already the recipient of almost half a billion taxpayer dollars, and Detroit already received $320 million of your tax dollars in a separate bailout, so this $100M specifically earmarked for Detroit's pension funds is lagniappe, (a little extra) as they say in N'awlins.

    So aside from the fact it's being done in secret without congressional oversight, why is this so outrageous?

    First off, because it's racial politics written in big letters and a blatant political bribe to Detroit's public employee unions with the midterms coming on.

    Second, because it sets a horrific precedent.Lots of cities whom have been Democrat ruled for decades have underwater pension funds. Looking at what Detroit's getting, what we're looking at is the old 'train pulling' logic..'hey sweetie, you did it for him, ain't I good enough?'

    And finally, because of the nature of how Detroit's pension fund was looted. You see, while the politicians and union officials got the biggest , the rest of the pension recipients shared in the swag, receiving a '13th check' every year instead of any profits being re-invested to keep the fund solvent. They received it as what amounts to a political bribe to keep voting the some politicos and union bosses back into power no matter whether the fund did well or poorly.The constant looting of the pension funds was largely covered by simply raising taxes or diverting other revenues into it.

    Meanwhile Americans with private pensions and 401K's aren't getting any bailouts and are getting hammered by higher and higher taxes to pay for the excesses of places like Detroit...and the other mismanaged Blue urban strongholds and public employee unions that are going to get in line behind Detroit for their share.

    Iraq Burns Along With Syria As al-Qaeda's ISIS Takes Over Jihad War

    The carnage in Syria and Iraq has taken a new turn.

    While the war in Syria against Bashir Assad had appeared to be going his way because of infighting between jihadi insurgents, the situation has changed radically with the killing of al-Nusra front leader Abu Mohammed al-Ansari(aka Abu Mohammed al-Golani), his wife, daughter, brother and niece in a house in Ras al-Hosn, Syria. The assassination was headed by the now dominant al-Qaeda force, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams, the jihadi name for Syria (ISIS).

    This adds to the momentum ISIS has gathered in it's ongoing assault in Iraq, which has the U.S. trained Iraqi Army reeling.

    Since the western Iraqi city of Fallujah fell to ISIS in a major victory over Iraq's 7th and 1st divisions, in January of this year, the Iraqi Army has been unable to drive them out.These are highly trained jihadis, amny of them foreign born, with battle experience in the war against Syria's Assad. and the use of

    Initially, the Iraqi army was routed and went into a headlong retreat to wards Baghdad, but then returned back to Fallujah in several failed attempts to retake the city. The Iraqi forces have been limited to sporadic shelling of the city, which hasn't done wonders for feelings of the natives towards the Iraqi government.

    ISIS is so confident of their hold on Fallujah that they actually held a military parade through the city that featured captured and very gently used Iraqi HumVees and APCs the Iraqi army received courtesy of the American taxpayer. I also have to wonder how much of the arms ISIS is using now came originally from Moamar Khaddaffi's arsenals after out ill-advised adventure in Libya.

    At this time, the Iraqi military has been desperately working to shore up a defense line around Baghdad to keep ISIS from advancing to the outskirts of the city.Some sources say that ISIS has already penetrated the outskirts of Baghdad, and that armed jihadis are distributing packets of candy to children with a note attached advising their parents that they are invited to attend “repentance” sessions held by ISIS. ISIS has also secured the loyalty of a number of Sunni tribal militias who remain independent but fight with ISIS against what they see as Shi'ite oppression.Anbar is essentially lost to Iraqi control control at this point. Even Abu Ghraib prison, only two miles from Baghdad was evacuated this week as ISI and its tribal allies approached, because it was about to be overrun.

    Meanwhile, ISIS has been engaged in some interesting tactics. Rather than a frontal assault on the Iraqi lines, They've been concentrating on - wait for it - using water as a war weapon.This started when ISIS forces captured a strategic dam just south of Fallujah, closed all of the dam’s 10 gates and essentially created a moat with the waters of the Euphrates to make a military assault by government forces an even more implausible also has the effect of cutting Baghdad's water supply and interfering with the city's power, causing blackouts because of the reduced flow to the steam generators. A spokesman for the Iraqi Electricity Ministry said the power supply from Mussayab power station had decreased from 170 megawatts to just 90 megawatts, almost a 50% cut.

    Not only that, but ISIS is actually using bulldozers and earth moving machines in an attempt to divert the Euphrates River from its course to the south towards central Iraq.The idea here is flood and isolate the Iraqi army positions now facing Falluja and cut off passage by road from Baghdad to army bases in central Iraq. If ISIS pulls it off, if will isolate the largest part of the Iraq army, cutting off its supply lines and making movement towards Baghdad slower and more difficult. And it will reduce water supplies and power to the predominant Shi'ite cities in the south.

    According to my sources, one of the major reasons Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki traveled to Washington last March was to ask President Obama for a major shipment of new equipment, including Apache attack helicopters. The package was on hold, quite correctly, (primarily by Democrat Senator Robert Menendez)because the Senate wanted assurances Maliki wouldn't simply use the new toys to further repress Sunni civilians ala' Saddam. Then, there were questions about whether the Irawqi army should receive more U.S. weaponry, given how much of it ISIS captured from the Iraqi army during its headlong retreat. Also the Senate wanted questions answered about what if anything the Iraqis were doing to stop overflights of Iranian arms shipments to the Syrian government of Basher al-Assad. The Obama Administration managed to push the sale through, but only by spreading it out over three years. And that might not be soon enough.

    This new war in Iraq is taking place against the backdrop of the upcoming April 30th Iraqi parliamentary elections. Maliki and the Shi'ite bloc began repressing Iraq's Sunnis as soon as the Shi'ites got into power and removing them from the army and police forces. The last elections were marked by fraud and Maliki simply invalidating the election of enough Sunni seats to guarantee a Shi'te majority.If the April 30th elections go down in the same fashion, more and more of Iraq's Sunnis are going to see ISIS in a positive light.

    Two years ago, President Obama was telling the American people about how al-Qaeda was on the run. Thanks in large part to his own missteps and poor judgement, they're not on the run but on the advance.

    The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks' Watcher's Council Results

    The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace.

    This week has been a celebration of hope and freedom, with Passover starting last Monday night and continuing through the weekend until next Tuesday. Which of course also coincides with Holy Week which culminates this weekend with Easter Sunday. This linkage is entirely appropriate, since Jesus had come to Jerusalem for the Passover ceremonies and the famous Last Supper was a Passover Seder...the ritual meal where Jews all over the world retell the story of the Exodus, celebrate their G-d-given freedom and eat the unleavened bread, matzoh, to commemorate their ancestor's journey and deliverance from bondage and slavery.

    The story of the Resurrection is a story of freedom too...freedom of the soul, and a promise of eternal life to believing Christians who understand what the rolling away of the stones means for them.

    Both holidays change their dates on our calender from year to year, Passover or Pessah in Hebrew because it is based on the centuries old Hebrew calender, and Easter because the early Church fathers determined that Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon date of the year, which always occurs after Passover.

    However, it's rare that the two holidays occur this close together, and in this momentous year, when Judeo-Christian values seem to be under siege, I likewise see in that a sign of hope for the future.

    I and my friends on the Watcher's Council wish you and yours Chag Pessach Sameach and a blessed Easter.

    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" -George Orwell

    Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." - Hadith Bukhari (84:57)

    "People ask me if I have some kind of death wish, to keep saying the things I do. The answer is no: I would like to keep living. However, some things must be said, and there are times when silence becomes an accomplice to injustice." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    This Week's winner, Joshuapundit's-An Honor Killing On Campus is my reaction to the decision of Brandeis University to withdraw an honorary degree and a chance to address commencement ceremonies from writer, thinker and women's rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali under pressure from Muslim Brotherhood fronts and a few scared and clueless lefties. Here's a slice:

    Regular members of Joshua's Army may recall the name Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    She was raised as a Muslima in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, survived female genital mutilation, beatings, abuse and various aspects of Somalia's internecine clan warfare and became a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood, after which her questions about Islam and the life she was leading led her to escape being 'given' in marriage to a distant male relative she had never met.and flee to Holland. There, she was granted Dutch citizenship and eventually became a member of the Dutch parliament where she became a voice alerting the people of her adopted country to the menace of radical Islam, and against the abuse of Muslim women and children in the Netherland's Islamic ghettos.

    She later collaborated with the late filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on a film called 'Submission', which chronicled the plight of many Muslim women victimized as she was by the traditional tribal culture.The film caused a firestorm of protest among Muslims. Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight by a fanatic Muslim while cycling to work one morning in 2004 and then had his corpse ritually mutilated. A note was pinned to Van Gogh's corpse promising Ayaan Hirsi Ali that she was the next target, with explicit Qu'rannic details of her `crimes against Islam' as an 'apostate', a death sentence in Islam. Other death threats followed, and Ayaan has lived under 24 hour security protection ever since.

    She went through the experience of being forced to move out of her apartment because her Dutch neighbors were annoyed that the security protection 'inconvenienced them' and because they were afraid that the violence directed towards Ayaan Hirshi Ali might involve them. And the Dutch government, which was obligated to pay for her security as a member of Parliament also disliked the cost, the inconvenience and the political stigma of protecting an 'enemy of Islam' in a country that's over 25% Muslim, so they found a trumped up reason to take away her citizenship and force her to step down from her seat in parliament. Whereupon, she came here to America and became a noted author and speaker. You can read her story in her books 'Infidel', 'Nomad',and 'The Caged Virgin.'

    So Brandeis decided to honor Ayaan Hirshi Ali. She was to be their commencement speaker and receive an honorary degree.

    But when the local chapters of Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Student's Association heard about this, they went absolutely ballistic and were able to rope in enough guilty and frightened non-Muslim Lefties to go along with the mob to get Ayaan's honorary degree 'rescinded' and her invitation to speak revoked.

    "This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students," said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

    "But it's not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs," she said. "A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic."

    Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor "such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women's rights, who has put her life at risk for those values."

    Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group, said, "It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views."

    The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

    "This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy," Joseph Lumbard, an American convert to Islam and the chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. "They feel unwelcome here."

    The university said that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that 'discussion' consisted of a phone call made simply to inform her after the decision had already be made.

    Much more at the link

    In our non-Council category, the winner was Mark Steyn with a superb piece on the Nevada standoff between the Bundy family and the Bureau of Land Management,The First Amendment is Not an Area submitted by The Noisy Room. Mark Steyn is absolutely on fire in this one...A must-read.

    Here are this week’s full results. Only The Colossus of Rhodey was unable to vote this week, but was not affected by the 2/3 vote penalty:

    Council Winners

    Non-Council Winners

    See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!