Tag Archives: Prof Paul Eidelberg

The Unmasking Of Israel’s Generals Via Toxic (Mis)Education: Knock-On Effects Of “Moral Relativism”- Endangering The Jewish Nation! Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
8

ONE needn’t be a prof, nor as brilliant as Einstein, to understand the veracity of his concomitant advice:

We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them. – Albert Einstein

HUH and duh? Come on, isn’t the above merely rational thinking in its purest form? Besides, even those who can’t shine a candle to Einstein’s intellectual heft should be able to discern its basis. Sheesh.

TRAGICALLY, for the most part, this is not the case within Israel’s higher-up political and military circles. Truth dare be told, it is due to an appalling dearth of rational thinking (instead, replaced by a goodly amount of stupidity, staggeringly so) that the nation’s politicians (many of whom hail from top posts within the IDF via a “revolving door” from the military into political office) almost always drag the Jewish majority citizens, reeling, from one strategic disaster into another! 

BUT none of this madness – שִׁגָעוֹן – could be possible without the imposition of an ingrained “conceptzia”, hailing within a leftist-captured academia which inculcates “moral relativism” as the sine qua non of intellectual heft! Phew.

MORE specifically, this poisonous and twisted “thinking” is taught at Israel’s Command and Staff College which has adopted its twin disaster, the IDF Code of Ethics. Lo and behold, it was conceived by a die-hard leftist prof, Tel Aviv U’s Asher Kasher, a philosopher and a linguist. Oh, dear, now you know why the soldier’s hands are tied into knots! Pay heed:

“Purity of Arms” – The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.

NOW, those who are unfamiliar with its basis will opine that behaving ethically is what separates the Jewish army from its barbaric counterparts. Agreed. Yet, but more importantly, this so-called Code of Ethics gifts the enemy a blank check to terrorize at will, while tying the hands of IDF soldiers and officers, and with concomitant dangers accrued to the majority Zionist public! For enough evidence to choke a horse, see here and here. BTW, these links are just the tip of the facts on the ground, the knock-on effects from obsessive self-flagellating via “ethical” adherence.

ONTO the charges at hand, the unmasking of Israel’s Generals.

Israel’s Estranged Generals: A Serious in-Depth Analysis

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In one her best articles, “Our Estranged Generals’ (April 4, 2016), Jerusalem Post journalist Caroline Glick writes: “Our generals are not on the same page as the rest of us. In fact, they aren’t even reading the same book.”

She asks:

“What explains our generals’ embrace of positions that most Israelis reject? Why are they willing to sacrifice soldiers and embrace Orwellian notions that weakness rather than strength is the key to peace? It is hard to say. Perhaps it’s group-think. Perhaps it’s the selection process. Perhaps it’s overexposure to Europeans or Americans. Perhaps they are radicals in uniforms. Perhaps it is none of those things.”

 

It seems that Ms. Glick has never examined what “our estranged generals” learn at Israel’s Command and Staff College, which makes them “estranged from the rest of us.” As the present writer has often pointed out, the formative Director of this college was also the Director of Israel Military Intelligence, Prof. Yehoshafat Harkabi, a self-professed moral relativist. What Harkabi says about Israel’s enemies in his book Arab Attitudes to Israel will shed considerable light in why Israeli generals are estranged from the rest of us. Harkabi’s book was written (of course in Hebrew) just before the Six Day War of June 1967. The English edition appeared in 1972, that is, before the Yom Kippur War. The book is replete with hundreds of quotes from diverse Muslim Arab sources, all vilifying Jews and Israel in the most lurid terms and promising the eventual annihilation of the Jewish state. In some 500 pages one finds not a single exception to this ventilation of Arab hatred – not even from Islamic scholars. Yet Harkabi was convinced before the Six Day War as well as before the Yom Kippur War that a peaceful and political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict was possible.

I single out Harkabi because he was not only the head of Israeli Military Intelligence, but also an internationally prominent academic and reputed expert on Islam.  In fact he is the reputed mentor of Shimon Peres, the genius behind the disastrous Oslo or Israel-PLO Oslo Agreement.

Harkabi’s book is dedicated to Jews and Arabs alike – a telling example of moral equivalency!  Nevertheless, its central thesis is the Arab’s unmitigated hatred of Jews and Israel. However, the implacable nature of this hatred is obscured or mitigated by Harkabi’s moral equivalency on the one hand, and by his fixation on the idea of “peace” on the other.

Harkabi book does not mince words about the Arabs’ Islamic faith.  He refers to what he terms the “negative characteristics of Islam. Islam, he says, is a “combatant,” “expansionist,” and “authoritarian” creed.  He admits that “The idea of Jihad is fundamental in Islam,” in consequence of which “hatred,” “hostility,” and “conflict” are endemic to Arab culture (p. 133). Furthermore, and of profound significance, he acknowledges that “the use of falsehood” and “distortions of the truth” are typical of Arab political life. He points out that “Political scientists, sociologists and historians seem to feel reluctant to mention this aspect of … the Arab world” (p. 337).

Harkabi goes so far as to say that mendacity is “second nature” to the Arabs, and that one may rightly say “falsehood is an expression of [Arab] national character.” He quotes the liberated Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady: “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth” (p. 348).

Nevertheless, these “negative characteristics” of the Arabs are diluted or lose political significance by the doctrine of moral relativism which Harkabi imbibed and conveyed at the Hebrew University. This doctrine (mysteriously) induced Harkabi to believe that the Arabs would shed their negative characteristics if Israel would simply withdraw from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and permit the Arabs to establish thereon an independent and economically well-off state of their own,

This is precisely the position of a policy paper that General Moshe Yaalon produced sixteen years ago at the Shalem Center. The ideas of this paper represent the position of none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, not only is the Ya’alon study logically related to Netanyahu’s “two-state solution” to Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. It also explains Caroline Glick’s confusion concerning Israel’s “estranged generals.” Recall her asking:

What explains our generals’ embrace of positions that most Israelis reject? Why are they willing to sacrifice soldiers and embrace Orwellian notions that weakness rather than strength is the key to peace? It is hard to say…. Perhaps it’s overexposure to Europeans or Americans. Perhaps they are radicals in uniforms. Perhaps it is none of those things.

That’s right Miss Glick, it’s none of those things. It’s the mind-set of these generals. They have internalized the pervasive academic doctrine of moral relativism, which undermines wholehearted conviction in the justice of Israel’s cause and in the unmitigated evil of Israel’s enemies!◙

——————————————————————————————————————-

DESPITE all else, know that it is beyond distressing, embarrassing to boot, to excoriate Israel’s leaders – this investigative journalist’s leaders, no less – before the vast world of cyberspace. But as a committed Zionist and national patriot, it is an absolute duty to speak the truth, never mind the personal discomfit.

AND this is precisely why those who have megaphones must enjoin with others – and in a groundswell of strength – shouting: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Yes, we recognize that leaders who are “stuck on stupid” (as to a growing list of military leaders who are currently politicians, we know, many of them served courageously and admirably while in uniform) must come to grips with reality on the ground and cease fantasizing that Israel’s implacable enemies will turn into “partners” for anything, let alone peace!

MOST significantly, a rational and an honorable leadership internalizes when a volte-face becomes a national imperative; when strategic decisions calculated upon faulty dogmatic perceptions must be remedied. Eradicated. Even more so, when said policies were made decades ago and proven disastrous – time and time again – with incalculable costs via countless Jewish deaths, others maimed for life, and a general robbing of the Jewish majority public’s peace of mind. 

FORTHWITH, it is time they man-up (or woman-up, whatever the case may be) and proclaim proudly and loudly: our mandated and sworn duty is, first and foremost, to protect Jewish lives. Our raison d’etre is the in-gathering of the Jewish people, as opposed to mimicking multicultural western nations. Resultant, our collective national honor dictates that Israel MUST abandon (never mind the fact that the PA Arab leadership – and their increasingly murderous populace – have violated EVERY obligation they ostensibly undertook when they signed onto Oslo) the fatally flawed “two-statism” paradigm.

HENCEFORTH, it must be replaced with rational strategic imperatives that will reassert the Jewish people’s historical and legal ownership – as recommended by The Levy Report  – to the land of Israel. All of it! In a Orwellian manner, this Commission was established by PM Netanyahu in 2012. Its conclusions: clear as a bell, as to the aforementioned rights. No ifs, ands or butts. However, as of yet – 4 years onward, resultant, with a continuous pile up of dead and mangled Jewish bodies – he refuses to implement it! Is he irrational, a serial accommodator, or what?

REGARDLESS, this onerous topic was dutifully explored in a March 2015 interview at Inquisitr, Can Israel Survive As The Jewish State? Indeed, it was not accidental (nor incidental) that it preceded the last election. One excerpt is particularly resonant, and its basis speaks for itself:

WOLFF BACHNER: And speaking of responsible world leaders, why isn’t the Prime Minster of Israel bringing up these serious issues with the nations involved in the peace process and especially with Obama and demanding an end to all military threats to Israel before Israel will negotiate again? Is he trying too hard to appease Obama and the various European talking heads, and by doing so, weakening Israel’s position even further in a peace process that is already an anti-Israeli charade?

ADINA KUTNICKI: It is this lock-step and debasing march which stopped him (during 9 years as PM, from 1996-1999 and 2009 -2015) from declaring victory over Hamas during the 2014 summer-long war, one which blanketed/blitzed the entire country with missile and rocket barrages. More indicting, instead of laying waste, years ago, to Iran’s mushrooming genocidal WMD program, he is still begging President Obama to lead the charge, knowing full well that he has no such intention. Chasing ghosts.

Inherently, he could have taken a page out of (the late) PM Menachem Begin’s playbook, when he defied President Carter and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor. Now, as then, Washington issued threats to “cease and desist”, but one PM ignored said orders, while the other (continuously) caved. Statesmanship, or the lack thereof.

In the main, PM Netanyahu is best described as a “serial accommodator”, comparable to a badly battered wife who just can’t help herself from going back to her abuser, one last time, for more punishment. Now, others may tsk, tsk and opine: well, the POTUS is the big man in the arena, therefore, what can poor “Bibi” do but genuflect? Hogwash.

For the record, PM Menachem Begin didn’t have a problem executing what his mantle required of him; protecting Israel at ALL costs! Similarly, Israel’s first PM, David Ben-Gurion, gave Eisenhower the proverbial finger, when he launched a war in 1956 in concert with Britain and France against an increasingly belligerent Egypt. As always, Washington attempted to stay Israel’s hand. History repeats.

In furtherance to the above charge and indictment, whereas PM Ben-Gurion took on the U.S. when Israel was little more than a military pipsqueak, PM Netanyahu behaves as if Israel is a vassal state. This is the case even though he has at his disposal the most adept forces in the region, let alone technologically advanced. Hence, the question is not one of actual force strength, but one of inner and moral fortitude. Hmm.

At its base, the moment that PM Netanyahu conceded to a PA (terror) state (during his speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009, two and a half months into his tenure…regardless of how he framed it), the fact of the matter is that he gave Israel’s “kosher” stamp of approval to carve a 23 rd Arab state out of the Jewish heartland. This historical injury lands at his doorstep. Agreed, previous PM’s have been equally appeasing and beyond injurious, but the imprimatur for the above became cemented under his watch. No doubt.

Thus, he weakened Israel’s position within (already hostile, pro Arab) international forums, once he gutted the nation’s core standing. Realistically, are others supposed to be “more Catholic than the Pope”, so to speak? Not only that, why should they disagree with Israel’s PM, in effect, after he already conceded (his “reasoning” doesn’t count for a damn) to the “rights” of the so-called Palestinians? Unforgivable.

Most significantly, the “peace process” was irrefutably designed to weaken Israel on numerous fronts, rendering her a walking corpse. This is hardly a secret….continue reading….

FEEL a headache (from heartache) coming on….that’s a wrap!

{re-blogged at The Homeland Security Network}

Rescuing America and Israel from Obamanism. What’s To Be Done? Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
12

GIVEN that America is currently viewed as the waning (heretofore) superpower of the free world, it is urgent to resuscitate it to its former standing. Civilization-shaking. Basically, few would disagree with said tragic, albeit realistic, diagnosis, other than those who wish America and Israel ill will. Both nations are parallel bookends to western civilization via Judeo-Christian values.

IT is into this earth shattering moment in time that Professor Paul Eidelberg’s sage wisdom and advice enters the fray. His unparalleled prescriptions to return America (with knock-on effects to Israel) to its rightful place is borne via a profound understanding of America’s founding principles and founders. Framers. He is the “master” of this domain, resultant, this investigative journalist is grateful that he is one of a core group of associated experts attached to this site. 

AS to Islam, well, his groundbreaking policy paper, Islam and Blood, attests to the same efficacy. Presenting…

Rescuing America and Israel from Obamanism

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

(Author of A Discourse on Statesmanship)

In his First Inaugural Address on January 20, 2009, President Barack Obama declared that America is “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” However, authentic Islam regards all non-Muslims as “infidels,” indeed, as “apes” and “pigs.” Moreover, Islam regards all women as mere sex objects. Furthermore, so perverse and monstrous is the Islam’s fixation on lust that Ayatollah Khomeini endorsed instructions to bestiality and necrophilia. 

Preview YouTube video Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil 

Consideration of these sources must modulate any realistic American and Israeli foreign policy.

Given the nature of Islam as displayed in these Quranic sources, the election of Barack Obama, a self-professed Muslim, is of world-historical significance. His having been elected twice as President of the United State by a substantial majority of American voter signifies the decay, and perhaps the ultimate demise, of, America, the only nation that can curtail the ongoing spread of international anarchy and prevent the global ascendancy of totalitarian Islam.

Islam has a burgeoning population of 1.5 billion Muslims whose only salvation – and perhaps that of Western Civilization – consists in the renunciation or evisceration of that politicized religion, which sustains the power structures of some fifty Islamic regimes – a fact that augments the power of Barack Obama.

A clear and most ominous sign of things to come appeared the day before Obama’s first inaugural address, when he brazenly said he would bring the American people a new Declaration of Independence, one that will be free of petty thinking, prejudice, and bigotry!

In view of what this monumental arrogance portends, let me say before writing another word, that more and more Jews are going to leave America, in consequence of which, ten unopposed Donald Trumps could not put the America’s humpty-dumpty economy together again.

America cannot survive, let alone prosper, without the creativity and versatility of her Jewish population. (Contrast the regimes whose subjects bow to Mecca, while Obama is doing everything to disembowel – let others say “mongrelize” – America.

That Obama is of dubious American birth, that he may lack solid legal grounds for occupancy in the White House, or that he merits impeachment, is beyond the purview of this article. More pertinent is the fact that Obama’s father was a Muslim. Since Islam prescribes patrilineal descent, hundreds of millions of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims regard the President of the United States as one of their own, even though his dubious profession of Christian faith makes him an apostate, to put it kindly. Truth be told, the President of the United States is a pagan (and not a very refined one). This is the said reason why Obama is a visceral hater of Jews, whose ethical and intellectual monotheism since Sinai made them the greatest enemies of paganism.

That Obama scorned the American Declaration of Independence only proves that he has no serious attachment to the Judeo-Christian ethos. No one should be surprised by his pagan attitude toward same-sex marriage, a derivative of his moral relativism, the doctrinal basis of egoism, and of Obama’s notorious narcissism. As the psychiatrist Max Nordau shows in his book Degeneration, moral relativism fosters egoism, hence the narcissism all-too-conspicuous in Obama’s face and intolerance of criticism.

Not only Arab leaders despise Obama. So do European leaders, even though they share his multicultural moral relativism. This university-bred doctrine has made Europe a motley group of post-Christian nations. Europe’s declining birthrates and its mushrooming plague of mosques is poetic justice;  payment for Europe’s deeply ingrained Jew-hatred culminating in the genocide of the Nazi holocaust. Europe has earned the curse of Islam. However, the Death of Europe calls to mind Iran’s malediction of Death to America, and this we must prevent.

Jews are fleeing Europe. Their only refuge is Israel. This should reverse Israel’s inane policy of territorial contraction called “land for peace.” Israel is now in a race for time quickened by Obama’s green light to a Nuclear Iran.

What might a fearless, discerning Prime Minister of Israel do in this “moment of truth,” which, if ignored or treated in conventional ways, promises the death of Western Civilization? Death is what Obama’s hatred of Israel and America portends.

Needed in radical times like these is radical political thought. Here is something to exercise the minds of political analysts who are more than politically correct academic scribblers.

Assume that Israel’s mellifluous and intelligent Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is not the fortuitous but the providential antithesis of America’s clueless, teleprompter President, Barack Obama. From this apolitical starting point, let us go on to say that Israel’s Jewish Prime Minister is mysteriously prompted to act on the not very mysterious idea that Israel’s, as well as America’s salvation (which Obama has systematically sought to undermine), demands the initiation of a comprehensive strategy whose implementation requires the highest qualities of statecraft, qualities which have mysteriously surfaced and inspired Mr. Netanyahu.

Of course, I am engaging in what may generously be called a “thought experiment” of dubious value. However, to relieve the boredom purveyed by the descriptive political science of modern times, as opposed to the normative political science of the classics, let us go even further and embrace a quasi-Jewish political science that combines the art of the possible with the art of the impossible, bearing in mind the narrative about Abraham, who set out from a pagan city to tell people about monotheism.

And although, unlike Abraham, we have not been “called” to take this new path, let’s ignore the idolatry of conventional wisdom and, like Abraham, think for ourselves about what Israel would do if led by a farseeing and intrepid Prime Minister who knows that, from a naturalistic point of view, time is running out, and that like Nachshon, he will have to jump deeply into sea to win a miracle, such as that which was won in Entebbe.

First, Israel must be ready to neutralize Iran by a preemptive strike of Iran’s command and control centers.

Second, Israel must be ready to employ the technical means of overriding the electronic guidance systems of enemy missiles.

Third, the Israel Defense Forces must simultaneously eliminate the threat from Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Iran has supplied with thousands of rockets via Syria. (Israel is in a race against time.)

Fourth, Israel must take steps to accommodate, in Judea and Samaria, Jews fleeing from the Jew-hatred spread by Europe’s burgeoning Muslim population, as well as by Obama’s pro-Muslim appointments to U.S. government agencies. This will require Israel to (1) eliminate the Arab terrorist cells in Judea and Samaria (J&S); (2) impose Jewish law over this ancient Jewish land; (3) pass a “homestead” act in J&S making parcels of this land available at a minimal price to 50,000 Jews from Israel’s crowded cities, linking this to the settlement of another 50,000 Jews from abroad, with a view to promoting their mutual assimilation and Jewish national unity; (4) promote urban development in Judea and Samaria to which American capital investment should be encouraged arrangements favorable to investors and developers.

—————————————————————————————–

REST assured, the health of a nation is predicated upon several lynch pins. At its core, the views held toward personal responsibility impinge upon the value assigned to freedom and liberty. In turn, a “contractual” understanding exists, one in which the role of the government becomes limited, juxtaposed against it being both parent and guide.  

IT is this tug of war, push and pull, which the likes of totalitarian leaders akin to HUSSEIN Obama and his Islamic counterparts join hands, aside from other factors. And if history is any guide, successful nations, like America and Israel, internalize the above divergences verily well. 

AT the end of it all, sach ha’kol, it is up to freedom seeking people – within America and Israel – to decide which fork in the road they will take. Either way, sacrifices will have to be made. Yet, the costs of inaction will be much more burdensome and onerous, and they will reverberate for generations to come.

NOT only that, history will be very unforgiving to those who remain silent. It is agreement. Step up. Time is of the essence!

I AM AMERICA….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw

IF I FORGET THEE O JERUSALEM ….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8thyFfK1PY&index=38&list=PLeh4IiCHmJJxS_TRyv8x-oiehHvjb2yxE

{re-blogged at The Homeland Security Network}

{re-blogged at Joe For America}

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

Explosive:Islam’s Mandated Barbarism Morphs With Genetic Inbreeding!Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
8

{one of many defects from Muslim inbreeding}

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

PC addled westerners are akin to addicts in the throes of their addiction. Resultant, they will never admit to what’s what, even if warned that their lives (and those of their loved ones) depend on a volte face. In fact, appearing tolerant to the most intolerant on the face of the earth is their “religion” of choice. Such is the case, despite irreparable harm to enumerable innocents. It is the G-d’s honest truth. 

THUS, proof after proof can be brought to the fore, yet it won’t make a dent. But this doesn’t mean that facts will remain hidden, just because countless leftists, aka “liberals”, demand silence from the rest of us. Why should we die on their perverted altar? Not on this site’s watch…

AS to the charge of Islamic barbarism, where does one begin, other than at Islam’s linkage to blood. Read it in full. View the video below too.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=222a4fee078b

“Serious consequences of Muslim inbreeding“

Posted by: Nicolai Sennels Foto:Asianet-Pakistan/Shutterstock May 19, 2013
Among the results are lower average intelligence and impaired health
Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for the better part of 1400 years. Consanguineous marriages were originally sanctioned by Islam’s prophet Muhammed, who had a very liberal view on men’s sexual relationships. In addition his many sex slaves, he married several cousins, the divorced wife of his own adopted son and the six year old Aisha, with whom he had sex with when she was nine.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of the world’s Muslims are inbred as a result of consanguineous marriages. In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins – children of siblings – and in Turkey the share is 25-30 percent.
Statistical research on Arabic countries indicates that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algeria are blood-related as are 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (the southern part of Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen. According to Dr. Nadia Sakati of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh, 45 percent of married Arab couples are blood-related. The fact that many of these couples are themselves children of blood-related parents increases the risk of negative consequences.
The number of blood-related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the number is down to 40 percent and it is 15 percent among Turkish immigrants. This may be due to the fact that immigration rules make it difficult to import family-related brides. Another factor may be better information on the risks connected with blood-related marriages. Because of better human rights protection it is also more difficult for traditional Muslim families to force their children to marry within the family.
In spite of the lower percentage of consanguineous marriages among Muslims living in the West, at least 55 percent of Pakistanis living in the United Kingdom are married to a first cousin. This is thought to explain why British Pakistani families are at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders – often resulting in serious genetic diseases.

Several studies show that, on average, children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. The average intelligence quotient, IQ, in any age group is 100. Depending on the theoretical basis, the line between normal intelligence and low intelligence is 90 or 85. Below 70-79 is categorized as mild disability, 50-69 is moderate disability.  Significantly more low-IQ children drop out of school and remain unskilled workers throughout life.
There are many studies on the intelligence effects of inbreeding among cousins. One study from Bihar, India, on Muslim children living in suburban areas, shows that while outbred offspring have an average IQ of 95, inbred children have an average IQ of 79, which puts them in category of people with “low intelligence” having special needs in schools, difficulty handling simple job tasks and completing a basic education. The study also shows the social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand grasping are significantly delayed among the newborn inbred babies. A decrease in the ability to understand and react to social interaction is known to have a negative influence on children’s development, including social skills and empathy, later in life.
Other studies reach similar conclusions, also when adjusted for socioeconomic status. The cognitive consequences of Muslim inbreeding may explain why non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely than native Danes to fail the Danish army’s intelligence test.  It may also be part of the explanation why two-thirds of school children with Arabic backgrounds are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The connection between low intelligence and a lack of ability to be self-supporting is well established. The extreme lack of scientific and social contributions from the Muslim world may be another result of inbreeding. While 184 Jews have received the Nobel Prize for their scientific, social and artistic contributions to the world, only 10 Muslims have had this honor.
Since 1901 Jews have received 34 percent of all Nobel Prizes. The world Jewish population in 2012 is approximately 14 million whereas the total number of Muslims is estimated to number 1.5 billion.
The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins. A study comparing Pakistani children of consanguineous marriages with Norwegian children shows a 50 percent higher risk that babies die during birth. Infant mortality among the inbred Pakistani children was more than double that among the Norwegian children. Deaths due to disorders such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy were 18 times more common among the Pakistani children and deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common.
Other research concludes that inbred people have a higher risk of developing mental disorders such as depression  and schizophrenia. The practice of consanguineous marriages in Muslim families may thus explain why more than 40 percent of the patients in Denmark’s Sct. Hans Hospital for the criminally insane and 70 percent of the inmates in Danish youth prisons have immigrant backgrounds.
**The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a socially acceptable way of committing suicide in order to end mental torment.
A study from Kabul, Afghanistan, based on autopsies of the remains of suicide bombers, shows that close to 90 percent were suffering from severe illnesses or deficiencies such as blindness, cancer, missing limbs or leprosy. Many Muslim societies, including that of Afghanistan, have a low social acceptance of handicaps and mental illness. Being physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion. Becoming a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some cases of Down’s syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of 72 virgins to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true.

Inbreeding among Muslims has severe social implications both for the Western societies and the Muslim world. According to Danish Social worker Merete Lefelt, “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child. …  Disabled immigrant children cost Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen the number of disabled children … has doubled over 10 years.” She has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen and estimates that one-third of her clients have a foreign cultural background. The cost of special education for slow learners consumes one-third of the Danish school budget. This means less money for normal and gifted learners. 51 percent of the children in Copenhagen’s three schools for children with physical and mental handicaps have immigrant backgrounds.
High levels of education may also make it harder for inbred students to finish their studies. Students with minority backgrounds have a significantly higher dropout rate at secondary schools than youths with a Danish background. In business schools, the dropout rate among immigrants is 60 percent, twice as high as among students with a Danish background. Interestingly the dropout among young people with Lebanese or Iranian background is far greater than among people of e.g. Vietnamese background. (Center for Knowledge on Integration in Randers, May 2005 “Youth, education and integration“).
The limited ability to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge as a result of low IQ is probably part of the reason why Muslim countries only produce one-tenth of the World average when it comes to scientific research. In 2003 the world average for production of scientific articles was 137 per million inhabitants, whereas the average among 47 Islamic countries was just 13.

 

MORE proof of the pudding, as to the blood thirsty nature of Islam, can always be gleaned through one of the most adept of this investigative journalist’s scholarly contacts. And though the following is directed at Israel’s leftist-driven leaders – those who truly make policy – it is a mirror-like prescription for American (western) leaders too. This site’s trusted prof always gets it right!

Ruthlessness is a Must against a Ruthless Foe

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

In a previous article, I quoted Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Islamic studies, who recognized that overweening arrogance is characteristic of Muslim culture. From Lewis we learn that worshippers of the Qur’an are so proud of their own perfection as to make Islam and its Muslim worshipers “impervious to external stimuli.” This requires Israel to treat these disciples of Mohammad ruthlessly, as brilliantly explained by the author of Civilization and Its Enemies, Lou Harris, the “philosopher of 9/11.

The inordinate pride or arrogance of Muslims will only be magnified by the sugary self-restraint of democratic politicians like Benjamin Netanyahu.  Muslims who regard Jews as “dogs” – their epithet for all non-Muslims – need to be treated as one might treat mad dogs: kill them at once.  Failure to do so will only encourage these beasts to murder more Jews. And mark this well: they will target our most eminent citizens, rabbis, to degrade Judaism and flaunt the “supremacy” of their own religion.

Only recall how the Viet Cong Communists targeted the mayors and teachers of South Vietnam villages – the most respected personalities – to demoralize their enemy in the South.

No sane person would seek to befriend a dog stricken with rabies – a poison analogous to the pathological hatred Muslims incubate and harbor for Jews, a hatred so vividly portrayed by Leon Uris in Exodus.

An Israeli Prime Minister that disregards the lethal theo-political significance of this hatred is not qualified for that office. An Israeli Prime Minister that does not feel morally outraged by the murder of rabbis – especially by Muslims – is a clod, to put it mildly.

The great Arab philosopher al-Farabi (d. 950), who was a Muslim in dress only, would agree. He wrote a book on Plato and Aristotle in an esoteric way to conceal his utter contempt for Islam on the one hand, and his admiration of those Greek philosophers on the other. Indeed, the great Arab historian and sociologist ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) regarded Arabs as “savages.” You don’t negotiate with savages, certainly not on the basis of “reciprocity” – which would be indicative of fatuity bordering on insanity!

Much the same may be said of Israeli officials who collaborate in a Government that consorts with the murderers of Jewish children. Against such ruthless enemies, ruthlessness is a must, lest they call us sheep as well as dogs!◙

TO place it all in perspective, it is imperative to not only see the truth, but to shout it from the rooftops. 

STIPULATED:

ISLAM is a retrograde, barbaric doctrine; one which is inherently a political bludgeon dressed up as one of the 3 Abrahamic religions. Really.

TAQIYYA SOftening hearts of non believer fingers crossed

 

 

YES, if slaughtering, pillaging, raping and bloody warfare is “religious” in nature, then Islam should be accorded religious respect. But just because a lie is repeated for centuries, it doesn’t change its basis. 

THE questions become: when will western leaders/elitists realize that Islam’s blood components are diametrically opposed to western civilization? and will they also admit that Islam’s backward, retarded growth has as much to do with continuous inbreeding – in the face of RAMPANT genetic mutations within their bloodlines – much of which adds to their violent behavior throughout the civilized world?  

IF not, why not? If not now, when?

Jihadi-In-Chief’s Outreach To U.S. Islamist Mosques/Leaders:”Islam Is A Religion Of Peace”.Piercing The Islamic Veil Of Deadly Deceit…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
14

in the name of allah

{re-blogged at Joe For America}

FOR the umpteenth time, without piercing the veil upon the most deceptive weapon of all time, “Islam Is A Religion Of Peace” (fully elucidated within this linked interview), its adherents will continue – without pause – to devastate the world upon its altar. Free rein.

British aid worker Alan Henning has been beheaded by Jihadi John in an ISIS video posted online 

At the end of the footage American war veteran Peter Kassig is shown and threatened with the same fate

http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=3809033255001&loc=conservativetribune.com&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fconservativetribune.com%2Fkelly-takes-down-muslim-2%2F

NOW, before we go to the crux of the matter, it is important for you to view the following short clip. Why? It will pierce the veil even further! Promise. 

ALAS, from the get go, the Jihad-in-Chief is hardly the sole White House resident who lies about this worldwide danger. So too did President Bush, and it was right after 9/11/01! However, there are many important distinctions between the two, least of which is that Bush is (basically) a patriot, regardless of his disgraceful Allah-wash re Islam. Let’s leave that for another discussion. But do recall, he is a deep aficionado of the New World Order, as is his father, a real anti-nationalist. One dovetails the other.

MOST trenchantly, it has been reported that Barack HUSSEIN Obama became enraged (what a shock…) at a recent Pentagon briefing, when he perceived Islam was faulted for this and that. Okay now.

Within seconds, Barack Obama returned again to the just concluded briefing, pointing at the still seated Pentagon staff and indicating how “inappropriate” it was to “try and paint all of Islam with the same brush.” The president repeated similar remarks, his mood going from agitation to outrage. His voice carried to several other West Wing offices.

The senior adviser, who did not originally return with the president into the briefing, suddenly re-appeared alongside him,  as well as the president’s personal aide. She was smiling, and telling everyone “we’re done here” which she repeated several times and then led the president back out into the hallway…..

IT gets worse, if your heart can withstand it. Just stiffen your spine, and then deconstruct his Orwellian U.N. speech, another atrocity, none of which resembled reality :

At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations. Belief in permanent religious war is the misguided refuge of extremists who cannot build or create anything, and therefore peddle only fanaticism and hate. And it is no exaggeration to say that humanity’s future depends on us uniting against those who would divide us along fault lines of tribe or sect; race or religion….

AS to the remainder of his scripted lies, nothing more than lipstick on a rotting pig. Thus, when the leader of the heretofore free world views his role as an apologist for Islam, and insists that America IS a Muslim nation, well, what else needs to be said? 

Pointedly, the Jihadi-in-Chief dispatched a White House rep to reassure – sending them a THANK YOU NOTE – the mosque’s adherents in Oklahoma City, you know, those who indoctrinated the recent beheader! He is letting them know that they are an integral fabric of the American landscape and to have no worries. He has their backs. You got that? Are you feeling woozy yet? 

THEREFORE, is it any wonder why paying heed to the likes of Prof Paul Eidelberg, a true patriot (an American-Israeli), an absolute scholar, a renaissance man to boot, is necessary for the west’s survival? No exaggeration.

On Muslims and Islam

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Part I. A Candid View of Muslims and Islam

Professor Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Islamic studies, recognized that overweening arrogance is characteristic of Muslim culture. From Lewis we learn that the worshippers of the Quran are so proud of their own perfection that Islam is “impervious to external stimuli.”

Thanks to Islam’s theological mentors, even illiterate Muslims despise non-Muslims as “dogs.” Of course, not every Muslim has been corrupted by Islam.

Islam did not distort the mind of the great Arab philosopher al-Farabi (d. 950), who was a Muslim in dress only. To avoid the punishment of death as an apostate, al-Farabi wrote a book on Plato and Aristotle in an esoteric form to conceal his contempt for Islam on the one hand, and his admiration of those Greek philosophers on the other.

In the present age, however, despite our vaunted freedom of speech and press, hardly any scholar questions the veracity of Islam. The typical academic translates Islam into “Islamism,” and to avoid harassment, he obscures the true nature of Islam by speaking of “radical” Islam as if the adjective and noun were separable.

Hence it’s surprising that Wikipedia had the candor and courage to report: “In an attempt to polish Islam’s image, Muslim activists usually quote verses from the Qur’an that were written … while Mohammed lived in Mecca. Those passages make Islam appear loving and harmless because they call for love, peace and patience. Such is a deception. The activists fail to tell gullible people that such verses, though still in the Qur’an, were nullified, abrogated, rendered void by later passages that incite killing, decapitations, maiming, terrorism and religious intolerance. The latter verses were penned while Mohammed’s headquarters was based in Medina.”

Islam has been sanitized by academia. Despite the murderous hatred purveyed in the Qur’an, which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah (Sura 9:111), Islam is usually painted with linguistic camouflage to safeguard the reputations of professors, journalists, and politicians who fear being accused of racism, bigotry, or Islamophobia – perhaps of being beheaded.

To his great credit, the illustrious al-Farabi renounced Islam because of its contempt for reason and violent theology.  This is why Islam was rejected by the outstanding and exceptional Arab historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), who dared write that Arabs are a savage people, and that “savagery” describes their inherent character.

Al-Farabi and Ibn Khladun merely affirmed the judgment of two of the greatest philosophers of the Middle Ages, Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas.  Given the superlative credentials of these theologians and philosophers, what are we to say of Maimonides’ “Epistle to Yemen,” where he refers to Muhammad as a “Madman and an imbecile”?

And Aquinas, who says this of Islam’s prophet in the Summa Contra Gentiles: “He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasures … His teachings also contained precepts that were in conformity with [such] promises … the truths that he taught [in the Quran] were mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity… he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.”

Were Maimonides and Aquinas afflicted by Islamophobia? Were al-Farabi and Ibn Khladun?

What is it but fear or a lack of intellectual integrity magnified by the contemptible academic doctrine of moral and cultural relativism that stifles the truth about Islam, which Winston Churchill the greatest scourge of mankind, a scourge not to be obscured or minimized by gracious acknowledgment that, thanks to God, not all Muslims are jihadists?

Part II. Obscuring the Truth about Islam

Ever since he became Israel’s Prime Minister in 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu has taken the easy path of “political correctness.” Like countless others, he has obscured the plain truth that peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not possible. Not possible because the PA consists of Muslims, disciples of Muhammad, who taught his disciples, there can be no peace between Muslims and “infidels.”

But all of a sudden ISIS, the Islamic State of IRAQ and SYRIA, removed the veil of lies. At last our opinion makers have begun to reveal the truth – or as much as they can grasp of the truth. They are beginning to identify the enemy of civilization.

The identity of that enemy was obscured the day after 9/11, thanks very much to the President of the United States, George Bush, who called Islam as a “religion of peace.” This he said about Islam while Muslims throughout the world were gleefully celebrating the cruel deaths of the 3,000 victims of 9/11 in the name of Islam’s deity “Allah the compassionate,” to quote the words of what President Barack Obama calls the “Holy Qur’an.”

It took ISIS and its decapitation of James Foley, an American journalist, to arouse in the timid enough courage to identify America’s enemy, Islam – twelve years after the beheading of Daniel Pearl, theWall Street Journal reporter executed in Pakistan in 2002.

Yes, the enemy is Islam is ISLAM – ISLAM pure and simple, and not any of the abbreviated or “politically correct” versions of ISLAM used by academics, journalists, politicians, and political scientists to avoid being accused of “Islamophobia” or racism.

ISIS has revealed that the “religion of peace” is unadulterated barbarism that uses the veneer of monotheism to avoid being identified as paganism.

One scholar has come close to defining Islam as “monotheistic idolatry,” which makes Allah so absolute that there is no room for human freedom or human creativity, as we learn from Genesis 1:26-27 of man’s creation in the image of God – a concept that Muslim theologians deem blasphemous.

Given its mantra of death, Islam may be defined as the “religion of nihilism,” of nothingness or of absolute darkness.  It is the light of reason that separates and distinguishes one thing from another. Death is the dissolution of all distinctions.

Islam’s mantra of death is the deadliest form of nihilism. Nihilism rejects the role of reason in human affairs because reason, as Whitehead has said, is the “organ of emphasis on novelty.”  “Throw reason to the dogs,” said a placard of Taliban, thus denying that which distinguishes the human from the subhuman. The logic is inescapable: Islam’s rejection of reason renders Islam subhuman! If empirical evidence is wanted, enough to mention Hamas’ use of its own children as human shields, surpassing the evil of the Nazis.

When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” he deflated Communism. No longer was it deemed worthy of respect and admiration; it was an abomination. Islam should also be treated as an abomination. For evidence, enough to cite the February 21, 2007 issue of FrontPage Magazine, which reported that Muslims have slaughtered approximately 270 million people – Christians and Jews, Hindus and Zoroastrians and countless other “infidels” – since the ascendancy of Islam’s role model, Muhammad.

Urgently needed, especially in Israel, is the truth about Israel’s Islamic enemies. Israeli prime ministers prefer to obscure the truth lest it shatter their “politically correct” drivel about the “peace process” with an enemy that exalts war and the shedding of Jewish blood.

Prime Minister Golda Meir is famous for having been “the only man in her Cabinet.” Why? She shunned “political correctness.” Truth was her strong card, especially the truth about Israel’s sworn enemies: “I have never doubted for an instant that the true aim of the Arab states has always been, and still is, the total destruction of the State of Israel, or that even if we had gone back far beyond the 1967 lines to some miniature enclave, they would not still have tried to eradicate it and us…. It is our duty to realize this truth; it is our duty to make it clear to all men of good will who tend to ignore it.  We need to [face] this truth in all its gravity, so that we may continue to mobilize from among ourselves and the Jewish people all the resources necessary to overcome our enemies” (My Life, 1975). That was Golda, the only man in her Cabinet. Now we have BB.◙

NOW that Prof Eidelberg’s pearls of wisdom have been absorbed (recall his association to this blog), it should be beyond obvious what has to be done: Islam, as a “religion”, must be deconstructed. As such, eradicating Shariah law from western soil – initially within the court of public opinion – is mandatory. Let them do whatever the hell they want in Muslim nations, who cares… What matters is that its basis is diametrically opposed to America’s Constitutional laws of the land, regardless of what the fifth column thinks. Beyond a doubt, Islamic leaders in America (those who are pulling the strings at the White House, no less) are VERY overt about their lack of loyalty. Are they NOT the definition of a fifth column?

5

ONCE Islam is revealed for what it is – a clear and present western danger – wiping out its terror havens will become a necessary response to save western civilization. What could be more important? Not much.

ASSUREDLY, it’s a Herculean task. However, saving the west is not for the weak-willed or weak-kneed. It requires millions of dedicated patriots to forge ahead, despite all obstacles.

SIGNIFICANTLY, once Islamists realize that the west will no longer be held hostage to the idée fixe, Islam is “peaceful” – let alone being anything but a war-like political weapon masked under the guise of religion – they will have little option but to cease and desist. It will take years, but it will happen.

BESIDES, what’s the alternative? And will history forgive this generation for handing America’s keys to freedom and liberty over to monstrous barbarians – the likes of which are unparalleled in history – only to destroy the west in the process?  

Obama’s Impeachment Can Save Western Civilization From Implosion: A Justifiable Case…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
7

Obama told me he is still a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round table show».

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

{re-blogged at Palin SMASH – http://palinsmash.com/2014/08/28/obamas-impeachment-can-save-western-civilization-from-implosion-a-justifiable-case-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/}

MILLIONS of readers have been free to believe all of the evidence – in whole, in part, or not at all – which has been presented and stipulated at this blog: incontrovertibly, Barack HUSSEIN Obama is not only a Muslim, but a clear and present danger to America. By extension, as the leader of the free world, his proven anti-Americanism is a direct threat to western civilization. In other words, without America’s beacon for freedom, well, the west’s lights will eventually extinguish. Let’s not pretend what is isn’t.

YET, for clarity sake, let us recap to see what shakes out. Moreover, readers can decide if America’s domestic upheavals and attendant Mid East fires have become clearer and more focused. Gauge for yourselves wherein lies Obama’s hand(s).

Clarity One: 

ONE’s roots, like it or not, do matter, especially if steeped in two anti-American worlds – green and red. So, from the paternal side, Obama’s Wahhabi lineage is integral to swirling Mid East wildfires.  Attendant U.S. blow back is coming full circle.

ON the maternal side, his Marxist/communist revolutionary roots have been wrecking havoc on the domestic front, since his catapult into office.

Clarity Two:

Due to the above – and so much more – the case for impeachment has been growing and becoming more urgent. Most recently, the illegal release of Taliban killers – in exchange for an anti-American soldier – rises to many levels of treason. You just gotta connect the countless dots, instead of throwing up your hands.

NEVERTHELESS, the following is a brief rendering of all the heretofore proofs found at this blog, but in bullet-proof form. This investigative journalist advises others to imbibe said truths:

To Save America: Barack Obama Must Be Impeached

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Barack Obama  has repeatedly violated his oath of office which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

1)    The mere fact that Mr. Obama is a self-professed Muslim means he is dedicated to a creed that regards all non-Muslims as “infidels” whose lives, therefore, are not inviolable.

2)    At least 19 Muslims were involved in the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center, which resulted in the cruel death of almost 3,000 men, women, and children .

3)    The mere fact that Mr. Obama is a self-professed Muslim means that he, cannot faithfully fulfill his oath of office, which requires him to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In proof of this conclusion, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

● President Obama appointed as CIA Director John Brennan, a convert to Islam who refused to put his hand on a Bible when sworn into office,

● President Obama appointed six members of the Muslim Brotherhood to his Administration, including the Department of Homeland Security, even though it is common knowledge that the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated to the annihilation of the United States of America.

● President Obama has prohibited members of his Administration from making statements associating Muslims with terrorism, despite the fact that Muslims are unequalled in their worldwide acts of killing innocent men, women and children. These acts oblige Mr. Obama to cease obfuscating Muslim terrorism, since this contradicts his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I invite experts in American Constitutional Law to specify other acts of President Obama, such as abuses of executive power, which justify his impeachment.

IS the above unparalleled conflict in interest – between the leader of the free world and that which he truly pledges allegiance to – still unclear?

 

 

MOST inherently, the more succinctly one can state the case for impeachment, the more resonance it will have. As such, pay Professor Paul Eidelberg’s warning(s) forward via any possible avenue; be it social media, professional or personal domains. Everyone who cares about western freedoms must rise to the challenge, for EACH day reminds afresh of the significant dangers we face from an out of control anti-American POTUS: 

The federal government is spending nearly $1 million to create an online database that will track “misinformation” and hate speech on Twitter.

The National Science Foundation is financing the creation of a web service that will monitor “suspicious memes” and what it considers “false and misleading ideas,” with a major focus on political activity online.

The “Truthy” database, created by researchers at Indiana University, is designed to “detect political smears, astroturfing, misinformation, and other social pollution.”

The university has received $919,917 so far for the project.

“The project stands to benefit both the research community and the public significantly,” the grant states. “Our data will be made available via [application programming interfaces] APIs and include information on meme propagation networks, statistical data, and relevant user and content features.”

“The open-source platform we develop will be made publicly available and will be extensible to ever more research areas as a greater preponderance of human activities are replicated online,” it continues. “Additionally, we will create a web service open to the public for monitoring trends, bursts, and suspicious memes.”

“This service could mitigate the diffusion of false and misleading ideas, detect hate speech and subversive propaganda, and assist in the preservation of open debate,” the grant said.

“Truthy,” which gets its name from Stephen Colbert, will catalog how information is spread on Twitter, including political campaigns.

“While the vast majority of memes arise in a perfectly organic manner, driven by the complex mechanisms of life on the Web, some are engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns,” according to the website.

“Truthy” claims to be non-partisan. However, the project’s lead investigator Filippo Menczer proclaims his support for numerous progressive advocacy groups, including President Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action, Moveon.org, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and True Majority.

Menczer, a professor of informatics and computer science at Indiana University, links to each of the organizations on his personal page from his bio at the Center for Complex Networks and Systems Research.

The government-funded researchers hope that the public will use their tool in the future to report on other Twitter users.

“Truthy uses a sophisticated combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex networks models,” the website adds. “To train our algorithms, we leverage crowdsourcing: we rely on users like you to flag injections of forged grass-roots activity. Therefore, click on the Truthy button when you see a suspicious meme!”

The project also seeks to discover why certain Internet memes go viral and others do not. Funding is not expected to expire until June 30, 2015.

YES, Orwell’s universe has been stepped up by Obama Inc. and his foot soldiers, in expectation of FINALLY bringing down America. The shredding of the Constitution – from wherein America’s ethos and foundations are derived/housed – is a prime target for Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s (and surrogates) plans. Almost decimated… 

 

ISLAMIC BARBARIANS TARGET WESTERN GATES.GOAL:THE MAHDI!Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
9

m1

NO rational person can still contend that Islamic doctrine, as derived through its immutable Shariah law, is a “benign” religion, a “religion of peace”. So, if this is their position, well, ignore them like the plague. Counter them at every turn.

IN the main, too many individuals are bereft of basic knowledge, regarding Islamic history, Koranic mandates and the general geo-political landscape of the the Mid East. They are clueless. 

AS repeatedly stated, the ISIS, an Al Qaeda offshoot, are twin devils. They are spawned from the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia, not unlike most of the jihadi organs! Yet for those who feel more comfortable with audio visual aids, look no further than here:

CAIR: The Organization From the Inside Out…The MB’s American Propaganda Arm!


BUT don’t be lulled into believing that ISIS Sunni jihadists have a monopoly on barbarism and Mahdi-driven fantasies…goals…whatever…They are co-joined with Shia Islamists. DEADLY serious. 

:

The ISIS Jihadist Say: “This Is The War Muhammad Promised Us; The War Of The Great Tribulation”

Anthony said: “It is hard to imagine how the planet can continue much longer, judging by the rate it is descending into barbarism.”

What is happening Anthony is that we are approaching a revival of a dark history when Islam proudly built pyramids out of human skulls and made blood flow in ravines. And when you see this revival of Islam complete is when you will look back at our current time now and say: “these were the good old days”.

These fighters who gather in Iraq and Syria are not there for the primary goal to fight Maliki and Assad. Abu Omar, a Sunni jihadist fighting in Aleppo said, “If you think that all these mujahideen came from around the world to fight Assad, you are mistaken. All of them came here as it was foretold and promised by the Prophet. It is the war He promised us; the war of The Great Tribulation.”

The Jihadists have a set of belief that one third of the Muslims in the world will be killed.

They study Bible Prophecy and are very aware of the text in Revelation and prepare to be the antithesis of what Christians believe; the white horse rider is the soon to come Mahdi and the “Euphrates” in Revelation 9 to them is their Caliphate in Iraq and the one-third who are slain they consider it about them, the only true Muslims:

“Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” (Revelation 9:14-15)

They even have their prophetic narrative which includes the peace treaty which they believe is made between the Muslims under the leadership of the Mahdi and the Roman (crusader Christian world) and speak of a battle between the two in which they believe that one-third of the Muslims will lose to join the Christians and betray Islam. These will be unforgiven and end up in hellfire. The other third will be martyred to enter paradise and yet another will gain the victory in Armageddon which they even spell out in their teachings.

The mission they have to to do is a great slaughter in which blood will be spilt as a river and heads will pile up in mounds. Indeed, on June 10 the Islamic State in Al-Sham (ISIS) burst upon the world with the capture of Mosul in Iraq, the effective obliteration of the Iraq/Syria border (and possibly the Iraqi state itself), a highly-self-publicized massacre of prisoners (some accounts say more than 1,700), the sudden creation of up to half a million internally displaced refugees in Iraq, and emphatic threats to eradicate Shia Muslim shrines, the Kingdom of Jordan, and (as of June 22) to do the United States more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did. In mid June, ISIS posted pictures on Twitter that appeared to show the massacre of 1,700 Iraqi soldiers after the fall of the city of Tikrit.

m2
m3
m4

The United Nations said on Tuesday that at least 1,000 people, mainly civilians, had been killed and roughly the same number injured in fighting and other violence in Iraq in June as ISIS swept through the north.
Victims included a number of confirmed summary executions committed by ISIS.

When the ISIS march the victims to slaughter, they are not thinking in any way shape or form in modern concepts. They think as if they are taking orders from when Abu Bakr ordered Khalid bin Al-Walid in 633-634 A.D., to fight the Persians and Christians from Ullays on the Euphrates River. Khlaid made a vow to Allah during the battle that if he could defeat them that he would make the canal that surrounded their village literally run with their blood. He commanded that all who were defeated be taken alive. There were so many captives that it actually took a day and a half to behead all of the men. The blood however, coagulated and Khalid’s troops were forced to eventually release water into the canal in order that it would run red with the blood of the slain lest Khalid’s vow be left unfulfilled. Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir At-Tabari, the early Islamic historian and theologian recorded this event:

Khalid 
said:

“O Allah, if you deliver their shoulders to us, I will obligate myself to
 you not to leave any one of them whom we can overcome until I make their canal run with their blood.”

Owing to this it has been called Blood Canal to this day.

beheadin1

The behavior of ISIS has been nothing short of atavistic, and to find a similar political dynamic (and savagery) in history we must reach back seven centuries to the Mongol conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) – who, incidentally, did slaughter the populace of Baghdad and build pyramids of their skulls.

beheading2
(A tower built by a Muslim Ottoman general from the skulls of his Christian enemies in Serbia has topped the list of “World’s Greatest Osteological Marvels,” according to U.S. website MentalFloss.com.)

Think of this Caliph they want to give allegiance to as the coming Babar who wrote in his Babur-nama about destroying Jain temples at Urwa near Gwalior; and, he raised a tower of Hindu skulls at Fatehpur Sikri and Chanderi (Babur-nama, Volume II, p. 612).

There were 60-80 million butchered during the Muslim Mughals in India alone and who could even tally what these did in the rest of the world.

Piling human skulls is in their songs, not in only ancient times, but today as I write. The most favorite of Muslim terrorists is the song “Sawarem” (The Sword) in which they sing about towers of skulls. Here it is fully translated (start at 1:20):

God was not kidding when He told us of Abaddon “the destroyer” (Revelation 9:11) and we see them destroying and even proudly singing about destruction (start at 00:40):

“Storm O winds with torment and destroy … do not leave any trace … be artistic O hurricanes … let the seas strengthen its rage …”

While Americans say that such men live in a fantasy world they forgot that they themselves have their own fantasies in which they bank on secular and Sufi Muslims believing they are peaceful. The secular Muslim can change on a dime into a fanatic fundamentalist just as we saw the Sufi Muslims last week join the ISIS.

When Bob Bergdahl spoke on the Rose Garden alongside Obama starting with the Bismillah (In the Name of Allah) many thought “so what”? We said that the Bismillah is not something they use only when they slaughter a chicken, its also a call to war. And I can find you clips from my days when I was a child where the Bismillah is all about war. Tell me, if our favorite hit song during secular Egypt in 1973 titled “Bismillah” seem to you about peace:

Here, a translation might help:

“Bismillah (in the name of Allah) Bismillah Bismillah
Allah is Great Bismillah
Bismillah Call to the prayer Bismillah Bismillah

We greet our Jihad in Bismillah Bismillah
Allah Akbar (Allah is Great)
And say O Lord
The victory is great

We crossed the Sinai in Bismillah Bismillah”.

And why do you think the “secular” Egyptians in 1973 wanted to cross the Sinai?

Here is Farid Al-Atrash, before these days singing. He is one of the best classical romantic singers in the Arab world. Does this song sound romantic:


(start at 1:08)

Here, I will help translate this one as well:

“Tell them where will you [the Jew] hide?
For you have a bitter appointed day
We united crescent and cross
And we gathered far and near

It will be a destined day
That history will record

They glorified Allah and said:
Allah Allah Allah
Allah is great
Allah is great
There is no God but Allah”

That “bitter appointed day” is when the stones cry out about the hiding place of the Jew.

UNDOUBTEDLY, to internalize the barbarism descending upon the Mid East, as it flows past myriad borders and poises to breach western gates, one must, at first blush, view it from a dispassionate perspective. In other words, as counter intuitive as it may sound, the fact of the matter is that the blood flow referred to above is commensurate with Islam’s inextricable relationship to it.

TO clear through the muck, having contributed to the following policy paper, this blogger gifts (via an excerpt) to the readership, an added perspective for further elucidation:

“America’s Deadliest Enemy”*

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

*That Muslims have exceeded the depravity of Nazis by using their own children as human bombs tends to hinder objective and comprehensive analysis of Islam. This essay will instead provide a thoroughly documented, interdisciplinary, transnational, and multiracial study of Islam which men with eyes and ears and a modicum of learning will discern as a unique form of paganism, one that sanctifies evil in the name of a monotheistic theology.

Prologue

It is well known that Islam today is a cauldron of murderous hatred. We are no longer shocked by the fact that Muslims hate not only non-Muslims but other Muslims. It is common knowledge that Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, that both abhor Sufi Muslims as well as other Islamic sects. True, something comparable to this may also be said of certain Christian sects before the Reformation—and we dare not forget that Christians slaughtered Jews down through the centuries. But as Dr. Michael
Ledeen has documented, and as will presently be seen, Islam is unique in that its love of death or necrophilia remains an ineluctable aspect of its theology.

Moreover, despite the murderous hatred Muslim sects display toward each other, we need to understand the character of their supreme role-model and prophet, Mohammad, the author of their holy Scripture, the Quran.
We need to transcend vacuous tolerance, and we dare not yield to the timidity
that poses as “moderation” in discussing Islam. We deplore the fact that Islam’s cult of hatred and love of death is downplayed by scholars who are reluctant or incapable of revealing the theological underpinning of this hatred magnified by necrophelia. Indeed, scholars in the West are reluctant to say anything pejorative of a creed that poses as a worldwide monotheistic religion. We can no longer afford this reticence because weapons of mass murder are now available to this enemy. Our survival requires us to expose the ugly truths about this enemy. We need to understand why Muslims, whether
they are Arabs in Saudi Arabia or Persians in Iran, hate Americans and Jews as well as each other. This is a fearful amount of hatred animating a strategically significant percentage of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth!

Is it not awesome that so many people who worship Allah can harbor so much hatred—enough to commit even genocide? This horrendous phenomenon is a terrible reflection on what civilized people deem a monotheistic religion. To clarify this theological mystery in a candid and convincing manner is precisely the primary concern of this essay. But first, we must come down to earth and remove the many obstacles that hinder this intellectually complex study of Islam without being deterred by its emotionally-charged consequences, which seem to silence polite commentators.

If Islam is indeed a cauldron of hatred that animates the leaders of 1.5 billion Muslims and dozens of Muslim states, is it any wonder that many people in the West see this awesome, widespread hostility as an irremediable and impossible threat? Is it any wonder that very few Western scholars and statesmen display the candor and courage to discuss the theological nature of this threat? What irony! The threat is from an enemy that defines us as the enemy—even though we sincerely profess to be truly benevolent and peace loving. Our benevolence is obvious. We are even reluctant to call our
enemy an “enemy,” let alone as our sworn and implacable enemy, lest we insinuate that this strange enemy is evil. We hesitate to use any pejorative language to describe this enemy, not only because we fear it may antagonize him and prompt him to violence, but also because we live in a non-judgmental age that avoids calling even an openly declared enemy evil—even one who gleefully screams “Death 2 to America” and vows to “wipe Israel off the map”! Some observers believe that the liberal and social
democracies of the West are suffering from a mental disorder. Let me try to explain…..

LEARN its lessons well! Click it on.

LEFTIST/ARAB HISTORICISM & THE DANGEROUS “PALESTINIAN” MYTH REVEALED: ARABS EXPOSE THE TRUTH-AGAIN! WHY ARE ISRAEL’S LEADERS SILENT?WHAT’S WRONG WITH THEM?Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
4

HISTORICISM is the latest weapon employed by the Arabs/Muslims and their leftist cohorts. Both feed off of each other, even though for wildly diverging reasons. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. BOTH seek to decapitate America and Israel. There is no prettied way to state this.

As a matter of record, western academia bears the onus, as it is replete with “historical” fabrications, so much so that western civilization is no longer recognizable. Bear witness to their wreckage:

Generations of Americans – and others in the west – have been co-opted/corrupted through the (mis)education process. 

IF one is a cultural relativist, aka die-hard leftist, then the fruits of academia’s (mis)labors have borne major bounty. But for those who treasure western civilization’s linchpin – Judeo-Christian moorings – then the devastation wrought is incalculable. Its havoc can be seen all over the west (and most trenchantly) in the disgraced halls of American/western academia.

NO one tells the ugly tale better than this blogger’s associate, Professor Paul Eidelberg.

‘Toward a Revolution in Education’

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Age of Enlightenment, which peaked in the eighteenth century, was very much a struggle against the corruption that had occurred in the Church of Rome.  This corruption facilitated the atheism that permeated the Age of Enlightenment.

What has taken the place of that clerical-dominated Church in the twentieth century is the secular-dominated University, the seed bed of multicultural moral relativism.

The greatest enemy of Judeo-Christian America is not Islam so much as the atheism and nihilism generated by the University-bred doctrines of historicism and positivism. These two doctrines are the primary sources of moral and cultural relativism—and note well that these doctrines flourish in Normless as opposed to Normative Democracy.

Relativism, as I have repeatedly shown and documented during the past four decades, has emasculated the United States. It has also enfeebled the Government of Israel. More than Saudi oil, than any other single factor, Moral Relativism has made the United States a patron of terrorism. Has not the United States Congress, at the behest of a series of Presidents, appropriated and dispensed yearly grants of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO), a consortium of terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction?

The same academic relativism has induced Israel’s government to appease the PLO and even endorse a PLO state in Israel’s heartland.

Notice, moreover, the media’s condemnation of Israel in its current war of self-defense against terrorist controlled Gaza. This grotesque Israel-bashing is a direct consequence of the moral relativism (or “moral reversal”) that animates college-educated journalists whose corrupted minds cannot recognize and face EVIL: the evil of Hamas, of Fatah, and yes, of ISLAM, whose leaders vow to wipe Israel off the map and who gleefully scream “Death to America”!

There can be no genuine peace with any Islamic political entity for the simple reason that Islam’s hatred of “infidels|” is rooted in Islamic theology, in its Jihadic scriptures, which provide a religious veneer for despots and despotism.

Surely 1,400 years of Islamic tyranny and 250 million Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Hindu victims of Islamic imperialism should be enough to convince any uncorrupted human being — and you will find some among former Muslims– that this bellicose ideology is a brutal form of paganism adorned in a fabricated monotheism whose deity is not bound by reason and justice–for that would impose limits on Allah’s absolute power.

But it’s not Islamic absolutism so much as democratic moral relativism that needs to be overcome to overcome Islam. This will require an intellectual revolution in Western academia. No, I am not calling for an academic Inquisition ala Joseph McCarthy. What is needed is the creation of alternative institutions of higher education—institutions that do not crush students with thousands of dollars of debts and years of dependency.

The revolution needed is in the social sciences and humanities where relativism flourishes. There are wealthy people capable of understanding the basic causes of Europe’s moral decline and now America’s. These people need to be galvanized to support  the development or reconstruction of colleges and universities that do not emasculate youth by indoctrinating them with moral and cultural relativism.

America’s colonial colleges–suffice to mention only those now called Princeton, Columbia, and Harvard–produced America’s greatest statesmen: Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams. There was no moral relativism among these classically educated philosophic statesmen. How could there be given a living Declaration of Independence that refers to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the ultimate source of our unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”?

Alas, during the past one hundred years, moral relativism has dominated  American colleges and universities, has trashed the Declaration of Independence, and what Lincoln called our “ancient faith.”

In fact, many colleges and universities professors are now preaching anti-Americanism—and this, by the way, is why we have a “post-American” President in the White House!

And so it will be in the future if 40 to 50 million voters are dependent on government — unless alternative or reconstructed educational institutions are established, institutions that restore the creativity of American Exceptionalism and produce a new generation of philosophic statesmen.”

NOW that the academic record is straight, let us connect their corrupt, anti-historical, fallacious, mendacious fabrications, those which serve to act as a dagger into the heart of Israel. Yes, like Superman, anti-historical lies leap tall buildings and even swim across oceans to other parts of the world! Magic-like.

And, while the collusion between the left and their Islamic helpmates is a done deal, one would be woefully remiss in not dragging Israel’s leaders to the woodshed.

How many are aware that there is a huge diff between “normless” democracy vs “normative” democracy: the left’s western weapon ala (im)moral relativism. It is Israel’s Achilles heel too.

It is this flight from fancy, the extremely humiliating, debasing “please, please like/accept me “ beggar mentality which stifles many prominent Jewish Israelis and their diaspora counterparts – who know better – from shouting the historical truth(s) from the rooftops. Disgracefully, they live in abject in fear of being relegated to the so-called international dog house and to the outer fringes of “police-thought”, PC held captive society. Pish posh. Crybabies.

Pray tell, how well is their neurotic and delusional tactics working out for Israel’s “leading lights”? Besides, regardless of all their appeasement – and some might suggest, it is due to their self debasement – Israel is condemned even further, just for daring to hold onto to the thousands year old Jewish homeland! Yes, appeasement is a bottomless pit. And, let’s be done with it, we need to buy them a collective (psychiatric) couch! Calling…Dr. Kenneth Levin!

Let’s proceed, once again, to expose the “Palestinian” myth. 

 A Palestinian Myth Exposed

by  on March 2014
The pervasive narrative that Palestinians were expelled from their land by Jews is not true at all. Check out this short video. It should underscore why ‘Bearing false witness’ is such a bad thing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcMW9O9NxX4#t=237

WHILE the above video is more than edifying, surely additional proofs, straight out of the horse’s mouth, can’t hurt:

Wolff Bachner:Who exactly are the Palestinians? Are they native inhabitants of the region, or as many historians have claimed, are they descendants of invading Muslim armies and the families of guest workers brought into the area as cheap labor in the early 20th century by the British to undermine the rebirth of Israel?

Adina Kutnicki: If one truly seeks the historical truth, one should keenly listen to what the Arab leadership enjoin when speaking before their own brothers and sisters, as opposed to the taqiyya (Sharia-derived dissimulation) spewed for western ears. Thus, the following is a sampling, but by no means exhaustive: Fathi Hammad, Hamas’s Minister of the Interior and National Security, had this to say, ” Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.” Likewise, Zuheir Muhsin, late member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s Executive Council, intoned: ” The existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel.” Similarly, Hussein bin Talal, late King of Jordan, opined,” The appearance of the Palestinian personality comes as an answer to Israel’s claim that Palestine is Jewish.” To be exact, the late, non-lamented Chairman Arafat – the Palestinian godfather of suicide terror, schooled by the KGB, but I digress – was Egyptian-born! Thereby, isn’t it appropriate to posit: Shouldn’t “straight out of the horse’s mouth” proofs be more than enough evidence, to finally put to bed the lies spun on behalf of the Palestinian narrative? Consequently, shouldn’t Israel’s leaders be the first to hammer these historical truths into the world’s consciousness?

  • The illusory “peace” between the Arab states and Israel is described within this straight shooting video clip: Dr. Mordechai Kedar pierces through the veil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5juATiBA10

It goes without saying, those who identity as “Palestinian”, whether living inside Israel or outside its defined borders, are a clear and present danger. Consider, and the following is HARDLY an anomaly but rather (terror) “business as usual”:East Jerusalem man planned to blow up homes in capital as revenge against Jews!

And, yes, the PA lying myth, their so called narrative, is a lie of historical proportions. But it takes men with chests, and women of equal valor, to set the historical record straight. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. 

Tragically, FEW and far between.  

“Normless” Democracy Vs “Normative”: The Left’s Western Weapon Via (im)Moral Relativism. Israel’s Achilles Heel…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
12

Bugaboos and ignorance tend to go hand in hand, as such, the appellation democracy is bandied about by many who haven’t a clue, as well as by those who abuse it for mendacious ends.

Such is the case whenever its essence is heralded as the sine qua non, held aloft for whatever political/ideological ends requires its halo. Its burnishing.

But just because its meaning has been bastardized doesn’t excuse sane folks from understanding the damage accrued. And for a clearer portrait, as to how this weaponized term imperils western civilization – let alone Israel – the following should suffice:

For if the above is not obvious enough, examine how dangerous the catch all of “democracy” is – without its requisite understanding – to the west: yes, leftism is lethal to Jews & their overall health: others too, and most are loathe to admit that “normless” democracy sets the stage.

Specifically, per Israel, the only antidote is its “Intellectual Warriors”- via Israel Institute For Strategic Studies. They must URGENTLY go forth to do “battle”. The requisite reading below explains this missive in lurid detail.

 

Yair Lapid and Normless Democracy  

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Finance Minister Yair Lapid has stated that a Jewish and democratic state is contradictory. He is correct so far as he goes, but he does not go far enough. For democracy is not only inconsistent with Judaism; it is also inconsistent with Justice, as I shall now explain by distinguishing between “normless” democracy–the only democracy Lapid knows–and “normative” democracy, whose primary virtue is Justice.

Justice is the central theme of Plato’s greatest dialogue, the Republic.  The key figure of the Republic is of course Socrates. Socrates was a poor man. Poor men tend to be partisans of democracy. Why?  Because democracies usually equate justice with equality. Democracies therefore give the poor the same rights as the rich. Not that Socrates was a partisan of oligarchy. But he saw that democratic equality benefits ignoramuses and villains—and there is no shortage of such people in Israel, even though this besieged country is far superior to any other nation on planet earth! But we were speaking of Socrates.

Socrates was a philosopher, a seeker of truth. Hence he was skeptical about democracy, whose egalitarianism made no distinction between the wise and the unwise, the virtuous and the vicious. Even disloyal individuals may vote in a democracy, as they do in Israel. Can this be truly just?

The answer to this question is so obvious that it is not discussed in the Republic. Even though Athens was a democracy, none of the various definitions of justice discussed in that most subtle and profound dialogue entails the indiscriminate egalitarianism found in contemporary democratic societies, where individuals of hostile beliefs and values enjoy equal political rights—suffice to mention Arab citizens of Israel who hate this country and openly support its enemies with impunity. This is “justice,” Israeli style, and we look in vain for a politician or an academic or even a journalist who dares question the injustice of this “Jewish” state of affairs.

Although members of the Athenian assembly were chosen by lot—the most democratic of all systems—still, to be eligible for the lot certain qualifications were required. First, one had to be an Athenian, meaning a person more or less identified with Athenian culture. Second, one had to have performed military service and/or be a tax-payer. In short, one had to be a patriotic or law-abiding citizen and not a mere consumer of “entitlements” so typical of contemporary democracies.  

Now, of the various definitions of justice discussed in the Republic, only one conforms to these rational qualifications, namely, that justice means “giving to each his due.” This is a matter of proportionate equality, not of arithmetic (or indiscriminate) equality. The latter yields the democratic principle of one adult/one vote, which renders a person’s intellectual and moral character irrelevant. This is why democracies are ruled not by the wise and the virtuous but by mediocrities, if not worse. Which means that democracy is not the best regime; indeed, it may not even be a truly just regime.

Socrates led Athenian youth to this subversive conclusion. He willingly paid the penalty for undermining their loyalty to Athens in the process of liberating them from their Athenian, i.e. democratic, prejudices. Democratic Athens sentenced him to death.

Well, we don’t give hemlock to philosophers anymore; we ignore them. And no wonder: Philosophy, understood as a passionate love of truth, is dead. Still, what would the “gadfly” of Athens do were he in Israel today? He would surely inquire about justice.  Sooner or later some Israeli would say justice is “giving to each his due.”  Socrates would probably lead him to a more refined definition, perhaps something like the following:

Justice is giving equal things (such as rights and honors) to equals, and unequal things to unequals in proportion to their inequality, i.e., in proportion to their merit (as is done in classrooms), or in proportion to their contribution to the common good.

Any sensible Israeli—let’s leave Yair Lapid aside—would then see that to give Arabs, who strive for Israel’s demise, the equal political rights of Jews, who struggle for Israel’s welfare, is not consistent with justice—though famously democratic. He would then conclude that if justice is to prevail in Israel, its Arab inhabitants must either be disenfranchised or undergo a profound political and religious metamorphosis.

If Socrates led Israelis to this conclusion he would probably be condemned by Israel’s political and intellectual elites and indicted for “racism” or “incitement.” True, he might point out during his trial that Israeli Arabs are exempt form military service; that they engage in massive tax evasion; that they aid terrorists and commit terrorist acts; hence that it is unjust to endow such disloyal Arabs with the equal rights of Jews.

All this would probably be of no avail at Socrates’ trial. He would almost certainly be convicted and imprisoned, and any appeal to Israel’s egalitarian Supreme Court would be futile. This is quite a commentary on Israel’s political and judicial elites, from whose lips the honeyed word “Democracy” is ever dripping but hardly a word about Justice. There is not a single public figure in Israel that has the courage as well as the wit to tell the truth about the manifest injustice of giving the vote to this country’s hostile Arab inhabitants.

Now we are prepared to go to the root of things.  What needs to be said, and what no one dares say in Israel, is that this country was founded in 1948 on a monumental injustice: giving to Jews and Arabs–to loyal and disloyal inhabitants of Israel–the equal right to vote in this supposed to be Jewish State.

Not Peace but Justice is the true and most fundamental issue in Israel today. In Israel, however, justice has been reduced to a leveling equality, which is why the sense of justice has been murdered in this country. This is why the killers of so many Jews in this country go unpunished. This is why Arabs who have murdered Jews have been released by Israeli governments. This is why various Israeli politicians have clasped the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat or of his successor, Mahmoud Abbas.

You will not go to the root of things by explaining their behavior in terms of their desire for “peace.”  You will not truly explain their surrender of land for which Jews have so long yearned for, fought for, and bled for, in terms of “American pressure.”  No, the suffering and humiliation of Israel today is the inevitable result of the monstrous injustice prescribed in the very Proclamation of the Establishment of the State, that all inhabitants of this State—Jews and Arabs alike—would receive equal political rights. This is not justice but the negation of justice and even of common sense.

This negation has made children of Israel’s rulers. It has made fools of Israel’s intellectuals. It has driven this country to suicidal madness—the prey of Arabs armed by mindless Israelis posing as adults—really adolescents whose bodies have been stretched and molded. All this is described in Isaiah 3:4; 5:20; 28:7, 15-18; 29:9, 14; 44:25.  Stupidity aside, it was injustice that led to the  Oslo “peace process” and its 15,000 Jewish casualties!

Until Israel’s Government pursues Justice—for starters, by declaring Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria—neither politics nor political analysis will save Israel from recurring disasters resulting from the IDOL of Normless Democracy to which Yair Lapid burns incense.

—————————————————————————————————-

To bring this burning imperative full circle to an American (western) perspective, just ponder how much chaos and damage has been wrecked upon the nation, simply due to these same (ideological) weapons.

Then, cogitate over the inordinate mischief and mayhem which occurs under the rubric of “fairness”, “multiculturalism”, “(im)moral relativism” and every other umbrella which dictates: everyone, regardless of their loyalty to national ethos, somehow “deserves” an equal part of the (re distributive) pie?  

Extrapolating into reality, ask yourselves: do criminals “deserve” the same benefits as law abiding citizens? Do traitors warrant “equal” consideration? Should illegals be allowed to exploit legal citizens in the name of “inclusion”, even when doing so harms the very fabric of “rule of law”?

YET, on a sobering level, think what happens when terrorists hide behind democracy, “martyrdom” & revolution? Yes, scores of innocents die!

To wit, the coinage paid above is the direct result, the  incalculable price, of (im)moral relativism via the co-option of freedom of speech…abrogating the distinction between “normless” democracy and “normative” democracy, whose primary virtue is justice!

Israel’s Political Leaders (Via Releasing Terrorists/Murderers & So Much More) Betray Zionist Public: Beholden To The “Gang Of The Rule Of Law”. Professor Paul Eidelberg Elucidates

Posted on by
2

WITH the ongoing “peace” train chugging apace, much has been written about the seemingly “inexplicable”, counter intuitive behavior of Israel’s leaders, particularly regarding their bowing, scraping and appeasing of foreign players who wish the Jewish homeland ill will. Yes, they do, regardless of their sweet nothings. In fact, what kind of “friends” demand that terrorists/murderers be set free, as a condition for “peace” to spring forth? More to the point, what type of “peace” partners MAKE such demands in the first place? As to Israel’s leaders agreeing to such insanity, well, therein necessitates the commentary. The national tragedy.

Time and again, Israel’s leadership outdo themselves through their mendacious (actionable) behavior, becoming “legal” outlaws in the process – Nullum Crimen Sine Poena: No Crime Without Punishment. A partial listing of recent terrorists/murderers released by PM Netanyahu cries out for Jewish justice – from Israel’s derelict and craven leadership! So much so, stalwart Zionists can’t help but take them to task and upbraid them publicly. To assert that this is a painstaking, depressing and degrading task, well, is to underestimate the gravity of the situation. The “matzav”.

But before we assess the heart of the matter – to garner a clear understanding of how Israel got from there to here – it is worth reviewing some content for contextual heft. Let us now do so, mainly through Israel’s ship of fools and Confronting Israel’s Precarious Future: An Interview With Dr. Martin Sherman.

Onto the (putrid) meat….

The Reported but Ignored Conspiracy of Israel’s Government:

Ariel Sharon, The Role Model of Benjamin Netanyahu

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Prologue. The time: June 21, 2005. Imagine [then] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon scanning the Jerusalem Post during a trip to Washington. He knows the Post is about the only Israeli newspaper read by American officials. He sees the weekly article penned by the Post’s most respected political analyst, Caroline Glick. Her article is dated June 21, 2005, just a few weeks before Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The article is entitled:

“A coward for a prime minister”

 The longest chapter in Machiavelli’s The Prince is on conspiracy. A profound but unreported conspiracy was perpetrated in Israel ten years ago. Strange as it may seem, details of the conspiracy were publicized by [former] Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin in a wide-ranging interview of Ariel Sharon by journalist Ari Shavit and published in the June 5, 2003 issue of Ha’aretz Magazine.[1] The interview contains unprecedented and startling revelations. Indeed, Mr. Rivlin exposed what may arguably be called a criminal conspiracy of Israel’s entire Political and Judicial Establishment! What is more, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu current endorsement of a Palestinian state is the consummation of this conspiracy!

Part I. Introduction to the Rivlin Revelations

Ari Shavit entitled his June 5, 2003 interview of Speaker Rivlin “Courting Disaster,” à propos of the policy of territorial retreat or “disengagement” adopted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. This policy necessitated a legal or judicial foundation. Abandoning Gaza required the forced expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their homes. Since this involved a basic issue of law, it required the cooperation or collaboration of Israel’s Supreme Court.

Shavit’s interview of Rivlin tells the unvarnished story. Speaker Rivlin not only had much to say about Ariel Sharon’s character, but also about the mentality of Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. Sharon needed Judge Barak to “legalize” Israel’s Gaza withdrawal, which amounted to a Jewish cleansing policy. Stated more precisely, Sharon needed Judge Barak’s judicial cooperation because the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gaza was clearly a violation of their property rights, indeed, of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom of which Barak was the principal author!

To legalize the expulsion, the Barak Court simply held that Gaza (as well as Judea and Samaria) are “belligerent occupied territory” to which the Basic Law in question does not apply. But what gave the Supreme Court the authority to designate Gaza “belligerent occupied territory” and ignore that Basic Law?  No such judicial power was granted to the Court by any legislation of the Knesset. Chief Justice Barak simply proclaimed the unprecedented dictum that “everything is justiciable,” a dictum that gave the Court virtually unlimited power. This and more is spelled out in the Rivlin interview of June 5, 2003.

Before examining this extraordinary aspect of the Rivlin interview, the fact that political scientists virtually ignored the revolutionary implications of Barak’s dictum suggests they were either suffering from a cerebral vacuity or that most were reluctant to publicly denounce Sharon’s adoption of Labor’s disengagement policy, even though this policy had been opposed by Israel’s highest military and intelligence officials in public testimony before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee!

However, rather than impugn the intelligence and patriotism of the political science fraternity, let us exercise our intellects and perhaps amuse ourselves by exploring the more interesting scenario of a publicized but ignored conspiracy, even though it may be nothing more than a case of political cowardice and stupidity, characteristics often attributed to Israel’s government and its advisors. We don’t want to be confused with conspiracy addicts.

Accordingly, to clear the ground for a serious and scholarly inquiry, I shall cite the most relevant parts of Mr. Rivlin’s June 5, 2003 Ha’aretz interview and let the reader himself answer the accusatory question, “What’s going on here in Israel?” I hasten to add that the Rivlin interview is by no means dated, for Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is following the Sharon-Barak legacy so candidly exposed by the Knesset Speaker.

Part II. The Rivlin Revelations

Of its many fascinating revelations, most significant are those involving the character of Israel’s ruling elites and the authenticity of Israeli democracy.  Only two need concern us:

  • Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was a “closet leftist,” and
  • Chief Justice Aharon Barak’s dictum that “everything is justiciable” was nothing less than a “putsch,” a coup d’état.”[2]

It was precisely the Barak dictum that “everything is justiciable” that allowed the Court to “legalize” the government’s “unilateral disengagement” policy and the consequent expulsion of Jews from Gaza. This dictum, which virtually transformed Israel into a judicial dictatorship, violates the democratic orientation of the prophets of Israel, who were the primary defenders of the rights of the Jewish people vis-à-vis their government.

For the sake of clarity, I will divide Rivlin’s far-ranging interview into sections and inject only a few explanatory remarks.

Ari Shavit’s Interview of Speaker Rivlin

Shavit asks Rivlin: “Is [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon tormented by his personal responsibility for the establishment of the settlements and the need to deal with his mistakes?”

Rivlin: “Whereas in the personal realm Sharon is a very sensitive person whose eyes often grow moist, in the national realm he is entirely without emotions. He has no inhibitions. He is a Mapainik without inhibitions, referring to the Mapai party, the precursor of Labor, which was known for its rampant [left-wing (PE)] pragmatism. When he forms an opinion, nothing will stop him. No sentiment and no human commitment will hold him back.”

“Rivlin himself,” Shavit continues, “is agitated and of two minds about the Sharonist shift. In the room of the Jerusalem hotel in which we meet, his voice cracks and his eyes shine as he talks about the shattered dream of the ‘national camp’ and the loss of the Land of Israel. Even though he understands the logic that is guiding his political patron, Prime Minister [Sharon], he is not willing to accept it. He, Reuven Rivlin, will never lift a finger to hand over the Land of Israel. Even if he remains utterly alone, he will prefer to show allegiance to the lost ideal of Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin and to the integrity of the homeland. It is only after some time … that he begins to speak with the same fervor about the subject we are here to discuss: theconstitutional revolution, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and the threat posed to democracy precisely by the Israeli establishments. The speaker of the Knesset does not mince his words. He talks bluntly and directly about the things that are disturbing him and making him lose sleep [emphasis added (PE)].”

B. The Relationship between Rivlin and Sharon

Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, you are very close to Sharon. You hold intimate conversations with him. Where is he taking us?”

Rivlin: “Arik is trying to achieve a solution that will put him into the history books as a person who fomented a historical turning point – like Ben-Gurion in 1947, Begin in 1979 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1993. But Arik also understands in the clearest way possible that he cannot achieve a permanent settlement that will satisfy the Arabs. He understands that no one on the Arab side will agree to forgo the areas that he regards as essential for the defense of the State of Israel.

“I refer mainly to areas in the Jordan Rift Valley and to the strip running from Arad to Jerusalem, in the Dead Sea region. Arik is therefore aiming for a temporary settlement. But the temporary settlement he has in mind is far-reaching. He truly intends the establishment of a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity and a true separation between us and 3.5 million Palestinians.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that the moderate Sharon we have seen … is the real Sharon?”

Rivlin: “Undoubtedly. Whether I like it or not, the moderate Arik is authentic. Look, sometimes he zigzags. Sometimes he says things ambivalently, which can be interpreted either way. But to my chagrin, he has passed the point of no return. I can tell you and your readers with certainty that Arik Sharon is resolute in his position that a settlement has to be reached immediately. When he talks about the end of the occupation and about painful concessions, he is not pulling a fast one and he is not lying – unfortunately.”

Shavit: “When did you grasp that this is it, that he crossed the Rubicon?”

Rivlin: “In October. One night he called me into his office and showed me the road map and asked me for my comments. At that moment I understood that we were approaching the moment of truth. That he’s really going for it.”

Shavit: “So deep down he really has remained a Mapainik?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. In the end, Arik believes in security above all and is a salient pragmatist, a disciple of Ben-Gurion….

“Look, Arik Sharon has a doctrine of life that is far more coherent than what journalists give him credit for. It’s true that in the past he moved from one place to another. I myself was critical of him for changing certain positions for political purposes. But people here didn’t understand that from the day he assumed the post of prime minister, his security and political outlook was very crystallized.

“He didn’t know, and he still doesn’t know, how to reach a permanent settlement, but he is determined to recognize a Palestinian state and reach a settlement. Think about the fact that when he says the occupation is hard for the people of Israel he is really saying that the occupation corrupts. That we have the right to the land but that we can’t realize it. In this, he is actually accepting the ideology of the left.”

Shavit: “So the person who heads the Likud today is really a Ben-Gurionist?”

Rivlin: “Arik is definitely a Ben-Gurionist. In our conversations, he laughs and calls me the ideologue, and I laugh and call him [Ben-Gurion’s] disciple. But there’s nothing funny about it. It’s completely true. And for me it’s rough, because since October I have been wracked by an inner conflict between my uncompromising belief that all of Zion is ours, and my close friendship with the prime minister. That’s why, when he offered me a cabinet post in his government, I preferred to become Speaker of the Knesset. I told him openly: Arik, we are now on an irreversible collision course. You are a disciple of Ben-Gurion and I am a disciple of Jabotinsky. You are a pragmatist and I cannot free myself of my belief. I will not convert my religion, I told him. I have no intention of converting.”

C. Historic Earthquake

Shavit: “Let’s get back to him. If he is truly serious, as you describe it, there will be a settlement within half a year to a year. That’s not just talk. There will really be a historic earthquake here.

Rivlin: “For many months I’ve been telling my journalist friends that an earthquake is happening. Arik Sharon is serious about the words he is speaking. And the moment you embark on that road, there is no knowing where it will lead, because once a sacrosanct principle is shattered, anything goes. The process is very powerful.”

Shavit: “Give me a scenario. What’s going to happen?”

Rivlin: “There is one thing on which Arik will make no concessions: terrorism. On this subject Arik has no doubts and everyone can trust him, including Likudniks. If there is terrorism, he will not hand over territory. [More Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists during Sharon’s reign than under that of any other prime minister. (PE)]. But if we actually reach a situation in which a solution is found for terrorism, and there are signs that the Palestinians are trying to meet us halfway, he will establish a Palestinian state in the territories held by the Palestinians with territorial contiguity, which could be very significant from the point of view of the Israeli government’s attitude toward the sacred principle of non-evacuation of settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you saying that Sharon will evacuate settlements already in the stage of the establishment of the temporary Palestinian state?”

Rivlin: “It is definitely possible that an impossible friction between certain settlements and the need for a situation in which the Arabs will not pass through our territory and in which we will not rub shoulders with them – that this will thrust him into a situation in which he will make an Arik-style decision that it’s possible that settlements will have to be evacuated.”

Shavit: “I ask again, Ruby Rivlin: Has Arik Sharon accepted the fact that he will evacuate settlements?”

Rivlin: “What he has accepted is that for us to live within borders that make movement possible for them other than through our territory, it will be necessary to reach a decision to evacuate a number of settlements.”

Shavit: “How many settlements are we talking about?”

Rivlin: “When Arik assumed the office of prime minister, and even earlier, in discussions he held with [former prime minister] Ehud Barak, about 17 settlements [in this category] were identified.”

Shavit: “When Sharon mentions painful concessions, is he referring to these 17 settlements?”

Rivlin: “He sees them above all. Arik has made clear and explained a number of times that their evacuation is necessary in order to stabilize some sort of way in which we will be able to reach some sort of settlement. Today we have cantons. Those cantons will be unified and connected. Connecting the cantons will necessitate this blow to the settlement project. It obliges the evacuation of about 17 settlements.”

Shavit: “Are you telling me that Sharon has reconciled himself to the fact that he will evacuate 17 settlements already at the state of the interim agreement?”

Rivlin: “Yes. When he talks about painful concessions, he is talking about a concrete map that some of the Yesha people [referring to the Yesha council of Jewish settlements in the territories (brackets in original] know about and that he has already talked to them about.”

Shavit: “And does Sharon believe that an evacuation on that scale will bring about calm and conciliation?”

Rivlin: “Sharon thinks that it’s necessary to build some sort of relations of trust. Even though, knowing Sharon as I do, I don’t see him placing any trust in the Arab side” (Italics added PE).

Shavit: Not even in Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]?

Rivlin: “Not even in Abu Mazen.”

Shavit: “So there is a basic problem in placing trust in the Arabs?”

Rivlin: “He has no trust in them (italics PE). Arik doesn’t like them much because he doesn’t believe them. But Arik knows that negotiations are not conducted only with people you believe. Negotiations are conducted in order to solve problems [!?! (PE)]. Look, Arik does not view the Arabs from a position of superiority. He sees the Arabs as people to whom we owe nothing. We owe nothing to anyone who wants to attack and kill us. That side of the issue is of no interest to him. So when he talks about 3.5 million Palestinians, it is not because of their suffering, but because he has reached the conclusion that to go on ruling them is impractical.”

Shavit: “Will he evacuate Netzarim [an isolated settlement in the Gaza Strip]?” (Bracket in original.)

Rivlin: “Arik is ready to pay the price in places where it is necessary to guarantee the Palestinians continuity. There is no such problem at Netzarim. At Netzarim, the problem is that of Netzarim, not of the Palestinians. Therefore he is more accepting of the need to evacuate [settlements] in the Binyamin region than in the Gaza Strip. But the American pressure in the direction of the Gaza District is very heavy” (brackets in original).

Shavit: “And what about the permanent settlement? Will he not forgo the Jordan Rift Valley and the Gaza Strip and the strip between Arad and Jerusalem even as part of a final peace agreement?”

Rivlon: “In my opinion, he will be more adamant on that than on the question of Jerusalem. That is his casus belli. As far as I know Arik, he will not compromise on that issue. To him, these are territories without which it is impossible to defend Israel. But a situation is liable to develop in which the decision about them will not be his to make” (italics PE).

D. New Sounds about Jerusalem

Shavit: “Is it possible that Sharon will also compromise on Jerusalem?”

Rivlin: “I don’t want to believe that. Arik is suffused with a mystical belief about Jerusalem. But when you embark on the road, you will be asked – Will you now ruin everything just because of Jerusalem? I have a musical ear. In one of his recent speeches I heard new sounds about Jerusalem. They worried me.”

Shavit: “So what you fear is that the process will pull him in further than what he himself supposes?”

Rivlin: “When you embark on a trans-Atlantic flight and the pilot informs you that you have crossed the ocean, you can no longer go back to Europe, you have to land in North America. That is Arik’s situation today, without a doubt. Politically, too. He took the risk knowingly and willingly, and he knows he will have no choice but to land on the other side….”

Shavit: “Is it your assessment that the very course Sharon has embarked on will in the end lead to the 1967 borders or something approximating them?”

Rivlin: “That’s more than an apprehension. That’s a clear scenario. Unequivocally (emphasis added (PE). Because once we live in a global village and the American sheriff is the sheriff of the whole world, you can be the world’s greatest ideologue, but you have to take account of the political situation. And from the moment a crack appears in your belief, the crack gets wider and wider. You get into a state of mind that is not amenable to change [emphasis added (PE)].

What Arik is now doing is causing the national movement to largely shed its basic tenets. Even principles that Arik promised me he would uphold just a few months ago have been eroded. We are entering a process here that does not make conditional the end of one stage before the transition to the next stage. We have already recognized the Palestinians’ right to a state and we are talking about the Saudi plan and the right of return. It’s all up for grabs. So it’s clear that even if there are things that Arik really will not forgo, his successor will continue what he began.” …

 [E] Aharon Barak

 Shavit: “Ruby Rivlin, your attack on the Supreme Court was unprecedented. What brought it on? Why do you perceive the court as being so dangerous?”

Rivlin: “In 1992 I was a member of the [Knesset’s] Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, which formulated and passed the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom. So I know what the idea behind that law was. The idea was to consolidate the rights of people insofar as they are people and the rights of the minority insofar as it is a minority. Under no circumstances was the idea to transfer legislative authority from the Knesset to another body. No one even talked about changing the balance of power between the Knesset and the court (emphasis PE).

“So a few months later, when Dan Meridor declared that a constitutional revolution had taken place, I was stunned. Dan Meridor is one of the followers of Justice Barak [Aharon Barak, the president of the Supreme Court]. Follower is a nice word. I don’t want to use a different word, heaven forbid. But unlike him, I thought – like several former Supreme Court presidents – that there had been no constitutional revolution here. No such thing.

“Yet as time passed and the court moved ahead with great deliberation and by creeping annexation took over more and more powers, I realized that not only had there been a constitutional revolution, there had been a coup d’état. (emphasis added (PE). [Rivlin continuing:]I do not accept this revolution. In my view, the Knesset never approved it and therefore it is taking place contrary to the democratic spirit and without authorization.”

Shavit: “‘Coup d’état’ is a serious term to use in this context; it means a putsch” (emphasis PE).

Rivlin: “Correct. And that is the term I used at the President’s Residence last month. Supreme Court President Barak was very hurt by the expression, but in my opinion, when a group of people sit in a room and say that from this moment we are the power, that is a putsch. You tell me: Isn’t it a putsch? It’s a putsch. After all, they did not receive authorization from anyone. They did not consult with anyone. They created a situation of going ahead and seizing power.”

Shavit: “Do you see this as the imposition of a particular worldview on the public by means of an improper procedure? Do you see a move to establish a kind of enlightened absolutism?”

Rivlin: “Yes. It’s as clear as day. Aharon Barak says that we have to distinguish between the Knesset as framing and the Knesset as legislating. He says that if you don’t frame a constitution, I will set forth a constitution instead of you. But who gave him the right? Who gave him the right?”

Shavit: “What you are actually saying, then, is that the whole constitutional move that Justice Barak led in the past decade is illegitimate?”

Rivlin: “Of course. On the basis of the false claim of a constitutional revolution, a new reality was created here. A new government was forged that is above everyone: both above the Knesset and above the government and above the law, too. Take note that the court has effectively placed itself above the law….”

F.  Threat to Democracy

Shavit: “Do you really believe that the court is operating contrary to the democratic spirit and contrary to the values of democracy?”

Rivlin: “Without a doubt. The court is disrupting the whole order of government. I will give you an … example. On the issue of the Landau report [a 1987 report about the Shin Bet security service’s interrogation methods, drawn up by a commission headed by Justice Moshe Landau, a former president of the Supreme Court], Aharon Barak comes and says, Look, even if all 120 members of the Knesset tell me that in the case of a human ‘ticking bomb,’ moderate physical pressure can be used [as the Landau Commission recommended in certain interrogations], I will strike it down. In other words, Barak is placing himself above 120 legislators. He says, If I think it’s wrong, I don’t care what the Knesset thinks ….

Shavit: “Still, why now? What decisions by the court made you react so harshly?”

Rivlin: “There was of course the ruling by a Magistrate’s Court that brought the process ad absurdum. When a junior judge allows himself to invalidate a law of the Knesset, you realize that we have reached a state of total madness. But in my opinion what was even more serious was the decision by the High Court of Justice on the question of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem [when armed Palestinians took refuge there during Operation Defensive Shield in May, 2002 (brackets in original).

“The very fact that the court did not kick out the petitioners and agreed to get into a discussion about the conduct of war policy in wartime proved to me that the court is now placing itself above the government, too. Because the moment the court starts weighing the considerations of the government in matters about which only the government can decide and for which it alone bears responsibility, it’s all over. The court has actually turned itself into a meta-government.

“Therefore, I reached the conclusion that someone had to tell His Honor Justice Barak that there is a limit. Someone had to tell him, It’s not your affair. It’s the affair of the government.”

Shavit: “Do you seriously intend to curb the power of the court by means of legislation?”

Rivlin: “Definitely. It has to be done. We are talking about a burning problem. We are talking about a situation in which they are already talking about a requiem for the law, about how the judge overcame the law. And we are talking about a situation in which the judicial system is endangering the democratic system in Israel because its people are sure that they are better than others. What’s going on here, after all? Effectively there is no longer any law here because the law changes every minute according to the interpretation of the court based on some sort of meta-norm that has never been defined, so no one knows what it is. The result is a situation in which a very small group of people has arrogated to itself the authority to decide values and rules and even policy for a whole country and for a whole public that never gave them any such authorization.”….

Therefore I tell you that they are a gang …. A gang like any other gang. Except that the name of this gang is the gang of the rule of law” (emphasis PE).

 

[1] For the full text, see IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il.

[2] This dictum effectively nullified Israel’s Penal Law governing treason, since it enabled the Court to legalize the yielding of Jewish land contrary to the Penal Law governing treason, which law defines four kinds of acts as treason:

1.  acts which “impair the sovereignty” of  the  State of Israel—section 97(a);

2.  acts which “impair the integrity” of the  State of Israel—section 97(b);

3.  acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;

4.  acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

The Beginning and End of American Exceptionalism: A Theo-Political Analysis…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

Posted on by
17

It is exceedingly rare for this site to endorse a particular book, except under compelling circumstances. Its essence must play a part in illuminating pressing western challenges through historical accuracy, offering ameliorating strategic imperatives in the process. Only several such book releases hit said home runs. And there are less than a handful of scholars – throughout the west – who are qualified to render a verdict via attendant prescriptive policies; to remedy/rectify the catastrophic challenges facing America and protect its place as the leader of the free world. Emphasis on free.

But before the reader becomes acquainted with the latest recommendation – duly described in Amazon’s sidebar – recall this scholar’s previous contributions:

While many scholars, let alone average Americans, still wonder whether America is even at war, Prof Paul Eidelberg is hardly in denial, and he even posits that a Fourth World War is in the offing. Yes, a fourth! 

Without any doublespeak, the “take no prisoners” prof calls it like it is, forewarning of the coming American collapse. As a former officer in the USAF, surely his strategic assessment is more than painful. It is what it is.

At the end of this American death dance freedom of speech’s evisceration has been a main casualty, but it couldn’t have come about sans its collision course with moral relativism and historicism. The above links are just appetizers to his political acumen.

The Beginning and End of American Exceptionalism
About the author:
Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer, Paul Eidelberg is founder and president of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI) with offices in Jerusalem and Philadelphia.Prof. Eidelberg served in the United States Air Force where he held the rank of first lieutenant. He received his doctoral degree at the University of Chicago, where he studied under the world-renowned professor Leo Strauss. Before immigrating to Israel in 1976, Prof. Eidelberg wrote a trilogy on America’s founding fathers: “The Philosophy of the American Constitution,” “On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence,” and “A Discourse on Statesmanship.”

The Beginning and End of American Exceptionalism

 

A Theo-Political Analysis

Authored by Paul Eidelberg

The book marks the conclusion of some fifty years of research and writing on the foundational principles and structure of the American Republic by Professor Paul Eidelberg, a renowned political scientist.

Eidelberg addresses three interrelated objectives. One objective is to revive the foundational principles that made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth: the principles embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence and original Constitution. It is widely known that America is in a state of decline thanks largely to the multicultural relativism of its college-educated elite. This situation, however, is reversible. An uncorrupted and no longer silent majority of Americans has the will and spiritual values to restore American Exceptionalism.

The second objective is to revive the source of American Exceptionalism, namely, Hebraic Exceptionalism. Unknown to most Americans, both Protestant and Catholic Hebraists in Europe regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as the most just and wisest polity in history, hence superior to those extolled by Greek and Roman philosophers. This evaluation was shared by the presidents of various eighteenth-century American universities. It is extremely important for Jews to know this because Israel, their one and only homeland, is the only nation on earth threatened with extermination. The Jewish people need to know that what a matured (but yet to be matured) Israel stands for, and what was manifested in the structure of the ancient Hebraic Republic, remains and will ever remain the fondest hope of mankind.

The third objective is to articulate the political and meta-political convictions that bond America and Israel, convictions concerning man’s God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness-rights which necessitate limitations on the powers or functions of government. Public acknowledgement of these political and meta-political convictions will fortify the will of these two exceptional nations, not only to stand firm against their common foe-Islam’s renewed global ambitions and its “we love death” mantra-but also prompt the West to roll back Islam’s deadly threat to civilization.

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-End-American-Exceptionalism-ebook/dp/B00CWNE87E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371974119&sr=1-1&keywords=the+beginning+and+end+of+american+exceptionalism

Lest anyone believes that all academics are equal, and that cerebral smarts is a guarantee against stupidity – say what? – think again. NOTHING could be further from the truth…another gem from the good prof, as he takes a physicist – no less – to the (mental) wood shed. 

A Book Based on “Nothing”

Paul Eidelberg

Lawrence M. Krauss is a theoretical physicist. His book, A Universe from Nothing, makes nonsense of religion and theology, of which he knows “nothing”—excuse the pun.

In the Preface of his book, Krauss acknowledges his indebtedness to others. He mentions one person who “tragically passed away.” Toward another he expresses his “humbleness”, and of whom he will “remain in awe.”  Krauss seems to be oblivious that the words he uses to express his gratitude and feelings derive from the religious tradition which he scorns or deems irrelevant. His religion is scientism, the creed of crippled pedestrians or of what Ortega called “mass men.” Krauss therefore ignores Einstein’s famous remark, “science without religion is lame.”

The Afterword of Krauss’ book was written by Richard Dawkins, another (half-educated) atheist, who regards religion as pernicious, but seems unaware that 56 million human beings were murdered in just a few years by the leading atheists of the 20th century, Mao Zedong and Hitler.

In further proof that great learning and great stupidity go well together under the same hat, Dawkins, an English academic, seems oblivious that were it not for Christian America, he would be living under the Third Reich. Perhaps this may also be said of Lawrence Krauss, who obscures the difference between Zeus and the God of Israel and thus reveals himself as a neo-pagan. I say “neo-pagan” because those who believed in Zeus believed in a superior being, whereas Krauss, judging from his book, believes in “nothing.”

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372263820&sr=8-1&keywords=a+universe+from+nothing. This link is merely for reference purposes, this blog does NOT endorse its idiotic conclusions. Really. For if a theoretical physicist can twist his scientific mind into knots, in order to conform to his pre-conceived revulsion against religion, then how reliable are his scientific formulations/proofs to begin with, as he postulates NOTHING? Climate changers have been known to pervert said scientific principles as well, in the ignoble pursuit of leftism. Exactly. Ideology uber alles. Academic whores, pursuing “science” via taxpayer public funding. Phew.

Most significantly, this blog’s close association with Prof Paul Eidelberg is accurately noted within the following commentary and its embedded groundbreaking policy paper, ‘Islam and Blood’. It is mandatory reading. Self explanatory.