Thursday, February 28, 2013

The F-35 - Too Heavy, Too Slow, And A Trillion Dollars In The Hole


This is just...sorry.

As you might remember, back in 2009 after President Obama threatened a veto, the US Senate  voted 58-40 to remove funding and pull the plug on the F-22 Raptor, a perfectly good and serviceable stealth fighter and then the most advanced fighter jet in the world..

After the vote, President Obama lauded the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.” As compared to, say, ObamaCare, which the president felt was a more appropriate use of U.S. tax dollars. An oh yes, all those shovel ready projects.

Aside from breaking promises to U.S. Allies Japan and Israel (who had both contributed money for development and were promised deliveries of the F-22), it also cost  a mere 95,000 American jobs.

Ah, but now we have the new and improved Lockheed Martin F-35, right?

Well, after huge cost overruns, delays, and over a trillion dollars in development costs, the F-35 is ready. Except it's so slow and heavy that it's more vulnerable to enemy attack then the F-22 it the Pentagon actually had to lower its specifications and standards to make the F-35 acceptable:

At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rulebook so that the dumbed-down super jet will pass muster.

The Defense Department's annual weapons testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently-underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn't get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.

"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds," reads the report drafted under J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. (The F-35A is the standard model, so to speak, that the Air Force will use. The line also includes the F-35B, the Harrier-like vertical landing version built for the Marines, and the F-35C, a Navy version that's optimized for aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings.)

To put it bluntly, the Pentagon's new trillion-dollar fighter jet doesn't go a fast as it should, doesn't turn as sharp as it should and doesn't handle as nimbly as it should. This is bad news, explains Wired's David Axe. For the pilots who will eventually take the F-35 into combat, the JSF’s reduced performance means they might not be able to outfly and outfight the latest Russian- and Chinese-made fighters," writes Axe. "Even before the downgrades, some analysts questioned the F-35′s ability to defeat newer Sukhoi and Shenyang jets." That all sounds like bad news, doesn't it? If our expensive new jets can't beat the Russians or the Chinese, who can we fight? I'm pretty sure al Qaeda doesn't have an air force.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Watcher's Council Nominations - Sequestration Boogie Man Edition..Boo!

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

Council News:

Well guess what...we have another WoW birthday to celebrate!

Yesterday was the big day for our pal Greg over at Rhymes With Right, but I think we'll celebrate it properly today, with some killer 'cue, and of course, some well chilled Shiner Bock.

Whaddya say, old friend...can you stand another birthday do? I kinda think so....many, many more.

One of our illustrious Council alumni is also in the news..none other than our good friend David Gerstner, AKA Soccer Dad. David took a bit of a hiatus from blogging for awhile, although he continues to put out his superb Middle East Media samplers on an almost daily basis.

Ah, but the 'sphere has a lure all it's own. After getting his feet wet with a couple of great pieces published by Pajamas Media, David let me know he's back in the game, as a co-blogger/galley slave for Professor Bill Jacobsen over at the superb site Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion.

You can check out his latest piece on LI here. Congrats, David!

Also, Council Members Bookworm Room and The Mellow Jihadi were both nominated by Right Wing News in the 11th annual Blogger Awards...Council Akbar! Hit that link and vote early and often.

This week, Crazy Bald Guy, Ask Marion, Right Truth and The Pirate's Cove took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status with some great articles.

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

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then just return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

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

So, all that said,  let's take a look at what we have this week....

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

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

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

DHS Buys 'No Hesitation' Shooting Targets Depicting women, Children And The Elderly

Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. Markets Children, Pregnant Women Targets to Law Enforcement Community

The Department of Homeland Security has spent over $2 million dollars buying some very interesting targets for their agents to practice their shooting skills on. They come from a company called Law Enforcement Targets inc and were apparently made to DHS order to deliberately desensitize their agents when it comes to firing in situations that they might otherwise hesitate on, thus the name 'no hesitation'. In the company's words, thee targets are “meant to help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the first time.”

The company has since dropped the images of the targets DHS purchased with your tax dollars from their website, but they're pictured above in a screenshot.

Let's see, we have here a pregnant woman in a nursery, a kid, a young woman, and a mother in a playground next to her kid, and grandma and there are also two pictures of aged males not shown here...all of them white, by the way, and somehow I doubt that was a coincidence.

Here’s the company's full list of target descriptions – spelling uncorrected from the original:

NMH-1 Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile pregnant woman in a nursery.

NMH-2 Non-traditional threat target of an older man holding a shotgun.

NMH-3 Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile older man in his home holding a shotgun.

NMH-4 Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile older woman in her home.

NMH-5 Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile young mother surrouonded by children on a playground.

NMH-6 Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile school aged girl on street.

NMH-7 Non-traditional threat dipicting a very young boy holding a real gun.

Now, in speaking to most law enforcement officers of my acquaintance, while experience has taught to expect the unexpected and to be prepared for it, common sense has also taught them not to just splatter Granny, Grandpa or Mom all over the room unless there's no alternative...especially if there's a child whom might possibly be in the line of fire.

That is apparently what they're trying to train out of them with these 'no hesitation' targets.

And again, notice the average American look to these targets.That's apparently what's now considered a threat.

At least that's what DHS and apparently a number of law enforcement agencies believe, since that's how they're training their agents.

Maybe this is the new 'war on terror' ...and perhaps a good excuse for gun confiscation. Somehow, I wouldn't be at all surprised.Dictators love a disarmed populace.

Hagel Confirmed as GOP Votes To End Cloture

Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Louis Farrakhan are going to get their wish. Former Senator Chuck Hagel,President Obama's pick for Secretary of Defense is a done deal.

The Senate voted 71-27 to end debate on his confirmation and go to a vote, and a simple majority, 58-41 put him over.

Eighteen Republicans voted to end cloture, knowing it would mean Hagel's nomination:

Kelly Ayotte, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, Orrin Hatch, Mike Johanns, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby and John Thune.

The four Republicans voting yes were Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran, Mike Johanns and Rand Paul, who voted against cloture but ended up voting for Hagel.

It's worth noting that almost all of them are from states with substantial military facilities and defense contracts. That was obviously a large part of the lever the White House used to force this incredibly flawed nominee over the finish line.

As you'll remember, I said from day one that Hagel would be confirmed, but I had some hope - van, as it turned out - that enough Democrats might just put country ahead of party for once, especially as more and more of Hagel's warped views and questionable associations surfaced. Nope.

The entire charade has been, literally, repulsive, with Republicans like John McCain. Lindsay Graham and Susan Collins essentially saying Hagel was unqualified, but voted to to end debate anyway and then casting a meaningless symbolic vote against him afterwards.

I'd like to especially thank Jewish Democrat Senators like Barbara Boxer, Richard Blumenthal, Al Franken, and Frank Lautenberg, from whom I expected nothing more, with a special salute, if it can be called that, to Chuck Schumer, who paved the way for Hagel's acceptance.

This travesty has only one slight possible bright spot -  that Hagel may have  been so damaged by the revelations that came out at this hearing that his usefulness to President Obama as a 'Republican' figleaf for the continued hollowing out of our military has been at least somewhat reduced. The cuts will still take place, but it might be a bit of a stretch to blsmr them on Republicans after this.


More Chuck Hagel: He Accuses India of Terrorist Attacks On Pakistan!

This is just too precious.

Apparently, Hagel doesn't just  have a problem with Israel, Jews and Armenians...he hates India too!

From the Free Beacon via  Simply Jews:

I think I like the presidential candidate for the post of US secretary of defense more and more. A man who is able to use metaphor so fluently... but judge for yourself:
The Embassy of India chided secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel late Monday for suggesting in a previously unreleased 2011 speech that India has “for many years” sponsored terrorist activities against Pakistan in Afghanistan.

“India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan” in Afghanistan, Hagel said during a 2011 address on Afghanistan at Oklahoma’s Cameron University, according to video of the speech obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

India experts also criticized Hagel’s remarks earlier Monday as “paranoid” and “over-the-top.”

“It’s both over-the-top and a sharp departure from a U.S. position that has seen democratic India as a stabilizing influence in Afghanistan and Asia more broadly,” Sadanand Dhume, former India bureau chief at the Far Eastern Economic Review and current resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Free Beacon.

“It’s also exactly the sort of statement that would have frayed ties with New Delhi, which has been watching the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan with concern,” Dhume said, referring to the administration’s plan to remove most military forces from the war-torn country in the coming months.

Apparently this ignoramus the president wants as SecDef never heard about Mumbai, New Delhi, or any of the dozens of terrorist attacks Pakistan-back ed terrorists like Lashkar e taiba have launched directly at India.

Forget what our clueless President wants - is the U.S. Senate prepared to confirm a pro-Islamist moron as Secretary of defense who has already taken a stand against two of the only major allies we have with a significant military?

Simply Jews illustrates that with an amusing and very much to th epoint story about th eMiddle East, b ut you'll have to click on the link to read it.

Monday, February 25, 2013

The White House Makes It Official: $500K For Direct Access To President Obama

President Obama's political campaign slash community organizer group Organizing For Action (formerly known as Organizing For America) is selling direct access to the president for a modest fee - a mere $500,000:

In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored. …

But those contributions will also translate into access, according to donors courted by the president’s aides. Next month, Organizing for Action will hold a “founders summit” at a hotel near the White House, where donors paying $50,000 each will mingle with Mr. Obama’s former campaign manager, Jim Messina, and Mr. Carson, who previously led the White House Office of Public Engagement.

Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.

“It just smells,” said Bob Edgar, the president of Common Cause, which advocates tighter regulation of campaign money. “The president is setting a very bad model setting up this organization.”

It does smell, but no worse than a lot of the other behavior this president has engaged in that he learned in the sewer he emerged from known as Chicago politics.

Here's a funny video of White House spokeshole Jay Carney literally fleeing the podium when asked about this:

Now before, this sort of thing might have been assumed at times, but it took the likes of President Barack Obama to have enough contempt for America to make it explicit. And remember, after all..people don't fork over that money and expect nothing in return but a few minutes pleasantly chatting with the president.

Don't buy the horse manure that this money 'won't be used politically'. Of course it will. It'll be used to fight things like voter ID laws to leave the ground fertile for voter fraud, for voter registration that will somehow all turn out to be Democrats, for pushing for redistricting to benefit Democrats, to gin up social unrest, for community organizing and union activity that results in more manpower and in kind contributions to Democrats and for lobbying Congress to pass President Obama's agenda.

It's the Chicago way...

Israel Could Avoid Mistakes With Security Prisoners That Help Its Enemies

As a country that has been uniquely targeted by terrorism, Israel (which has no capital punishment) has ended up with a fair amount of what are termed 'security prisoners' on its hands. Almost all of them have been tried and convicted in Israeli criminal courts and all been represented by counsel and given rights they could expect nowhere else in the Middle East.

Many of them have been convicted of terrorist assaults on civilians that turn the stomach with their brutality and callousness. Yet the Palestinian Authority continues to insist that these 'holy martyrs' ( PA leader Mahmoud Abbas' term for them) be freed as part of any peace settlement, and the PA ups the ante by demonstrating its support for terrorism by continuing to pay salaries to these men and their families.

The latest one to hit the news is one Arafat Jaradat. He was a 30-year-old member of the Al-Aksa Brigade awaiting trial after being arrested for throwing stones at Israeli civilians and security personnel during a riot.He had apparently sustained an injury from being hit by rubber bullets and had received treatment by Israeli medics.

Arafat Jaradat passed away while being held in Meggido Prison. The Israelis say his death was due to heart failure, and invited the Palestinians to examine the body themselves. Needless to say, the Palestinians used this opportunity to claim that Jaradat had been 'tortured to death', make a martyr out of him and give him a full heroes' funeral to gin up further violence directed against Israel.

Of course, the UN, which has done nothing about actual rape, torture and even extrajudicial killings in places like Egypt,the Sudan, Iran and yes, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority was on this like flies on dog droppings, calling for 'an independent inquiry' into the death at the Palestinian's instigation. This, of course lends a miasma of authenticity to stories from the usual suspects claiming that Jaradat 'died under Israeli torture.'

One could mention a number of logical reasons why this is sheer Arab fantasy. Jaradat was, in terms of the sort of people usually jailed by Israel a small fish, so there was no need to interrogate him at all, let alone allow the Palestinians to examine the body if the Israelis had tortured him.

The Israelis did it, yet again, out of a totally misplaced inclination of fair play and transparency that never fails to get them into trouble with these particular actors.

There's a much better way to deal with these situations.

When Israel was faced with trying to get back the remains of two IDF soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev who had been abducted by Hezbollah, the UN, which supposedly was conducting a peacekeeping operation did nothing and said nothing. The bodies weren't returned to Israel, they were swapped for the freedom of terrorist killers, including Samir Kuntar, who murdered Israeli civilian Danny Haran in front of his four-year-old daughter Einat so that was the last thing she ever saw and then smashed her skull in with his rifle butt. Kuntar, by the way, was feted by the Palestinian Authority upon his release, and has been made an Honorary Palestinian Citizen.

After Kuntar was released and the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers were opened, both of them showed obvious signs of torture and had been mutilated.

There is something here for the Israelis to learn.

First, the Israelis need to understand that no matter what, the Arabs are going to be willing to lie, fabricate, dissemble and perpetuate fraud in order to score victories with the already committed enemies of the Jewish State and their gullible dupes. Remember the Jenin 'massacre'? Gaza Beach Blanket Bingo? Mohammed al-Doura? I could cite literally dozens of others.

The Israelis should have known what was going to happen the minute they allowed the Palestinians to examine Jaradat's body and how the PA was going to make use of it the Israelis released it to them.

It would have been far, far better if they had simply done their own in depth, videotaped autopsy, filed it away somewhere and then treated the body to a nice quiet and anonymous burial.

They would thus have denied the PA a 'martyr'. And if the UN decided to intervene, the Israelis could simply allow them examine and view (but not remove) the records of the autopsy.

If the PA wanted the remains back that badly, the Israelis should bargain hard and make them give up major concessions for it.

The PA and Hamas shouldn't be given the tools to make propaganda. And as for the convicted murderers already in Israeli prisons, the monthly salaries the PA sends them and the tax monies Israel collects on the PA's behalf ought to be expropriated by Israel to pay for these prisoner's room and board.

Getting hit in the wallet might actually provide an incentive for the PA to end its support of terrorism against Israelis.

Soccer Dad's MidEast Media Sampler, 2/25/13

Today's sampler and analysis of Mideast media content from my pal Soccer Dad:

Intifada: then and now

In response to a recent news program in Israel, Col. Jonathan D. Halevi wrote The Palestinian Authority’s Responsibility for the Outbreak of the Second Intifada: Its Own Damning Testimony for the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs. Even now, as Halevi writes:
More than ten years after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, there are still journalists, former security officials, and pundits who raise questions about the role of the Palestinian Authority in the devastating violence during which suicide bombing attacks struck Israel’s major cities, leaving more than a thousand dead and many more permanently maimed. 
What he has compiled shows:
This body of material, presented here in an unvarnished way, reveals that Yasser Arafat and important segments of the Palestinian leadership at that time were directly responsible for what happened and no amount of revisionist history can exonerate Arafat for standing behind one of the bloodiest periods in Israel’s modern history.
Halevi of course presented statements of intent. Halevi covers them beginning with the earliest by Imad Falluji and continuing until Suha Arafat's latest revelations. I'd like to point out two events that often escape scrutiny.

The first was a report in Ha'aretz that was captured by IMRA at the time.
Over the past several weeks, the Palestinian Authority has granted extended vacation leaves to dozens of jailed Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, among them militants who were involved in serious terror attacks against Israel.Ha'aretz: PA granted dozens of jailed Islamic Jihad, Hamas terrorists "extended vacation" 
This was reported September 18, 2000, ten days before Ariel Sharon walked on the Temple Mount.

Also the first reported casualty of the so called "Aqsa intifada" was David Biri, an 19 year old soldier.
Sgt. David Biri died of wounds sustained in a bombing near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip. Two pipe bombs were detonated electronically by Palestinian terrorists hiding on the side of the road as several civilian cars, escorted by an army jeep, drove by.
Sgt. Biri was killed September 27, a day before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. The manner of his killing showed planning. Clearly there was already a heightened level of organized violence against Israel prior to the official beginning of the so called intifada.
It's important to remember that the second intifada was not a spontaneous uprising against the occupation but a coordinated campaign of violence against Israel. Now there are suggestions that a new intifada has started.
“I hold Israel fully responsible for killing Arafat Jaradat,” added Mr. Qaraka, who earlier on Sunday called for an international investigation into the death. “The Israeli story was forged and full of lies.”
The 4,500 Palestinians in Israeli jails refused meals on Sunday to protest Mr. Jaradat’s death, and hundreds of Palestinians demonstrated in several cities and villages in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
After days of such demonstrations, which have included violent clashes between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers and settlers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s special envoy, Isaac Molho, sent a message to the Palestinian leadership on Sunday that Israeli officials described as an “unequivocal demand to restore quiet.” Israel also transferred to the Palestinian Authority $100 million in tax revenue it had been withholding.
Later on the New York Times in full sympathy mode reports:
Few issues resonate more deeply in Palestinian society than the plight of prisoners: about 800,000 have been detained in Israeli jails since 1967, according to Palestinian leaders; Mr. Jaradat was the 203rd to die in that time. 
Forget for a moment that 203 out of 800,000 is a very small proportion. (Elder of Ziyon noted that young Palestinians die in Israeli jails at less frequently that young American die anywhere.) Of course Palestinians weren't simply arrested en masse to fulfill some sadistic need of Israeli officials. They were arrested for violations of the law, often violent terrorist incidents. In fact as the article observed that quite a few in Israeli jails committed their crimes after Oslo; after the Palestinians promised to forswear terror. (Many of these violent terrorists - who would never have been released if they'd been arrested by any other country - were released in the Gilad Shalit deal in late 2011.) But no New York Times reporter would write, "The prisoner issue has deep resonance with Israeli society as many of those incarcerated committed acts of violent and sometimes deadly terror since the signing of the Oslo Accords." The only statements evoking sympathy are in support of the Palestinian narrative.

Finally we get this:
Several leaders and commentators warned Sunday that the death, coming amid a severe financial crisis in the West Bank, could lead to extended protests, with most predicting a largely nonviolent movement of civil disobedience like the one Palestinians undertook from 1987 to 1993 rather than the campaign of suicide bombings that began in 2000. 
The first intifada was not nonviolent. It was less lethal than the later one. Throwing rocks and firebombs are not nonviolent.
But now there are those who are trying to explain away the current unrest as another spontaneous "non-violent" intifada and justifying it.
Elder of ZiyonIsraelly Cool and Israel Matzav show different forms that this campaign is taking.
Back in December, Khaled Abu Toameh wrote about the rumors he was hearing from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas:
Both Abbas and Hamas see the two events -- the war in the Gaza Strip and the UN vote — as "historic achievements" and military and political victories over Israel.
Emboldened by the "victories," Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently reached a secret agreement on the need to launch a "popular intifada" against Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources in Ramallah revealed.
The two men believe that such an intifada at this stage would further isolate Israel and earn the Palestinians even more sympathy in the international arena, the sources said.
Reporters aren't likely to look past the violence and explain it away, but past experience shows that the violence is likely orchestrated. The events of recent months seem to confirm Abu Toameh's reporting.
The Tower (an online news site produces by The Israel Project) observes:
Throughout 2012 senior Palestinian leaders – Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad – called for Palestinians to launch a third Intifada and resume violent attacks against Israel. And as predicted, recent weeks have seen an uptick in orchestrated demonstrations and public violence among Palestinians targeting Israelis, including lynching attempts that reminded Israelis and observers of the lynchings that marked the beginning of the Second Intifada.

As early as January of this year, military and security sources in Israel were reported to have identified an emerging wave of violence driven in part by Fatah’s failed diplomatic gambits, including those strenuously opposed by President Obama who repeatedly warned of the counterproductive danger of the PA’s unproductive diplomatic maneuvering, and by a deliberate attempt by Fatah leaders to exploit and provoke the frustration they themselves created...
Lynching isn't usually described as non-violent.
Jonathan Tobin believes that the surge of violence is intended to make an impression on President Obama:
It’s difficult to say yet what exactly will be on President Obama’s mind when he heads to Israel next month, but an all-out push for another futile try to make peace with the Palestinians may not be on the agenda. It’s likely the president will continue his advocacy for a two-state solution, but after more than four years of failure even this administration appears to have gotten the message that any more effort expended on the peace process will be sunk, as it has every other time, by Palestinian intransigence. But the Palestinian Authority, which has ignored every attempt by the Obama White House to tip the diplomatic playing field in their favor, may be planning its own little surprise for the president.
One theme that has emerged from the reporting is that Hamas and Fatah are in agreement about the escalation of violence. In other words, Abbas, who has failed to come to a power sharing agreement with Hamas, has nonetheless found common ground with Hamas in fighting Israel. What does that say about Israel's "peace partner?"

Farrakhan Endorses Chuck Hagel

The account of the Nation Of Islam's Louis Farrakhan's speech on Saviour's Day has a lot of juicy stuff in it, especially about making a concerted push to recruit and black gangbangers as 'natural soldiers ' for the Nation.

The Hagel endorsement come in the final paragraph:

Farrakhan said the country needs a Defense secretary like Hagel, who will follow his own conscience.

It's also interesting that Farrakhan, an open anti-semite, was allowed to use the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion, a stadium at a publicly funded university for his speech.

Forum: Do you feel that anti-sharia laws are constitutional?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day. This week's question: The Kansas State Legislature recently passed an anti-foreign law bill that many feel was aimed squarely at sharia. Do you feel that anti-sharia laws are constitutional? Why or why not?

The Noisy Room: Sharia is the political arm of Islam. It cannot be separated from Islam. It is religious law. It is therefore directly antithetical to the First Amendment in that it seeks not to make law concerning the establishment of religion, but to achieve that end by making religion established law.

I do believe anti-sharia laws are Constitutional if worded and applied correctly. These are, in my opinion, not anti-religious laws, but laws to prevent Islam from infringing on the First Amendment rights of Americans. Notice that the bill did not mention 'sharia' directly, so it would not be declared discriminatory. These laws are necessary to prevent the spread of sharia law. Freedom of religion and the way we live in America should be free, not dictated by one aggressive religion that seeks to dominate all others.

This law is modeled after the American Laws for American Courts Act, which is designed to protect American citizens' constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially, sharia.

Sharia law is directly at odds with our Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, as well as freedom of religion, speech and assembly. These foreign laws typically enter our court system through the principle of comity (mutual respect of each country's legal system). Most courts at the state and federal levels grant comity unless the American Laws for American Courts Act has been passed into law in the state. The followers of Islam are using our own court system against Americans to subjugate and dominate us. If you will, a soft coup meant to overthrow from within.

As my associate Robert Spencer has pointed out, " Sharia is also political and supremacist, mandating a society in which non-Muslims do not enjoy equality of rights with Muslims." This is why anti-sharia laws are so important. They are meant to prevent this authoritarian, unconstitutional and oppressive political and social system from destroying the freedoms that Americans enjoy.

Thomas Jefferson was right... it doesn't matter whether my neighbor believes in one god or seventeen; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. But when a neighbor or associate believes that his God commands him to pick my pocket or break my leg, his beliefs become a matter of grave concern for me and any who do not share those beliefs. To support sharia law is to support subjugation.

The Independent Sentinel:  Anti-Sharia'h laws are Constitutional because Shariah is a separate system of justice which cannot work within our Constitution and justice system. They are seditious.

JoshuaPundit: I think Kansas is very much on the right track. You can't simply single out sharia, much as it deserves it because of its inhuman, discriminatory and anti-Bill of Rights diktats. You need to broadly legislate against all foreign law being taken into consideration when ruling from the bench, which is what the Kansas statute did. Do that, and the laws are indeed constitutional.

Otherwise we are headed for the situation that exists in Britain, where sharia law is  the equal of English common law, with numerous sharia courts set up at taxpayer's expense and mandatory for Muslims in civil matters.The result has been a major loss of legal rights as a free society would determine them for Muslim women.

In U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has general ruled in favor of religious freedom except when its practices directly contradict established U.S. law. Thus some rites practiced in Voodoo and Santeria that amount to felony animal torture here in America are outlawed, even though they are inherently a part of those religions. Likewise,the common sharia mandated Muslim practices of stoning or whipping adulteresses,  killing Muslim apostates and homosexuals, the murders of women known as honor killings (which are occurring with increasing regularity here in America), wife beating and other practices mandated by sharia directly contradict established U.S law.  The same is true of least thus far!

Sharia and other foreign law has no place in American courts. And while sharia especially has no place in any civilized free society, it must be lumped in with other foreign codes to be eliminated. Hopefully Kansas has shown the way.

 Bookworm Room: This is a very interesting question because it can go either way when it comes to constitutionality. That's not because our Constitution is so flexible. It's because Sharia is both a civil and a religious institution. To the extent it's a civil system, with rules that extend far beyond core religious doctrine, American states ought to be able to legislate with impunity. However, because Sharia law is inextricably intertwined with the religion -- since everything emanated directly from the Prophet who, in turn, spoke with God -- that poisonous mixture of civil and religious law constrains legislatures.

I suspect that the best way to deal with Sharia law is to attack it one rule at a time. I would go after burqas first. Mohamed made his wives wear burqas so that his enemies couldn't accuse them of wrongdoing that would then shame the prophet. Sharia law therefore imposes the burqa, not because Mohamed mandated it as a core religious doctrine but, instead, to emulate his conduct. Because the burqa serves a social, not a religious purpose, the full-face covering burqa can be banned. There'll be an uproar, of course, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution can be used as a bludgeon against those states that hold that, for public safety reasons, no one can be on the streets wearing any garment that obscures their face from hairline to hairline and chin to chin. Incidentally, robbers, hoodie wearers, and costume party attendees will also protest such a law.

For the most part, though, provided that Sharia law does not violate state or federal laws and provided that women are not being coerced into living under Sharia law, there isn't much we can do legislatively. What we really should do is abandon the morally stifling cultural relativism that hides behind politically correct multiculturalism. These Marxist proscriptions on free speech prevent us from speaking out freely against Sharia's more vile practices. This is America and we should be able to use our public squares (and public schools) to speak out against behaviors that are antithetical to American culture and values.

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Sunday, February 24, 2013

The Purim Story As A Spaghetti Western...

Very cute, and an important message for today's times.

Chag Purim Sameach!

(H/T, Daled Amos)

Hagel: Enforce 'Palestine' On The Pre '67 Lines By Sending U.S. Troops Into A $160B Death Trap

The real reason President Obama wants Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense so bad is not just because he's a Republican who can be a convenient figleaf for the president's planned hollowing out of our military.

It's because he profoundly agrees with President Obama's views on Israel and with top level Obama advisers like the president's NSC assistant Samantha Power. The way to 'solve' what they see as the Israel problem is to invade with U.S. troops, forcibly evict any Jews living outside the pre '67 lines including Jerusalem and leave American 'peacekeepers' in place to enforce it.

That is exactly what Chuck Hagel, long time Israel hater and former Carter NSC adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcraft, Arab lobbyist Carla Hills and a slew of the usual suspects proposed to President Obama in a 2009 report entitled "“A Last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement”.

The report calls for an imposed settlement and of course, links the Israel problem with al-Qaeda, even though the Arabs waged genocidal jihad on Israel before al-Qaeda was even in existence.Here are a few lovely ideas contained in this document. First it mentions that America's pro-Israel community might be a tad upset, but that an American president ought to be able to perform the massive con job needed to convince most Americans why this is so vital, and why vast amounts of taxpayer dollars need to be spent:

"A new U.S. effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement may anger certain domestic constituencies. We do not, however, believe it is beyond the capability of any American President to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work."

Yes, this calls for yet another episode of nation building at the American taxpayer's expense.

The report calls for a non-militarized Palestinians state, enforced by an estimated 60,000 U.S. troops under UN mandate, plus, believe it or not, Egyptians and Jordanians ( who will of course be paid for by the American taxpayer as well. The document envisions this as being in place for - wait for it - 15 years. It also calls for U.S. recognition and support of Hamas ( "shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.")

As if Hamas hadn't already made its views totally clear as well as its behavior! Hagel and company want to Israelis to lay down and accept a terrorist group with clearly genocidal intentions as a 'peace partner', backed up financial aid to Hamas and by U.S. force of arms. And that demilitarized Palestinian state? The Arabs were quick to disavow that almost as soon as Israeli PM Netanyahu proposed it.

The report goes on to link the creation of Israel with 'considerable and ongoing Palestinian suffering' as though Arab violence and support for a jihad against Israel with the murder of every Jew in Palestine had nothing to do with that. Needless to say, there's no mention of the enforced ethnic cleansing of almost a million Jews for the Arab world and their suffering. it also links U.S. problems with Iran to the 'Israel problem', as though all the Ayatollahs need to become peaceful and give up their nuclear program is Israeli capitulation and the creation of 'Palestine'. There's also a slam at "militant settlers and their political supporters", with no mention of Israeli attempts to swap land for peace in Gaza or via Oslo.

But wait..there's more. The report urges that Israel be muscled into ceding the strategic Golan Height back to exchange for a Syrian promise "to participate in no anti-Israeli alliances of any kind" and to make an attempt to "use its influence" to get the likes of Hezbollah to agree to peace with Israel.The Syrians might agree - why not? But you can guarantee that once they have the land back, the promises will be quickly forgotten.

I'm sure President Obama absolutely drooled as he read this. That's likely one reason why Chuck Hagel was made co-chairman of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board.

There was an interesting NATO analysis and feasibility study of this proposal made by Florence Gaub, an analyst NATO Defense College. She mentions the following points:

"..there are over 19 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants. In total, 4.2 million inhabitants in the area live in cities of this kind, with more than half a million living in refugee camps. This itself implies two things: first, arms caches are difficult to locate without local knowledge, and arms smuggle is facilitated greatly. Disarmament measures would be even more difficult to enforce than they already are under friendlier circumstances."

In other words, like UNSC 1701, disarmament would simply not occur..especially if aome of the peacekeeping force were Arab or Turks.

"Independently from the local security forces, the NATO force in Palestine (hence the minimalist version) would, if it follows the example of the successful cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, need forces ranging from 43,700 to 76,000 men, including the police forces. Of these, between 16,100 and 28,000 would patrol Gaza, and between 27,600 and 48,000 the West Bank. Page 10

Current theatres of operations would have to be reduced in size before a suitable size NATO mission in Palestine would be available without introducing longer deployments – something many Allies would like to avoid."

"Stabilisation missions are largely infantry missions. This is topped in our case by the fact that in worst case scenario, the tasks would entail urban warfare and counterinsurgency, which are also infantry heavy tasks."

In other words, (a) most of our NATO allies would be even less anxious to assume the cost of maintaining combat troops in the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria as they were in Afghanistan,especially for the 15 years anticipated, so most of them would be Americans or paid for by the U.S. (b) since disarmament is unlikely, these troops (as well as Israeli civilians) would be sitting ducks for terrorism attacks by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah's al-Aksa brigade and others.

Needless to say, since the American taxpayers are likely to tire fairly quickly of seeing American troops come home in body bags while defending 'Palestine' th emission would quickly collapse...except the Arabs would have the land, Israel would be left with a lot of dead civilians and indefensible borders and the security guarantees given them would be absolutely worthless...just as they were in Gaza and Lebanon.And the cost, essentially money borrowed from China to enforce 'Palestine' would be staggering.Remember, it currently costs around $100,000 per year to deploya an American soldier.

"Aside from the costs for the mission itself, additional costs can be expected, due to the training of the Palestinian police, building infrastructure and providing equipment. Some estimates calculate between $9.61 billion and $16.72 billion per year, not calculating reconstruction efforts, which in the case of the recommended 5 years would result in a total number between $48.05 billion and $83.6 billion."

"NATO’s mission in Palestine would have slim chances of success, and a high probability of failure. One should not be blinded by perceptions of a historical opportunity and embark on an endeavor that could cost NATO credibility, prestige, money and lives simply because it seems to be a politically symbolic chance in a lifetime to establish NATO as a global security provider.

"The territory involved presents aspects that would cause any campaign planner nightmares – densely populated, urban areas with highly intermingled conflicting populations, a volatile political ambiance where the tides can turn any second, and a very experienced opponent if it ever comes to counterinsurgency. Thus, this mission would need thorough preparation, careful planning, sufficient staffing and funding, a significant amount of political will, and would leave a very narrow margin for success. At the current stage, and with its other operations ongoing, it seems irresponsible to hasten NATO into a mission that has all the ingredients to turn into a quagmire that equals the Alliance’s involvement in Afghanistan."

There's another little detail that needs to be explored. Suppose Israel decides not to cooperate in her own national suicide? What if they don't accede to dividing Jerusalem again ans creating 500,000 Jewish refugees?

Ah, that's the fun part. Israel isn't Serbia. They're a nuclear power with a well trained and well armed military. So either implementing this diktat either involves NATO,led by America, attacking Israel, perhaps in coordination with Arab armies (an unlikely scenario, but not impossible with this president) or a total severing of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

This is why President Barack Obama wants Chuck Hagel in so badly.

Any Senator whom votes to confirm Chuck Hagel when this comes to a vote needs to realize that this is exactly what they're voting for. Deploying 60,000 U.S. troops into a death trap, spending $160,000 billion we don;t have on 'Palestine' and severing the American-Israeli alliance.

As Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe said earlier this week, anyone voting to confirm the likes of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary is going to be held accountable. They can't say later they weren't aware, that they didn't know.

Rolling Stones To Israel haters:'Up Yours'

Charlie Watts, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood and Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones presenting Israel's official symbol.

In spite of a concerted campaign by 'anti-Zionists', the Rolling Stones have announced they have no intention of cancelling their planned concert in Jerusalem on Israel’s Independence Day, Monday, April 15.

“We’ve been slammed and smacked and twittered a lot by the anti-Israeli side,” said Mick Jagger, the band’s leader and most recognizable member since 1963. “All I can say is: anything worth doing is worth overdoing. So we decided to add a concert on Tuesday.”

Needless to say, tickets to both concerts, Monday night in Teddy Stadium in Jerusalem and Tuesday night in Bloomfield Stadium, Tel Aviv, have been sold out even as Jagger was speaking.

“This is a huge mistake for the Stones,” declared BDS proponent Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb. “They stand to lose a lot of money as a result of showing solidarity with Zionism, because their most devoted fans also support boycotting Israel.”

“I don’t really count myself as a very sophisticated businessperson,” Jagger responded when asked if the Israel concerts are a bad move business wise. “I’m a creative artist. All I know from business I’ve picked up along the way.”

Mick Jagger, as usual, is putting on whomever was interviewing him here. He came from a well educated middle class background and did quite well in school, enough to get a scholarship grant to attend the London School of Economics at a time when a very small percentage of Brits attended university.

It's also worth mentioning that a number of the Stone's musical contemporaries (Roger Waters, Brian Eno, Carlos Santana, Elvis Costello, Jon Bon Jovi, and Stevie Wonder, among others*) have cancelled concerts in Israel out of fear of counter boycotts or ideology.Some of them have been borderline anti-semitic, like Waters and Annie Lennox.

Unless you're suffering from Israel Derangement Syndrome, it takes courage to face up to these people and tell them exactly where they can stick their Jew hatred. And having enough of a rep even after all these years doesn't hurt.

Thankfully, the Stones have both. And they still rock!

*As a footnote, I no longer listen to, let alone buy music by any of the above artists...

UPDATE: Ah, this is too funny! The entire episode appears to have been a masterful Purim joke by the Jewish Press, which sucked in a huge section of the Israeli press as well as other news media! I bet even Mick and Keef are laughing at this one.

It was good because it was so believable...Mick sounded exactly like Mick Jagger would sound, and the crazed Lefty BDS Rabbi ( who is an actual real life BDS lunatic) also had an authentic tone.

It also may have the added cachet of making itself come true..rumor has it that the Stones are considering adding Israel to their tour.

Friday, February 22, 2013

The Latest LATMA - Cutting Edge Israeli Satire!

Special Purim edition with 'Clash of the Jew Hating Titans' and 'Bibi searches for the perfect costume'.

Kansas Passes Anti-Sharia Legislation

The Kansas State Legislature has approved a bill preventing the state courts or government agencies from basing rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

While the law is broadly written, it is obviously aimed at sharia, Islamic law.

Needless to say Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR is seething.

"It is an effort to demonize Islam," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based council. "As Muslims are seen participating in a positive way in society, that really irritates some people."

Of course, someone could quite legitimately ask whether sharia law has any place in American jurisprudence, since it expressly denies equal rights to women, homosexuals and non-Muslims, legitimizes domestic violence and goes against the entire letter and spirit of our Constitution, and presumably that of Kansas.

In fact, there was a case in Sedgewick County that very much weighed on Kansas legislator's minds, where Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor, filed for a sharia-style divorce in November 2010 from his wife, Hala.

According to their Lebanese Islamic marriage contract, all she was entitled to was a $5,000 payment, and Hamdeh's attorney told the courts that Islamic law limits spousal maintenance payments to her to three months. Her attorney told the court that following Islamic law would leave her "destitute."

The Kansas legislature was a little sharper than their neighbors in Oklahoma, who passed similar legislation in 2010 but had it blocked by a Democrat appointed judge and the appeals court because it specifically mentioned sharia, which could be considered discriminatory. The Kansas bill doesn't, and it's going to be a lot harder to attack, although I'd be surprised if CAIR, aided by the Obama Justice Department didn't try.

There are a number of other states considering this type of legislation, and Kansas will hopefully prove a model.There's some things that ought to be 'demionized' or at least beyond the pale in a free society.

If people like Mr. Hooper prefer living under sharia, the last time I checked you could still buy airplane tickets to countries that base their laws on it. And there's nothing stopping them following their principles, voting with their feet and leaving.

The New Muslim Way Of Dealing With Non-Muslim Business Competition - Murder?


There's a long history of Muslims brutally murdering non-Muslim clergy or anyone preaching or carrying something like a Bible. But here are a couple of incidents showing how this appears to be broadening to include any non-Muslims who are too successful in business in Muslim majority countries as well.

In the Muslim majority East African country of Tanzania, a popular Christian pastor was beheaded as a message to Christians by Muslims who demand that Christians accede to total Islamization of the meat industry:

The 11 February 2013 beheading in Geita, of Pastor Mathayo Kachili of the Tanzania Assemblies of God Church (TAG) has its source in a debate presently raging in Tanzania.

Apparently it is a "long-standing tradition" in Tanzania that Muslims have a monopoly on the meat industry.

Recently however, Christians in Geita district, Mwanza region -- on the southern shores of Lake Victoria -- have entered the butchery trade, causing outrage amongst Muslims.

Tensions escalated over several months until, in early February, the Minister of State in the President's Office responsible for social relations, planning coordination, Mr Stephen Wassira, travelled to Mwanza to meet with Christian and Muslim leaders in an effort to defuse tensions.

According to The Citizen (7 Feb), Mr Stephen Wassira categorically directed that the task of slaughtering animals for public consumption should be executed only by Muslims. He said that people of other faiths may slaughter animals if the meat is solely for family/private consumption – but certainly not for sale to, or consumption by, the general public.

Mr Wassira declared that, should non-Muslims want to go into the meat business, then the slaughtering must be done according to Islamic tenets and rituals. "In effect," writes Karl Lyimo of the Citizen, "the minister has barred non-Muslims from the meat business – unless and until they are ready, willing, able and glad to follow the Islamic rituals to the letter."

Lyimo continues: "Reportedly, religious leaders of the Christian faith were barred by the regional government from making a public statement on the matter for fear of agitating their followers against the 'Wassira Proclamation'. In the event, priests have called upon their followers to 'retaliate' by boycotting 'Muslim-oriented' butcheries – and are planning to seek judicial intervention via the courts system."

Halal slaughtering involves killing the animal while reciting a prayer to Allah. There's no way a non-Muslim could do this without converting. Even worse, if a non-Muslim recited this prayer and then continued to follow a different religion other than Islam, he would be an apostate and could be murdered for that too.

There are numerous reports of Christians who were 'doing too well' in business facing violence and intimidation in places like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, the Sudan, Indonesia, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

In Pakistan, Muslims axed to death a Christian rival in the potato business when he refused to convert.

As the world recession continues (particularly in Islamic and Muslim majority countries without oil wealth)we will undoubtedly see more of this, especially since the Jews are no longer available.

It's well worth remembering that historically, Islam's economy stagnated once they were stopped from plundering fresh lands. In fact, until oil was discovered, refined and exported by westerners, Muslim countries were largely economic backwaters.

Soccer Dad: "How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Sequester"

My pal David Gerstman, AKA Soccer Dad has a new gig blogging at the esteemed site Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion, and his opening salvo there is out today. Here's a slice:

A recent Washington Post editorial, The blame game over sequestration concludes:
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama seems content to warn of dire cutbacks in everything from naval operations to firefighters and to accuse the GOP of risking them to protect the wealthy. The Republicans denounce the sequester as Mr. Obama’s brainchild (though they accepted it as part of a 2011 budget deal) and say they won’t vote for any more tax increases. Both sides are obviously playing a political blame game, which must give way to serious bargaining soon — or the country will be the loser.
Yesterday Washington Post op-ed columnist Ruth Marcus wrote Republicans rewrite history on the sequester:
The tax debate is now closed,” House Speaker John Boehner proclaimed in The Wall Street Journal.
But why? The deal that Boehner asserts closed the tax debate involved less revenue than the $800 billion he was willing to ante up as part of the debt-ceiling negotiations in 2011. It involved less revenue than the $1 trillion he was offering last December in the cliff talks. By way of comparison, the original Simpson-Bowles plan called for more than $2 trillion in new revenue.

The Republican argument — we gave on taxes, now it’s time for spending cuts — also ignores the full history of spending cuts. The debt-ceiling deal — the one that created the supercommittee and sequester — also locked in $917 billion in spending cuts.
There’s one little detail that both accounts leave out. A previous deal was reached in 2011. Earlier this week John Boehner wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue—50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.
It was a disappointing decision by the president, but with just days until a breach of the debt limit, a solution was still required—and fast. I immediately got together with Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to forge a bipartisan congressional plan. It would be called the Budget Control Act.
The plan called for immediate caps on discretionary spending (to save $917 billion) and the creation of a special House-Senate “super committee” to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings. The deal also included a simple but powerful mechanism to ensure that the committee met its deficit-reduction target: If it didn’t, the debt limit would not be increased again in a few months.
Boehner added that sequestration was more or less forced onto Congress by the President as part of a mechanism to avoid another debt ceiling fight prior to his re-election campaign. What’s important here is that it was the President who scuttled an earlier deal. Neither the Washington Post nor Ruth Marcus acknowledge this. Boehner isn’t making this up.

Read the rest here.

EU Will Not Boycott A Palestinian Government That Includes Hamas


The Arab newspaper al-Hayat is reporting that according to a source they characterize as a high level European diplomat, the EU would not boycott a new Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

Hamas, by the way, is currently an official recognized terrorist group by both the EU, the U.S. and most of the rest of the civilized world:

On the political issue, the European official said France and the UK are waiting for the next US move which they will back once it happens, but will display their special peace proposal in case it will not happen.

He pointed out that the French-British proposal will be based on re-launching the peace process “on new bases and without preconditions”, adding the features of this proposal have not be finalized yet and dialogue over it is ongoing.

However, the European diplomat said that any kind of proposal necessitates that Palestinians unify their ranks, adding: “there won`t be a peace proposal to one part of the Palestinians without the other”.

He emphasized “the world is moving and Palestinians should form one government in the West Bank and the Gaza strip to be their reference in the next stage”.

Just this week Hamas Prime Minister Haniyeh announced that the forming of a Palestinian unity government is dependent on non recognition of Israel.

According to Al Hayat the EU is also looking forward to play a political role in case the US role fails. Europe`s role will not be limited “only to financing and praying”, the diplomat said.

The same diplomat revealed that France is moving to hold a donors’ conference for the PA and that the EU will offer the PA an equal financial support to the one offered last year.

You have to wonder how many EU tax payers feel about their leaders shoving millions of Euros into a corrupt rathole like 'Palestine'.

Assuming this is an accurate reading of the mindset of the EU's governing class (and it probably is, especially in the UK, France, Spain, Ireland and Sweden), it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Having made Europe an increasingly difficult and dangerous place for Jews to live, they apparently plan to do as much as they can to repeat the process in Israel, even if it means collaborating with genocidal terrorists to do it. As I reported earlier, the EU has already signaled that it will not add Hezbollah, another entity with only genocidal intentions towards Jews to its official list of terrorist groups.

Not too different from how they behaved in the 1930's and 1940's, is it? The label on the bone in the cartoon above ought to be  'The Jews'.

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


The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,  a decent amount of knowledge is a real safety factor.

This week's winner, The Right Planet's So, You Bought a Gun, Huh? is packed full of highly useful knowledge aimed at Americans who've recently decided to arm themselves, perhaps for the first time in view of President Obama's assault on the Second Amendment and includes some highly informative videos aimed at firearms beginners. Here's a slice:

It has been an interesting week in regard to some of my discussions with people who have recently purchased firearms. Gun dealers and manufacturers are struggling 24/7 to keep up with the current demand. I’ve never seen anything like it. It is as if Americans are preparing for war, thanks in no small measure to the left’s war on guns and the Bill of Rights.

Gun dealers and gun manufacturers are not the only ones dealing with the increased workload to satisfy demand. I spoke with a law enforcement official this week who handles gun permits for our local jurisdiction and she stated she was two weeks behind on issuing permits due to everybody and their brother wanting a concealed-carry permit (CCW) these days.

Additionally, I’ve talked to some people who have just purchased their very first firearm. I’ve spoken with others who have owned firearms, and are reasonably proficient in their use, but are now purchasing stuff like expensive gas-piston AR-15-style hybrids that would make a SWAT team member drool over. Still others are purchasing firearms that they aren’t really that familiar with, and only understand their operation in a strictly cursory sense.

I feel compelled to write this article for one reason only: if it can help just one person from injuring themselves or others (or worse), then it will definitely be worth the effort. First, since this subject matter is so important, I highly recommend that if you have just purchased a firearm for the first time, or you are not that familiar with the safe handling and operation of a firearm, to take a gun safety course taught by a certified firearms instructor. I can not stress this enough.

DO NOT assume you know everything about a firearm, when, in fact, you don’t. I guarantee you, if you get with a certified gun instructor, you will be surprised (maybe even “shocked”), at how much vitally important knowledge you will gain on the proper handling of firearms.

And to really drive this point home, be sure to double-check anything I may have included in this article with a qualified gun expert so that you are sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you know how to safely handle a firearm. I only to wish to share my experience so that you can double-check it with a qualified gun expert to see that it lines up with standard and universally accepted safe-handling practices for firearms.

I’m not going to go outside my field of expertise here by getting into any martial use of firearms, or any highly-technical aspects of firearms; that’s better left to people who are specifically trained in those areas of self-defense and the tactical use of firearms. I only want to touch on some of these matters, just so you can be familiarized with the some of the important basic concepts. My focus in this article is focus on the critical importance of gun safety fundamentals and to encourage the reader to seek further education in the subject matter.

First off, let me just clearly state the level of my experience with firearms and Class 3 “restricted” weapons; and how I was trained to safely handle firearms and weapons. This is not rocket science, folks. But these fundamental rules of proper handling of firearms applies overall to all firearms and weapons, short of artillery and above. I’m talking about guns—guns of all sorts.

Back in the early 90′s, I was involved with a historical reenactment society—specifically, World War Two reenacting. Since I was nine years old, I’ve been a student of World War Two history. Naturally, being asked to get involved piqued my interest and I joined up. The particular group (or “unit”) I was involved with were led by two members of the National Guard who had federal firearms licenses (FFL) and were able to legally own and purchase Class 3 “restricted” weapons—meaning: machine guns, i.e. fully-automatic weapons. (Civilians who do not possess an FFL cannot purchase Class 3 weapons legally.)

Our first “leader” of the group maintained a collection of American and British weapons from the Second World War. Our second “leader” maintained a very impressive and extensive collection of German weapons, as well as numerous Allied vintage arms. Since live rounds are never, ever used in a reenactment, it was necessary to fit some of these automatic weapons with blank adapters.

For example, the German MP-38 / MP-40 (commonly known as the Schmeisser) cannot create enough pressure in the chamber to properly cycle rounds when firing blank rounds. Blank rounds are crimped shell casings that contain a charge, but no bullet. Typically, the end of the barrel would have to be threaded to receive a cap with a small, precisely engineered hole to create just the right amount of pressure in the chamber to allow the weapon to function normally. Over-pressurization of the chamber can cause the weapon to possibly rupture or explode. Naturally, all this required the expertise of real gunsmiths and armorers familiar with vintage arms.

Every month or so, a live-fire exercise would be held that gave invited members a chance to fire live rounds from Class 3 weapons, as well as our own personal firearms, at a proper range. We just had to supply the ammo—which wasn’t cheap, by the way. Machine guns chew up ammo quick! I never missed an opportunity to participate in a live-fire exercise. I consider myself fortunate now, considering the current “climate.” I had the opportunity to fire the Thompson submachine gun w/ box mag; an early model slow-fast, select-fire Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), the MP-38 submachine gun, and numerous other weapons and firearms. During reenactments, I ran a MG-42 belt-fed machine gun (blanks only) that was a real handful. It could jam in a number of different ways.

The people who conducted these live-fire exercises were certified firearms instructors with military and law enforcement experience. I highly recommend seeking out gun experts with this sort of background when you first start handling and shooting firearms for the first time, or if you have little or limited experience. My experience and training on these weapons by no means makes me an expert. I just want to share the experience I had and how much gun safety played the prominent role throughout.

Before I was ever allowed to handle weapons like the ones mentioned, even blank-adapted guns, I had to display proficiency in handling firearms safely to those who owned those weapons. And this is where it gets serious—deadly serious. Guns don’t kill, but guns in the wrong (untrained) hands certainly can. The fundamentals of gun safety must be practiced at all times, no exceptions … EVER! Firearm accidents happen all the time, mostly due to the improper handling of a loaded firearm—operator error.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Sultan Knish with  It’s Not Easy Being Red and Green submitted by The Noisy Room. It's an interesting examination of  both the differences and similarities between Islamism and the Left, written  in Daniel Greenfield's unique style.

OK, here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

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