Rep. Allen West Slams J Street

Rep. Allen West Slams J Street

Since he's seen islamic extremism up close and personal, I would pay attention to what this man has to say. THIS is the man we should hope eventually becomes our leader. I'd go through a door with him anytime, anywhere, in front or behind, doesn't matter. I know he'd do the right thing.

Compare J Street’s stance on Israel’s with West’s.

In 2009, he wrote: We face the resurrection of the original enemy of the Jewish people, a resurgent Islamic fundamentalism evidencing itself in totalitarian, imperialist design. This time it has morphed itself using 21st century technologies still retaining a 7th century mentality, utilizing terrorism internationally to promote its perverse aims.

One of those objectives is the destruction of the State the world agreed to support in creating, Israel. In keeping with previous traditions established by Muhammad, the modern Islamic warriors promote Taquiyya, lying to promote Islam. They also, just as Muhammad, use the Treaty of Hudabiyya as a model to delay and deceive their enemies until they are ready to strike. Under Yasser Arafat some 200 agreements were never honored.

Why would we trust any word coming from the mouth of the psychopathic delusional leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The mad mullahs, insane imams, and combative clerics are again calling for the supremacy of Islam, no different from earlier centuries.

The bottom line: Allen West loves Israel. J Street does not.

Monkey-boy Imeanajihad Creates a Crisis

Israel will take care of Iran in its own time. Monkey-boy should be worried.

A usually reliable source has noted that Ahadi Nejad has abolished the need for visas for Syrians and Iranians travelling between their two countries. With a multitude, tens of thousands of Palestinians given Iranian citizenship over the revolution years, support troops can arrive in either direction without formality with fictitious documentation.

The page has already been removed from the yahoo server.

Israel Mulling A Spring Or Summer War: Ahmadinejad

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday that Iran's arch-foe Israel was mulling starting a war "next spring or summer" but has yet to make a final decision.

Without specifying whom would be targeted, Ahmadinejad said:
"According to information we have they (Israel) are seeking to start a war next spring or summer, although their decision is not final yet."

"But the resistance and regional states will finish them if this fake regime does
anything again," the hardliner said at a press conference when asked about ongoing efforts to reconcile ties betwen Arabs and Israel.

The already deep-seated enmity between Iran and Israel have deteriorated since Ahmadinejad became the president, with the latter not ruling out a military strike against Tehran's nuclear sites in a bid to stop the Islamic republic's galloping atomic
programme.

Bebe Gets Graded By the Israeli Left

Netanyahu's One-Year Report Card
P. David Hornik - Feb 24, 2010
FrontPage Magazine

"Benjamin Netanyahu, a year into your term, observers seem to agree: You're an impressive survivor, but just a survivor. The government you lead has no vision, no destination. It's not going anywhere."

Thus Ari Shavit, journalist for Israel's left-wing daily Haaretz, to Prime Minister Netanyahu early this week. Netanyahu (who took office, actually, last March 31 and has been prime minister less than a year) naturally responded by denying the charge, saying "My vision is of an Israel that is a world technological superpower, anchored in values, reaching peace from strength…. we are working to jump-start the economy, to augment our security and to strengthen Israel through inculcating basic national values."

Realizing that the charge of "lack of vision" from the Left means mainly "lack of negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria to hand them major Israeli strategic assets," Netanyahu said the Palestinians and Syria were "present[ing] us with extremist preconditions that they did not present to earlier Israeli governments…. The critics expect us to accept the Palestinian and Syrian dictates; they describe the acceptance of those dictates as a vision. I don't see it as a vision."

Seems the left in Israel is just as stupid and dangerous as they are here.

Follow-Up (Sort of) to the Post Below

From Patriot Post:

Like Obama himself, the Salahis got into the White House without qualification or a background check. Of course, the Salahis merely had to hoodwink three security checkpoint personnel, while the Obamas duped some 33 million voters. (Yes, I know, Obama received 66,882,230 votes, but at least half of those were from people who knew full well they were electing a socialist. The other half, however, were just temporarily mesmerized by Obama's "hope-n-change" mantra.)

Among the most interesting accounts of these charlatans is one from Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum in an essay entitled, "Social climbing with a twist."
Her column is directed at the Salahis, but one can't escape the irony that it could be just as easily directed at the Obamas.

Applebaum writes, "Social climbing is an ancient art, one as old as society itself. The
character of the high-society impostor -- the fake aristocrat, the soi-disant marquis, the 'professor' with no degree -- has been known in every era, too.

"Over the centuries, some societies have been more susceptible to these sorts of swindles than others," notes Applebaum. "Catherine the Great's Russia, for example, was positively swarming with phony English duchesses and Italian princes." Applebaum continues, "To that notable group of societies we can now add 21st-century Washington. Like 18th-century Russia, it is a world of neophytes, a society whose members have only recently 'made it' into an elite magic circle and who don't necessarily know the other members all that well.

Like 19th-century New York, it is also a world where appearances matter: You get invited to the event ... not just because of who you are but because of what you represent, which costume you wear, which ethnic group you come from."

Or as Obama put it in the opening pages of his political autobiography, "I am new
enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

"Above all, says Applebaum, "it is a world that seems to offer wealth and fame to those outsiders who manage to enter it. ... Just like all charlatans and swindlers
over the centuries, they managed [to get into the White House] by looking and acting the part. ... They knew how to behave around the contemporary aristocracy: Simply act as if you belong, don't stare too hard at the celebrities, don't eat or drink too much, and do engage your neighbors in light chit-chat." That is an apt description of the Obamas, who are the epitome of nouveau riche.

"But," writes Applebaum, "there are differences between [them] and, say, Count Alessandro di Cagliostro, a self-described 'Spanish aristocrat' who set himself up as a glamorous 'faith healer' in 1770s St. Petersburg and made his living by borrowing money from gullible courtiers. [They] are hoping to cash in faster -- a lot faster ... and they also have a lot more [mass media] help than did the swindlers of yesteryear."

Yep, that's Barack and Michelle, alright.

HAMAS CONDEMNED BY THE GENEVA PROTOCOLS

Many blogs have covered the most recent conflict between Israel and HAMAS. Cries of "War Crimes!" have arisen from both sides. Well, here is the rule by which said crimes are judged:

From StrategyPage, by Scott Schneider:

The "Geneva Protocol" in question is the "Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War." This lays down the "law" for situations where an army finds itself fighting non-conventional forces that themselves operate from within civilian areas: The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas. Those who are actually fighting the war are not considered "protected persons." Only civilians are granted the status of "protected persons" whose rights cannot be violated with impunity.

The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28.

It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced.

..."the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

...because the terrorists do set up in civilian areas, they are wholly responsible for what happens to their "protected persons" - that is, the civilian population where they hide out.

That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

Let's translate: The "party to the conflict" here is Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqska, etc.


This is mainstream thinking about Geneva Convention issues, by noted legal scholars. The Palestinians fight from within civilian areas- therefore civilians - who knowingly support and give aid to the terrorists- lose any and all immunity from Geneva Convention rights - and that would include human shields. Israel is therefore in no violation according to the Geneva Conventions - whereas the Palestinians, if they had been signatories- would have no rights of protection, since in Jenin, and in other places where there is conflict, they have abrogated those rights to which they are claiming that Israel is violating.