Provided courtesy of the Peace Through Strength Institute

The Washington Examiner

This week, Americans were given a window into the way world leaders speak to one another in private. A conversation between [Alleged] President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was caught on a microphone that neither man realized was live.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved," Obama said. "But it's important for [incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin] to give me space ... This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

"I understand," Medvedev responded. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." The exchange comes two-and-a-half years after Obama scrapped Bush-era missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, bowing to pressure from the Russians.

This unfortunate hot-mic exchange will have security implications, and it will surely sour our relations with allies in that part of the world. But as much as America's allies might be angered by Obama's words, Americans should be even more so. Their president -- the man charged with conducting America's foreign policy and overseeing its defense -- told another world leader that he is willing to make concessions on an important issue once he has finally and permanently escaped accountability to them. At that point, Obama said, he will have "more flexibility," presumably to do something they might disapprove of in an election year or view as not in the nation's best interests.

Set aside the important question of missile defense -- Obama was a skeptic on that long before he ran for president. This magic microphone moment calls into question Obama's concept of government service. If he is acting in Americans' interests, why must he hide his intentions until his second term? The incident also suggests a rather dim view of American citizens -- as rabble unable to grasp the pros and cons of issues like missile defense.

Read this story at washingtonexaminer.com ...

America's Party Endorsed Independent Projects -> The Peace Through Strength Institute

WND

By Reza Kahlili

The Iranian government, through a website proxy, has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of its people.

The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide.

Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”

The article, written by Alireza Forghani, an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

Read this story at wnd.com ...

LifeandLibertyReport.com

by Tom Hoefling

Some thoughts on the occasion of President Ronald Wilson Reagan’s 101st birthday

Ronald Reagan began his political life as a Democrat. Later, as we all know, he became a Republican, famously saying that he didn’t leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left him. And, of course, he was elected to two terms as California Governor, and served two terms as President, as a Republican. Because of that, his name will always be associated with that party.

But I think his legacy transcends, and will outlive, that once-grand old party as well, as that party moves inexorably away from morally-conservative Reaganism and towards Romneyite liberalism, and/or Ron Paul libertarianism and isolationism, inevitably consigning itself to the same unprincipled ash heap of American politics as the Whigs. Ronald Reagan never left the Republican Party. But the Republican Party is, without a doubt, abandoning Reaganism.

As President, Reagan rose above the mere fact of his party label, and came to represent true Americanism. He clearly saw the vision of the “shining city on a hill” of the gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, and of that great Puritan John Winthrop, and for him it shone ever brighter. He often quoted America’s founding paragraph – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” – and understood the crucial import of those immortal words. He came to firmly stand for the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of all, including those who have not yet been born, from the first moment of their creation.

"Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should be slaves...Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion." – Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

He arrived at that place because he was a decent human being, one who reverenced God and respected all of those who were made in His image, not because he was a Republican. Frankly, the elites, even in his own party, would rather that he had just shut up about it.

When he consistently pointed the people back to the Bible and to God, he did so as a Christian, cut from the same cloth as this republic’s wise founders, not as a Republican, and he didn’t seem to care much what the political high muckedy-mucks thought of it. He understood that in fact our national departure from God is at the root of virtually all of our problems.

"Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. That's why the Marxist vision of man without God must eventually be seen as an empty and a false faith - the second oldest in the world - first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with whispered words...'Ye shall be as gods.' The crisis of the Western world...exists to the degree in which it is indifferent to God." -- March 20, 1981, CPAC, Washington, DC

When he stated his deep belief that the rest of humanity, not just Americans, are also endowed by our Creator with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and expressed his determination to do whatever he could within the legitimate powers of his office to make it possible for millions, or billions, of those men and women to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty that we enjoy, he was representing the best of what it means to be an American.

"I have seen the rise of fascism and communism. Both philosophies glorify the arbitrary power of the state...But both theories fail. Both deny those God-given liberties that are the inalienable right of each person on this planet, indeed, they deny the existence of God." – Beijing, China, April 27, 1984

His Peace through Strength policies brought down the evil Soviet communist empire, an historic feat that few outside his closest counsels ever thought possible. But, when he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” he was not doing so as a Republican. He was doing it as an American, and the whole world knew it.

When he strictly warned us of the destructive dangers of socialized medicine and every other left-wing incursion on liberty, he did it as an American.

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine...and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known...until, one day...we will awake to find that we have socialism. And...you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free." – 1961 Reagan recording

Sadly, in 2012, we have come to a point in which the “front-runners” for the highest office in the land in both the Democrat and the Republican parties are determined to take us down that exact road to socialist bondage and the extinction of freedom. Both have also advocated and advanced public policies that deny the fundamental humanity of certain classes of our fellow human beings, namely the unborn.

So, what do we do? Do we fold our hands and give up in the face of these two corrupt political parties and their unprincipled leaders? No, no, no, no, a thousand times, NO! We’re Americans, and we must do what Americans have always done when their backs were up against the wall. We must fight! We must strive with all our might for life, liberty, and the Constitution, for the sake of our posterity.

That is how I intend to honor the memory of the greatest President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. I’m going to fight for what is right, no matter the odds. I pray that you will do the same. No matter what it may look like, if enough of us will take up that challenge, we will win – with the help, and by the grace, of course, of Almighty God. Just like the Gipper did.


Tom Hoefling is the founder and chairman of America’s Party. Please visit http://www.selfgovernment.us.

*Thanks to American Minute’s Bill Federer for providing the Reagan quotes used in this article.

“The real issue in the Middle East has to do with the Arab refusal to
recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a nation.  To give up
the buffer zones Israel took in the 6 day war would be to put cannon
on her front walk aimed at her front door by those who have said she
must be destroyed.”

Ronald Reagan, radio address, April 13, 1977

__America's Principles In Public Policy -> The Peace through Strength Institute

Washington Times

1/30/12 

Roi Kais

Sources within the Syrian opposition said that the Free Syrian Army forces managed to prevent the escape of the first lady of Syria and additional relatives through Damascus airport. ...

The sources claimed that Asma Assad, her children, Bashar Assad's mother and his cousin were all in a convoy on the way to the airport when rebel forces under the command of a former senior officer in the Syrian army blocked their path.

Read this story at times247.com ...

Read the original article at Ynet News ...

_America's Principles In Public Policy -> The Peace through Strength Institute

American Thinker

January 27, 2012

Leo Rennert

After a series of meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Jordan, Palestinian President Mahdoud Abbas has called a time out so he can consult with the Arab League on next steps.  In the meantime, the Washington Post is quick to report that the talks have been "foundering" and that diplomacy has reached a crisis stage.  It also, predictably, blames mainly Israel for lack of progress, while uncritically purveying a slew of Palestinian propaganda lies ("Efforts under way to try to save Mideast negotiations - Israel, Palestinians at standstill over borders and security" by Joel Greenberg, Jan. 27, page A12).

The headline, of course, is misleading.  There haven't been any "negotiations" that need saving.  The Jordanian-sponsored meetings amounted to preliminary contacts to find a way toward negotiations -- so far without  discernible success.

However flawed the headline may be, the article by Greenberg, the Post's Jerusalem correspondent, deviates even more from straight reporting, as he relies primarily on Hanan Ashrawi, a veteran Palestinian propagandist, for commentary about the current lull.  Ashrawi, who served brilliantly in that capacity during the second intifada when Western reporters could rely on her for snappy sound bites, is not part of the Amman discussions.  Reporting from Jerusalem, Greenberg goes out of his way to reach her by telephone from Ramallah to feast on her anti-Israel diatribes.

"There has been no progress whatsoever," she tells Greenberg.  "There are no talks anymore.  We don't want to be complicit in this game of deception.  We see a public relations exercise, an attempt to create the impression that they want to talk while grabbing more land and destroying the substance of the talks.  They just want talks for their own sake.  This could go on forever while they go on building settlements and annexing Jerusalem and finally laying to rest the two-state solution."

To underscore her comments, Greenberg then paraphrases Ashrawi, telling readers that "the Palestinians have said that they will not resume negotiations unless Israel halts settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, activity they say is swallowing up land they seek for a future state."

There's no shortage of notable Israelis -- in and out of government -- who could easily cite chapter and verse to demolish these Palestinian canards.  But Greenberg doesn't pick up the phone to get any substantive rebuttals to Ashrawi's propaganda.  He just mentions very briefly in the last paragraph that Israel is "urging talks without preconditions to resolve all issues."  Where is an Israeli counterpart to Ashrawi?  Not in Greenberg's dispatch.

Greenberg simply lets Ashrawi's lies go unrebutted.  He doesn't deign inform Post readers that Israel has not been "grabbing more land" and has not been "building settlements" in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  Under Netanyahu and under Ehud Olmert before him, Israel has not added any settlements or expanded the contours of existing settlements.

Read this story at americanthinker.com ...

_

__America's Principles In Public Policy -> The Peace through Strength Institute

carolineglick.com

By CAROLINE B. GLICK

01/27/2012

We must hope that world Jewry will recognize today that the fate of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world is indivisible.

__European and American perfidy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear weapons program apparently has no end. This week we were subject to banner headlines announcing that the EU has decided to place an oil embargo on Iran. It was only when we got past the bombast that we discovered that the embargo is only set to come into force on July 1.

Following its European colleagues, the Obama administration announced it is also ratcheting up its sanctions against Iran... in two months. Sometime in late March, the US will begin sanctioning Iran’s third largest bank.

At the same time as the Europeans and the Americans announced their phony sanctions, they reportedly dispatched their Turkish colleagues to Tehran to set up a new round of nuclear talks with the ayatollahs. If the past is any guide, we can expect for the Iranians to agree to sit down and talk just before the oil embargo is scheduled to be enforced. And the Europeans – with US support – will use the existence of talks to postpone indefinitely the implementation of the embargo.

There is nothing new in this game of fake sanctions. And what it shows more than anything is that the Europeans and the Americans are more concerned with pressuring Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations than they are in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Obama has a second target audience – American Jews. He is using his fake sanctions as a means of convincing American Jews that he is a pro-Israel president and that in the current election season, not only should they cast their votes in his favor, they should sign their checks for his campaign.

Both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were quick this week to make clear that these moves are insufficient. They will not force Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. More is needed.

As to American Jewry, the jury is still out.

In truth, American Jewry’s diffidence towards taking a stand on Iran, or recognizing Obama’s dishonesty on this issue specifically and his dishonesty regarding his position on US-Israel ties generally is not rooted primarily in American Jews’ devotion to Obama. It isn’t even specifically related to American Jewry’s devotion to the political Left. Rather it has to do with American Jewish ambivalence to Israel.

The roots of that ambivalence – which is shared by other Western Jewish communities to varying degrees – predate Obama’s presidency.

Indeed, they predate the establishment of the State of Israel. And now, as the US and the EU have given Iran at least another six months to a year to develop its nuclear bombs unchecked, it is worth considering the nature and influence of this ambivalence.

Read this important article at carolineglick.com ...

_ America's Principles In Public Policy -> The Peace through Strength Institute

RightSideNews.com

Roger Cohen’s January 16th column in The New York Times, “Don’t Do It, Bibi” is only the latest in the Obama election campaign’s efforts to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to take a serious risk at Israel’s being nuked by a nuclear Iran rather than cause any ripples in [Alleged] President Obama campaign for re-election to a second term.
Mr. Cohen begins his rant by quoting the purported advice of an unnamed American ambassador in Europe declaring Mr. Netanyahu to be an ingrate for all that the Obama administration has done for Israel, and strongly suggests the Israeli Prime Minister should “above all stay out of our election-year politics.”

According to Mr. Cohen, President Obama’s is justifiably furious with the Mr. Netanyahu because he had the audacity to “go over his head” by speaking “to a Republican-dominated Congress” even though it was Congress that invited him; again “ingratitude for solid U.S. support”, including in the UN; and the Netanyahu government’s refusal to declare a second freeze on building houses for Jews over the 1949 armistice lines “for the sake of peace negotiations” even though the first unprecedented freeze failed to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiations table. But for Mr. Cohen, Obama can do no wrong, and Netanyahu can do no right.

Should anyone think the existential threat to Israel is more serious than Mr. Obama’s re-election next November, Roger Cohen disabuses of this notion. “I would add a further piece of advice to Netanyahu if he cares about his dysfunctional relationship with Obama — and he should because Israelis know the United States matters…,” opines Mr. Cohen. “That advice is: Do not attack Iran this spring or summer.”

Read this story at rightsidenews.com ...

_America's Principles In Public Policy -> The Peace through Strength Institute

AzureOnline

Summer 2011

By Adi Schwartz

A vast diaspora was utterly annihilated, but Israelis rarely talk about it.

The pages are yellowing, nearly disintegrated. For decades they have lain forgotten, stuffed into crates piled high in the archives of Israel’s Ministry of Justice. No one reads them; no one even shows interest. Even now, nearly sixty years after the painful experiences of loss and flight they recount, they still wait for their stories to be told.

In one, a Jewish woman from Alexandria describes her youth in Egypt:

    "After the [1948] war broke out, my mother was arrested in her ninth month of pregnancy, and they wanted to slaughter her; they threatened her with bayonets and abused her…. One evening a mob came to kill our family with sticks and anything they could lay their hands on, because they heard we were Jews. The gatekeeper swore to them that we were Italian, and so they only cursed us, surrounding my parents, my brothers, and myself, only a small baby. The next day my parents ran away, leaving everything—pension, work, and home—behind."1

On another page, Mordechai Karo, also Egyptian-born, testifies about an explosive device planted in a Jewish neighborhood in Cairo in the summer of 1948:

“The tremendous explosion killed and injured scores of Jews in the neighborhood. One of these casualties was my young daughter Aliza.”2

Thousands of pages of similar testimony have been collecting dust in various government offices since the 1950s. Under the bureaucratic heading “Registry of the Claims of Jews from Arab Lands,” they tell of lives cut short, of individuals and entire families who found themselves suddenly homeless, persecuted, humiliated. Together they relate a tragic chapter in the history of modern Jewry, a chain of traumatic events that signaled the end of a once-glorious diaspora.

Yet for all its historical import, this chapter has been largely repressed, scarcely leaving a mark on Israel’s collective memory. The media seldom mentioned it then, and rarely do so today.3 Schools do not devote comprehensive curricula to it, and academia pays it little attention. Indeed, in the past decade only one doctoral dissertation was written on the devastation of Jewish communities in Arab countries.4 Furthermore, of all the parties represented in Israel’s Knesset, not one has included in its platform an explicit demand for the restitution of these Jews’ property, or the recognition of their violated rights.5

This dismissive attitude toward one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Jewish people should be cause for astonishment. After all, the heritage of Jews from Muslim lands is enjoying something of a renaissance today, both in academic circles and within the general public. Yet not even the outspoken proponents of this heritage are particularly eager to discuss the historical circumstances under which their deep roots in the Arab world were severed.6

This prolonged silence becomes even more incomprehensible when we take into account the centrality of the refugee problem to the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Palestinians and their advocates repeatedly emphasize the need to correct the historic injustice done to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who left or were expelled from their lands and dispossessed of their properties in the 1948 Nakba (“catastrophe”), Israel’s international representatives and spokespeople have refrained from highlighting the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who fell victim to systematic persecution and attacks throughout the Middle East and Maghreb at the same time.

How to explain this omission? The answer, as we will see, is neither simple nor easy to digest. It involves a number of motives, some of them pragmatic and some ideological, all of which deserve close scrutiny. Our investigation will raise difficult questions, concerning not only various Israeli governments’ policies in both the past and the present, but also the conceptual foundations of the Jewish state itself. And yet, before we can address these sensitive topics, we must recall certain facts that have been buried for too long in dusty ministerial archives.

Read this story at azure.org ...